[dance-tech] Re: Fwd: Sensordance, interactive game, webcam dramaturgy #2,

hello all, hello "transubstantiate"

thanks for this excellent critical response to the thread.  I gather the 
responders are anonymous, which is interesting, as we have not had such a 
response-form yet on our list.

thanks for the interesting diagram,  as well.


rather than going into details,
i only want to pick up your ending:

>>the experiential is not confined to first time experience (and there
is no 'same river'), even a prosthesis can be engaged with
experientially (I think hales has clouded the issue of
post-embodiment). No, it may not be pure 'improvisation' but what's
wrong with procedural choreography? And no, conceptual and improvised
dance are not contradictory, each is able to facilitate the other.>>


 i would have to agree, i think my argument was too limited to understanding 
the experiential as distinct in affect from the "rehearsed" or 
habitualized/automatized.         your reference to Hayles is intruiguing.



>>Hayles articulated that the 2nd generation have a different perspective
from the dance-tech avant garde.    growing up with digital and analogue
tools does mean we focus more on what we want to say the the tools
themselves. Looking beyond the tools to their conceptual/applied
contexts offer a more fertile ground for establishing a dance-tech
taxonomy.>>


This is productive for our community, and a good reminder of the dead-ends of 
some of our discussions on tools and technical functionalities.  And yet,   is 
this true what you claim?   It is not uncommon that also young generation 
artists (2nd ? 3rd?) like to talk about / demonstrate their tools and their 
"bespoke software", as I just noted at a performance platform (DRHA) at 
Dartington College of Arts.

6 or 7 performative works/installations were presented, in  almost  all  cases 
the artists perfered to talk about the tools and the systems they had created.  
  For those of you interested, i mention some of the works:

Kirk Woolford, Lancaster Institute for the Contemporary Arts,
"Will.0.w1S"    interactive installation

Robyn Stuart & Brian Curson
'Living Room' ?  dance with virtual world

Sandy Mathern, Denison University
Alexander Mouton, Denison University
Christian Faur, Denison University
Marlon Barrios Solano, n.a.
Aaron Fuleki, Denison University
"CONTAINED"     Interactive Performance/Installation


Mary Oliver, School of Media, Music and Performance/Creative
Technology Research Group, University of Salford
"Fly me to the moon"     vaudeville performance with animation

Emmanuelle Waeckerle
"Vinst"  -  interactive installation

Johannes Birringer,  Michèle Danjoux, 
"Intimate Klüver"   -  diptych, digital video

***

we also heard Roy Ascott. Stelarc, and Katherine Hayles deliver keynotes.

Hayles spoke of "habitual knowledges" in highly mediated societies and within 
highly technological living patterns, and I think she refers to these now as 
"tacit knowledges",  and when she addressed literature (not performance), she 
proposed that the role of literature is to reveal/transforrm the tacit 
knowledges into embodied practices. The latter, I assume, are not post-human, 
then? 
Ascott speaking of the cybernetc, reptal,  technoetic and the moist media,  is 
now requesting that we work with "syncretic knowledges"...as, he suggests,  we 
are already beyond the "digital moment in culture,"  and have entered the 
"pharmacological era" !

there we go, dance tech community.   

Focusing on what we want to say would imply that we look at how our works 
transforms tacit knowledge. Sandy Mathern, in her performance, points to 
improvisation as a cognitive/physical system  or consciousness of organization 
that is interfacing with the programmed cybernetic/sculptural system the group 
had built, and "Contained" was a very strong, convincing work. 
And yet, I am not sure what the works actually reveals, or convinces one of. 

How do you see the impact of dance works (conceptual/improvised),   what does 
transunstantiate mean by "conceptual contexts"?
It seems that "Contained" evokes a 'sytemic' context or way of thinking 
(whether biological, cybernetic, sculptural, projectional communicational, & 
artistic), but the systemic is experienced/experienceable as physically and 
emotinally affective, and thus, if i were to talk about a work such as 
"Contained", I would have to use reference to emotions, associations, images in 
my mind and sensations in my body, and they were highly subjective.  If I talk 
about the system and the way it was set up, I may resort to a technical (tool) 
language, speak of angles, rotations, light patterns, sound, use of 
microphone-voice, use of cameras, etc   no?   I think the challenge will be to 
bring these languages together to a new level of analytical and poetic writing.

with regards
Johannes Birringer 









-----Original Message-----
From: dance-tech-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of curators -
Sent: Thu 9/7/2006 11:33 AM
To: dance-tech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [dance-tech] Fwd: Sensordance, interactive game, webcam dramaturgy #2,
 
hello list,

using [] to indicate quotes from other replies to this thread:

[lp] ludmila pimentel
[jb] Johannes Birringer
[mbs] Marlon Barrios-Solano


[lp] in theoric writing or discussion sometime we need more definition
about some conceptions [/lp]

couldn't agree more, but it's been an ongoing problem ...

[jb] A while back though, and probably still today, we have noticed
that "interactive performance" is unspecific. [/jb]

we lack a critical theory, and a willingness to address that problem.
yes there are books, but they tend to be observational reporting
rather than analytical examination. How do we address technical and
conceptual issues without an  effective framing. Can we really
understand the findings of our experiments if we don't have a good
grasp of the underlying principles. We don't even have a concept of
'good & bad' dance-tech work, more emphasis is placed of the potential
value of the research. Is our recursive designing the product of
trying to make tools rather than performance works.

[mbs]  Of course, I think that we are reaching the moment of
"conceptual" dance and new media. We are aware that  we are moving
creatures within ever changing technologies  with  a strong tendency
to couple with them and also to recognize context / also that we  are
extremely good with metaphorical contexts. [/mbs]

technology has always affected dance praxis, it just seems that in the
last 50+ years we have become less adept at reconciling the conceptual
with the practical when exploring new tools. In the absence of
concrete craft(s), alignment with conceptual art validates current
praxis. Whilst some of the work utilising technologies is conceptual,
its usually a means of realisation not instigation. What we want to
'say' is central to how we can frame the resultant product, its how we
identify conceptual perspective. Knowing what we want to say help you
develop your language and lexis. An imposed language / lexis only
permits what is available in the construct.

[jb] Where is the [interactive] system used (on stage? by the trained
performer who is improvising or following a precise cue
structure/choreography/dramaturgy?). The main questions in these
different experiments, might be "who is interacting with whom"?
Performers with other performers using the interface or performers
with the interface or performers with performers within an interface
which organises its output via the actions of the performers? [/jb]

rather than an issue of classification, this addresses the notion of
'transparency' in dance-tech. Surely this is an issue of aesthetics /
critique rather than ontology. If phenomenology of interaction is the
central concern the experimental results (and evaluation) are of
greater interest than the performance work itself.

[jb] I was interested in finding our whether working with open or
closed system changes how we work, or "the work", and the reception of
the work (can an unprepared audience be asked to apply 14 sensors and
start performing, what? interacting with a system?  how? ).[/jb]

then the question is not about sensor choreography but human computer
interaction and engaging with unknown conventions. Can you expect
someone who has never seen a car to be able drive one, if you've never
been to a panto how do you interact? (or know that you should). there
is also the much deeper question of what is 'interactive' (but lets
leave that for now).

were are working in dance, post judson everything is choreography; we
are making structures in which movement may occur. its a simple
description but advanced enough to handle any dance praxis. As these
structures can be found, constructed or emergent they are already
'multiplayer'. we also know that the 'user' is anyone who engages with
the system, intentional or not.

dance-tech suffers from a weak framing that undermines any critical
discussion of the praxis. we seem to be struggling to separate the
praxis from the content. defining dance-tech through the tools
indicates an inability to define wht we actually 'do'. differentiation
of praxis in a context that prvialages 'new to you' and
post-positivist reserach is near impossible (or at least that's the
common notion).

[jb] Also, in our experiment, there is a closed system and an open
system at the same time.  I am not sure how to think "inter-action"
with such a mixed system, since the performance has a sequential
structure and a huge data base organized in a dramaturgical manner for
the performer to engage and then manipulate [...]. [/jb]

If the system is 'inter-actional' with audience and performer it must
be an open system (subject to outside influence), but also a
deterministic system (sequential structure). The organisation of the
database relates only to the ease with which the performer can
manipulate it. Rules and cues do not make a 'game' as you rightly
observe, its another term overused and abused in our field; games
usually have a winner.

[jb] This is experiential design (including the contingencies of the
webcam intrusions and unexpected events that might happen in the
remote locations that are interlinked), and yet it is not experiential
design since the performer on our stage is not "experiencing" the
installation for the first time but has rehearsed with it so that she
can learn how to understand what "prosthetic" roles her
avatar-character might have in manipulating, with her head, shoulders,
pelvis, arms, hands, fingers, legs, the various possible image
movements on screen. [/jb]

the experiential is not confined to first time experience (and there
is no 'same river'), even a prosthesis can be engaged with
experientially (I think hales has clouded the issue of
post-embodiment). No, it may not be pure 'improvisation' but what's
wrong with procedural choreography? And no, conceptual and improvised
dance are not contradictory, each is able to facilitate the other.

Kate articulated that the 2nd generation have a different perspective
from the dance-tech avant garde. growing up with digital and analogue
tools does mean we focus more on what we want to say the the tools
themselves. Looking beyond the tools to their conceptual/applied
contexts offer a more fertile ground for establishing a dance-tech
taxonomy:

http://static.flickr.com/93/236734430_6a32b14858_b.jpg  [65kb]


thoughts, crits, examples and breaking special cases welcome.

best

curators @  transubstantiate

--

The liminal is limited; transubstantiate.
http://transubstantiate.org

Other related posts: