Re: Why dance on the Web?

Jeff (
Thu, 07 Jan 1999 13:28:15 -0600

>Sounds like a very narrow-minded view to me. ...There's a lot more to
telepresence than you suggest, and a lot
>more to the internet than just telepresence.
>>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

I think that part of the disagreement here constitutes the definition of
"dance"--which would certainly fill many books, but I'll commit the sin of
relegating it to four words: "human expression through movement". _If_
that definition is accepted, then video and web and slides and fireworks
and all sorts of media can be used by the choreographer to communicate
their art, through any medium that can convey a sense of motion (how about
an Amusement Park ride where you don't watch the dance, you feel what it's
like to be lifted, to jump, to twirl? I sense another thread here..)
>>>It's wrong to assume that small video clips are the only options for
>>>dance on the web. ...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

The fact of telepresence implicates all sorts of the use of
technology, the audience, the point of view, all of which must be taken in
the context of the history of dance/tech, especially dance for the camera
(how's the manuscript, Doug?). I don't think that there is, however, only
"one interesting way" to do anything. Certainly there are quality
issues...but there have been some sites I've visited in the DTZ that have
taken my breath away by their simplicity, grace, _and_ interactivity.
Something which can only (at this point) be delivered via the web...