Hello list, hello johannes [jb]. thank you for you thoughts, comments and questions;
the diagram is a work in progress, it seemed useful to share.
[jb] 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 preferred to talk about the tools and the systems they had created. [/jb]
direction and mode of presentation are defined by the selecting body, it is common to see the 'young' attempt to validate their praxis through 'old' constructs. Platforms independently initiated and presented wholly by the younger generation would be a more representative example.; the Judson group didn't share an evening with cunningham.
[jb] 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" ! [/jb]
we are still (deeply) engaged in the 'pharmacological' and only starting to explore the 'digital'. We see the primary feature of 21st century modernity as syncretism, such a call whilst delineating era's is null. Moist media is a manifesto of neologisms redundantly recalling neurological/scientific concepts with a spiritualist spin (neo and quantum metaphysics have been highjacked for inappropriate purposes).
[jb] 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. [/jb]
Mathern seems to be engaging in 'theory abstraction', the result of trying to 'valiate' the esoteric through scientific/theoretical principles. Comparing like with like, (emergent/procedural physical systems) tends to reveal little; the detail (and interest?) is in difference. The fact you found it convincing perhaps reinforces post-embodied conceptualisations of embodiment. From another perspective the artists interest is simply in generative systems, presenting a system 'as is' can be equally unrevealing but fully engaging. Instability within the improvisational context (ecological, cognitive physical etc.) can be observed without 'technological' assistance, the application of 'tech' is not a convincing transformation of tacit knowledge.
On a slightly separate note, there are many 'traditional' performance spaces in which there is no 'front' or performer spectator boundary. Does mathern really believe that her audience has only experience the proscenium arch, has she ignored the last 50+ years of performance practice? [see http://www.dartington.ac.uk/drha06/papers/abstract.asp?uid=58 ]. surely the difference is between 'performance space' and the 'theatre'.
[jb] 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. [/jb]
yes, it is a challenge ... but no different from any other from of dance writing/analysis. Adshead-Lansdale provides us with a method that implicitly applies to dance-tech. Although the method could do with some re-factoring it seems an issue of re-learning skills rather than developing 'new' ones. However, a more positivist, and thorough approach to critical evaluation is required, too many artists make claims that are unsupported by the theoretical contexts they 'borrow' from.
[jb] when [Hales] addressed literature (not performance), she proposed that the role of literature is to reveal/transform the tacit knowledges into embodied practices. The latter, I assume, are not post-human, then? [/jb]
experimental praxis transforms/reveals tacit knowledge into embodied practices, notions of embodiment are related to, but distinct from the human, trans-human/cyborg and post-human. However, from a post-embodied perspective the post-human can be embodied. Hales contradicts herself when differentiating human from post-human, she also fails to properly contextualise biological technology; natural verses engineered flesh. Literary theory does not directly apply to physical movement praxis – this common misconception needs to be addressed. In Saussurean terms it is the difference between the signifier and speech (or the object).
[jb] How do you see the impact of dance works (conceptual/improvised), what does transubstantiate mean by "conceptual contexts"? [/jb]
the impact of any dance work should be assessed on an individual basis. given the rich history of improvised and conceptual dance works in 20th century dance 'importance' should be measured in immediate and historical terms, its future longevity will depend on the works following it. Each mode of dance making (potentially) has something to offer. If technology is the 'idea' then we defer to lewitt: "The concept and idea are different. The former implies a general direction while the latter is the component. Ideas implement the concept.".
The virtual and physical are different states of (synthesised/simulated) mediation, liminality is state change; the post-embodied can transubstantiate.
Best
curators @ transubstantiate
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
-- The liminal is limited; transubstantiate. http://transubstantiate.org