To Johannes, Divizio, and all: A few ideas into the pot... >Johannes: >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. > > >Divizio: >Ah, but we ARE functioning in Top-Down systems....by default! There is very >little else! Perhaps in some cultures....? but definitely others than any >in the FIRST, or even Second world cultures....Third even (just because it >has a number!)? > >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? > > We develop performance systems to do exactly this, so what would you like to see? Whilst I agree that most areas of life are usually Top-Down (handed down by tradition or technical...: Johannes) by default (Divizio), I feel that any preconceived scripting, learning pattern, or group work co- operation can be too restrictive in allowing freedom to experiment. Some of the best performance we have ever produced have been done ad- lib, and some of the best takes in a completely unrehearsed free for all. Where technology can play some importance is in the expansion of conceptualisation, design, and presentation - in short "the art of PERFORMANCE". As modern cultures explore our fairly new found freedom of communication - ideas on everything from politics, religion, and philosophy to music, dance, and ordering fish and chips in a restaurant in Barbados are evolving at an enormous pace. The so-called "noble intent" soon becomes out of date as communities evolve. I would like to explain "PERFORMANCE". I have developed motion capture and control systems for feature film effects for over 10 years and I hate the use of the word "motion capture". I can 'motion' capture a table but that table cannot give a performance! (other than a dead piece of wood).. For me the table does not hold any particular interest since it is inanimate by nature; my interest is in the qualities of the narrative or scene described by any motion - i.e. the performance. The noble intent IS the performance and technology should always be looked upon as a tool.. nothing more.. All the libraries of performance capture data in the world will not help you to give a concept LIFE if there is no "intent" behind the "performance". This is where technology will - said trying not to look too deep into the crystal ball - we will never fly to the moon syndrome - always fall down. We may try to create AI / notion based / intelligent systems and whilst their outputs are new and challenging it still relies on the "intent" of the user(s) and librarian(s). I also believe that there is a strong responsibility for developers not to mix art and social tools - before you know it my wife would run off with the toaster because it had a better personality than me - but that would be all right because I could date the phone-box because it has a sexy walk (wow - sorry - we get asked for some strange capture sessions). Where I feel the focus needs to go is not on the technology but the application and personal (or teams, hierarchical, non-hierarchical...) creative expression. >Johannes: >What hierarchy and whose hierarchy? > >Divizio: >Good question!...one I intend to explore in more depth in CORD's format. > > >Johannes: >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. > >Divizio: >Hmmmm...but this IS the root right here, friend. > >Johannes: >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. > That's why we develop Real Time systems, so that the imbalance is always DYNAMIC from show to show, and allows CONSTANT innovation not just record and playback. It is the changes in the performers' mood, behaviour, and personal feelings as to what they will to bring to a performance on any particular day and if they are using technology in their shows they MUST have the tools to be able to incorporate those emotions or it will be a LIFEless pre-processed performance, out of touch and context with the actual audience at any given venue. This is where projected images and sound now do not have to be so tightly configured or choreographed - hence creating the freedom to change the whole show as quickly as a change of gesture - why because the performer was in that particular mood that particular day. So in this case where is the hierarchy since it is the artists who are in control of the performance (even when counting)? >Divizio: >"quite a bit" of floating, doesn't remove the work from the Top-Down >structure AT ALL! You see "they" (as in "the technologies") are the TOP's >tool. Not mine! > Hence allow the artists to take control of the show through the interactive use of the technology! > >Johannes: >The audience is still watching/listening, not participating/affecting us as >we might like, but we are working on that one too. > >Divizio (with a softening): >Well, I suggest what you suggest is already pretty much covered in the >European performance arena...and i would tend, with some reservation, to >include the Japanese contemporary performance arena....where the >"responsibility" for the message rests largely with the Audience >vis a vis the North American performance arena whose Audiences foist the >responsibility for the delivery of "the message", onto the performer or even >the performance itself! :) > It should be the responsibility for the artists to give an honest performance as much as it is the audiences' responsibility not to turn up with pre-judgmental concepts of content and/or presentation. Geological / cultural variances will always have impact on a show, and with the rapidly increasing cross cultural exchange in art, is the difficulties in conveying "messages" to a new or different audience - some with dramatically different principals and cultures; then again some artists love throwing a show together that specifically does not have a message at all - whose responsibility was it then, the audience for expecting one or the artist for not providing one - and what if they change their mind for the next show - then they upset the media and the audience because "it was not the show that was on last night!". The artists should just do, and the audience should stop being so critical. To Johannes: In reference to the web site .. http://www.dancemagazine.com/sterns/bodytech_frame.html With Paul Kaiser and Shelley Eshkar's Riverbed Design Co., which is on the cutting edge of motion capture experiments (cf. their collaborations with Merce Cunningham and Bill T. Jones on the creation of computer- animated dance in virtual space) I had the pleasure of seeing Biped last month, however their work is not cutting edge (at least that piece and their current project) - some of it is quite a long way behind - but still thoroughly enjoyable. Regards, -- Richard EMail: richardw@kinetic-impulse.com KINETIC IMPULSE Digital Performance Specialists ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.kinetic-impulse.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/28/01 CST