Hello, There is an interesting discussion going on at the ISEA Online Forum Chatterbox moderated by Ghislaine Boddington [shinkansen] You can access the archives here apparently: http://www.isea.qc.ca/chatter/chat3.htm. Apologies to those of you on the dance/tech list who have already seen the following: **************************************************************************** ********* In response to Johannes Birringer's comments on "rehearsing movement within an interface" -- [ISEA-FORUM:742] ChatterBox 3.0 Wed, 19 Apr 2000 03:14:44 +0000 Two things: 1) I was present recently at a meeting between the School for New Dance Development (SNDO) and the Music Department of the Utrecht School of the Arts to establish a course bringing together student dancers and musicians working together with interactive systems (bigeye in particular) which the Music Department has at their disposal. I think it is great, but I hope here is an opportunity for dancers to explore these systems for the things that are unique to dance. For example, for the sensorial potential of the systems. A dancer's sensorium is a key conductor (amongst others) of their moment to moment experience while performing, and this experience as it manifests (presence?) is a prime component of that which is perceived or watched. This varies greatly from performer to performer -- it's an energetic process and often simultaneously stimulated by the space inside the body/ outside the body and the dynamics of being watched. Thinking/ imaging processes may be involved -- attention techniques such as those proposed by Forsythe in Improvisation Technologies for example. There are many other techniques for this attention -- some of which have at one point or another been taught/ introduced at the SNDO. However, attention and/ or felt experience is not enough in itself, nor does one size or technique fit all. These things are essential for and arguably unique to dance, but we haven't had enough time in these interactive/ interface systems to really start to chew on them. However, I do think sensor technologies propose to change the environment in which a dancer may perform/ move/ dance -- there is no reason that this change would not be a qualitative shift in which case it would have significant relevance for dancers. 2) I recently saw Station House Opera's show "Roadmetal, Sweetbread" in which two performers, Julian Maynard Smith and Susannah Hart, perform with their video doubles. This show is a precisely choreographed relationship between the two performers and the pre-recorded video material of themselves and the space they were performing in (the video projection was scaled to be the same size as the live performers). I don't know whether one would refer to the work as a duet/duet or a quartet. All in all very clever and an exquisite exercise in a sort of formalism as well as a sharp set of comments on a surreal relationship. But it was more than that... it also demonstrated precisely how it is in certain particular contexts [in this case a specific performance work] discussions which set the live against the mediated image [privileging one over the other] will simply evaporate. In this work, which lasts 50-55 minutes, it's not as if one loses track of which performer is not live/ video and which performer is not video/ live. In fact, we do not for a second lose track [we may be fooled momentarily], but this in itself becomes unimportant on the whole. What becomes crucially important are the *relationships between* the images and this is relationship is very much alive on all fronts. From Gregory Bateson [the world of mental processes] -- not to define the thing but the relation between the things -- might be a good starting point for analysing these phenomenon. ******************************************* Scott
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/28/01 CST