Divizio wrote back: > Ah, but we ARE functioning in Top-Down systems....by default! There is very > little else! >Yes I can partly agree with you from the notion of "noble intent".....BUT, > do you have any suggestions about HOW to design WITH technology (in the > dance interface) that do not or are NOT catering to the hierarchy? > ... Good question!...one I intend to explore in more depth in CORD's format.>>> I am afraid I can't follow, I don't know your "CORD format", and I don't write in "OSU Format," what kind of nonsense is that? I have no noble intents, but I have been practicing in groups and in collaborations for a number of years, and I don't function well in Top-Down systems (if you think of institutional or production systems). I don't know your work in groups, so I can't comment on what you say. But if you argue that the "floating" I was speaking about, refering to our environments process, "doesn't remove the work from the Top-Down > structure AT ALL! You see "they" (as in "the technologies") are the TOP's > tool."- I believe you are wrong. The media are our tools, and we apply them as our ideas require mediation sometimes, and we explore how designs or certain live mixes or simultaneities work for us or not, in semi-hierarchical, non-hierarchial or antihierarchical ways. Sorry. If you want to attach a political theory of power structures to dance & technology, okay, let's talk about it, let me hear what you think. Johannes Birringer AlienNation Co.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/28/01 CST