<x-flowed>> > > > > >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. > > > Or perhaps not... I think that artists are more and more disinterested in ghettoizing technology, so that attending a 'dance and technology' workshop is of less interest than attending a workshop on, say, collaborative making processes that may or may not include the use of technology. We've ghettoized ourselves too long, and I think the relative quietness on this list for the past six months or so is evidence of that. So, on the contrary, perhaps the 'technologists' have lost the plot and the real work has been taken over by the real artists. Ooops, that sounds really nasty, and it's not meant to be. > > > > <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. Sorry, but I don't agree with this either. It depends on what the 'intelligent' stage is. If it's truly intelligent (and no, I don't want to get into a protracted argument about machine intelligence), then to my way of think it means that we have built a system, the capability to make an environment, that is sensitive to and understanding of the emotional and human content of the performance. Of course all the 'old' criteria of performance still apply, as Johannes points out. But why does this obviate the notion of an intelligent stage? I think it could in fact progress it. "The Intelligent Stage" was a term coined, but not trademarked, by the folks at Arizona State. They have had their problems over the years with the work being too technology dominated, and losing site of the human notions of intelligence. I think as long as we keep hold of those notions, and the sacredness and power of the human body, then we can use as much technology as we like, and think it as intelligent as we like. r R i c h a r d P o v a l l Senior Fellow, RESCEN (Centre for Research into Creation in the Performing Arts), Middlesex University (in assoc. with the South Bank, London) ========================= Court Gate Cottage, Harbourneford, South Brent, Devon TQ10 9DT UK. Home/Studio: +44 (0)1364 72044 Fax: +44 (0)1364 72046 </x-flowed>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/28/01 CST