<x-charset iso-8859-1>David, Johannes, Scott, Robert and all: Greetings! After writing this (but before posting it) I read Richard Widgery's careful letter. my own comments are actually somewhat tangental to the original inquiry, and seem even more so now. still- As a dancer working exclusively with interactive systems (video and electrode-based) i can hardly resist joining in! In a field where possibilities always seem to outnumber adventures, maybe i can shed some light on some of the issues from our practical perspective. Mapping -- the question of what is controlling what in an interactive environment -- was, for us at least, until recently a largely theoretical, or at best limited concept. "Limited" by the technology -- that is, there were very few ways to accurately extract any meaningful essence from a dance. This issue had been "_that_ something is controlling something" and not how. >Christopher >Dobrian (U. of CA, Irvine) expresses it simply: "The interpreted data >provides information about the speed, direction, and location of moving >objects in the video image, and that information can be used to provide >input control data to music-generating software". if a dance were only as simple as a "set of speeds, directions and locations of moving objects", then our task might not be so difficult (and interesting!). Tension, symmetry, expansion/contraction, and many other parameters also play major roles in how we perceive dance. This only serves to unscore Scott's point, that the issue of mapping has become crutial to the whole endeavor. And what endeavor am I speaking about? making dance-music works in which the the relationships between media makes some intuitive sense; pieces which have some depth, subtly etc., which are convincing "on a feeling level" and ie. which work independently of their interest for their technological nuance. The question of mappings (1: how to make possibilities available, and then 2: how to arrive at the right the choices) has finally, thankfully, become one of our (Palindrome's) main concerns. I say thankfully, because, >Any dance artist >working with interactive systems will tell you that so far the amount of >work involved in 'getting the technology' to work is immense and seems >disproportionate to the amount of work done in the studio, perspiring and >flexing. I think we have rounded the bend. it is really only since we have been able to work in a steadily-running studio laboratory (our old studio didnt have the ceiling height for an over-head camera...) that we have been able to begin to sort these issues out -- to accumulate the experience necessary -- in terms of their effect on an audience. And the _availability_ of mapping possibilities -- both from the side of "input", or the dancer's movements; and output, or the kinds of musical controls available has also only recently become available to us. Using EyeCon coupled to Max/MSP, we are now able to work with a half-dozen parameters on both sides of the fence. And, of equal importance, we are accumulating experience -- learning how to it! That is, that the dancer and composer have the chance to develop some skill in using (or perhaps "playing" is a better word) the system is obviously paramount. I think, then (to Scott's point of training vs. focusing on output) we _are_ actually training on this thing. though there are no formalized exercises, scales or plies we do every day, we are learning, and in a way which is not necessarily focused on getting a particular show ready. (though obviously one does not exclude the other. indeed, as every dancer knows, "getting ready for a show" is usually one of the best periods of training.) > >There might be two directions for artistic work with interactive systems -- >One: towards allowing everyone audience/ user access to all facets of the >systems -- input, mapping and output. Today, dance performances using >interactive systems tend to allow an audience access only to the output, >installations allow access to the input and the output -- so why not >include exposure to the mapping itself? I couldn't agree more. Indeed, I have never been convinced there are any significant arguements against it. We have nothing to lose. Naturally, care in the choice of how technical information is made available in an "art piece" setting is important -- but there are many creative and noninvasive ways to do this. Finding a setting, a timing and a way to communicate information which enable more people to appreciate the work, should not be the issue. And indeed, as i implied above (and Scott below), it is possible to envision a time in the near future when systems, together with virtuostic user/artists arrive at a built-in clarity and elegance, and make this issue of less relevence than it has been up to now, if not moot. With friendly regards, Robert Wechsler > >Another direction is towards the user/ performer who might work with >(practice) these systems in order to enter into a realm of higher level >skill and 'virtuosic' activities within them. Combining input measurement >that responds to a higher level of detail in performer action with more >complex mappings. Wanderley/ Hunt conclude their article by stating that >"complex mappings cannot be learned instantaneously, but then again, we >have never expected this from acoustic instruments". Assuming that the >reference to learning can be seen as a reference to training -- it begs the >questions, where in the dance field do we discuss and debate notions of >dance 'learning' (training/ technique) overlapping with the development of >interactive systems? There are a handful of practioners/ artists (i.e. >troika ranch/ palindrome) whose efforts over time are accumulating richness >and depth through personal determination and diversification // but their >activities are focussed on artistic output, not training. > >To return to this concept of the invisibility of computation -- in >relationship to interactive systems. I am curious about the long term >outcome of creative activity that is proportionately shifting its centre of >labor from the physical spaces to the virtual spaces. Any dance artist >working with interactive systems will tell you that so far the amount of >work involved in 'getting the technology' to work is immense and seems >disproportionate to the amount of work done in the studio, perspiring and >flexing. A shift away from the physical is by consequence in aesthetic >terms a shift away from the formal and towards the conceptual... could we >see audiences who develop a taste for mapping coming better prepared to >watch/ contemplate dancing in interactive systems? > >Perhaps there is a future that holds both possibilities -- where the >invisibility of computation is displaced by its contemplation in the >context of corporeality. Where 'interactive systems' are infiltrated >increasingly by sweating/ flexing bodies who spend more time in them >sweating and flexing... while an audience/ user's understanding of >performance may increasingly see this body as one that is intimately >involved with the invisible electro/ digital spaces within which it performs. > >*********************** > >1) Writing is arguably not the best descriptive metaphor for software >programming -- building is preferred as often coding more often requires >the reuse or reassemblage of previously written code. > >2) For a very useful and straightforward breakdown, I recommend Dobrian's >website 'video motion tracking for musical input' >http://www.arts.uci.edu/dobrian/motiontracking/default.htm > >3) You can download the Wanderley/ Ross PDF here: >http://www.ircam.fr/equipes/analyse-synthese/wanderle/Gestes/Externe/Hunt_T owards.pdf > >4) For a completely radical and fascinating look at 'mapping' -- take a >look at this article on *Mapping a single data stream to multiple auditory >variables* by Greg Kramer on the sonification of data from Radionuclide >Ventriculography (RVG)ķa non-invasive means for obtaining the blood volume >change of the left ventricle. The article details how by working with >complex mappings rather than a 'one to one' mapping auditory >representations of a 'diseased heart' for example can become much more >compelling to listen to -- don't miss downloading the .wav files >http://www.santafe.edu/~icad/ICAD96/proc96/kramer.htm > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Robert Wechsler Artistic Director PALINDROME Inter-media Performance Group Johannisstr. 42 90419 N¸rnberg fon: 49 911 39 74 72 fax: 49 911 377 8311 mobile: 49 179 511 0400 http://www.palindrome.de </x-charset>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/24/02