Johannes's and Nick's mails point up very clearly that different kinds of work take a different approach to the evidence of technological equipment in a work. For some the visibility of the technology is _part_ of the work, for others the technology is subsumed, and becomes the hidden frame within which the work 'works' (as it were!) . The argument seems to me to go beyond the question of whether the technological tools are visible or not, and have implicit within them the notion that some works _seem_ to be about 'technology for technology's sake' (and I stress 'seem', as the assessment that an artist is using 'technology for technology's sake' is an interpretation of their intentions, and may not be their intention at all.) It may be that, if the visible technology is woven into the fabric, or integrated into the aesthetic surface (if you'll forgive the use of such a term) of the work, then its visibility is not a problem ... but if the work seems to focus on displaying a new technological toy, and not using it to pursue some kind of an artistic agenda (although of course that agenda may very well _be_ technological ... as with some of Stelarc's work ) ...then the visibility of the technology might be a problem. And of course criticism is made regarding the other side of this issue as we know from those who question to the point of using (say) interactive technology if the audience doesn't understand precisely what the relationship between the interactive system and the performers is. Some want to sustain the sense of illusion, others do not. Both are OK - if the work 'works'. as always, there are no easy answers ... at this stage I guess the debate can only be grounded in a work by work basis, with generalised claims as to the rightness or wrongness of the visibility of technology in this kind of work avoided. sarah > From: Johannes Birringer <birringer.1@osu.edu> > Reply-To: dance-tech@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu > Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 18:46:04 -0400 > To: dance-tech@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu > Subject: Re: "VSS.01" - a performance system > > hmmm, > Nick wrote: > >>> This issue came up in discussion just today at the ICA's Cybersonica > symposium. I can't remember who came up with the phrase (maybe Sarah > Rubidge can, if she's here), but it went something like: the > technology for our pieces is hidden but essential.>> > > I think it all depends on the situation and what you do and where you do > it and how you design your spaces. For us, we didn't have "technology" > there somewhere hidden in the no-man's land. We had several performers > out there quite visibly performing sound and visual synthesis with their > laptop instruments, like you would see musicians perform in a concert; > I see nothing there that needs to be hidden. > > with regards > Johannes Birringer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 06/11/02