Johannes's posting goes quite far in making very strong claims re: the failure of interactive spaces abd related dance/tech work. We can no longer blame the machines for our own inability to navigate the territory between art and technology. I appreciate Johannes's invocation of historical precedent in regard to current practices. I would reccommend a book by Lisa Cartwright, "Screening the Body" for an interesting perspective on the use of film technology in the early part of the century to "monitor" human movement and the neo-eugenic results of the practice. She says, "One of my primary claims is that cinematic apparatus can be considered as a cultural technology for the discipline and management of the human body". She also makes note of the technological determinism that characterized historical accounts of cinematic technology, "In the first moments ot the history of the cinema, it is the technology which provides the immediate interest: what is sold is the experience of the machine, the apparatus". That early cinematic practice began as a scientific accomplice to indexing bodies and metamorphosed into entertainment is a history that is closely aligned with the practices of contemporary dance and technology. As Johannes points out, dance and tech is regressive especially as it ignores historical models already in place. Johannes Birringer wrote: > 1. I'll start with the proposition that "interactivity," as we > practice > it, is artistically, aesthetically and compositionally unsatisfactory, > even > regressive. > > > > >The workshop, although led by Palindrome Dance Company, did not attract > many > dancers or choreographers, I think this should be mentioned.> Good point.. perhaps it is becoming clear that dance and technology is being kept alive by the technologists. > > > <I propose that interactive performance first of all leave the > "intelligent > stage" and its protected theatrical frames, and address questions that > live > art has addressed for many years, namely the limits of work and site, > the > object of performance, its basic materials and forms and its projected, > decorporealized virtuality, and its reliance on a functional > mechanisation > of MIDI.< I agree with most of this proposal. The "intelligent stage" is an albatross. It dictates the terms of the activity and by all logic is played out, a failure. Leaving the "intelligent stage" and taking what has been learned to address broader issues of culture, the body and its politics, etc. would be a wise decision. There is a reference in the Cartwright book that is particularly apt: she describes "..hundreds of little machines.. destined for a more or less clumsy reproduction of the image and movement of life, waiting for the factor of exhibition on which hinges the status of the cinema machine as a social technology" Doug > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/28/01 CST