lost futurists
a few days ago johannes [jb] made an interesting post on the dance-tech.net. although some of what he suggests has been said before, this is the first time i have seen him say it.
dance and interactivity seemed to to be the catch all in the late years (the beginning of the 21st century), and now i am not sure where it has gotten us. may i venture to say, no-where? [jb]
slightly more surprising (but understandable) was this:
[…] “so what has happened to dance and technology at osu?” the university that was among the first in the world to instigate work with digital media and interactuons. the implied answer was, not much, […] [jb]
dance-tech, and universities teaching dance-tech have made little progress in the last 20 years. in «snr (db)» i talked about how a lack of critical discourse had lead to stagnation in dance-tech. this is just one of dance-tech’s many problems.
(creative) artists not aesthetics
the universities teaching dance-tech are focused on producing (individual) creative artists. they reject the (old) model of a school that excels in a particular aesthetic (e.g. the royal ballet).
the problem with the creative artist(s) model is that students spend too much time looking at themselves. learning history, accumulated practical/theoretical knowledge, techniques and virtuosity has been abandoned.
from such an isolated position is it (almost) impossible to make significant works. students have no idea how much they are re-iventing the wheel, nor how inappropriate their tools/skills may be. dance-tech graduates enter a level (professional) playing field in which there are few star players. when it is easy to reach the level of those you admire, the drive to develop dies.
student need to the tools to make works, rather than endless experience of making works. a thorough grounding in the principles of specific dance practices, and specific technologies is required. less play, more perspiration. it is not enough to know how to use a technology, you must be able to utilize, adapt, extend, apply and contextualise a technology.
accumulated knowledge
in an endless desire for the new, dance-tech is forgetting its past. academics, and artists are equally guilty of this amnesia where funding takes come before continual (or incremental) development.
every project is sold as the new thing that will have a lasting impact, or presents significant findings. then when the research period or funding ends, it is tossed out with the trash.
no-one is taking sufficient care to document, and (permanently) make available the research they have undertaken. applications, source code and schematics are rarely made available so claims cannot be verified, or the experience learned from.
i point my students to past works so they can learn from the successes and failures of others. in understanding what has been done before, they can recognise their own innovations. techniques, code, and hardware can (and should) be reused where appropriate. would/could you run a marathon without seeking advice on how to train etc? (jade goody need not respond)
…
over the weekend i will reply to jb’s post and return to some of the other issues he raises here.
blog comments powered by Disqus