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