> Message du 19/01/06 22:34 > De : "John D. Mitchell" <john.mitchell@xxxxxxx> > A : "dance-tech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <dance-tech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Copie à : > Objet : [dance-tech] FW: "Digital" Dance > > Kirk, > I tend to agree with your notion that making a distinction between digital > dance and other kinds of dance and technology may not always be so useful. > Many of us worked in the cross over period, when digital technologies were > coming on line as computer capacity increased. My first interactive work, > MISE in 1987-8 with choreographer Gary Lund, used analog sensors converted > to MIDI using a FORTà Music MIDI chip. Was this digital dance? I suppose. By > 1989 we were using Amiga computers to project real-time graphics, and used > different typed of MIDI controllers (ACCESS MAPPER) for systems control of > sound and image. > > However these systems mirrored work created in the 60s by people like Cage, > Cunningham, Robert Moog, Gordon Mumma, MILTON COHEN >David Tudor and others in Variations > V, produced for German Television. This 1965 work had body sized therimins > made by moog, film projections by Stan Vanderbeek, manipulated TV images by > Nam June Paik, and a bank of reel-to-reel tape machines controlled > interactively by photo sensors! Sensor systems were designed by Billy > KlÃver, who went on to form the EAT group with Rauschenberg and others in > the next year (and eventually created the nine evenings mentioned by Simon). > > Today I see a lot of efforts that mirror to some degree work done on analog > systems in the 60Âs and earlier. It seems that new technologies often begin > life recreating what has already been done. > > Incidentally, in 1989 KlÃver and Rauschenberg got together again to create a > system for Trisha BrownÂs Astral Convertible. IÂm not sure if it was digital > or analog, but I believe that it could have been done with an all analog > system. It ran on car batteries so it could be performed in a roman > amphitheater in Spain that did not have electricity.. > > I wonder if it would be more informative (and perhaps more illusive) to > think about the history/evolution of the conception and practice of dance > and technology, with the digital/analog question seen as part of that > discourse. After all, digital will be obsolete one day. > > To answer some of JohannesÂs and SimonÂs questions. Workshops at ASU started > in 2000, the year after we hosted IDAT99., and just after ADaPT was formed. > We have recently decided to share these summer workshops between four > institutions (U Utah, U Illinios, U Wisc Milwakee and ASU) starting next > year, and will move from site to site each year. We are taking this summer > off in order to plan more effectively for next year which will be held in > Utah. > > CyberArts has had dance occasionally but starting last year a group of > artists began an Âofficial dance component to Cyberarts that they are > committed to continuing, called Ideas in Motion. ISEA has had many > performance technology related events over the years. It would take some > research to pull them all up but there is documentation at least. > > Here in Arizona the Institute for Studies in the Arts was formed in 1990 and > we staged our first interactive dance/theater/music performance in 1991. It > was also the first time MAX was used in a stage performance on this campus. > Over the next decade the Institute supported quite a bit of work in dance > and technology, too long to go into here. But what may be of interest to > Simon is that we built our own motion analysis, or vision system, created by > Robb Lovell, to control sound, images and even video. At first we used Amiga > computers and the CMT MIDI tool kit developed by Roger Dannenberg at > Carnigie Mellon. We output midi to MAC computers running MAX, or to other > Amiga computers running animations. The first publicly performed work with > this system was created in 1992. A couple of years later this system was > ported to an SGI Indigo (running at a whopping 50Mhz) and used serial data > to connect directly to MacÂs running sound (MIDI-based) and controlling > laser disc players (analog), video switching and other stuff. This system > was used in a collaboration with Montanaro Dance in 1994-5, and the piece we > created, Time in the Eye of the Needle, was performed at ISEA95 in Montreal. > This vision system was eventually ported to the Mac, and Robb made it > available for a while online, although I do not know what the state of it is > now. > > Thecla Schiphorst did a lot of work in dance and technology in the early > 90Âs as well. Besides her well known work with Life Forms, she also > co-organized a couple of early dance and technology labs called the Shadow > Project at Simon Fraser University. I was involved in the second year, and > others there included John Crawford, Louis Demers, Michael Century, and > others. OK, IÂve gone on long enough, but I do agree with Simon that it is > time (and possible now) to try and centralize information in the interest of > creating really new possibilities and capabilities. What is the first step? > > > > Best, > > jdm > > > ------ Forwarded Message > From: Kirk Woolford <phred@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Reply-To: <phred@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:55:22 +0000 > To: "dance-tech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <dance-tech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: [dance-tech] "Digital" Dance > > > As an ammendum to the last message on the history of digital dance, I > have to say I find the whole term quite curious. In 1994, I produced > two videos for Charleroi Danses' "Ex Machina". In 1996, I built a > live tracking system for "Moving Target" -- again, by Charleroi > Danses. The videos I made for "Ex Machina" were created on a > Macintosh Quadra using a very early version of Adobe Premiere. This > was almost an entirely digital process, however the end product was > "video" so most people would consider the performance a piece of > "video dance". On the otherhand, "Moving Target" had a Silicon > Graphics computer sitting up in the lighting box and projected live, > computer-generated images onto the stage (at least during the initial > performances) , so most people would consider it "digital dancing". > > Unfortunately, by this definition, neither of the two pieces I > mentioned earlier, Dumb Type's "*OR*" and Cunningham/Riverbed's "Hand > Drawn Spaces" qualify as "digital dance". Many people are willing to > call "*OR*" video dance, but they insist that "Hand Drawn Spaces" is > digital, not because digital technologies were involved in it's > creation. It is, after all, just a video projected on stage with the > performers. "Hand Drawn Spaces" is digital dance because it looks > the way we expect digital dance to look. It's not photo-realistic. > It's abstract, with saturated colours against a flat background. > > In other words, is "digital dance" a technical term, or is it an > aesthetic? > > -k > > > > > ------ End of Forwarded Message > >