Re: Invitation to private presentation

Niels Radtke (
Tue, 10 Nov 1998 19:06:26 +0100

well i would say that technology should be as active as the dance, but
somehow equal, and used where it should be, and not overacted.because then
there is no distiction between dance,intercative video and VR, which somehow
should or could be integrated...
you in some way you should eductate press. i the sense they write what they
hear and whet they like to write. if you start talking about creativness and
the embedding of technology in the whole , and not talking about plug in
details then they will use this input for the article, if you start pumping
technology already yourself, than , as press always do, exaggerate.
it should be mentioned as part of the whole and mentioned when it is
some articles and destriptions sound like manuals and not performnace
descriptions about the work and concept, and it is hard to believe people
get out of their chair , away from the terminal and actually dance, or film
, or what ever.

it should be about time to bring technology companies down from their throne
where they rule with tech, because you should be able to dance without as
well, when tomorrow electricity is down, dance should still live, and would
actually relive...
and that's the problem , or at least part of it, people got sponsorship by
companies who actually make the tools, putting companies into a masterrole
and giving them the wrong power, and we are like slaves dancing on their
machines... very dangerous. Marketing star-system.
We are forgetting patience, it has to go fast, and some even secretly want
the machine do it for them.

So my first intention with my first email was about that, not wanting to be
purist in any sense just realist.

niels radtke

>From: Nick Rothwell <>
>Subject: Re: Invitation to private presentation
>Date: Tue, Nov 10, 1998, 4:06 pm

>> well that's a real shame, I wonder who invented the word multimedia, and
>> media integration...etc
>> it is still not there...
>We're back into the form-versus-content argument again. You seem to be
>saying that the technology should be integrated and passive rather
>than apparent and dominant - and I think I agree - but the only way to
>get funding and journalistic mindshare is to over-emphasise the
>technology rather than the artistic content. Obvious example: Wayne
>MacGregor. I like his dance material, but he's getting profile for his
>technological stance, which (last year at least) was much more
>apparent than its relevance to the creative process or result.
>I've been using unique composition and performance technology for
>dance scores for several years, but it's only now that I'm getting
>noticed. Why? Because I've started emphasising the unimportant details
>- the fancy technology - rather than the creative process.
>(Practitioners such as choreographers and other musicians understand
>that process is paramount, but journalists, funders and administrators
>do not.)
> Nick Rothwell, CASSIEL contemporary dance projects
> music synthesis and control
> You've read the rant, now buy the album: