Re: money = ability

Nick Rothwell (
9 Jan 1998 10:30:09 -0000

> So do you mean "common" more in the sense of "not exposed to (familiar
> with) more exotic or unusual" dance forms ?


> I don't have the impression that technological novelty is attractive in a
> long term sense; it might get people in for one performance, but the
> novelty wears off (as it did with most crappy holographic art, the medium
> apparently not yet having brought anyone to tears).

Quite so! The hard thing, of course, is using technology in a manner
*other* than as a novelty.

But this leads to another (semi-rhetorical) question for discussion:
why do funding organisations have schemes in place for performers to
experiment with new technology? Won't this always lead to the use of
technology as novelty? If a practitioner has something important or
artistic to say anyway, then they'll use technology as and when they
see fit, and won't need to be persuaded.

Such targetted, categorised, ring-fenced schemes aren't going to
benefit the technological toys themselves. Are they intended to
benefit the performers? Or the audiences? And if so, how?

         Nick Rothwell, CASSIEL        contemporary dance projects        music synthesis and control

years, passing by, VCO, VCF, and again, and again