Re: money = ability

Darren Kelly (kelly@x4u2.desy.de)
Fri, 2 Jan 1998 15:34:13 +0100 (MET)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Robert Wechsler: "Re: money = ability"
Previous message: Darren Kelly: "Re: money = ability"
In reply to: Dawn Stoppiello: "Re: money = ability"

Christopher wrote:
> >I asked a couple questions about content and meaning of chosing to
> >integrate dance & technology in performance projects when I first joined
> >this discussion group. A few responded with things like we do it because
> >we like to, because it's fun, because we think it's interesting. But no
> >one said: "because we can." "because we are the privedged class."
> >It's no wonder when people go to see work of this kind that it's hardfor
> >the audience to find a way in if the artists are just techno-wanking.

Dawn wrote:
> First, is "because we can" somehow a more "honest/admission of guilt"
> answer than the other answers we gave? I am not trying to save or kill
> humanity with my technology - I use my computer the same way I use all my
> other tools (bodies, space, stage lighting, video etc) which is to make my
> art pieces.

Dear Dawn,

I think I can assure you that the chance of you developing deadly technology
is rather small, as you rightly suspect. In fact I think I can safely claim
that there is not a single technique or method used by anyone reading this
newsgroup that has not already been implemented in kick-ass fashion years
ago by those who do choose to spend their time thinking up ways to zap people.

The military often lets technology "filter down" to, for example, sweet
astronomers (I used to be in astrophysics). They wait until even "the
other guys" find it laughable and then it's obsolete enough to let
easily-impressed mortals like us have it. And we smile because we think
its impressive and advanced technology (which it isn't) and they smile
too, partly because they feel like Santa Claus but primarily because
it isn't advanced technology at all.

It is well worth keeping in mind that there are lots of very, very clever
and well-paid yet mislead beasts who can do things with a few transducers,
a PC, and an "output device" that would make your hair fall out, and they
take a sunny afternoon to do it, including coffee breaks.

But they dance like ducks !

Christopher will be soothed by recalling that I did once mention on this
newsgroup the danger of investigating technologies for translating brain
wave signals into music.

Darren

Next message: Robert Wechsler: "Re: money = ability"
Previous message: Darren Kelly: "Re: money = ability"
In reply to: Dawn Stoppiello: "Re: money = ability"