i am intrigued that this entire discussion regards whether dance-tech
should or should not become involved in a discussion of the larger cultural
context. This recent discourse proves that it is impossible to
de-contextualize it. The tone and timbre of the messages directly
parallels what is going on in the culture at the moment: spending a lot of
verbiage and attitude attempting to avoid discussion of greater issues.
The posturing and "burying of heads", as one respondant called it, provides
a diversion from issues which are frustrating because we feel hopeless such
as, funding, supportive communites and the ability to make relevant work.
What is so wrong with placing this within the context of a list of
intelligent participants, who might be able to work toward some sort of
organized solution?
First, I would like to apologize to the list for IDAT99 business that
>should have been handled through an email message or phone call to
>either myself (I am the coordinator for all panels and roundtables) or
>the panel/roundtable moderator, or the conference chair.
It is important that we are aware of these issues.
>
I did find some difficulty in making a connection
>between Clinton's impeachment and dance and technology?
this connection is a given in that we are all functioning under the
oppressive atmosphere of these proceedings. Ignoring that doesn't change
it.
. The amount of
>time and consideration taken in sustaining a listserve is only
>equivalent to that which is needed to produce a concert. You all see the
>end result, not the efforts that are required to produce the end
>resutls. In a concert you don't see the diva-tantrums etc.
A performance is more unidirectional than a discussion group, hence the
charm of a discussion group.
>
Language is a powerful tool, choose wisely.
Touche.
In the spirit of spirit discussion,
Kelly Hargraves