<x-charset iso-8859-1>d^vid:
thanks for the opposition.
you wrote:
>>>The points you brought to the roundtable on ìTechnology in Choreography and
Performance,î in the ìEnvironmentsî workshop you taught....
ie. (1) through (5) balance very nicely around the last word appearing
in
point (3)....
That would be the word "hierarchical"
/\
/ \
/ \
/______\
and I find most of what you've reported about here to be just that.
Also be aware that media technologies are inherently hierarchical, and
for
as much as our idealism would have it otherwise, UTTERLY UNBALANCED!>>>
I'm not sure I understand you completely (are you refering to the
content of the whole report?), but you imply/refer the second
proposition I mentioned
2) a complete restructuring of the existing model of dominant
ballet/modern education, opening out to dance fusions and new
techniques/new processes that are team based and no longer hierarchical
With that I was refering (in my short recapturing of several
propositions, which were not meant to be hierarchically ordered, but
just spoken sequentially) to a sense I have, and a practice I practice,
that it might just be possible to explore new dance and new techniques
that are based on shared processes of
discovery/training/experimentation with
choreography/writing/design/sound and image making/ - and that are
highly sensitive to the space in which we work and the sites of
dance/media we construct together.
I tend to think that we discover the imbalance as we work together. If
a technique is not taught from the top down (or handed down as a
tradition or a technical vocabulary or a software or, say, a way of
moving based on counting and combinations), if the performers are not
repeating a precise formula but discovering movement with media and in
nervous systems for themselves, without counting, I don't see why
technologies we use as instruments or as part of a design need to
function hierarchically.
What hierarchy and whose hierarchy?
Well, surely sound or projected video images might 'dominate" a
choreography or a spatial shape, or there might be an imbalance in your
interactive design, but then again, the interactivity produces imbalance
- especially as far as control/outcome/affect is concerned, and perhaps
we are now speaking of different or other imbalances, depending on how
you configure the choreography or the processing or the creation of the
composite scenes in a performance or installation. I don't much worry
about what you call "inherent," because for me that is not quite the
case. What might be inherent in a computer-based design gets to float
quite a bit once the performance ensemble gets to work in the space and
transforms it. I mean the space in which we create something that is
meaningful and communicates to our audience. We tend to think of it as
live mix.
The audience is still watching/listening, not participating/affecting us
as we might like, but we are working on that one too.
There was a small/interesting article on interactivity/dance (involving
the audience) in the Sunday Chicago Tribune. Did anyone read it?
greetings
Johannes Birringer
AlienNation Co.
http://www.aliennationcompany.com
http://dance.ohio-state.edu/files/Dance_and_Technology/environ.html
</x-charset>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/28/01 CST