Precisely.
> 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
http://www.cassiel.com music synthesis and control
years, passing by, VCO, VCF, and again, and again