[dance-tech] Re: theory query
- From: "Matt Gough" <mpgough@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: dance_plan@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 16:26:36 +0000
Hello Tony & list.
Apologies for the delay in reply and to those unfamiliar with Marxist
terminology. I've listed the key terms used at the end of the post for
reference. Back to your post ...
Marxist critiques of dance are normally associated with feminist
perspectives, so issues of labour & (dance)technology are usually
superseded by gender & (dance)technology. I'm assuming you ask your
question in a 'non-gendered' sense so I'll respond accordingly.
Q1: Does the relation between dance and technology mirror the
relationship between labour and capital?
No, because performance is the 'product' of dance-tech, not
technology; technologies are the means of production. However, the
relationship between means of production and capital mean that
dance/technology is a refraction (not a reflection) of labour/capital.
This becomes clearer in the response to your second question:
Q2: How are relationships between labour and capital replicated in the
relationships between dancer and technology?
Dance (motion) like labour (and labour power) is 'cheap'; firstly we
tend to make interfaces 'anyone' can utilise so 'motion' is as good as
'dancing'. Secondly the 'sensory' capabilities of these interfaces are
often limited, significant amounts of labour power are 'lost'. This
loss can can be considered surplus value, which leads us back to the
first question.
Means of production are distinct from capital unless, a) the product
is made into capital which become a means of production, or b) labour
is exploited for surplus value. Lets consider carol brown's 'sea
unsea' (*), although contemporary dance & performance technologies
rather than dance-tech 'per se' it is a useful example. Sea unsea is a
(relatively) choreographed, conceptual work with scenography generated
by AI agents. Although the agents do respond to the dancers movement,
the dancers have minimal control over the visual output.
We can assume the dancers labour/labour power is employed for 'dance'
performance not the scenography, so the transformation of their motion
into the scenography is unpaid. This can be calculated as a surplus
value (**) and used to asses labour exploitation. Because the audience
are also invited to explore the environment (as part of a performance)
this additional unpaid labour must be factored in to any assessment.
We can also obverse the other capital vs. means of production exception:
dancer (labour) -> dance performance (product) -> capital
(financial/artistic) -> means of production (technologies) ->
scenography (product) -> capital (financial/artistic).
Again, these are not exact replications but refractions of Marxist concepts.
Q3: What are the power dynamics in this work and how are they problematic?
I could go on for some time here, but shorter is preferable. Apart
from the dynamics implied in my response to Q2 there is the
traditional choreographer/dancer relationship and the HCI
user/interface power struggle. From a Marxist perspective they are
problematic, from a capitalist perspective - not. From an artistic
perspective we can only refer to the ideology of the artists making
the works. But, given the current preoccupation with (dis)embodiment
and (post)humanism it seems to be a tertiary issue.
Searching the archive of both this list and the old list no one has
raised your specific question. I can't recall any dance texts that
explore that specific space, perhaps someone else knows? The question
is dependant on an understanding of the dance/technology which is only
just starting to settle. Most dance-tech texts highlight connections
rather than looking for answers, so its doubtful you will find
critical analysis.
As a small aside, I don't consider 'sea unsea' an example of
interactive-architecture, its purely reactive scenography. But I guess
that deserves a post/review in itself.
Thanks for your time
matt
(*) http://cita.karch.dk/citaproject_seaunsea.html -
http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/2006-July/000498.html
(**) appropriate surplus value calculations include divisions of:
surplus labour (dividend) & necessary labour (divisor), and the
values of unpaid (dividend) & paid labour (divisor).
Key terms:
capital
labour
labour power
means of production
surplus labour
surplus value
unpaid labour
On 11/2/06, Tony Schultz <dance_plan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi list,
I have been wondering what our friend Marx would say about dance
technology. Does the relation between dance and technology mirror
the relationship between labor and capital? How are relationships
between labor and capital replicated in the relationships between
dancer and technology? What are the power dynamics in this work and
how are they problematic? Surely I am not the first person to ask
these questions. Perhaps someone could direct me to scholarship or
postings on the subject.
Other related posts:
