[dance-tech] Re: post / choreographic

why do i keep returning to this issue of choreography and structure?

because if we want to talk about the experience of interacting we need
to know what the interactions and their phenomena are. without
structure, there is nothing to interact with.

if real-time composition is our new focus are there 'trends'
(patterns) we can observe in the outcomes, or is it all 'unique'.

if the dancer(s) are co-authors at the moment of performance we need
to hear from them ... directly.

we also need to know what technologies they are interacting with, and
how they operate / communicate. not for the sake of the 'new' but to
read alongside the dancer(s) reports.

jeanette also identifies a potential issue. if 'professionals' find it
hard to report their 'decisions' within interactive settings, the
public/audience will (possibly) find it harder.

"no time for reflection and thought" ... perhaps there is a
subconscious following of 'choreographic habit'. following 'first'
impulse / memories is also considered a choreographic structure by
many improvisation practitioners.

we also need to discuss how effect/affect is experienced. the
'interfaces' (themselves structures) offer a limited number of
options. the 'freedom' is in perception (of the performer) not the
underlying code or content.

we have yet to see a discussion of how to help dance-tech performers
'see/experience' differently. the tendency is to use technology to
're-mediate' the space. this leaves the performers with casual and
patterned responses.  this conditioning remains even when the
code/content/outcomes change.

...

the concept of 'interaction' is regularly brought up on this list. and
always without a 'reasonable' definition. new-media theory is often
used to point at definitions, but (never?) improvisation practice.

i'm wondering why we choose to exclude the extensive experiential, and
conceptual knowledge this practice offers. interaction and perception
are at the heart of improv & real-time composition.

if we took more time to understand, and model some of its findings,
our interactive 'technologies' would be richer.


On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 11:04 PM, Johannes Birringer
<Johannes.Birringer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

dear Jeanette, list:

thanks for taking the time to elaborate your experience and your
thinking on "en/traced", it was very helpful,  I feel I understand
what you are saying quite well, and you are using a manner of
describing the interaction and connectedness (in this real time
performance) that is very evocative (and probably coming from the
thinking you have done about embodiment and the
physical/phenomenological, but also the sense of the "machinic" in the
physical interaction with the machine (technical,  virtual, computer
generated) environment  [...]

Other related posts: