Could I suggest that you use the term 'I' rather than 'We' when making points such as this: [But we are so obsessed with ideas of "enlarging definitions" and "not imposing limits" that we have actually come to believe that craft is off-subject.] as your we certainly doesn't include me. J Richard Povall wrote: The Well-Tempered Clavier sounds conventional only with hindsight. I don't think so. It sounds (and sounded) "conventional" because Bach was so proficient with his compositional technique that even though he was using new technology (which you described) that was probably THE biggest musical invention to date (at least since polyphony), he so well integrated it into the codes of the epoch that it didn't sound strange even at the time. It was both conservative and revolutionary. Old-fashioned port-modern ideas of making the technology obvious [sticking Cage on stage; Midsummer's distanciation techniques of a play-within-a-play] are a contrasting approach. But they also demand genius. If we don't possess genius, we need to work that much harder - and longer. Fourteen hour days are not enough. If it takes Darwin's 26 years, so be it. Actually the tool usually comes first. Interdisciplinary people may have a larger palette than a straight-edge abstract expressionist painter doing wall-sized acrylics. But few dance-technology people will even consider embroidering a wall tapestry as their next work. What has this got to do with tool? Surely this has to do with artform and training and inclination. I'm not sure where to place the borders between a form and a tool. Acrylic paint is a technology. It is a tool. A tool that was avant-garde at the epoch of Black Mountain. Da Vinci invested enormously in new technology. The fact that it was not electronics but pigments changes little. He invested both in his tools (pigments, anatomy, perspective...) and in his aesthetic development. It would even sometimes be difficult to define a frontier between the two - is "perspective" technique or aesthetics? Is drawing a human body based on real knowledge of the precise details of anatomy technique or aesthetics? All too often, composers (for example) think that they can just pick up a camera and make a wonderful video, without any training or background in that medium. What you're referring to here is not "tool" but craft. We've lost sight of craft, and it shows. Yes, craft is an issue, perhaps THE issue. But I'd say the real problem is more that "dancers" think they can just pick up their bodies and make wonderful dance, and motion-sensor people think they can just pick up sensors and do wonderful sensing. When I take a look at the choreography/dancing on dance/tech web sites and in performances, I often see something so naïve and stilted that competent performers could produce much richer results in the taxi on the way to the airport. But we are so obsessed with ideas of "enlarging definitions" and "not imposing limits" that we have actually come to believe that craft is off-subject. Whenever anyone addresses the question of "competence", the immediate reply is that we have missed the "aesthetic choices" that have been made, and the "conceptual implications". When the artists can't get the electronics to work, I have actually heard "artists" and "informed" audience claim this "allows a new perspective." Everyone knows that Merce and Stockhausen used aleatory processes to enlarge their creative perspectives, but anyone who has worked intimately with either knows that they never allowed chance to take control. Jane Turner wrote: ...we had only a week of process before sharing in a relatively high-profile performance situation Richard replied: WHY do we keep doing this to ourselves? Exactly. This difficult work needs MORE time, not less. Just as improvising demands much more preparation than performing fixed choreography. There's got to be a better way... I do not think that the desire to experiment and develop new ideas means we can forget the lessons of Bach and Darwin. We are too soft; too used to our comfort; too enamored of instant soup. If new ideas are worth anything, they deserve more than kleenex culture. They deserve real investment. They deserve our refusal to accept mediocrity. In ourselves and in others. David Vaughn --Apple-Mail-5-367971850-- --B_3171526877_3595051-- ---------------------------------------- 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 : 07/02/04