[dance-tech] Re: shared community

  • From: "Matt Gough" <mpgough@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: dance-tech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 21:31:03 +0000

hello all

and thank you johannes for your response

a hyperlink is a 'one way' connection, as is the 'download' such
instances are not social or community networks, but locations or
addresses. it is the people behind the blogs and network sites that
make up the socio-comunal.

in many face to face conversations i have had, people articulate there
reasons for subscribing to the list as 'staying in the loop' or 'just
in case ...' rather than a inherent 'community' interest.

"i often feel the blogs tend to be selective in the diaristic and self
exposing manner in which they are sometimes constructed, and I don't
have a knowledge to know whom they address, who are blog buddies or
social network partners regularly reading each other's blogs and
commenting on each other"

yes, but the same is also true of posts on this list, past .. present
and future. a look through the archive reveals list 'buddies' and
allegiances (therein lies the politics). and of course, 'partners' and
'buddies' extend to journals, books etc ...

the profile page of users (if filled out with good info) on social
networks or blogs (usually 'about' or 'colophon') will give you some
of the context you desire. that is one of the things a new site could
add to the forum/list.

it would be wrong to assume that i don't see value in the list, as i
said here, back in october 2006:

"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".

the list does seem elitist when a new person posts and waits days for
a response to a 'basic' question. like regular members think it is
beneath them. also, we need have the frequently asked questions
available publicly ... so all can see the discourse around them.

the newcomers are the lists future, and hopefully the future of
dance-tech (the list is already part of it's history). without 'new
blood' the 'list' is decrepit, putrefying. the content on the list
simply becomes petrified  (theory is not monolithic but fluid)

thank you for clarifying the structure of the list, re moderators. i
think that brings some clarity to the discussion and routes forward.

the list can move to greater levels, alongside new modes of
engagement. but only if the community takes and interest and
contributes ...



On 11/8/07, Johannes Birringer <Johannes.Birringer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> hi all:
> Sarah Jane asked:
> >>
> Could this list accommodate compact and global laboratories in which 
> operational test-beds for advancing new ideas, performance platforms and 
> performer-audience spectra's occur and provide conversations in which 
> in-depth analysis can begin before, or as, artists publish to live audiences, 
> independent blog sites and on the conference circuit? >>
> I see no reason why not. It is an ambitous project, but as Marlon, Matt, and 
> other point out, it is already happening and the convergence of 
> writing/posting and online performance or upload of media and use of 
> hyperllinks must be considered part of the evolving social or community 
> networks.  If I said anything about my lack of time to visit many blogs, i 
> meant it as simply that, a lack of time to read everything, I am not sure 
> that any criticsm of blogs was intended.  I did perhaps imply that i often 
> feel the blogs tend to be selective in the diaristic and self exposing manner 
> in which they are sometimes constructed, and I don;t have a knowledge to know 
> whom they address, who are blog buddies or social network partners regularly 
> reading each other's blogs and commenting on each other.>>
> >>
> Could this list actually embrace dance and technology in its very form and 
> function?
> >>
> Could you expand on that a little, Sarah Jane, and tell us more what this 
> would look like and involve?   (Are you refering to uploading dance/net 
> pieces or video or audiovisual compositions, research experiments or 
> installations?  are you refering to telepresence and performing together or 
> using the skype or telematic space as a live forum / colloquium space, in 
> what sense are you still thinking of dance as physcial form, or are you 
> thinking molecular?)
> <<
> I agree with Johannes and Marlon, that this forum could benefit from 
> rigorously coordinating participant research and active rejuvenation.body, 
> space, time and technologies appropriate to each type of enquiry loosely 
> associated with dance-tech. I apologise for my lapse in concentration too but 
> I must ask again what are the terms of dance-tech engagement really about? 
> Moreover, how could the dance-tech list evolve like/ with/ or as the art?
> >>
> you are asking the right questions, and I may not be able to answer them, as 
> I am not working in social networking on the net in the manner in which some 
> or many of you might.  I do not have the time to rigorously coordinate or 
> steer monthy discussions (as in soft_skinned_space)  or compile a calendar of 
> events or systematic postings of idea pieces, papers, announcements, 
> workshops, publications, concerts, etc,  but would be happy to contribute or 
> help as i sometimes do or have done in the past.
> I also wish to point out that this dance-list is a rejuvenated list Mark 
> Coniglio and myself set up for the dance-tech community as a public forum 
> (maillist) when the older list stopped being active.  There is no moderation 
> on this list, in any exclusionary sense whatever, everyone can post who 
> subscribes to the list.  the subscription is open, and when it was launched 
> in 2005, in conjuntion with the Digital Cultures Lab/festival at Nottingham.
> >>
> To start with a strictly defined e-list formulae is to embed presumptuous 
> limitations onto our discussion...so bring on your samples, 'casts, beams and 
> streams I say, and reinvigorate the terms of engagement. >>
> If the e-list formula is selective or presumptious, and if most participants 
> in the community have stopped caring about a maillist, which is what i 
> understand Matt to be saying in his wonderful and most welcome critiqiue, 
> then maybe it has served its time and is ready to be let go of.   I said that 
> there was no plan to abandon it because members of the communuty of 
> subcribers have used it as a bulletin board, and if a good number of 
> subscribers like it that way, then it's not appropriate to complain (as I 
> think Matt argues) about its manner of persistence.
> Moving outside of the "hive", as Sara Jane proposes, is probably overdue; as 
> Matt argues that some of us may be sitting on our sofas waiting for the news 
> to come to us rather than actively making it and beaming and streaming it.
> >>
> I am certainly interested in the questions, the products, the actions and 
> processes at play here and I am keen to have a discussion on what dance-tech 
> might mean in 20 years time. For instance, who is choreographing for the 
> elderly, the unborn, space-farers and nanobots? What will dance-tech become 
> outside of the hive I wonder? And have you seen Holmes comet>>
> yes. i sometimes go to the NASA site and others to look at stars. I am not 
> sure i have a clue what dance&technology as a field of practitioners will do 
> in 20 years, and what will happen to the nanobots and their blogs.
> I take it that my call for activity on our forum was a self-criticism.
> I accept Matt's analysis:  "If this is 'the forum' for the
> community then something is wrong if they are not making their voices heard."
> If more lively and more visual and active sites/networks are being spawned 
> now, i'm happy to support that.  Anyone who wants to moderate debate or 
> resarch projects can do so here too, there is no restriction.  (I don;t know 
> the number of subscribers to this list, i think it is a few hundred, it was 
> always set up to be generative), and the list can be moved to new / active 
> coordinators, why not.  Mark and I  don't own anything here, it's not Second 
> Life either.    I  sense in your posting, Matt, that you think there is 
> something decrepit, putrefyingand exclusivist/elitist in this forum.  What 
> are <<the  (political) agendas that run as an undercurrent>> ?
> on to the greater levels, then.
> regards
> johannes birringer

Other related posts: