Dear Dawn, I saw that review by a fellow dance writer here in Philadelphia. I wouldn't worry about him. He's obviously a lightweight in the intellect department, and so much a traditionalist, he likes Jeanne Ruddy dance here -- Graham-based work that is so over, one audience member said "It looks Victorian and bloodless." You are right about the way he couched himself -- that he called Biped a "minor trinket" instead of seeing it as the crowning glory of Merce's illustrious career, says it all. Best to you and all at this holiday season, Merilyn Jackson ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dawn Stoppiello" <dawn@troikaranch.org> To: <dance-tech@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 7:55 AM Subject: Re: wearable computers >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