[dance-tech] Re: the social in social choreography
- From: Daniel Tércio <danieltercio@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: dance-tech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 22:20:04 +0000
Dear all
Two points:
Firstly, there is not a political neutrality in art, neither in technology.
Actually, several theoretical contributions about the social and political
commitment of technology have been stressed (Marcuse, David F. Noble, Erik
Davis ... ...) as well as for art commitment. I suppose that this is a
healthy and unfinished debate which in fact is being intensified by
exchanges between art and techno-science. In a global world each of us has a
global responsibility, don't you agree?
Secondly, I don't think that social commitment is a justification for
overflowing our tools and ideas. Urban riots are not, on my view, social
choreographies. On the other hand, as social scientist, one may map (and
quote as a choreography) the great social movements such as the struggle
between policemen and protest leaders - actually, on this case, choreography
is a metaphor of the reality. I wonder if considering riots as social
choreographies will turn social movements into a political emptiness
condition. I am trying to remember my own experience as a young student
living under a dictatorship (in Portugal before 1974) and the struggles with
the police and the forbidden actions I was briefly evolved with. I was not a
performer, I was not aware of being a performer, but I was just a body
sharing with other bodies a struggle against powerful bodies and weapons
with an aim: to gain democracy - actually, to gain the opportunity to be a
free performer.
And a note:
There is new dance communities emerging on the web, as for example,
"MaPaD2". This platform was born in Salvador da Bahia and is including
Portuguese and Spanish speaking artists and scholars that share and explore
the "poéticas tecnológicas" (Ivani Santana).
Best regards
Daniel
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Marlon Barrios Solano <
unstablelandscape@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello all,
> I am very happy that this discussion is taking place in the two strands:
> the social choreography aspect ( will read and comment at the end) and Can
> be great to invite Susan Kozel to it!
> and
> the differences between the platforms (email discussion VS open platforms)
> In relation with the second aspect you can actually create a discussion (
> on dance-tech.net) in the Forum and also create a "group" where you can
> have one single or several threads.
> Also the groups can be by invitation and private (not visible) and by
> invitation and public or totally open to anybody and public.
> I have to say that in this "list" there is the potential of having more
> than 400 participants in this discussion. The "focus" is given by the
> quality the discussion in itself not by the platform.
> One of the main advantages of the web 2.0 is that you can actually get
> notifications in your email when you have a new contribution to the thread.
> You can also add aspect of hyper media to the discussion: video embedding,
> links etc.
> I imagine that most of you know that you can use a RSS reader to get any
> stream of internet content that is syndicated (Feed) we can organize and
> aggregate all the flows of content.
> I think that we can extrapolate the topic of this discussion, that we are
> actually more "used", habituated to the email format. We are more used to
> this more linear "choreography" instead to a more "CLOUD like"
> organizational and dynamic "reading".
>
> I think that the in relations with the "Social Choreography" aspect we may
> have a more useful approach taking about dynamics in social systems.
> Epistemologically, we can see that patterns, pathways, phases,
> interactions, iterations. cycles in a space time scales are very useful
> analytical devices to understand complexity.
> Calling a lost of these phenomena "choreography" in my opinion is
> privileging an "it", and its is to dance centric. It is limiting!
> I would take a more ecosystemic perspective as a way of undemanding flows,
> intensities, couplings, disturbances, self organization, adaptation.
> Human cognition embodied and social and the social cognition is augmented
> technologically (tools and trainings).
> I would not want just to create a "cool" artsy definition too centered in
> one discipline to explain, what in my opinion is extremely well articulated
> by systemic understanding of humans and non human systems and their
> interactions (of course this includes the politics, organizations, the art
> market, the universities, media corporation and ideas).
> Cheers,
> mbs
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
