Re: Pose

Darren Kelly (
Tue, 14 Oct 1997 15:03:58 +0200 (MST)

Dear David and dance-tech,

On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, David Rodger wrote:
> >To be an atom is to be in motion. To be a particle is to be in motion.
> I really have to take issue with this sort of argument. And I'm not
> slagging off Darren because he's not the first to posit it. See Drid
> Williams, Ten Lectures on Theories of the Dance (Metuchen: Scarecrow Press
> 1991), chapter 2, for more on such theories.

David, this isn't an argument, and I didn't know it has already been
posited. It's really very simple. Someone mentioned at the beginning
of this thread how interesting a pose performance would be, someone
mentioned a performance where someone moved their head very slowly, and
I threw in a remark (a "result" of modern physics) as food for thought.
It's not an argument. It's easy to swallow, edible. Particles are always
in motion. It's a cute observation. It's PLAYfull:

It is not an "issue".

Note that in my reply on a "freeze" algorithm using accelerometers that
one requires a "tiny motion threshold" below which a "freeze pose" is
triggered. This is because, no matter how hard you try to stay still,
those sensors see you move ! If the sensors are super sensitive and if
the noise level of your sensors is low you will see a dead person move:

This IS an issue. A dance-tech one.

I have no idea what Drid Williams claimed or argued. Anyone wishing to
implement my "freeze" suggestion will see what I mean.

> Darren and others before him seem to be proposing that the fact that atoms
> are in perpetual motion should somehow be an impetus for, or an explanation
> of, our movement.
Glad you said "seem". Answer is definitely no.

I hereby _leave_ the "re: pose" thread except to discuss practical matters
such as implementing algorithms to exploit poses in performances. I enjoy
philosophical Email, but I'd like dance-tech on dance-tech. Otherwise
Email me directly.

This means YOU David.

I'm thrilled that David is so inclined, as I'm trying to encourage him to
come to Sydney to work with me when I return to Oz in May 1998. Feel free
to write to him and tell him it's a great idea ! Send a message:

Subject: Darren is right.

Dear David,

work together !


PS: It's a great idea.

On motion instructions

> It seems to me that Rudolf Laban attempted to bridge the gap in some
> measure, without resorting to full-on maths and physics. Choreutics admits
> geometric structures as analogs to movement patterns, and Effort theory was
> posited more in terms of human motivation.

Interesting. In reference to my request for help on teaching moves
required to exploit particular transducers such as accelerometers,
do you think this is a more suitable language for developing moves with
dancers ? Are dancers familar with such "theory" ? After all, I'd rather
to just draw what I mean with a few arrows than learn another language,
one the dancers would also have to learn. I just want to get the dancers
to understand the properties of the signals they generate as painlessly
as possible.

People seem to enjoy visual displays of the signals and learn to some
degree by trial and error (with a little nudging a few hints). Maybe
this is the best approach.


Darren Kelly | | |
| \ 0 / |
DESY -MPY- (Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron) | * o |
Notkestr.85 | - D E S Y - |
22603 Hamburg | o * |
Germany | / O \ |
| | |
phone: +49-40-8998-4569 | |
fax: +49-40-8998-4305 <--Note change | |
e-mail: | |
Amandastr.40a, | HOME |
20357 Hamburg | zu Hause |
phone: +49-40-4322602 | The PLAYhouse |