What makes it a good dance? Well... that's the tricky part, but as
someone who's reviewing an aqua show this weekend I'd rather keep the
major definitions fluid than rule out things that might be truly
astonishing.
sandi kurtz
On Mon, 28 Jun 1999, JL & LH wrote:
> Email: jenlars@earthlink.net
>
> I have to agree with Nick. Personally, I (an ex-dancer, now dance writer) am always questioning what dance is. I do think we have to be careful not to call everything that moves "dance" though, even if the mind has to boggle at what is called "contemporary art" in some corners of the globe. Computer animation is "moving images" and not the physical body in motion. Can't this be a genre of it's own, no less exciting than moving bodies - just different?
>
> I find what's being done on all your websites so interesting and exciting, thanks for sharing it!
>
> Regards,
>
> Jen
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Rothwell [SMTP:nick@cassiel.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 27, 1999 10:44 AM
> To: dance-tech@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu
> Subject: Re: New web dance
>
> > But I don't quite see how it qualifies as a dance...
>
> When is something a dance and when it is an animation? Is
> dance-for-video just filmmaking, or is something about the source
> material (bodies in choreographed motion) making it into dance work?
> If it's filmmaking, then doesn't computer-manipulation turn it into
> animation?
>
> I personally see Richard's pieces as interactive animations; I don't
> see anything dance-related about them - they don't even denote or
> portray physical dance, and it's therefore not clear what artistic
> discipline is being exercised. Is this not a bit like writing a Java
> implementation of a Rolf Harris Stylophone, putting it on a web page,
> and calling it a symphony?
>
> --
>
> Nick Rothwell Cassiel.com Limited
> nick@cassiel.com www.cassiel.com
> systems - composition - installation - performance
>
>