Re: New web dance

Richard Lord (
Fri, 2 Jul 1999 00:46:12 +0100

KD: Simple english please, I'm only a humble choreographer. I kept
wondering where I'd put my dictionary. But seriously -

If you think that dance only involves live human bodies, and hence video
or film cannot be dance, then that's fine. I happen to think that videos
and films can be dance. The point of the example is that if you accept
that videos can be dance, I think it's hard to deny that animation can be
dance. Both can involve representations of human bodies, they're just
created by different methods. Or does the physical method of creation
define the artform? (As opposed to the thought process in the creation,
or the product produced, [or something else].)


>Hey Gang,
> Usually I just lurk out here, but I have been enjoying the discussion
>and I
>seem to have two extra cents to thrown in today. So here are a couple of
> Concerning Richard's example below, I do not see any reason to assume
>either of these videos is "dance." The first is a video using dance material;
>the second is a video of an animation using dance material. At least in my
>"screen-dance," wherever it falls on the documentation/creation spectrum,
>is not
>"dance" (at least it hasn't been; that may be changing as our culture(s)
>negotiates the digital age) because of the mediation of the film or video or
>computer, and it doesn't seem appropriate to "judge" them based on the same
>criteria. That mediation adds a layer of complexity which shifts the focus of
>our understanding/experience of the work. The connection between the
>moving and
>the representation of the moving might be seamless, but there also might be a
>schism in our somatic experience of the moving based on the manipulation
>of the
>elements of the medium. What choices were made? Angles, framing, editing,
>And how are we seeing the piece? On a monitor? Projected onto a giant
>screen? At
>home on the couch with a remote control in our hands? To recognize the
>work for
>whatever it is, in essence to "name" it, allows us to engage with it in
>culturally appropriate ways. At the same time, it also delimits our
>of it, ensuring that we will probably miss aspects of the work which would be
>important to someone else. We want to, and try to, be as open to new work
>as we
>can, but to imagine that we could see it without "naming" it is to deny the
>always, already acculturated nature of our perceptions.
> The good news is that acculturated perceptions are constructed by real
>people working within a culture; making new work, talking about that work,
>redefining the way we understand/experience that work. That constructivist
>process is exactly what has been occurring here lately and it is very
>invigorating to read.
> Talk hard! KD