I know. Bear in mind that the moving boxes is a work in progress. It's
already probably changed since you last saw it.
>> If I ever do apply for funding for a web
>> dance, it will be for something much richer, more engaging, and evolved a
>> whole lot further than these sketches.
>
>Richer, more engaging and evolved further how exactly? I'm curious how
>you think these naive animations need to be enhanced before you feel
>the "dance" moniker fits - or, before you feel you can apply for dance
>funding for them (in competition with practitioners of "real" dance).
I think the dance moniker does fit my current works, within some
limitations. To be precise... Progressive 2 is a dance, Burnt Cinders
will be a dance, Lifeblood is a representation of a dance (which may or
may not be a dance itself, I'm not sure), Brownian Motion is a toy for
making simple dances. These are sketches of ideas. They are open ended
research, with no clear objectives except to try things as they occur to
me, see what happens, and freely share the results with the world. I
suppose research funding might be appropriate (but to get that I need to
set some goals), but production funding would not.
In fact, I've been involved in two funding applications for creating web
dances, both of them rejected.
One is a collaboration with a photographer and another choreographer to
create a large and complex web dance looking at war as a major influence
on London during the 20th century.
The second is a collaboration with choreographer Emma Diamond: a set of
interactive web installations exploring the human body.
Unfortunately both projects have been turned down by the funding bodies
(for now). And both are unlikely to be made without funding.
Richard
--------------------------------------------------------
Richard Lord richard@bigroom.co.uk
Big Room http://www.bigroom.co.uk/
--------------------------------------------------------
See the web dances at http://www.bigroom.co.uk/edances/
--------------------------------------------------------