Re: New web dance

Jeffrey Gray Miller (
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 16:56:35 -0500

>From: Nick Rothwell <>
>Subject: Re: Re;Re: New web dance
>Date: Sun, Jul 25, 1999, 4:30 PM

>> Richard's work doesn't exist for any reason other than itself, not
>> to market a product (like a game boy) or sell toys or even promote
>> Richard himself (as far as I can tell; his professional portfolio is
>> somewhere else on the site). Gameboy products have a lot of art
>> going into them, in many senses of the word, but they are there only
>> to make money.
>So, if Richard were commissioned to create a work, it would cease to
>be dance?
> Nick Rothwell Limited
> systems - composition - installation - performance

Not at all. If he were commissioned to create a dance, that's what it would
be. Especially if it were commissioned simply to be a dance, such as (I
imagine) Biped was. Art has a long history of being commissioned, the
present state-of-the-arts notwithstanding. However, when they are
"commissioned" to create something--dance, image, whatever--in order to sell
something else, I would call that advertising, not art. Nothing wrong with
it--but it's what, in my mind, separates Richard's work from the Gameboy,
which was the question I was answering.

Of course, I would never presume to define any art form for anyone else.
This is simply how I keep it straight in my own head. Primarily, for me,
it's a motivation and order of precedence sort of thing. In other words, if
Richard creates a dance in the hopes that a lot of people will buy it and
give him lots of money, that is perhaps less "artistic" than if
Creativ-Capital comes and asks him to build an interactive dance. Purely my
own opinion, but hey, we starving artists have to get by on pride, since the
funds aren't there.