UPDATE: we are experiencing a problem where by mail sent to transubstantiate[dot]org appears to be bouncing but is actually getting through to us. Whilst we fix this problem please use:
transubstantiate [at] googlemail [dot] com
If you have attachments over 9 MB please send a link to the file(s) from your own site, or we recommend the dropload.com file hosting service.
Apologies, curators.
as posted to the dance-tech list
As we proposed in our last post, direct interfaces (flex sensors, micro switches, pressure plates, smart fabric etc.) for dance technology result in ‘techniques’ of use [1]. However, aesthetic and conceptual concerns regarding vocabulary (emergent technique) and dance as ’switch de/activation’ has lead to exploration of alternate interfaces. We can observe this ’shift’ in the rapid decline of dance-tech & Electroacoustic music technology (music-tech) collaborations involving direct, gestural interfaces during the 1990’s.
Music-tech makes extensive use of gestural interfaces (instruments) for sonic production and processing. Here the interface remains tangible as mappings between performative input (gestural) and output (aural) are easily inferred. The absence common gestural techniques is due to the dominance of ‘home brewed’ interfaces and software.
However, analysis of specific artist-instrument combinations over time does suggest localised technique development. We can also identify a common set of software techniques (granular synthesis, phase distortion synthesis, etc.) which can be perceived in the sonic output. Given that music-tech is concerned with i/o (digital/analogue) sound production and transformation, gestural and software techniques should be given equal recognition.
By moving towards indirect interfaces (optical, ultrasonic and magnetic sensors) dance & perf-tech has prioritised the development of software techniques over physical techniques. Here, physical techniques are used to ‘patch’ the ‘interface’ rather than extending the transformative capabilities of the system [2].
For example: when using an optical system, the quality of image processing/recognition/analysis may be improved by a) physical techniques designed to overcome system limitations (e.g., minimum ‘blob’ size) [3] or b) new image processing algorithms and increased camera resolution.
In both cases the interface (vision) has not changed, but the technologies behind the interface have been modified. It thus becomes hard to argue that the ‘interface’ is primary in dance & perf-tech, of greater importance are the transformative techniques (and technologies) that process performative input (interface as data stream, not performance space [4]). Transformative technologies are not a media/medium in their own right, nor are they ‘liminal’ as concrete state changes result from (re)encoding/transcoding of media not mutation.
This would suggest that although there are media specific technologies, we tend to focus on inter/multi-media ‘conversion/transformation’ (transcription) technologies, which by their very nature must be ‘hybrid’. The collision/integration of different media types should not be considered the end of media specificity. With any inter/multi-media artefact we can separate out the component media leaving each instance relatively intact.
We can consider ‘performance’ to be inter/multi-media (sound, image, motion etc.), and thus still qualify for ’specific’ performance technologies (e.g., those developed by: weiß, coniglio, camurri/et-al etc.). we suggest that it is the tools/interfaces through which we control and modulate performance technologies that makes them appear non specific.
At this time the ‘computer’ is our primary tool of ‘transformation’, as such all performative input and ‘on the fly’ modification is gesturally compressed. The limitations of Graphical User Interfaces (GUI) make it hard to differentiate between physical modes of manipulating computer mediated media. Here the ‘mess’ is caused by visual metaphors compacting the experientially navigated world into X,Y and (sometimes) Z coordinates navigated by ‘pointing device’ and keyboard. Strategies to dissolve this opaque interface include code/screen display, homebrew control boards and ’single task set-ups’ (one laptop per transformation/media).
There are technologies specifically devised for dance (techniques, choreographic approaches, hardware, software etc.), but the more ‘recent’ of these tools relate to choreographic development, content and construction (developed by: lieberman/delahunta, klien/mortimore, turner/brio/rothwell/et-al etc.). Dance technologies for direct dance/movement ‘transformation’ are rare, indirect interfaces a simpler to develop and explore. Software for dancers/choreographers is designed to affect motor cognition (rather than action) to generate motive/spatial transformations.
In dance & perf-tech we have the ‘craft’, and the crafting of technologies to facilitate/propagate the (initial) craft. Both the performative and technological crafts require their own analysis, not all choreographies/algorithms are equal. And then, after looking at the ‘perceivable’ parts (through their epistemological/ontological frameworks), we must look at the ‘perceivable whole’. It is within the latter observation/analysis that new frameworks must be developed, both theoretical, and experiential.
The craft/technology that dance & perf-tech seems to have neglected is choreographic approaches. Here, a large body of work/tools goes untapped is a desire to delineate dance-tech from other dance praxes. Whilst it is true that improvisation is at the heart of all choreography (and choreographed itself), improvisation is only one method of performative input generation.
In our initial categorisation we specified that computational modes of composition we generative. What we failed to make clear is that we were referring to specific algorithmic techniques. We consider all modes of composition to be generative (movement producing) in nature and thus remove the term from the description. conceptual has been revised and choreographed [5] added:
For completeness:
The performative input of conceptual dance is not mode exclusive, but dependent on initial concept, and the (directly) subsequent ideas of the artist [6]. Nor should any of the modes be considered exclusive to particular socio-cultural, historical, or technological ‘dance’ practices. We do not use these category labels as indicators of ‘western’ 20th and 21st century concert dance, but as a ‘global’ analytical framework.
To clarify; we consider most dance & perf-tech works to be conceptual, utilising improvisation as the primary mode of content generation / performative input. In these cases ‘dance’ and/or ‘choreography’ is a secondary, emergent product.
it is important to note that few artists engaging with dance & perf-tech improvisation articulate ‘how’ they improvise. The skills an artist uses to approach / generate improvised motion are vital to any assessment of the improvisation. Thus we reiterate Johannes’ call for descriptions of ‘methods of practice’ on the dance-tech list. We rely too heavily on the significant contributions of a few writers/historians (e.g., Scott deLahunta) to report on praxis in the field.
Without (more) artists sharing their reflections, experience, methodologies, praxis, code (etc.) it is hard to contextualise or visualise the relationship between compositional aesthetics. However, music-tech does show us that the aesthetics of coding are not too dissimilar to those of ‘traditional’ composition.
Jesus Gollonet’s ‘unclapping music’ is a transcription of ‘clapping music’ by steve reich for ChucK (a real-time audio programming language [7]). The full rhythmic figure is expressed as:
[.5, .5, 1, 0, .5, 1, 0, 1, 0, .5, 1, 0 ] @=> float seq[];
the total code comprises of 45 lines and two sound files:
http://www.jesusgollonet.com/blog/recursos/unclapping_music.ck [text file]
you can hear the output here:
http://www.jesusgollonet.com/blog/recursos/unclapping_music.mp3 [1.6mb]
the code (as is the music score) much more that its constituent parts. We also consider the code to be every bit as aesthetic, functional, visually expressive and efficient as the original score:
http://www.crownpoint.com/artists/reich/CLAPPING.jpg
it seems plausible that the aesthetics of live coding of interactive systems would bear some relation to the cognitive and notational structures utilised in improvisation praxis. We suggest that just as in existing live coding (music/graphics) specific modes of transformation and representation can be coded and generated in real-time. Just because we are used to long duration development does not mean we cannot adapt to modes of real-time, ‘interactive environment’ development. Of course ’some’ elements will have to be pre-prepared, but that is the nature of all ‘improvisations’. After all, one has to at least decide the location and time if an audience is desired.
Again we welcome feedback, observations and critique, and thank those who have engaged with us so far. Whilst we would encourage you to post on the list, you may also contact us directly at our email address.
best
curators @ transubstantiate
[1] http://www.transubstantiate.org/index.php/?p=12
[2] in dance & perf-tech, technique resides (primarily) outside the body [8]. We are not engaging in movement transformation (which is dependant on ‘our’ body), but movement transcription (i.e., motion for the body rewritten for the specific properties of ‘transformative’ media/medium). This requires a much longer explanation which we do not feel belongs in this post. In essence we are suggesting a new analytical framework that contextualises 20th and 21st century dance praxis (modernist, post-modernist, performance-technological). we give the following examples:
[3] we need to ask the dancers of our ‘interface’ works (e.g., emily fernandez) what strategies they use to improve the ‘effectiveness’ of their performative input. We believe analysis will uncover the development of localised techniques for specific hardware / software combinations. This might also mean that dancers, not ‘choreographers’ are instigating dance technique, or that performance technologies inherently lead to technique emergence. In essence our technological ‘interfaces’ see very little of the performative input, they can only observe the patterns/features they were desgined to recognise. Whilst this may be useful for discreet differentiation (e.g., unique colours for each performer) the ‘whole’ is unobserved. Pattern that occur across the entire performance space/range are of equal value to those found in a single feature.
[4] we suggest the primary location for movement ‘transformation’ (in dance & perf-tech) lies within the software, not a ‘liminal’ perfromace space (Susan Broadhurst). If we did seek a liminal dance-tech praxis we would need a direct interface to facilitate our passage into the ‘transitory’ space. Here we can draw an analogy with Matt Gough’s contentious identification of a pointe shoe as a ‘dance technology’. Romantic ballet was concerned with ‘otherness’ in the context of the human/spirit world. here the pointe shoe facilitates the inhabitation of a liminal space between the two worlds. Niether jumping, nor grounded, the shoe is a technology that enables ‘floating’ between the two. Perhaps, (more significantly) if dance-tech is concerned with technological transformation/translocation to the liminal then dance is instrumentalised. Dance/enactment becomes not a act for its own sake, but a preparatory function to enable transition into the ‘liminal’.
[5] choreography: the making of structures in which (dance) movement may occur. Within such a definition ‘real-time sensor performance’ does adhere to structure and pattern(ing) as all existing sensor technologies reply on such properties to perceive the performative input. For example, optical systems (computer vision) ’search’ for patterns, shapes (blobs), edges, and motion. These ‘visual’ structures shape the ‘choreography’ in similar manner to human perception and cognition. The use of ’semiotic’ in the choreographed section should not be problematic, there is a plausible argument that all forms of dance are systems of signs. From a post-structuralist perspective the signifier, rather than the sign is privileged. Rhizomes of meaning are also dependant on the notion of a signifier for ‘infinite semiosis’ (meaning only relating to other meanings). But, we must not forget that the rhizome has a single point of origin, regardless of whether we can navigate our way back to the original context/meaning.
[6] ‘Conceptual’ dance may have choreographed, improvised, or computational content.
[7] ChucK: [ http://chuck.cs.princeton.edu/ ], for more on ‘live coding’: [ http://tinyurl.co.uk/7ul7 ]. code as art: [ http://artport.whitney.org/commissions/codedoc/ ]. this is not an absolute claim that live coding ‘works’ (in its present form), but a proposal that we should experiment with it to uncover the potential impact on our praxis.
[8] we suggest that the use of technology in body-mind praxis is a feature of modernity (specifically post-modernism) rather than dance & perf-tech per se. The conceptually significant transformations/transcription always occur within the body-mind context and not the mediated output (external stimulation vs transformation). Practitioners who explore body-mind connectivity within performance technologies have direct experience of this context. Here 1:1, 1:c and 1:n input/output mappings give rise to variety of mind-body responses, and body/technology analogues. Elizabeth MacKinnon has articulated such a relationship between network packet/circuit switching and ‘nerve reversals’ in Body Mind Centering (BMC). She suggests that the interface can reinforce some aspects of proprioception, but equally diverts mental attention form the internal, to the external. MacKinnon also questions the sensory, perceptual and enacted sensitivity of both technological (sensor-based systems) and human interfaces (audience, self perception), exploring the sensitivity of each to her performance praxis.
Technorati Tags: dance-tech, music-tech, dance, technology, theory, liminal
as posted to the dance-tech list
we would like to open a discussion on the ‘improvised’, ‘computational’ and ‘conceptual’ composition in dance and performance technologies (dance & perf-tech) praxis. We are particularly interested in developing a set of formal definitions via existing practice and their effect on the work produced. In the absence of a common consensus we offer the following approximations (~):
It seems useful to give examples of these categories from general dance practice:
There is significant confusion in dance & perf-tech writing between improvised and computational modes of composition. For example, cunningham’s chance operations are procedural and generally not considered to be improvisation. However, similar compositional (algorithmic, generative) techniques are considered to be improvisation in dance & perf-tech. Because computational composition deals with replicable ’solutions’ we consider it to fall outside dance improvisation ideology.
we must also differentiate between dance composition that utilises performance technologies, and performance technologies facilitated by dance composition. As with other practices situated in modernity the former conceptualises ‘tool use’ differently from the latter. It is the the lack of such as distinction that has frustrated many dance scholars attempts to create a workable dance & perf-tech taxonomy.
Improvisation is the primary mode of human ‘choreography’ within the performance technologies setting. The main purpose of improvisation with interactive/reactive environments seems to be ‘proof’ of emergent, entropic output. Because 1:1 mapping is aesthetically unfashionable 1:n (many) or 1:C (set) interactive/reactive outcomes are currently preferred. Whilst using Improvisation does facilitate the observation of 1:n and 1:C mappings, a fixed input might be a better demonstration of a systems transformative capabilities.
Many projects start with technology designed to transform performative input into an integrated, aesthetic output. Minimal consideration is given to the construction of the input, other than it must cause the desired output. Fixed choreography is often avoided as the input requirements of the technologies and transformative possibilities are poorly understood. Where contributory knowledge of the medium/technologies is lacking, improvisation is a short cut achieving the required input/output aesthetic.
However, we must acknowledge that present sensor technology offers a limited range of ‘data values’ for software/hardware systems to utilise. As such it is preferable that the performative input has a gaussian/levy probability distribution (i.e. Imporvisation). With such a ‘computational’ function improvisation can be considered ‘part’ of the technological system. This simple, but effective software/wetware conceptualisation is an essential facet of human – computer/machine interaction in dance & perf-tech.
Although improvisation is based on a conceptual precept, it not conceptual dance ‘per se’ as one may disregard the performative concept at any time. Where as in Improvisation the content (movement) is an engaged, reflexive, adaptive process, for conceptual dance it is perfunctory. When we look to the software/hardware the development process is conceptual and clearly systematic. The tools are developed with a purpose/goal that is followed until completion, the aesthetics of coding are rarely taken into account. Both software and hardware are employed for a specific purpose rather than their application/context emerging through each performance.
At the time of writing we are unaware of a dance-tech work in which movement and software/system creation (live coding/hacking) occur at the same time. Yet a fully integrated dance & perf-tech improvisation work should and would require this. We do not consider real-time manipulation of variables (e.g. unstable landscapes, marlon barrios-solano) to fall under this category.
Given the relatively ’set’ construction of performance software/hardware systems can suggest that:
Whilst establishing ‘techniques’ may grate against post-modernist sensibilities it facilities both applied development and ‘forking’ of dance technologies [2]. Working with common frames/tools would lead to rapid re-framing of our praxis/aesthetics and pedagogy. This would enable a clear break from post-modern/contemporary dance practice, consolidated with contributory theory.
If we consider the majority of dance & perf-tech work to be conceptual in nature, then uncovering shared principles of practice should lead to refinement of our praxis. We are not suggesting that all dance & perf-tech work ‘must’ be conceptual, but historically that is the case. By returning to choreography perhaps we can learn to focus on dance content rather than movement ‘concept’. Lets equalise the attention we pay to technologies and dance when developing or praxis.
From such a position we can define our own framing rather than relying on theorists from other fields. Cyborgian analyses founded in literary fiction should not be the basis of our critical theory. Media specific analysis in dance & perf-tech requires an examination of the dance, technologies and dance-technologies in their own right. Dance is a media, and the content in most dance & perf-tech works performs poorly under a media specific analysis.
The use of technologies to facilitate improvisation is a development of distraction, complexity and mapping techniques/skills (e.g. tuning scores, contact improvisation). All technologies (solutions), are disposable because once a 1:1 mapping/uses occurs they become ‘habitus’. Here the design of technology is also conceptual, but its usage it not; improvisers can throw away their score and re-purpose artefacts. Is there a dance & perf-tech work that gives the dancers an ‘off’ (total system shut-down) button?
Reflecting on the concepts we have discussed in this text suggests that dance-tech is a subset of performance technologies rather than a ‘top level’ praxis. The community displays a higher level of interactional knowledge than contributory knowledge, perhaps this is simply a feature of limited critical discourse (as opposed to knowledge/experience presentation) and weak framing? Has our bias for the improvised and conceptual lead to a loss of evaluated content?
We assume that working within an improvised/computational system content (’choreography’) will be emergent, but what if this is not the case? Perhaps in dance & perf-tech content is primary, or at least symbiotic with form (does that lead us back to technique?).
We seem to be slipping further and further into entropy, iteration ~ recursion; a looping praxis. If we focus on crafting the ‘dance’ within dance & perf-tech is that developing dance-tech or expanding post-modern/contemporary dance?
Perhaps, in seeking answers to these question we will not only clarify dance & perf-tech praxis, but also wider notions of dance, performance, art and artistic processes.
Best
curators @ transubstantiate
[1] state: a set of properties/instructions performed in response to system input. Here improvisation (computation) is performed to complete the systems design rather than its own ideological goals.
[2] dance-technologies is a difficult label, how many technologies have been specifically created for dance. And where such technologies do exist they are usually accompanied by a technique. We can also see techniques emerge from dance use of performance technologies, e.g. the specific vocabularies used to actuate (midi) flex sensors.
Technorati Tags: dance-tech, dance, technology, theory
The ‘avant garde’ of late 20th century performance technology avoided critical examination and identification of their practical and conceptual frameworks. Rather than re-examining the meta-physics of performance in relation to ‘new’ digital & analogue technologies, they chose to inhabit the transitional spaces between the real & virtual. Between the embodied & computational, the notion of liminal performance emerged.
Embracing an ‘anti-modernist’ stance, objective analysis was discarded for subjective interpretation, unreliable narrators took the place of deceased authors. No longer was a single physical or mediated mode valid, real time - emergent synthesis of the visual, aural, physical and environmental was required. Retaining the performative threshold of this multi modal / media, liminal gesamtkunstwerk required a dislocated praxis.
Notions of shared technique, pedagogy and ontologies were secondary to the conceptual freedom of the artist. Understanding the ’self’ as an artist (within a socio-cultural & technological context) took precedence over understanding (and evaluating) the findings of the artwork created. It was simpler to create rhizomes of semiotics for the reader to navigate, than to define the cartography of sign, signifier and signified.
In refusing to define a general praxis, each artist became a category in their own right; differentially determinable subsets. Shared ontologies only occurred when collaboration was central to the conceptual vision. With the artist as critical theorist terminology could be appropriated rather than contextualised, meaning(s) could only be explored through these unreliable narrators. Misconceptions such as ‘random, generative, emergent & non linear procedures lead directly to indeterminacy’ became self propagating in a vacuum of conceptual rigour.
The mono cultural, anti critical, procedural aesthetic of liminal praxis is developmentally limited. Despite injections of new cultural and conceptual spaces to navigate, liminality remains at the threshold of significance in the 21st century. Remaining at the ‘edge’ left artists fixated on the edges; interfaces became more important than the resultant products.
Second generation performance technology artists find themselves surrounded by outmoded concepts. Having spent most of their lives utilising pervasive technologies the notion of a transitional space seems redundant. Cyborgian notions of the post-human are easily disregarded as science fiction; biological, chemical, surgical, electronic and material enhancement of the prosthesis is widely practiced. We recognise that technology has always been central to human and artistic endeavour.
Reclaiming ‘post-’ as after rather than anti, the ‘post-embodied’ becomes experiential engagement outside our primary flesh. As all perceptions are mediated and synthetic, real life is a virtual experience. Inhabiting the limimal space is a state in it’s own right, not a transition. We need not look to text books for explanations of post-modernism, MTV provides numerous examples.
We seek to understand and contextualise the meta-physics of our work from a post-modern perspective. Artistic freedom carries the responsibility of self regulation, denying technique, principles and critical theory disables future practice. Do the first generation fear that in sharing their work, code and concepts within an open debate will reveal them as our equals.
Despite it’s claims of equality, performance technology has a ‘old guard’ hierarchy; we need our own voice.
The liminal is limited; transubstantiate.
Technorati Tags: Transubstantiate, Manifesto, Performance, Technology, Theory, Liminal
Transubstantiate: a peer-reviewed, online journal for performance technologies praxis.
Call for submissions:
Transubstantiate welcomes submissions for its inaugural issue on the theme of ‘Disruptive Innovation’. We seek examples of new thinking and practice that overturn and/or reassess existing performance technology praxis. Submissions may be presented as papers, reviews , audio, visuals (stills / video) and code. Authors may use multiple formats in a single submission.
Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:
Choreographies for iPod must be specifically devised works and may take the form of:
Transubstantiate encourages submissions that take an alternative stance on established modes of mediated performance. Submissions should be equivalent to 3000 – 8000 words in .doc, mp3, .jpg or .mp4 (video) format.
The deadline for submissions is 1st November 2006.
For more information or to submit please contact the editorial & curatorial board via curators [at] transubstantiate [dot] org.
The liminal is limited; transubstantiate.
http://transubstantiate.org
Technorati Tags: call for papers, networked performance.
Welcome to the Transubstantiate blog.
Transubstantiate is a new peer-reviewed journal for performance technologies praxis that will be published online. We are still in the process of developing the website at Transubstantiate.org, but will let you know when it is fully up and running. In the meantime look out for our first ‘call for submissions‘ and postings from the editorial & curatorial team.