What happened to Tony at the Winger? He had some good stuff. None of the men of the Winger ever post anymore (except, thankfully, Bennyroyce!) What's up with those Winger men? Well, I'll try to do my part by posting, in the next few days, a diatribe about how all those Winger men are lazy-ass slackers...

Doug,
A few years ago I went on a search for dance and technology resources and eventually went to grad school to study the subject. The field is in its infancy and much of what happens is not very good or can be done better without sophisticated technology. Things like motion sensors don't really work because theater magic is more effectively done by the person calling the show. Most likely you have to go to the technology and look for dance instead of looking for the technology in dance. It is very hard to combine the movement of the body with a computer without millions of dollars to experiment and dance does not have that kind of R&D. To your point, I wonder why more dance artists don't share their ideas concepts but perhaps it has to do with the culture of being the first to. . .being the inventor of . . . and truly in this time at the beginnings of the blogosphere you are the one who is making things happen with the Great Dance site believe it or not you are the pioneer.

For some really cool theater and technology integration check out Big Art Group

Boris,

However new D&T field may be, it still seems that there are quite a few people involved in this arena. There are undergraduate/masters programs, periodic conferences on this topic, and discussion lists such as dance-tech - although most of postings are simply promotional. Plus isn't there decent size audience for multimedia programming tools such as Max/MSP and Isadora?

So I don't know what the actual numbers are. But it just strikes me that more of the artists using these tools would be sharing their work and insights online--along the same lines that visual and multimedia artists are already doing.

I'll spend some time exploring Big Art Group.

boris, as an mfa i would have thought you knew that d&t is at least 50 years old. how does that pass as 'new' exactly?

also very few d&t practitioners actually use bespoke software/hardware and thus are not really inventing anything. they are simply technology users/followers.

what d&t does lack is rigor in its practice and theory, which is why it still has no pedagogy.

Doug,
Below is a link to a blog from a class I took at Ohio State.

http://emmanewground.blogspot.com/

Matthew,
I did not say the field was "new" I said "The field is in its infancy" and I stand by that statement.

I agree that for the most part those of us who self-identify as dance technologists mostly use and not invent hardware/software. It is too expensive to really explore/invent/program in addition to explore/invent/choreograph, which is really expensive on its own. My graduate project would have cost $200,000 in the real world.

I think dance and technology as pedagogy is too broad. Dance and Video, Dance and Sensors, Dance and Robotics, Dance and Urban Games, Dance and Interactivity are all a part of Dance and Technology. This field combines/takes parts of other related fields and I think it is a good thing that it has no formal pedagogy. It is a field that continues to emerge and change as technology changes and it may stay in its infancy for the next 50 years.

Because I have an MFA I question your assertion that there is no rigor in theory and practice of dance and technology. I think it has not been codified and is not being collected in a central place/book/magazine on a consistent basis. However, people who are in the field could say more about what they do and how they do it more often.

boris, 50 years is an overly long infancy .. some productive development would be nice.

you can explore and invent in dance tech from say $6000 (in the real world) but few have the determination and focus to do so. cost is not the bench mark of dance tech 'quality' or 'innovation'.

its not too broad to say 'dance & technology pedagogy' - the ground principle have not changed with the emergence of new technologies, nor are they likely to. dance tech is more than a crossover with other disciples

i think your own writing lacks the rigor your studies should have encouraged (i.e. your dance manifesto). dance tech often fails to a) acknowledge prior contexts, b) solve 'breaking cases' in its 'soft' theory and c) move beyond the work of the 1990's 'avant garde' who have little to offer 21st century performance praxis.

denying a pedagogy and wishing for continual infancy simply allows those with 'weak' practice(s) to co-opt the dance tech agenda (theory & practice). dance tech writing is dispersed because for the most part it has little of value to say. and when questioned about what they have written, too many authors reply 'that's how it is to me'.

perhaps you could add to the documenting of dance tech theory by writing a 'rigorous' explanation / contextualisation of your manifesto and practice?

I think what Boris is trying to get at is the use of dance with 'modern' technology. Technology 50 years ago was anything but.

Yes, I know, "modern" is relative but there is no denying that the availability of digital video, photography, computer based non-linear editing, CGI, real time effects and a whole lot more have contributed far more to the possibilities of dance and technology.

Most of those things have happened in 'Modern Times'

Super 8mm is and always was, just a bit crap!

Matt,

You write:

"its not too broad to say 'dance & technology pedagogy' - the ground principle have not changed with the emergence of new technologies, nor are they likely to."

What do you believe are these "ground principles" and what articles/books provide a detailed overview.

And broader question for everybody in the D&T field:

Who are the main theorists in the D&T space and what are best publications to read that provide a good introduction for those who do not have extensive background in this field?

While I'm at it:

For Boris, Matt, Neil and others:

Are there certain essential works - especially if they can be watched online - that define the D&T field or have been pivotal in pushing theory forward or showing new possibilities for the artform?

i' don't agree neil. all the technologies you mention are only faster (i.e. realtime), better 'quality' (realism, resolution etc), more automated (no more hand rotoscoping) and accessible (in some instances) that their fore runners 50 yrs ago.

what we are fundamentally doing with these technologies has changed little. and that is because the technologies are digital implementations of their analogue predecessors.

all that has happened in the last 50 years is that more people are able to use these tools.

super 8mm isn't great, but neither is a web or phone cam.

whenever you watch a feature film, technology is taking a back seat and you see the results on stage.

dance films tend to be enamoured with the tech, letting you know they have used it and going so far as to show it on screen.

dance film makers need to learn some photography/editing craft and then we can talk about the rest of it.

I think we're talking apples and oranges a bit here. It seems to me people are always confusing experimental art with mainstream art, or thinking that experimental art has a direct impact on mainstream or can be compared to each other. D&T seems to have remained in the experimental phase (whether it's been successful with its experiments is another matter). I think that this is what Boris has been pointing to when he calls it in its infancy. And when Matt objects, it's because extensive experimentation has taken place for years, and this lineage should not be ignored (otherwise we will continue to reinvent the wheel). And when Neil says that dance filmmakers are too enamored with showing their tools, I think that is a common trait of all experimental artists. To them, the process is more important than the product. Main stream feature films don't want to show you its seams. It's a fundamental difference, and I think that most people working in D&T are really experimentalists at heart. So, in terms of Doug's first question, where are all the D&T bloggers, it's a small subsidiary of artists, and probably will remain so. I don't know if you will ever find a large and vibrant community of artists working this way, but nevertheless, the fact that they are enamored with technology makes one think they would be more present on the internet. The general situation is that experimental artists get obsessed with what they're working on, and broadcasting and marketing this process usually isn't a big priority.