Re: pantha

Jeff Miller (jgmille2@students.wisc.edu)
Tue, 25 Aug 1998 08:09:12 -0500

>My two pfennigs' worth on this interesting discussion. I think there
>is a simple test:
>
>(1) Block your ears and watch the performance.
>
>(2) Close your eyes and listen to the performance.
>
>If the performance is not just technological blah blah both
>of these should please. The dance/stage performance and the
>music should each convince in their own right. Just an
>extension of the old trick of turning the sound down on the
>TV or closing your eyes and listening to a music video (usually
>very disappointing).

I don't know that I agree with this. I'm interested in the gestalt, and my
work reflects it--the music, visuals, and movement are interdependent, not
intended for exclusive viewing. If they are intended to be pleasing in
their own right, then why not be a musician or a mime? These are
legitimate art forms that focus the attention. I'm not interested in
separating elements; I want to combine different things and see if the
whole can be greater than the sum of its parts. This reminds me of a
reviewer who commented that the projected images in my piece were
"distracting". Distracting from what? Themselves? They were meant to
draw the eye, not to serve as a set behind the dancers. If he just wanted
to look at the dancers, then he'd be missing most of the piece...

Jeff

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
"Our entire culture has been sucked into the black hole of computation,
an utterly frenetic process of virtual planned obsolescence. But you
know---that process needn't be unexamined or frenetic. We can examine
that process whenever we like, and the frantic pace is entirely our own
fault. What's our big hurry anyway?"

- writer Bruce Sterling