PHASE III - The Results
Although it was not our intention, we ended up with a performance. We had
talked about an informal showing -- a chance for us to cross-critique,
maybe show a friend or two -- but something larger than that became hard to
avoid. The press came a week before and at least one well-written article
appeared: "you may see the results of their work at...". OK, so we knew
we were in for it.
And why not? Getting ready for a show certainly puts people into high
gear. It forces a certain form, a presentational framework, onto
everything and everyone.
But it also changes the character of the experience. After a performance
(if it goes well, as this one did) there is a toast, "to us, we did it!".
Well-deserved... in one sense.
I would argue though that with such workshops (actually with any new
production) there really needs to come a debriefing where cards are once
more placed on the table. That a work was touching, well-performed or
well-received does not finish the story. For example: What was the role
of the technology? Was it even necessary? Was it interactive? Could it
have been? Should it have been? Do we care?
I do! And you can bet Frieder (the computer engineer) does!
Such meetings, and the tough issues they raise, become harder after a real
"show" has taken place; where the artists are unwinding and in that
hypersensitive phase. Where the engineers want to get back to their day
jobs. So OK. 6 out of 11 of us met for a good final round the next day.
THE INTEGRITY OF THE IMAGINATION
- an essay on 4-dimensional poetry
There is a tendency with dance-tech to read into the performances more
interactivity than the audience actually picked up on. By this I am
referring not only to their empirical understanding ("oh yes, I see: A is
causing B), but also to the subtler _felt_ levels of interactivity ("a
special quality of X was achieved"). This means that there are pieces
being made with fancy computer technology in which a strikingly similar
result could have been achieved without the computer, AND NO ONE WOULD BE
THE WISER.
Granted, fewer people would come to see it. They might even clap less,
after all without the computers it would be just "another dance piece",
instead of "a bold and innovative experiment". But clearly we need to go
beyond the hype and take a look at what we are about. I for one think
there is a tendency for us to kid ourselves.
Yes, I know, this is an old discussion at this site: who is "the
audience"? and since when have artists had to limit themselves by caring
about what "the audience" is ready to understand. Still, I think most of
you will agree with me when I say that we enthusiasts contaminate our
survey sample. In our steadfast enthusiasm we slurp in the technophiles
along with those simply tired of old forms ("Computers? Digitization?
Dance? well... OF COURSE!")
Here lies the clincher, the "Schüsselstelle" as we Germans say. Everyone
at Hellerau said they learned something. A few said they made
breakthroughs. Many are more excited than ever to continue. Frieder, for
example, succeeded in building a marvelous video-control feature into our
Eyecon system. He also adapted Guenter Haffelder's brain wave-analyzing
software to a Windows95 platform and added a user-friendly MIDI interface.
Finally he made progress with filtering and simplifying the brain wave
data, increasing its accessibility to artists and to a general public.
I learned some things about using beamers. Renè Verouden probably
influenced all of us with his attitudes towards projection surfaces.
Basically, that there are good reasons to avoid screens that look like
those we all know from movies. It is to projections what tape machine and
cd players are to audio. They have the psychological effect of getting us
ready to escape into another world. Aside from this they are ugly and
obtrusive in a live theater setting. What to do? Renè suggested myriad
variations including curved projection surfaces, and those broken up into
many thin strips of semi-transparent material which can then be constructed
so that they are part of the performing area, or in a shape and size which
does not imply "movies". We used 11 70cm wide strips of semi-transparent
paper hanging behind and through the performing area and combined back-lit
and frontal projection. In addition, Babis Panagiotidis constructed a
round screen for us which hung somewhat above the public for the two works
which dealt with faces.
Eight quite marvelous works came to light. Compliments to all!
And yet... I struggle with this question of transparency. I am looking for
the ways to guide students and artists to understand how important it is to
justify their use of technology in an artistic sense. To do this often
means to compromise original piece material (choreography for example) in
order to make the larger work function in the context of the technology;
to learn to work _with_ the technology instead of along side it.
We are often like children playing with new toys. Either this, or we are
doing the art we know and love and then asking the technology to give us a
new backdrop, a new form of accompaniment. I'm not sure why, but I think
trained dancers (more so than musicians and visual artists) tend to have
trouble with this.
But aren't we then missing the true potential for this kind of work?
Which, it seems to me, lies in another direction. Namely, the unique
capacity of interactive systems to engage artists and audience in
"Rueckkuplungen" -- feedback-loops where back-and-forths of energy and
impulse are achieved. This means among other things that the performer
must do slightly different things each time the piece is performed. I
don't mean that the piece has to be completely improvised, and nor do I
mean "3 pirouettes instead of 2." What I am talking about is paying
attention to nature of their interactive environment and being sensitive to
how it is perceived by the audience. This, I am learning, sometimes
depends upon quite small details.
Both the performer and the technologist-designer need to be aware that
their job is not done when the system functions on the engineering level
and the performer knows their steps. They have a role to play as
vicarious explorers (in addition to their other roles) in order that the
audience be included. What IS this ether, this new dimension? How does it
feel? What are its implications? What is its reality? Show us.
The artist can neither fake nor ignore this role. Either case is a slap in
the face to the paying customer. Why leave them in doubt? An effective
work is thoroughly convincing, not "maybe, sort of" convincing. It is akin
to dancing with a partner. The connection, the play of impulse between the
two you is unmistakable and satisfying when it is true, irksome at best
when it is faked or ignored.
The argument, "I felt it, and it changed the way I moved" is tired. The
"I-can-feel-it" justification for working with technology may make sense in
the beginning -- as part of the learning process -- but before it goes on
stage it needs another round of analysis.
If you have the impression that what I'm looking for is a kind of
"exploratorium goes ballet", then I have failed to explained myself. Do we
have to hit them over the head with it? No. (though I admit, I prefer
this to the shoulder-raising "huh?"). As fun and moving as science can
be, its mere display in the trappings of art cannot serve as art.
My musings speak to the science/art dichotomy and the challenge we all face
to integrate them. There is, of course, no right way to do it. I love it
in any case when artists get their hands on technology. Maybe they grab
the thing by the wrong end. Maybe on purpose! And suddenly it is revealed
in a new light.
Our goal is the fourth dimension.
"And what is the fourth dimension? It is the endlessness of knowledge- It
is the imagination on which reality rides- It is the imagination- It is a
cleavage through everything by a force that does not exist in the mass and
therefore can never be discovered by its anatomization. It is for this
reason that I have always placed art first and esteemed it over science- in
spite of everything. Art is the pure effect of the force upon which
science depends for its reality- Poetry. The effect of this realization
upon life will be the emplacement of knowledge into a living current- which
it has always sought."
from "The Spring and All" by W.C. Williams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robert Wechsler
Artistic Director
PALINDROME Inter-media Performance Group
Johannisstr. 42
90419 Nürnberg
Fon: 49 911 39 74 72
Fax: 49 911 377 8311
Scheduled touring, fotos, video clips and complete information:
WWW.PALINDROME.DE
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/28/01 CST