> I have heard no one complain about Forsythe's DAT-Time cueing > method as being 'not visible'. ...nor do we hear people complain about not being able to see the settings of computer-controlled lighting desks. At this stage, we get into discussions about whether such tools change the nature of the creative process, or simply augment existing working practices. My take is that technology works as an amplifier for practitioners' own creative techniques, and sometimes the amplification is so strong that, to all intents and purposes, it is an enabler, but it's not a creative agent in its own right. > So I can only assume that Nodding Dog had been 'oversold' on the > computer aspect, which by all means, was a mistake. We almost fell into this trap with the Ballett Frankfurt piece (Duplex) as well, making the cueing technology visible to the audience (on large plasma screens, quite up-close and obvious). For the second performance, we hid the screens from audience view, and the piece was a lot better, for two reasons: firstly, the audience were watching the dance, not the technology (or the interaction between them); secondly, the dancers did not have to worry about the audience judging their cues, so they could make more use of various improvisational elements and really "cut loose." Again, the technology acts as an amplifier (Duplex could be realised without computer, but it would take weeks to prepare each "rendering" of a performance, rather than seconds). The artistic structure and process of Duplex needs the technology as an enabler, but the technology does not need to be seen by the audience; if anything, it's a distraction. -- nick rothwell -- composition, systems, performance -- http://www.cassiel.com upcoming gig at cybersonica, london, june 5th -- http://www.cybersonica.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 05/29/02