Re: IDAT 99

Jeff Miller (
Thu, 04 Mar 1999 10:57:29 -0600

I'm still trying to recover from the buzzing excitement and creative
stimulation of the well as catch up with all the stuff left
here at home. I would hope that some of the processes and interactions started
at IDAT99 would not lose momentum.

Towards that end, it occurs to me that one of the recurring themes I heard in
both roundtables and private discussions was the need for a new vocabulary to
help discuss and understand the concepts involved in these new forms of dance.
I heard words like "experimentarium" tossed out, not to mention the attempt to
really define what we mean by "virtual" dance. I imagine the early modernists
experienced the same difficulty in trying to describe their work ("What's it a
painting of?" "Nothing. It's just a painting." "Yes, but of what?" "Well, a
red circle and lines." "What does that represent?" "Nothing! It's just a
painting of a red circle and lines!" At which point the Greco-Roman wrestling

So, what do the old words we use mean? What new words are needed? I found an
interesting (to me, anyway) typo in my notes on Susan Aaron's presentation:

"aesthetech"- the shared rhythms and interfaces between humans and technology.

Can there be such a thing? Is there already a word for it? How about the
percept-concept idea? What is a better way to descibe "audience" when they are
also participants, or "performer" when they are also creator and audience?

Ok, there's way too many question marks. I guess what I'm suggesting is sort
of a glossary to be started, via the list, where people can add terms they
think are relevant or important, to facilitate (and initiate) our future

Here's a borrowed acronym: TMI, too much information. This email is one describes the trap that dance/tech and other media fall into of
diluting focus by putting too many powerful images/sounds/movements together.

Just a suggestion,

Jeff Miller