Re: Raisons d'texture...

Mary-Lou Michael (
Sun, 02 Nov 1997 19:30:45 +0000

Dawn Stoppiello wrote:
> Hello team:
> I just went back to the original comment from Mary-Lou
> ">also, the question arose of the necessity of the technology. For it
> >to be effective should the audience be aware that the dancers have the
> >ability to control the sound... or will it still appear simply as if
> >these sounds were already pre-recorded? Has anyone else come across
> >this dilemma?
> how interesting is her choice of the word "necessity". Is the dancer
> necessary to the dance? Is any technology "necessary" to the art. I know
> its symantics but none of it is necessary, however most of it is fun,
> entertaining, infuriating...whatever.

I am really aware that technology is all of these things, and that is
why I am so interested in using it. Interesting though... I was
explaining my recent "workshop" to some staff members at school and
one commented... "What was the point!?" and I innitially struggled to
answer. It really bothered me as I am very conscious of middle-aged
cynics, ( the average age of teachers in SA is 45-50).

Then I realised I had just walked out of a class with my year 11
students, we had been choreographing a tyre ballet with car tyres.
Rolling around in them, throwing them etc... What was the point of
this? I was striving to give my students a new movement experience, I
always am... and that is how i see technology, as a new experience...
technology broadens the possibilities for everyone. But I am conscious
of the cynics, for there are many, perhaps not on this list... and I
am conscious that I had to justify the experience of working with
technology to many suspicious colleagues.

... and as far as the dancers being insignificant, someone mentioned
this earlier, that is rubbish. I mean the students were working with
technology, they were in control... as dancers and as choreographers.
Their movement controlled the sound, lights, and other machinery!
...still thinking