Re: Pose and changes...

Scott deLahunta (
Wed, 15 Oct 1997 08:27:56 +0200

Hi David --

At 06:48 PM 10/15/97 +0100, you wrote:
>Well, many proponents of "dance-tech" spend a lot of time on the aesthetic
>and philosophical (i.e. the latter group of approaches), but their
>technology _demands_ consideration of the former group.

Yes... and the use of the word _demands_ is correct I think... representing
our _need_ for different kinds of expertise besides 'body' expertise (dance

The 'image' of the individual artist // auteur in control of his or her
process and product (and in possession of the necessary knowledge for this)
is still a popular one in my opinion, not something most of us on this list
would accept ordinarily... but still there I believe. Now that 'technology'
(as explicitly associated with 'dance') demands that other information/
knowledge or expertise be obtained by working directly with another group of
people -- how will this image change?

[[ Hmmm, on the other hand, it could have other effects -- for instance,
what about those for whom the image of 'dance' as something pure and best
expressed by 'only' the body on stage might respond -- interestingly,
someone has just told me the story that subscriptions to the Ballett
International magazine were cancelled as a result of them running the all
'dance and tech' issue this summer because it 'wasn't dance' (ironic because
i thought the issue rather weak on the whole actually). On the other hand,
the same story goes that the magazine has now garnered interest from new
sectors -- win some lose some. ]]

For those interested in reading some more thoughts on these working
relationships -- you can look back at a string of posts beginning 27 August
under Subject: Re: some other events/ questions -- I mention it because soon
Mark will have the list archive up, and it will be simple to refer back to
our discussions when we need to. While of course one of the most interesting
things about e-list discussion is the redundancy and repetition of the
writing (which might drive some crazy)... it will be nice to add this bit of
extra linear functionality to the onslaught of information.

>This doesn't mean
>that the admission of both groups can occur only with dance-tech practices,
>but that the latter have brought the interaction of both to the fore.

... someone asked me once at a conference if I thought the 'addition' of
'technology' to the dance field would bring in a larger audience for dance.
At the time, I said no -- on the whole dance audiences have been
shrinking... and I didn't see 'dance and technology' being a solution for
this. Besides that 'first-time' curiosity (what Troika Ranch says about
audiences coming for the 'technology' once -- but it's the 'art' that will
bring them back a second time -- or something like that, Mark, sorry if I
make bad paraphrase)... does anyone see a sweeping change taking place?

I see a change -- in the increasing acceptance of 'dance for camera'
activities -- video and film productions of dance for broadcast purposes.
But this is not a change for the audience but for the artist...

... scott
Scott deLahunta and Susan Rethorst
Writing Research Associates, NL
Sarphatipark 26-3, 1072 PB Amsterdam, NL
tel: +31 (0)20 662 1736
fax: +31 (0)20 470 1558