Internet via the browser is what the web is. Yes it has a relatively
bandwidth, but like I say - new restrictions and new possibilities. I
do telepresence, because I've not yet had a good idea for a project using
telepresence - I make dance on the web.
If you want some ideas, take a look at my (rather old now) three web
at http://www.bigroom.co.uk/edances/. They're not great - just three
sketches of ideas made when bandwidth was even less than now.
And look at the work of others - much of it linked from the DTZ web site.
For a wider reference, see http://www.theremediproject.com/ for some work
by other artists (not dance).
Richard Lord email@example.com
Big Room http://www.bigroom.co.uk/
>hello richard and jeff,
>what i wanted to state is that internet via a browser is quiet slow and that
>experiments with isdn connection especially linked to three, is excellent,
>not the only way nor the best.
>what i state is with my experience, having organised several duplexes
>between spaces, often the rehearsel time is abcent as a lack of time and
>money for the connection.
>so please tell me how do you do it, if the hard ware is not interesting.
>look i'm the first to state that we need emotional media, the medium is
>human and not a technology, who is the new medium?
>my point of view was singular, not narrow minded.
>i'm really open to listen to your ideas, that is what i was stating , i do
>not have any just because i do not have them... i tried several thing and
>was dissapointed , and thought well , nothing beats live audience..
>please tell me your experience with this and how you would use it to give it
>a meaning, still i have no answer.
>>From: Richard Lord <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>To: "Dance-Tech Mailing List" <email@example.com>
>>Subject: Re: Why dance on the Web?
>>Date: Thu, Jan 7, 1999, 6:31 PM
>>Sounds like a very narrow-minded view to me. A bit like suggesting the
>>only interesting way to do television is with digibeta and avid media
>>composer, or the only interesting way to dance is in point shoes. The
>>hardware is not interesting to me. The interesting thing is what we do
>>with it. There's a lot more to telepresence than you suggest, and a lot
>>more to the internet than just telepresence.
>>>i agree that there is possibility for dance on the web, but not with
>>>connection and internet as used with a browser.
>>>the only interesting way to transmit video/audio is with a codec 384, that
>>>means three linked isdn lines on either place where you have a screen or
>>>but then still what is the purpose of doing teleprojects.
>>>i did a project with the 27 international film and new media festival in
>>>montreal, between brussels and canada. the technique works, but what then ?.
>>>the problem with these topics is that they are incredebly expensive for what
>>>it produces, either you get sponsoring and can work full online for several
>>>month in order to experiment with delays, or image drop outs, our
>>>but we get to the main problem what is the meaning? i could not find a
>>>meaning in tele performance besides the fact it is tele. i was several times
>>>in the position to use heavy isdn equipment and really good codecs with
>>>broadcast quality. still there is no more meaning than tv, at least i could
>>>not imagine a concept worthwhile the cost and hassle. maybe you do.
>>>it will be the same with sound, the sound of an object is the object it
>>>self, the telepresence interactivity is the actual space itself. it just a
>>>question of time and realisation. the grass is always greener on the other
>>>side untill you get there and you relise it is the same.