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

  • From: "Jaime del Val" <jaimedelval@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "Matt Gough" <mpgough@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 10:56:48 +0200

Wonderful, then it honours you all the more to have performed the
technopositivist devil in the play.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Matt Gough" <mpgough@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <jaimedelval@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <dance-tech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 2:51 AM
Subject: [dance-tech] Re: Sensordance, etc........The language of
technology - the technology of dance

> 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: