The following message was posted to: dance-tech On 21 Jun 2004, at 22:03, by way of dance-tech-admin@dancetechnology.org wrote: > >1- although there is a lack of shared practice and common conceptual >frameworks, common tools and medium are being used. is is from these >element that our terminology can / should be derived and adapted. >Terminology does not often arise naturally, but is 'named' by >individuals (see 4) I'm not at all convinced that either the tools or the medium (particularly this latter) are that common. I don't use any of the tools that you cited in your list above, and most of the interfaces I use are now created specifically for a project. I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "medium", but my own sites of performance (to cite but one example) vary hugely. I often completely re-invent my whole approach to interaction and movement with different pieces. Of other week I've seen that might be labelled with the horrible "dance-tech" label, I've seen many many different artforms and practices, if this is what you mean by medium. > >2- many communities exist only virtual locations yet are vibrant, >active engaging and sharing communities, from technology to arts. it >is not the ephemeral nature of our work that limits a sense of >community but possibly, the limited availability of video, images, >technical information, reviews, critical discourse and sharing of >works, thoughts, proposals etc. > >3- The "native" terminologies have a great deal of common ground, >from a conceptual point of view we may choose to re purpose them to >our own needs (also a tech concept i.e. notcom '04 >[http://www.xcom2002.com/nc04/index.php]) but we are dance >[em]technology[/em]. Robert's comments on NIME show how much common >ground we share with other artforms using technologies, there is >much to be gained by accepting our similarities. > >4- perhaps we are missing not the artist/s but the critical theorist >(our sally banes) who will not only subject the dance tech works to >critical evaluation but develop a theory based on the properties of >the works rather than individual authors desire for uniqueness and >general resistance to categorisation and common terminology. This work tends to suffer (even now) from playing to its own audiences. There are the obvious few who are making work that stands on its own and is seen by general audiences, but they are few and far between. When half/angel has shown work to general audiences, we expect the work to be judged firstly as dance, then as performance, then as poetry, and perhaps not at all as technology. The lack of critical debate is surely because we still have little distance from this work, and have not considered it enough on its own merits as "performance" rather than "dance-technology". If there isn't a strong theoretical framework yet, there is certainly a critical discourse that could be had - but rarely is. Even the big gatherings (IDAT and now MDDF (Monaco) don't really present these opportunities - rarely (if ever) is work actually critiqued in any forum other than at the bar or around dinner. This, of course, isn't just true for this particular area of work - it's true throughout the arts. We are generally very poor at open and frank discussion, avoid discussions about quality and success (words that have become politically incorrect, yet which are still at the heart of the professional world, where critiques and debate is harsh). > >5- [quote] a community that does not yet have a strong self-identity >gains more unity or unifying momentum from the creation of a >communicative, precise terminology, rather than from an expressive >one [/quote] - I agree. Hmmmm, quite troubling that, really, but I think I've said that elsewhere... > >it also strikes me that there is a reluctance to discuss how >specific technologies may help to to take more risks and extend the >boundaries, as an evolving form there is already a sense of >maintaining tradition in dance tech. I don't think it's the technologies that help us take the risks. The technologies may make certain things possible, but the artistic risks are ones of conception and realisation. The technologies are, however inimical to the work, just another production tool. R i c h a r d P o v a l l co-artistic director, half/angel www.halfangel.org.uk | www.halfangel.ie | e: richard@halfangel.org.uk ================================================================== Exeter Phoenix Arts Centre, Bradninch Place, Gandy Street, Exeter EX4 3LS England Home/Studio: +44 (0)1364 72044 Fax: +44 (0)1364 72046 No 20 Plunkett Chambers, 21-23 Oliver Plunkett Street, Cork, Ireland Home/Fax: +353 (0)21 490 5650 ---------------------------------------- The Dance-Tech mailing list has recently moved to a new address. To post a message, send email to dance-tech@dancetechnology.org. To unsubscribe, send email to lists@dancetechnology.org, with the words "unsubscribe dance-tech" in the message body. ----------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 06/24/04