[dance-tech] Re: repertory worlds and remixing

  • From: "Matt Gough" <mpgough@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "Marlon Barrios-Solano" <unstablelandscape@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:27:16 +0000


i wasn't saying we should ignore the relation between dance and tech.
i was pointing to the fact that re-staging dance tech works requires
more that making sure the hardware/software etc works.

dawn, nick and johannes suggested the term 'dance-tech' was redundant.
i was not pointing to that myself.

perhaps you can explain what you mean by 'traditional choreography'.
it seems a very loose term. especially since improvisation is a form
of choreography (it has a structure).

not sure where you got the 'high art' implication from. by 'seminal' i
mean important. that is independent of high/low classifications. rep
is not just about master works, it is about returning to works
audiences enjoy.

as a programmer your work is documented (the code exists ... it has
to). the issue is how much of it do you / will you share.

and if you can see a linage, there must be something permanent in what
you or others do. how else could we follow the traces?

its a shame you don't see documentation is not about 'god status'. it
is about helping others learn/enjoy. just imagine that no one had
documented the computer languages (etc) you use. you would be back to
assembly language (but also lacking documentation for it).

playing with gadgets is fun, and important sure. but not every
audience wants to see you 'playing with your toys on stage'. avoiding
'good / bad' discussions does not help you ask, or answer questions
about your dance.

also given your distaste for 'high art' why do you use the language of
high art to describe you work/practice:  process, play,
experimentation , non-traditional, risk taking, impermanence ... they
all come from 'high arts' thinking.



On Jan 23, 2008 7:49 PM, Marlon Barrios-Solano
<unstablelandscape@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hell all,
> this is marlon
> So, Matt I respect your opinion but I think that we need to not ignore  the
> relational aspect or dance and technology.
>  It would be naive to think that we can return to dance!
> There is not pure dance...I think we all know that!
> Also this is dance tech list.
> Dance as we know it,  as  a performance form, is tightly related to
> technologically supported practices of documentation, augmentation and
> staging and technologies affords models and impacts  the creative processes.
> I am interested in both the dance and  tech and in the emergent forms. It
> feels freeing for me to relinquish to notion of "hight art" that is
> prevalent in many  discussions about good art  and bad art...good dance
> pieces...that need to be remembered...
> We know what gets remembered... institutionalized art practices...
> I like to think about my practices as a dance artist ( improvisational) and
> a programmer (real-time processing) as something very impermanent and
> passing and perhaps will be documented...I like the social and vital aspect
> of impermanence...but of course  this is part of my lineage and my research
> on
> dance and technology does not equals choreography...
> There are ways of dancing and designing that are not traditional
> choreography   that are based in repetition of a "master piece"...
> So, I like to reinforce the gadget exploration and gimmicks because I think
> many artist are so afraid of criticism that they are took fearful of doing
> something ridicoulus
> I think that someone have to do the dirty work of paying with the gadgets,
> geek-out for while, and really play not be so concern of making a good dance
> piece...
> I like the idea of experimenting with technology to see how changes my
> questions about dance...
> have you noticed how the bodies of the Cunningham dancers in recent years
> are different: more muscular, etc...?
> perhaps not only the digital technologies become obsolete...
> dancers bodies also become obsolete...
> when we crave for immortality of the god like figure of the
> choreographer...or the programmer...
> Remember jazz was not considered by many music institutions music until...50
> year ago...or so
> Peace
> marlon
> PS:
>  this is the link  to a VJ performance that I had at the WexnerCenter (OH)
> in 2003. I scratched Trisha's Accumulation video (is towards the middle).
> Matt Gough <mpgough@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  hello all,
> it is interesting to note the desire to return to 'dance' and drop the
> focus on 'tech'. much of the discussion about 'dance-tech' rep has
> centered on emulating, replicating, or updating the technological
> tools. what has been missing are the requirements for re-staging
> dance.
> - do we have suitable documentation of the concept and process(es).
> - are there choreographic notes?
> - what improvisation methodologies / approaches were used?
> - what physical skills did the performers require?
> ... and so on. documentation and reconstruction of was hotly debated
> in the 1990's. from recovering 'lost' or 'seminal' (but over-adapted)
> works, to securing 'our' generations work for the future.
> the challenges millicent hodgson faced when reconstructing nijinsky's
> 'rite of spring' should have been a lesson to us all. works that have
> new / novel features and 'challenging' contexts (in that instance the
> technique and the music) need properly documenting.
> to leave our work as 'once and once only' is akin to cultural self
> vandalism. we should be documenting works thoroughly. that also
> extends to the process / concept / method we use to make work. imagine
> 100 years from now trying to re-stage kammer/kammer but no one knows
> 'limb theory' (improvisation technologies).
> the example of lucier is pertinent. the concept/principle of the work
> are more significant than the technology. in fact the principles are
> embedded into the text spoken. most dance-tech works lack that clarity
> of intention or documentation.
> sure, few people want to see 'older technologies' wheeled out. what
> they want to see is good choreography. most of the 'seminal'
> dance-tech works are valued because of the choreography, not the
> novelty or quality of the tech. this points to technologies as context
> (rather than concept) being more successful (to date).
> as nick alludes, technologies on context is postmodern. and you only
> have to glance at us, uk and european culture (music, fashion etc) so
> see postmodernism is alive and kicking. however, re the 'par cans':
> scenography as context and scenography as concept are two different
> things.
> dominique boivin and the digger dance strikes me as constructivist
> realism. is it real objects/material in real space. two rhythmic
> structures (man and machine) stimulating the imaginative and
> spiritual. is it dance-tech? ... no. the digger provides context
> rather than concept.
> best
> matt

Other related posts: