Hi johannes, You have made interesting reformulations of some of the fundamental questions I and others are engaged in asking about such things as the materiality of technology, the transferability/ translatability of 'dance' knowledge, the permeability of various arts processes, where a transdisciplinary practice might emerge, etc. Good questions, challenging... I've embedded a couple of brief responses below. At 04:58 25/11/01 -0500, you wrote: >Dear all, > >Scott's TRANSDANCE research report, as it hardly dwells on dance or >bypasses the question of how dancers (trained in a relatively >unrestricted motion system) integrate wearables, interference and >mapping procedures, raises issues about research condition and >conceptual process that interest me a great deal. > >1. You write: > > >> Generally, the 'wearable computer' introduces some motion constraints > on the body therefore apparently rendering it less than ideal for the > dancer/ performer. However, in Athens, partially due to the presence of > the wearable and the nature of the motion that can be performed in it, we > were able to engage in questioning the assumptions regarding full body > motion that usually come bundled with the concept of choreography and dance.>> > >2. Regarding interference, mapping, and systems-transfer, you observe: > > >> for an experimental (non traditional) artist working with new media, > it is normally not sufficient to simply manipulate the surface media as > this does not allow for an interrogation of the basic materials or > principles of the digital media.........[this refers back to:] "Numeric > Representation" outlines the underlying structures of digital, > programmable media in ways that support Popper's proposal that the > digital artist can intervene not only on the image, but inside the image.>> > >I suppose your experience in Athens underlined your continuing interest >in artistic experimentation with open source and underlying digital >structures - intenvening into data, then, not "inside the image" but >inside the data scenography?? or am I to understand your perception of, >say, live streaming data (mocap data linked to a MAX patch somewhere >else) or of a dance captured by real-time Motion Capture and then >re-intervened/mapped (by e x c e r p t i n g certain x or y vector data >from a capture) onto other animations in a virtual environment as a new >way of looking at an emergent event (say, a dance) that will be >generated by such surgery? Very fascinating. I wonder what such >spliced data would look like once they become "image" or >representation/animation of motion again - say, if you took only >portions of the x, y, and z vectors and engineered them onto a synthetic >dance, what does it look like? To cross map data often erases the origins of that data -- in other words there is no way of telling where it came from. In which case, one might speculate on whether or not there is some essential characteristic of data derived from motion, for example, that will remain with that data throughout its various transformations through cross mapping or synthesis -- in other words does the data carry some element of presence? In my opinion it probably does not -- or it's a presence of a different order... so when seeking to re-present data derived from motion in contexts which may remove significant elements (such as most of the information that might identify it as 'motion' information) // this erasure of the original source may need to be accepted as an aspect of the materiality of that particular stream of data... >You mention Konstantinos Rigos improvising several short segments of >varied movement material at one point, and the mocapped data were given >to an animator. To what extent does this constitute the kind of >collaborative working process you imply, and here I want to quote >another crucial passage which deserves discussion in our dance-tech >community: In this case, the Rigos/ Spiros (the animator) collaboration was not trying to experiment with cross data mapping or any shared working process such experimentation might engender -- it was a straightforward proposal to make an animated film using the motion capture data -- > >>For TRANSDANCE for example, we had choreographers, digital artists, > visual artists, net artists, performance artists and electronic > musicians. Each of these categories implies a self referential system in > the form of historical and philosophical continuities, of communities and > cultural production networks that provide a sense of coherence to any one > of these categories of arts practice. >> > >But you are infact suggesting a new, less coherent model of cooperation >-- cross-platform, cross-systems data transfer and synthesis, with >unexpected or uncertain emergences, which leaves me to ask how >choreographers/dancers (say, in conventional dance programs or in >companies) negotiate the interference manipulation on the level of >captured or interactively produced data streams in light of a process of >"Gestaltung" for a presentational work (for audiences). Or is this kind >of migration work intended (with potential commercial applications) for >"the notion of the everyday user's body interfacing with the virtual >space"? Did Yacov's demonstration with his "wearable" suggest >"choreography" (old-fashioned thing, this) or "integration into our >daily moment to moment existence....."? Big question ------ THE big question -- too big to try and answer right now. >Just wondering. I guess I am still pondering the thought-provoking >analysis you provided. And me your questions -- thanks. Scott
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/24/02