I have been reading the reports by Robert including the final one recently
posted. The final report contains a clearly paradigmatic dialectic so often
found in the genre of dance/tech. You weren't satisfied with or moved by the
work which you yourself presented or participated in, but you enjoyed and were
enlivened by the attention that working with "technology" gave you. Robert's
posting danced on the edge of related issues, but in the end capitulates to
the allure of technology and its ability to dictate form as well as context.
<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<
Here I agree with Robert, however as often as I have tried to raise these
issues on the list and elswhere, the responce has been virtually nil. I think
that there is a fear factor at play in the dance world, a sort of McCarthyism
that punishes those who stray from the technology-party-line by ostracising
them, shunning them from the "community". Those shunned do not get to play in
the technology game, where after all, we all know that is where the money is.
So the dilemma is, do you capitulate to the funding/interest curve or not.
And once in the curve do you critique from the inside and how far is one
willing to go in that critique, to risk what?
I feel that in Robert's posting he wants to go further in his critique. Yet
somehow, he is held back by social and other constraints. While pointing out
the shortcomings of dance/tech performance, (while noting that these
complaints are not new) he offers no solutions either. I would encourage
another posting from Robert in which he offers some concrete suggestions for
altering the existing paradigm which he finds to be lacking at this point.
In regard to Robert's question about how to teach and guide students in their
use of technology, I would say that the most important thing one can
contribute to that end is theory that is direct, honest and to the point. Tie
the work that has been done into an existing theory or offer a new one.
Without manifestos and lines in the sand, nothing will change.
Doug
Robert Wechsler wrote:
> 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