[dance-tech] Re: repertory worlds and remixing

Jonatan Winbo wrote:

Hello you all..
My name is Jonatan.
I'm not a dancer, but i now some things related to art and computers. In art, not everything is within the tradition of pedagogy, as you propose Matt, talking about documentation and assembly language. Generative learning and so fourth is all very well, but there are individuals moving away from that thought.
Example.1: The temporality of performance in relation to text. The temporality could be the essence of the piece. Why shouldn't it? 
Is this a Monotheistic discussion perhaps?
Example.2: Data is unstable, as well as the body. I find the digital technologies as temporal as performance. The utterance could be compared with decay of Data. The dissolvement of documentation. Tinkering, circuit bending and such are work processes moving away from institution domaination, into network entities. 

Well i guess my process of thought ended all of a sudden.
=) I'm happy i took you time!
/j

Matt Gough wrote:

marlon,

i wasn't saying we should ignore the relation between dance and tech.
i was pointing to the fact that re-staging dance tech works requires
more that making sure the hardware/software etc works.

dawn, nick and johannes suggested the term 'dance-tech' was redundant.
i was not pointing to that myself.

perhaps you can explain what you mean by 'traditional choreography'.
it seems a very loose term. especially since improvisation is a form
of choreography (it has a structure).

not sure where you got the 'high art' implication from. by 'seminal' i
mean important. that is independent of high/low classifications. rep
is not just about master works, it is about returning to works
audiences enjoy.

as a programmer your work is documented (the code exists ... it has
to). the issue is how much of it do you / will you share.

and if you can see a linage, there must be something permanent in what
you or others do. how else could we follow the traces?

its a shame you don't see documentation is not about 'god status'. it
is about helping others learn/enjoy. just imagine that no one had
documented the computer languages (etc) you use. you would be back to
assembly language (but also lacking documentation for it).

playing with gadgets is fun, and important sure. but not every
audience wants to see you 'playing with your toys on stage'. avoiding
'good / bad' discussions does not help you ask, or answer questions
about your dance.

also given your distaste for 'high art' why do you use the language of
high art to describe you work/practice:  process, play,
experimentation , non-traditional, risk taking, impermanence ... they
all come from 'high arts' thinking.

best

matt


On Jan 23, 2008 7:49 PM, Marlon Barrios-Solano
<unstablelandscape@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hell all,
this is marlon
So, Matt I respect your opinion but I think that we need to not ignore the 
relational aspect or dance and technology.
 It would be naive to think that we can return to dance!
There is not pure dance...I think we all know that!
Also this is dance tech list.
Dance as we know it,  as  a performance form, is tightly related to
technologically supported practices of documentation, augmentation and
staging and technologies affords models and impacts the creative processes.
I am interested in both the dance and tech and in the emergent forms. It 
feels freeing for me to relinquish to notion of "hight art" that is
prevalent in many  discussions about good art  and bad art...good dance
pieces...that need to be remembered...
We know what gets remembered... institutionalized art practices...
I like to think about my practices as a dance artist ( improvisational) and 
a programmer (real-time processing) as something very impermanent and
passing and perhaps will be documented...I like the social and vital aspect of impermanence...but of course this is part of my lineage and my research 
on
dance and technology does not equals choreography...

There are ways of dancing and designing that are not traditional
choreography   that are based in repetition of a "master piece"...
So, I like to reinforce the gadget exploration and gimmicks because I think many artist are so afraid of criticism that they are took fearful of doing 
something ridicoulus
I think that someone have to do the dirty work of paying with the gadgets, geek-out for while, and really play not be so concern of making a good dance 
piece...

I like the idea of experimenting with technology to see how changes my
questions about dance...
BTW
have you noticed how the bodies of the Cunningham dancers in recent years 
are different: more muscular, etc...?
perhaps not only the digital technologies become obsolete...
dancers bodies also become obsolete...
when we crave for immortality of the god like figure of the
choreographer...or the programmer...
Remember jazz was not considered by many music institutions music until...50 
year ago...or so
Peace
marlon
PS:
this is the link to a VJ performance that I had at the WexnerCenter (OH) in 2003. I scratched Trisha's Accumulation video (is towards the middle). 














Matt Gough <mpgough@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 hello all,

it is interesting to note the desire to return to 'dance' and drop the
focus on 'tech'. much of the discussion about 'dance-tech' rep has
centered on emulating, replicating, or updating the technological
tools. what has been missing are the requirements for re-staging
dance.

- do we have suitable documentation of the concept and process(es).
- are there choreographic notes?
- what improvisation methodologies / approaches were used?
- what physical skills did the performers require?

... and so on. documentation and reconstruction of was hotly debated
in the 1990's. from recovering 'lost' or 'seminal' (but over-adapted)
works, to securing 'our' generations work for the future.

the challenges millicent hodgson faced when reconstructing nijinsky's
'rite of spring' should have been a lesson to us all. works that have
new / novel features and 'challenging' contexts (in that instance the
technique and the music) need properly documenting.

to leave our work as 'once and once only' is akin to cultural self
vandalism. we should be documenting works thoroughly. that also
extends to the process / concept / method we use to make work. imagine
100 years from now trying to re-stage kammer/kammer but no one knows
'limb theory' (improvisation technologies).

the example of lucier is pertinent. the concept/principle of the work
are more significant than the technology. in fact the principles are
embedded into the text spoken. most dance-tech works lack that clarity
of intention or documentation.

sure, few people want to see 'older technologies' wheeled out. what
they want to see is good choreography. most of the 'seminal'
dance-tech works are valued because of the choreography, not the
novelty or quality of the tech. this points to technologies as context
(rather than concept) being more successful (to date).

as nick alludes, technologies on context is postmodern. and you only
have to glance at us, uk and european culture (music, fashion etc) so
see postmodernism is alive and kicking. however, re the 'par cans':
scenography as context and scenography as concept are two different
things.

dominique boivin and the digger dance strikes me as constructivist
realism. is it real objects/material in real space. two rhythmic
structures (man and machine) stimulating the imaginative and
spiritual. is it dance-tech? ... no. the digger provides context
rather than concept.

best

matt

Other related posts: