[dance-tech] Re: Sensordance, etc........The language of technology - the technology of dance

  • From: "Matt Gough" <mpgough@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: jaimedelval@xxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 01:51:38 +0100

hello all.

as an artist i ask myself difficult questions in order to 'understand'
the implications of my findings / work. sometimes this means assuming
a position opposing that which i believe. but i don't think that
science and the arts are opposing factions, they lie along parallel
continuums.

i'm not sure my academic or artistic credentials are important, the
question here is about the 'texts' not the 'authors'. however, my
publications can be found online and in journals, and for those that
do not know ... my initial training is in dance and theatre arts
(undergrad), with graduate studies in contemporary dance practice.

during my initial grad studies that i had the pleasure, and honour to
practice with lisa nelson. from  that time onwards i have spent much
of my artistic (and other) praxis exploring the embodied. in my
continuing  exploration of 'perceptual' improvisation i observe /
experience embodied simulation and synthesis.

as a grad student (again) i am currently developing a somatically
valid, computer based movement notation. based in a school of
(computing) sciences i hope to demonstrate that individuals with
humanities / arts based training, and a keen sense for the
philosophical can contribute to (and learn from) 'empirical' research.

jaime,

our positions are not irreconcilable in an absolute sense. i do
understand the stance you take, it is one i used to take myself. i now
find such a position difficult to support.

the reason i have not stated my position is that my interest is in
trying to understand the findings of your work. i do not see peer
review as the last stage of acceptance in published work. authors
should be able to, and prepared to explain and defend their texts.
critique should be expected and embraced, not argued against.

its not that i don't think your contribution is not worthy of the
list. my desire for this list is discussion and debate, which has to
be better than a notice board for events. i think thats what killed
the last dance-tech list.

there are may people on the list (students, people from other fields)
who do not understand the terminology we use. although i could direct
them to journal papers, it seems like overkill when they simply need
to understand the context of a list posting. wikipedia is not perfect,
but  at least it offers an accessible route to further understanding.

best wishes, and i look forward to further responses to Johannes' posting

matt

Other related posts: