Re: hello/ and hallo again

Amanda Steggell (
Wed, 21 May 1997 10:45:57 +0200 (MET DST)

Responding to spookie's mail,

thanku spooks for letting us know what's going on at your end.

I would like to pick out the following from your last message:

"the bottom line is that the dance world is not a player in the creation of
technology; it is using the scraps of whatever it can and adapting that to
dance. sometimes very creativity. but there are basically two problems as i
see it."

- scraps? It really depends what your approach to your work is. Basically
I'm a user. I cannot programme, save some html, which is script writing,
yes? The ability to adapt is fundemental to survival, and not a negative

1. the dance world is having no effect on the shape of the technology,
things are being designed for the movie industry, or business, or science,
or commerical art or music but very little for dance
- as a choreographer I do not restrict my work to physical demises in the
studio - with a few programmes under my belt I can work with sound, text,
video, whatever, if i need to. I actually don't give a damn what a program
was designed for - if I can use it, and need to, I do. Please remember that
not all dance is restricted to the realms of the institution. Also cast ur
eyes to the freelancers. Also to the movie industry - animators using
dancers in thier process, and finding adjustments to their original design
of things must b made to accomodate a moving body. The dancers body is
within the design, developing the shape of the design. I saw examples of
this at, to name one ex., the "connecting bodies" seminar held by Scott
last year in Amsterdam. At the same seminar we heard of a choreographer
using her knowledge of human body movement to help astronauts in weightless
conditions. Again, entering the superjet, she designed movement control
within an environment. I don't expect she knew anything aboutthe technical
intricacies of rocket design. She entered a body and influenced the
movement within that body. Her specific knowledge was needed. Have u seen
CRASH, Spookie?

2. and so dancers have to adapt. lifeforms cannot compete with lightwave 3d,
or 3d studio, or softimage and so lifeforms has (in my opinion) taken a
smart route in adapting their software so that it is compatible (with at
least 3d studio). Essentially, a tool to make dance animations easier which
can later be imported into higher end packages.

1. Not all dancites working also with technology r interested in animation.
2. I donot think that Techla developed lifeforms merely as an animation aid
- rather that as well. It has more to do with the choreographic process
and the understanding of anatomy- hence the human representation interface,
etc, which in it's time, the simplicity of which turned heads left, right
and centre. So whether or not lifeforms can compete with lightwave 3d,
etc, is irrelevant.

I sometimes use LF to choreograph, when i am interested in a starting point
of shape and form in time and space without the added content of a living
body (history, temprament, instability, etc). Then the process of
transforming movement which is pretty abstract, yet stil baring human
traits, is exciting. (Cunningham/Thecla).

If u r interested in animation as a choreographer, and associate with the
method I have described above then the step from creating on LF and then
transposing to another plaform to add texture - more information, is v.
logical. Not a second best.

In one of my previous postings I asked, what do dance driven bodites have
to offer - r we getting left behind?

Once u get over the hangups of competing, and work more within your
process, then I think something ELSE/MORE can b created, which does not
necessarily have to do with the designing of new technological
applications, but may also have. May not b obvious at first sight. So let's
take time to get deep.


Tel +47 22176215, Fax 22176225
dbut internautics, Box 9334 Gronland, N-0135 Oslo