Re: hello/ and hallo again

nik (
Wed, 21 May 1997 07:53:42 -0800



> I actually don't give a damn what a program
>was designed for - if I can use it, and need to, I do.

u should or learn to program. people within the same fields tend to do
similar tasks, over and over and learn from one anothers strengths and
weakness. further there may be processes that u may mot be able to do, or
not have the time to learn.

these are what engineering types call tools. in applied mathematics - what
i do - there are tools sets for almost everything from wavelets, to fast
fourier transforms, for signal processing, etc., etc., etc.

i could program these tools myself - but why? as u say my focus is on the
application of the tool. i want to apply wavelets to molecular genetics, so
i could care less about programming the wavelet signal proccessing, and
want to use it, or adapt it.

if these tools don't exist everybody is reinventing the wheel, the tools
are also set up so that i can modify the wavelet with a little programming
if i have a specialized task. still much time is saved by having most of it

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 movie industry also uses tools like 3D studio to model their sets. once
they have a model then they can play extensively with lighting and set
design cheaply and quickly. this would be ideal for dance companies that
rely on set design - particularly ballet whose sets tend to be elaborate.
has any company ever modeled their performance space. this is such a simple
thing to do. for fun, my roomate modeled (completely inside and out Royce
hall here at UCLA which is much more complicated than most performance

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.

is Lifeforms a useful choreographic tool?

>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?

their should be simple things lifeforms should have which is doesn't. first
a library of animations and models. again a tool - so everybody isn't
starting from scratch. there are 100's of model archives on the net. is
there even one for lifeforms animations? is there even one model of a
dancers performance space?

>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.

it's not about competing it's about creating.

i put examples of using photoshop for set/costume design on my site. i
could (if i ever get around to it - create a set of photoshop plug-ins to
do this kind of stuff e.g. to paint on someone's face and keep three
dimensionality and texture)

try to do it yourself. most will quit.

try to model your performance space. wouldn't u rather simply have the
space as well as models of chairs, or people, or whatever and start

to get "deep" one must focus on the process and not computing.

but this requires tools that allow one to focus of the process, easy to use
tools tend to be some of the most difficult to develop, and it requires
people who are expert in both fields to develop them

and this simply isn't happening in dance.

thanx, again for the response,

peas and luv,


~ the dnc project - dance, networks, computing

"The wages of sin are death, but after taxes are taken out, it's
just a tired feeling."
-- Paula Poundstone

\|/ ____ \|/
@~/ Oo \~@
/_( \__/ )_\