At 09:14 25.08.2000 +0100, Johannes Birringer wrote:
>
>> >
>> > <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.<
Douglas Rosenberg:
>>
>>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.
>
Richard Povall:
>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.
Richard, I must say I find myself in your camp. to my way of thinking,
notions such as intelligent stages -- implying here the more or less
traditional dance-in-theater settings augmented now through new
technologies -- are FAR from played out. On the contrary, we are barely
testing those AMONG OTHER waters.
The term intelligent stage came up yesterday as I was talking yesterday
with Butch Rovan, a composer (and director of Northern Texas University
CEMI, Center for Experimental Music and Intermedia). He was just here for
a creative residency with Palindrome and after an extremely productive few
days we all feel quite excited and optimistic. (I am btw, happy to
describe what we are up to if anyone is interested).
He uses accelerometers in his own performances and we discussed how they
"felt" in their handling compared with electrodes, dynamic fields and the
other systems with which i am familiar. The quantity of acceleration is
related to that of velocity, or muscular effort, for example, _but it is
not the same_! In a given movement phrase, it may be worlds apart.
What we notice time and time again is just how limited each system is in
its response to human movement. Each works well in particular settings --
will speak a part of the dance's language. When the wrong movement ideas
are paired to a given system (or vise versa of course) they can be next to
useless artistically, and indeed, then, distracting. In another context,
or with other movement material the opposite may be true. It _can_ be
just incredibly convincing. Each particular system seems capable of
responding to, extracting, and 'interactivating' only a quite local range
of movement expression.
Gesture, geometry, a sense of weight, the difference between a downward
heave and an upward one... there are so many variations of color at work in
a dance. As we are beginning now with our current work to combine
different interactive systems, the question arises: could not the machines
themselves, applying fuzzy logic and so forth, begin to make the
determinations which technologies and methodologies are appropriate in
which settings. Ie. a (more) intelligent stage.
I just feel there are so many interesting possibilities arising now
_independent_ of the question of stage setting and presentation format that
it is way to early to talk about albatrosses. We shouldnt let a perceived
prevalence of weak pieces involving technology arrogate a thorough appraisal.
PS. We're going to ICMC Berlin tomorrow. I'd be interested to know who
else is going. This is a BIG thing, by the way, if you hvae not heard
about it.
(http://www.icmc2000.org/dates/program.html). Mr. Rovan is performing on
Monday evening.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robert Wechsler
Artistic Director
PALINDROME Inter-media Performance Group
Johannisstr. 42
90419 Nürnberg
fon: 49 911 39 74 72
fax: 49 911 377 8311
mobile: 49 179 511 0400
complete information, including scheduled touring, photographs, and so on
can be found under: http://www.palindrome.de
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/28/01 CST