Dawn et al, I am writing this after my last post so in a way I am contuing my own thread, but "Dance Reviewers" by trade write about dance. The review of Troika Ranch in Dance Magazine will by nothing if not context neccesarily privledge dance. His points about the failure of the marriage of art and technology are on point in my opinion. When a movement positions itself as revolutionary expectations are extraordinarily high. Video Art in it's inception was positioned as an egalitarian art form intent on democratizing culture. It failed miserably. That does not mean that many good and important work was not and it not still being made. The success of some video artists in becoming mainstream artists confounded the notion of democracy and video as a tool for social change. Every movement produces its "stars" and as such all of the rhetoric of revolution becomes moot. The effects of the work of artists working on the cusp of emerging technologies ultimately enters the culture in ways often not associated with what one sees in the theater or in performance, but rather through a sort of granular seeping over a great many years. My complaint in the area of dance/tech is that among our own community we factionalize and marginalize ourselves further by excluding technologies such as video (video dance, projected images) in the larger discourse. We marginalize analog tech in favor of digital and favor newer tech over old in our own discourses. I would hope for a discourse in which all applications of technology were equally valued. In regard to "uninformed" reviewers, I would say that we can't have it both ways. If we want the work to be discussed as a work of art or dance, we can not expect a writer to critique in two parts. The writer must necessarily write about the whole, the gestalt. Otherwise we end up with reviews that say, "the dancing was x, but the technology was Y", which is equally distressing. Dawn Stoppiello wrote: > >Interesting point. When I was in Düsseldorf recently, at a dance/media > >festival, I gave a talk and a writer (for a theatre journal) came up > >afterwards and wanted more information and we had an interesting chat, > >it turned out this person was doing extensive research on dance and > >technologies, attending a number of concerts and installations to inform > >himself and get a first-hand view. But it probably is a rare occasion > >to find dance or theatre or music writers who really investigate and > >spend time to inform their readers with reviews and in-depth reports. > >But I think awareness is slowly spreading, since various journals have > >recently dedicated special issues to performance and technologies. The > >forthcoming issue of "Performing Arts Journal," which I helped to edit, > >will also have a special section on dance-technology. > > > >what are other people's experiences concerning this issue? > > Well, Johannes and others, I have been thinking about this topic for > several days now. And wouldn't it be amazing of the dance reveiwers > made a point of going out to see all the work they could in the > "technology" genre so they could be better informed. Whoa. So, the > NYT article made me think that I had read that article before. There > seems to be one like that, featuring one of us from this list, every > year or so in some paper or magazine or another. They always seem to > ask about the commercial or popular applications of the tools and are > usually focusing on the research aspect. I am thinking that most of > the information being passed around about the actual art making and > the processes of the artists working with new tools/instruments/gear > are in PhD thesis papers and so are in university journals and not > getting out to the other more main stream arts publications...maybe? > I know that all the folks in the article are making work and I wished > that their had been more inquiry into the actual work. Too bad they > (and us all) couldn't get a giant color photo and a front page story > on the front of the arts section. But, I guess we take what we can > get. Also, Troika Ranch got a scathing review in the December Dance > Magazine. (Please all of you run out and get it, I'm not afraid) I'm > not worried that the DM reviewer didn't like the work - in any one > career one couldn't expect to please everyone. What I am worried > about is the way he couched his reason's for not liking it. > Apparently we didn't live up. > > His opening paragraph reads like this: > Back in the late 1980's, many dancers regarded technology less as a > way to sell books and pet food than as a herald of a revolutionary > form of theater, one informed by postmodern reconsiderations of > perception, reality and interactivity. Unfortunately, that marriage > of art and technology never took off and spawned no dance, save a few > minor trinkets like Merce Cunningham's Biped. Technology's real > success was probably in enabling small companies to print their own > flyers, publicize Web sites, create their own music, and shoot their > own videos. > > Ok, obviously this guy is short sighted and ignorant but it still > made me think. I wonder how many dance works that use new > tools/instruments/gear or even video this writer has seen. Has he > really had an in depth look at the work over the past decade to say > with confidence that the marriage of art and technology never took > off? On the other side of that coin I ask - did it take off? Where > did it take off. I still feel like an outsider since Mark and I do > not have a research team and lab at a university to support us. We > are trying to blend in with your average dance company. But we're > really not that. But What are we? And then I ask with all seriousness > - where are the major works of dance that use Xtechnolgy that have > been taken seriously by the art critics/writers besides BIPED? Maybe > in Europe but I am asking about the US? Is it because we that are > making these works aren't "famous" enough to draw the attention? Is > is because the works aren't "good" enough? Are they being judged by > standards of dance without Xtechnology - meaning do people know how > to experience these works - as one of our dancers writes "to only see > the piece as a piece in older modes of thought, however beautiful, > instead of trying to think through the challenges and opportunities > that these new technologies bring? They may not be new in terms of > the last 30 years, but they certainly are in terms of thought and > dance history. And finally -are we a movement?? Ok, I don't want to > ramble as I have done a lot of that recently. I don't have answers. > Only questions. Any dialog is welcome. > > Hugs, > Dawn > -- > *************************** > Dawn Stoppiello > Artistic Co-Director > Troika Ranch > dawn@troikaranch.org > http://www.troikaranch.org > *************************** > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/24/02