i agree that there is possibility for dance on the web, but not with
connection and internet as used with a browser.
the only interesting way to transmit video/audio is with a codec 384, that
means three linked isdn lines on either place where you have a screen or
but then still what is the purpose of doing teleprojects.
i did a project with the 27 international film and new media festival in
montreal, between brussels and canada. the technique works, but what then ?.
the problem with these topics is that they are incredebly expensive for what
it produces, either you get sponsoring and can work full online for several
month in order to experiment with delays, or image drop outs, our
but we get to the main problem what is the meaning? i could not find a
meaning in tele performance besides the fact it is tele. i was several times
in the position to use heavy isdn equipment and really good codecs with
broadcast quality. still there is no more meaning than tv, at least i could
not imagine a concept worthwhile the cost and hassle. maybe you do.
it will be the same with sound, the sound of an object is the object it
self, the telepresence interactivity is the actual space itself. it just a
question of time and realisation. the grass is always greener on the other
side untill you get there and you relise it is the same.
>From: Richard Lord <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>To: "Dance-Tech Mailing List" <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: Why dance on the Web?
>Date: Thu, Jan 7, 1999, 3:29 PM
>It's wrong to assume that small video clips are the only options for
>dance on the web. I've created three web dances myself, and am working on
>another at the moment, and only one of these uses video. The web is a new
>medium. It has different possibilities and different limitations. The
>error that many people make is to simply view it as a resource for
>delivering material created in/for another medium - print/video/audioCD
>etc. The possibilities are new and we are only just scratching the
>A couple of examples:
>Bandwidth creates many problems but also possibilities - using the
>tension it can engender is one example possibility. Bandwidth limitations
>also push designers in a direction which choreographers are uniquly
>experienced to exploit - much less bandwidth is required to move an
>object on a web page than is required to replace it with another object,
>so choreographing movement is a very useful skill. The problem with video
>on the web is that it replaces each frame of the video with a new frame,
>rather than just moving the objects contained in the frame.
>And what of the audience. The browser software itself sets up
>expectations due to the visual and interactive structure within which a
>site is displayed. And consider that most people viewing a web dance are
>alone, seated at a desk, and maybe surfing when they should be working. A
>situation very different from a theatre or television audience. And a
>situation that must be considered when creating the work.
>And of course interactivity. Interactivity is not essential to a web
>dance, but it is one of the interesting possibilities we have for
>A century ago, film existed but none of the possibilities you mention for
>it had been realised yet. Now the medium is understood and we accept that
>dance on film is a reasonable idea. Don't dismiss dance on the web just
>because we haven't discovered, explored and understood the possibilities
> Richard Lord firstname.lastname@example.org
> Big Room http://www.bigroom.co.uk/
> Web dances: http://www.bigroom.co.uk/edances/
>>I would like to pose a question: Why dance on the web?
>>Dance on video makes sense - OK so there are some elements that don't work
>>so well on video, but there are equally a wealth of new possibilities
>>opened up by special effects, camera angles, focus, etc. A sort of
>>sideways slipage of the field of possibilities. But why the Web? Dance
>>on the Web must necessarily be presented as video clips, so there are no
>>new opportunities in terms of form and content. Infact the field of
>>possibilities has shrunk - literally - because of downloading times and
>>tiny video frames on screen.
>>The reasons which I have come up with are:
>>1. global communication
>>2. mass availability for minimum charge (free if you are lucky enough!)
>>3. interactive possibilities (which is where my field of research lies).
>>What does anyone else think - especially those who are currently working
>>with the Web?
>>Incidentally, thanks to those who responded to my previous request for
>>information on interactive dance web sites.