Sure, but the response of reviewers to dance-tech pieces is an interesting
subject nevertheless. I wonder how much the reviewer's awareness of the
system (or even that one is involved) informs the response.
>But that's how I feel at times, concerning video/slides projection, namely
>that our blending/mixing of media creates unnecessary redundancies and
>special effects that in fact do not cohere in the way "special effects" are
>utilized in the film industry. The problems of how to light (when working
>with closed circuit cameras or sensors) is an interesting point in case,
>and Jeffrey Salzberg already drew attention to the aesthetic dilemma involved.
But in films that stuff isn't done in real-time. And if the head of the
project (whether in the FX dept or the director no less) doesn't like the
effect, it can be re-done. Only the final approved version makes it to the
screen.
Of course, there's a distinction between an unexpected response ofa
real-time interactive system and a case of bad programming (or a program
which doesn't achieve the right aesthetic).
Regards, David
David Rodger ------------ Audio Engineer, Pool Lifeguard, RLSS Trainer
E-mail: auricle@alphalink.com.au
Personal: http://www.alphalink.com.au/~auricle/ (not yet exciting)
Research: http://farben.latrobe.edu.au/motion/ (a bit more exciting)
======================================================================
"Officially the La Trobe Music Department is in existance for the next
2 years and will close on 31 December, 1999. (This is really just our
way of avoiding the Y2K bug)." -- David Hirst
http://farben.latrobe.edu.au/Music_Docs/pressrelease.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------