Johannes, Thank you for the report. It is much appreciated. Will there be a Proceedings published? Best regards, Ellen >a r e p o r t : > >DANCING WITH THE MOUSE - >CONFERENCE OCTOBER 12 - 15, 2000 >_______________________________________ > > > >At the end of the three day conference held at TCU in Fort Worth, Texas >(USA), the dance professionals and dance educators expressed a strong >sense of shared commitment to further integrating new media and >technologies into the practice and teaching of dance. The group also >expressed a strong interest in continuing the "Dancing with the Mouse" >conference format, preferably circling the United States (from south to >west, then back midwest to east coast) and thus reaching as many >regional constituencies as possible. > >This was the second “Dancing with the Mouse” conference (last year it >took place in South Carolina), again carefully and expertly co-organized >by Keitha Manning and Joanne Lunt (assisted by Lisa Naugle, Univ. of >California-Irvine) with a keen eye on making the program not too >extensive so that attendants could participate in as many sessions as >possible. The number of attendants (65) was roughly the same as last >year. Sponsored by the National Dance Association (of the American >Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance), the >meeting was primarily addressing the needs and interests of dance >educators eager to exchange experiences and learn more about the >possibilities of new technologies and their impact on dance practices. >The emphasis, thus, was more on workshopping the tools rather than >offering new artistic works. > >It was apparent, however, that we are experiencing a small, >exponentially growing revolution in practices that link teaching, >preservation/documentation, and choreography/production. > >Video cameras/projectors and computers have made it into the “classroom” >for sure. Classrooms and rehearsal studios around the country (as in >other parts of the world) are being wired for internet access and the >whole system of distributed information now common in most libraries. >This development has reached primary education, and the attendance of >school teachers (pre-k, middle and high) is therefore most significant, >since they will meet and train the young generations of dancers, >musicians and artists of the future. > >The distribution of media technologies into all sectors of education is >a matter of enormous political and cultural significance, and questions >of equal access, continuing education (for students, teachers, >independent artists), and diversity will always remain critical in the >area that we have come to call “dance and technology.” We often look at >it as a field of artistic practice, research/development, and creative >experimentation, but I left the conference feeling convinced, more than >ever, that we also need to network about issues of education, training, >technique, and cross-disciplinary thinking, and of course we are also >responsible for programs in community outreach. > >Thus it was significant that representatives of presenters/venues and >directors of education (of dance companies) were also present, since >they could point out how important it is to make new, technologically >driven work accessible to the general audience. Similarly, as dance >scholars are now producing databases and multimedia documentations of >dance in CD-ROM/DVD format, or are constructing courses and distance >learning projects via the internet, the challenge of how to integrate >and disseminate new software applications, webbased/videoconferencing >technologies, and products into education and documentation is >considerable and, I’d say, enormously exciting. If recorded music, >movies, and television have swept through all corners of our world, as >oral and print literatures, religious, cultural, food and military >practices had done before, then information and communications >technologies in dance may signal a new stage in which movement as a >visual artform and as somatic and kinesthetic experience will produce >new adaptations of knowledge, different conceptions of the moving body, >real and virtual space, and design. I mention design because I believe >that dance and music technologists who work in interactive design >creation pursue interests that are linked (within a history of >craftsmanship and invention) to computer engineering, software and >industrial design, robotics, ergonomics, motion synthesis (animation), >and medical and biotechnological research. Movement capacity may be an >artform, but as Anne Green Gilbert (Seattle) pointed out in her “Brain >Dance” workshop, it is also a vital concern in current brain research >and learning therapy. The whole discussion about movement (and the >‘design” of new techniques and body-image perceptions) in the digital >age has only just begun. > >The conference offered hands- on practical workshops (teaching dance >with multimedia, Midi, and interactive computer tools), software >workshops (Lifeforms, Labanwriter, iMOVIE, Poser, SoundEdit 16, >Premiere, educational CD's, web, etc), lectures on >documentation/preservation/notation, history-teaching, and virtual dance >(motion capture), composition (with music, interactive technology), >environments, and other research (in dance forms and dance cultures, >interdisciplinary techniques such as choreography and writing, or the >tracing of dance diasporas with Geographic Information Systems). > >Many of the sessions were participatory, but I should mention that >(predictably?) software was taught in computer labs, while workshops >took place on the dance floor, and lectures were held in lecture halls. >We were criss-crossing the campus from dawn to dusk. In one instance, >Elizabeth Gillaspy (TCU) showed Forsythe’s CD-ROM “Improvisation >Technologies” in the dance studio and then had two of her dance students >apply Forsythe’s ideas right there on the floor. Valarie Mockabee’s >presentation of her OSU-based CD-ROM project "PREY" (on choreographer >Bebe Miller) was outstanding, delineating the path of future multimedia >documentations of danceworks linking digital video/photography, >notation, music score, text, and extensive notes on process and context. >A vibrant discussion followed, in which issues of >preservation/recreation, the value and focus on choreographic process >versus critical interpretation, choices of video-documentation >techniques and possible future links to motion capture software, but >also of copyright concerns and distribution were articulated. Candace >Feck (OSU) led a panel discussion on “Bodies in Cyberspace” which >featured very thought-provoking talks by Ann Dils (Greensboro) on motion >capture and “absence” (Kaiser/Cunningham/ Bill T. Jones) and Kent >deSpain (Athens) on the convoluted, psychologically anxious and >politically controversial relationship to the “diva” technology. He >urged us to reflect carefully on the sensitive issue of who decides >which technologies are implemented (in education), who invests and who >gets access to them, which technology serves whom, and how do we manage >the constantly necessary upgrades and degenerations of materials and >equipments. > >The concluding roundtables picked up the thread, addressing issues of >copyright, advocacy, outreach, and policy making in the future >development of dance-technology education and production. Honorary >awards were handed out to folks who helped to build the dance-tech >momentum, such as the OSU-team (Vera Maletic, Will Smith, Robbie Shaw, >Candace Feck) who developed the OSU-MDP (Shaw also announcing the >completion of the new danceCODES shell, a dynamic database which has >design and programming already complete for the user), and Tom Calvert >(Technical University of British Columbia and Founder of Credo >Interactive, Inc.) who developed Life Forms and gave the keynote address >on “Beyond the Desktop: Towards the Virtual Dance Space” - in which he >predicted a future of connected technologies/spaces in which live >dancers interact with computer-generated figures in composition, >rehearsal and performance. > >In the roundtable on “Technology in Choreography and Performance,” I >tried to summarize briefly some proposals I had brought to the >“Environments” workshop I taught and others that emerged during the >weekend. I will only list them here: 1) a new space for new dance >(integrated studios that combine training and performance with media and >technology instruments/softwares for experimentation), 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 3) destructuring of existing >curricula and the exploration of dynamic/interactive learning and >composition environments that integrate all the arts, 4) consequently, >a stronger emphasis on interdisciplinary and cross-cultural research and >development in performance technologies and designs, 5) along with new >techniques (in multimedia composition or documentation) develop new art >and dance educational outreaches and advocacy to bridge the gaps (for >example between our schools, club cultures, mainstream and alternative >art circles, museum education, festivals, workshops, and the sometimes >rarefied fringe underground or virtual playground of dance >technology/digital art). > >Finally, the Mouse conference had a nice paradoxical evening concert, >in which Robert Wechsler (Palindrome Intermedia Performance Group, >Nurnberg/Germany) could only speak about, and show videos of, his >expansive professional experience in interactive performance design (his >computer software and engineer-collaborator did not arrive on time). But >he gave a lively talk, and performed briefly with young dancers in an >ad-hoc piece. Lisa Naugle, honorary guest professor at TCU, had worked >extensively with 6 dance students and presented a spirited, highly >liquid piece (“Split”) which featured her choreography and upstage >screen projections of digital film animations created by John Crawford >(Vancouver). Astonishingly, although the screen projections at times >appeared to overwhelm the dancers onstage, they were abstracted movement >passages from the same dance that were truly beautiful and haunting; the >figures on screen seemed nearly transparent and appeared as if they were >motion-capture based. [see videostill, (c)2000 L.Naugle/J.Crawford] > >Barbara Hernandez (director, NDA) and Keitha Manning urged some of us to >offer courses and summer schools introducing dance software, since more >and more teachers in the field need to gain hands on training, and >people are most happy if they walk away with a software they’ve just >learnt to use (free demo software was passed out). The question of >distance learning in dance was mentioned briefly, but not examined. > >Lisa Naugle and myself discussed the possibility of hosting a future >Mouse conference, but I also stated that OSU would more likely be >interested in hosting an international performance-and creation-oriented >IDAT conference in future years (2004?). We on the US side wait to hear >from Richard Povall and our friends in the Europe and elsewhere about >their plans. > >Jenny Mendez, a young Latina dancer from TCU who videotaped the >sessions, mentioned that she attended the summer camp of the American >College Dance Festival Association, and in 6 weeks of training no one >mentioned technology. Interesting. That may very well have been the last >time. > > >respectfully, > >Johannes Birringer >AlienNation Co. >http://www.aliennationcompany.com >OSU_Dance >http://www.wexarts.org/thefold/practice/practiceframes.html > >x-mac-creator="3842494D"; name="split.gif" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Description: KDAM Document >Content-Disposition: inline; filename="split.gif" > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:split.gif (GIFf/8BIM) (0001F2AF) Ellen Bromberg Associate Professor, Lecturer Department of Modern Dance University of Utah 330 S. 1500 E. Rm. 110 Salt Lake City, UT 84102 PH: 801/587-9804 FX: 801/581-5442 e.bromberg@m.cc.utah.edu