Hi Kent, All I can say is - well put. No time for an in-depth response right now but I am with you in these thoughts. Cheers, Dawn >Dawn, > > "Rambling" or not (I think "not"), I enjoyed reading your questions. >Without having had time to really engage with them, I did have a couple of >thoughts. One is that until one IS the institution, one's work will >be compared >(most often unfavorably) to the institution. In this case, dance and >technology >intermedia work will be judged by concert dance standards. I am not sure it >shouldn't be, at least to some degree (say, quality of moving, professional >production, etc.). But it should also be evaluated based on the >premises of the >work (one would not evaluate Petipa and Rainer in quite the same way, so why >judge tech and non tech work by the same criteria?). > > But I also fear (based on my own experiences and echoing Doug >Rosenberg's great rant at IDAT in Tempe) that we as a field, as a >movement, as a >whatever, keep getting stuck at the stage of experimenting with the technology >instead of honing the images into art. Part of that is inherent in >the aesthetic >of technology (a driving aesthetic of our culture these days) which is highly >linear/developmental (meaning that we drop the old as soon as the >latest/greatest is issued). Much of the work I have seen in dance >and intermedia >(with the exception of some very fine single-media flim/video work involving >images of dancing humans) seems be continually in a Beta release artistically. >Part of that stems from our marginality and lack of access to the tools and >funds it takes to make higher level work (the development funds to create the >score, the dancing, the costumes and lighting, and the projections for Biped >would fund new projects for fifty of us at our present budgetary >level). At the >same time, I know that I would like to see dance and intermedia artists forego >new tools sometimes until they have really honed the last ones. That is why >comparisons to non-tech dances leave us wanting to some degree. We humans have >been living our bodies for millenia, but manipulating digital images or sound >for only years. We all strive to find ways to move past the >technical and on to >expression and a deeper level of "experience design" (I like that, Jeff). But >until we do so more consistently, we will be featured as human >interest stories >in the back pages of the technology section, instead of the front pages of the >arts section, as written by people who are actually familiar with >our work. End >of rant. Kent > >Dawn Stoppiello wrote: > >> 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 >> *************************** >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- *************************** Dawn Stoppiello Artistic Co-Director Troika Ranch dawn@troikaranch.org http://www.troikaranch.org *************************** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/24/02