> I hope I'm wrong (and you'll tell me if I am), but I get the
> impression that you're judging the performance primarily on the level
> of technology and not on the level of the *art* involved.
Since I started this thread, I feel I should point out what appears to
be a misunderstanding between Joukje and Jeffrey (although I'm sure
they're quite capable of defending themselves if they need to).
I was not personally very impressed with the technology aspect of the
Random dance performance, but then, I didn't want to be and wasn't
expecting to be. I enjoyed it as a dance project; the technology was
irrelevant to the performance (if not to the creative process).
So, what's the problem? Perhaps it's that the press information pushed
this as a technological project. Why? Maybe because journalists like
writing about this stuff - it makes them feel clever. Maybe because it
serves to differentiate Random from other dance companies, in terms of
profile if not choreographic style and presentation. And maybe
because, for a brief few months, technology and multimedia were Arts
Council flavours of the month.
I've been using music technology and new interaction and improvisation
techniques for years, yet because I've never over-emphasised the
technology (since it's the art that's important) we've never had
funding as a technology-based performance company. Is this my mistake
as a (self-) publicist? Is Random's use of technology a gratuitous
attempt to court fashion? Or are we fair to criticise them for putting
together misleading press releases because it's the only way to get
funding and support?
--
Nick Rothwell, CASSIEL contemporary dance projects
http://www.cassiel.com music synthesis and control
"Welcome to Moscow, Mrs. Gandhi." -- Leonid Brezhnev to Margaret Thatcher