In my years of collaborating with multi-media artists, I am often faced with the same curiosity and skepticism found in this blog posting, a reaction that is quite synonymous with the phrase “dance and technology.”
The dichotomy is of interest to me, especially when the skepticism is coming from the public, who themselves don’t even acknowledge their own level of dependency and possible addiction to technology that exists in their own lives. Whereas the curiosity may emerge from a deeper level, that subconscious guilt knowing that we are all users which gives the public permission to carry the “ok… well show me what you got” attitude.
As an artist, I don’t feel limited at all by my use of technology or feel that I have to sacrifice my vision, otherwise why would I use it? An arabesque found in the ballet vocabulary doesn’t serve my message, so I choose not to dedicate my time to this particular use of form. The body can only do so much, just as a painter only has so many colours.
I am not dependent on a computer programmer, I collaborate with multi-media artist, electronic-acoustic composers, and with sculpture and installation artists because I don’t expect to be an expert of it all. And in fact it is the true essences of collaboration that leads my art practice to be rich and full of possibility. I choose to dialogue, exchange vocabulary and question the task at hand. This exchange of intellectual thought and human-to-human contact is where the richness of my work is developed. Especially when apposed to the alternative -being in the dance studio alone creating some moves to do.
In a have-based society the medium can easily become the message, and in fact is often the case in our daily life. We post, we update, we email, we share links, the list is endless but what are we really saying?
It is true and undeniable that technology is the way of the world right now. Data bytes of the information age, is the new industrial steam.
So isn’t my job as an artist to ensure that the medium is serving the message? and isn’t this what you the audience should be asking as well?
Photo Credit: Chris Randle, Taking your Experience for Mine by Sara Coffin
Yes and Yes! Thanks for bringing the message to the table Sara.
ReplyDeleteHi Sara,
ReplyDeleteI can easily understand the cautious approach to dance & other media collaborations, having seen far too many works where dance has taken a back seat to other forms. However, I really felt that you were in full control of the medium and that the piece did exactly what you set out to do, as described by the title of the work. I found myself continually drawn to the projected version of the dancer although the real dancer was present. In this way, I think that, ironically, you and Sheilagh are on one level, saying the same thing.
Yes but as mentioned, my artistic vision and research in this milieu is not sacrificed but in fact augmented. In the context of the kinetic performance I presented my point of reference, as an offer (in the embodied theatrical version) to the current state of the body's relationship to technology. And it is through technology and my collaborative dialogue, that my research and initial points of interest are able to come to life.
ReplyDeleteThrough the work of Jacinte Armstrong, she used technology to present a fragmented story because of her interest in the use of layers and playing with memory. Technology is the way of the world, also because it is cheap and accessible, (speaking of the have-based society we know). Who knew a viewtron from the 70’s would provide the framework as it did for exploring fragmentation and tiny bits of information to create a larger poetic and expressive picture. In this sense Armstrong was successful in creating the live version of a mosaic masterpiece 3.0 through technology.
My intention in bringing this message to the table is also a reaction of my disappointment in the original Arts East blog posting. To state the three dance artists fused technology with movement and end the point there. Is like saying the painter moved to mixed-media, so what? Everyone is allowed to research in the means that supports one's ideas, just as we are each entitled to our own point of reference and opinion. Where arts east failed is presenting only one side of the conversation…. And consequently where I step in, and use the medium for the message.
There's lots here to bite into - I really wish I could've seen the show. Is there an archival video Sara?
ReplyDeleteThere's a media theorist/programmer named Douglas Rushkoff who waxes eloquent on the need for people to understand programming. "Program or be programmed" is his turn of phrase, and he makes compelling arguments (targeting artists specifically, if I recall) to ensure that we engage with the technology that has quickly become so ubiquitous in order to prevent it from dictating to us how we should communicate/act.
His theories hinge on the idea of master/slave but maybe there's a way for us to embrace technology as an extension of us - a symbiotic relationship - but things change so rapidly it's hard to understand how to facilitate that relationship growing in a 'healthy' way.
All the more reason to bring into this kind of cultural discourse.
Again, I really wish I could've seen it! Get at me if there's a way to check it out.
Nick Bottomley
Hi Nick,
DeleteThe section of the work that I presented was actually originally a solo I created on Jacinte Armstrong for my full length work "Taking your experience for Mine" presented in April 2011 in Vancouver. I made the solo on another body because i needed to see exactly that- the body in reference to the technology. I relearned the material to perform myself at the Kinetic presentation. I wanted to share my work but didn't have the budget to rehearse the original dancer :(, so this is why I stepped in.
The section is at time 8:30 in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xajTszG7uUE