Re(2): Did you get what was supposed to be happening?

Sita Popat (
Sun, 21 Mar 1999 11:24:31 +0000 writes:
> I feel that the work should not be
>"about" the technology- although I agree that the technology becomes
>totally intrinsic to the work. In the end, our technology should be as
>transparent as the lighting board - everyone see it's effects, but no one
>thinks about how it's working.

I actually wouldn't expect to understand any of the technology in a
performance as I am anything but technology-minded. I was worried when I
attended IDAT that I would miss out as I wouldn't understand the
techno-jargon. It was a great relief to find that I wasn't the only one,
by a long chalk. Even the lighting board which Richard mentions is all
Greek to me!

I come from a dance background. My interest lies in the direction of
technology because I think it can expand the human communication
possibilities of dance (particularly in the creative process, but that's
another story). However, I am very concerned by this conversation as to
whether the technology should or should not be visible/whacking the
audience over the head/subtle/invisible/etc.

Surely in an artwork the aim is to communicate something through the
piece? And surely every piece/communication/choreographer is individual?
So surely whether the technology is visible/whacking the audience over the
head/subtle/invisible/etc should be dependent on the intention of the

All the best, and it was great to meet so many of you at IDAT!