Thank you, Sarah, for your comments here, because the last bit of this thread (about the visibility of the technology) seems to me to be a red herring. The first thing that our work needs to be is engaging in some manner. The interest may develop from the obvious interaction with technologies, or it may stem from other aspects of the work (may I suggest, perhaps, the movement). There is more than enough room out there for us to successfully explore a wide range of possibilities from real-time explorations of body/technology interactivity in live and virtual spaces to choreographed works that rely on transparent technologies for images and effects. I, for one, am less concerned with devising more and more complex processes involving emerging technologies, than I am with examining how we, as humans, are in-corp-orating technologies into every aspect of our communicative lives (On-line dating? What's with that??). But I am open to all the possibilities as long as they find a way to engage me somatically. Kent Sarah Rubidge wrote: > 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 >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 06/11/02