Great Dance


October 30, 2007


Is the Internet and Technology the Enemy of Live Performance?


By Doug Fox

Are live dance performances increasingly threatened by new developments on the technology and Internet front? With high-definition TV programs, wide-screen TVs and surround-sound audio, and unlimited content available via the the Internet, how do dancers compete? Or, how can dancers embrace these developments to reach larger audiences through different channels (live and online/TV)?

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://greatdance.com/mtadmin/mt-tb.cgi/1651

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is the Internet and Technology the Enemy of Live Performance?:

ยป Is it live or is it videodance? from Move The Frame
Last night I attended DanceNYC's Townhall event "Does Dance have a future? Implications of a Technological World". The panel, consisting of Doug Fox (my patron saint) of Greatdance.com,  Doug McLennan of ArtsJournal.com, and Jonah Bokaer of Chez B... [Read More]

Tracked on October 30, 2007 9:18 PM

3 Comments

Speaking historically, economically, and culturally, yes, technology and media have beaten out and diminished live performance to a huge degree. See my blog entry "Is it live or is it videodance?" on Move the Frame: http://greatdance.com/movetheframe/2007/10/is-it-live-or-is-it-videodance.php

In this post I talk about the theories of Philip Auslander, a performance studies professor at Georgia Tech, who wrote a book called "Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized Culture." He contends that new media technologies have consistently risen up and crowded out older forms of media, diminishing their stake in cultural capital. First it was film in the early 20th Century, then TV in the mid-20th Century, now the internet and soon mobile technology will call the shots. This isn't to say that older forms of media or live performance will disappear, but you consistently see that producers of content in these older forms have to modify their content to fit the newer formats. For instance with the rise of video technology and TV you saw much more multi-media performance with video projections. Now in the internet age, it seems that performing artists need to have a presence in this new platform if they are to continue to attract new audiences. It's kind of the law of evolution. We must adapt.

The good news is that we're seeing the interactivity of the internet bringing people back to the live experience, which was always more interactive than film or tv viewing. This has become apparent mostly in the music industry, with live concert touring revenue superceding sales of recordings. The recordings are still important though, you need them to hook audiences to come to the shows, but the money is made off the ticket sales. Dance needs the recordings as well, in the form of web videos, blogs, podcasts, you name it, in order to hook today's audiences. The more interactive, transparent and inviting you can be, the better.

Added: October 30, 2007 9:32 PM | Permalink

simon ellis said:

Hi Doug

Thanks for great work on this and 'Dancing into the Future'. It's good to 'feel' the dialogue from around the world.

I thought I'd comment on Anna's commment (although was unsure about posting it here or in response to the "Auslander" thread on 'Move the Frame' - so, Anna, I hope this is OK to respond here).

My reading of Auslander's work is not so much that new media technologies have "risen up and crowded out" older forms, but that it is increasingly difficult to distinguish live forms from mediatized forms. I think this is important, because it makes the discussion less about 'who is going to win', and much more about how culture frames our viewing and experience of work (be it in a theatre, or on a screen, or on a screen in a theatre). He talks a lot about works that offer a very ambiguous relationship to 'mediatization', but more importantly, seems to suggest that even if we go and look at works that are seemingly only live* we look at those works from within a cultural that is massively mediatized. In this respect the notion of COMPARING a so-called live work with a so-called mediatised work is problematised.

The other point he makes (in another bit of writing here: http://webcast.gatech.edu/papers/arch/Auslander.html) is that the entire idea of 'liveness' is historically contingent on mediatization. In other words before there was recording technology, the idea of 'live performance' did not exist. It was JUST performance. We only had to start calling it 'live' because technology existed that made it something 'other' than live (this idea is clearest when considering the development of audio recording technology). Auslander's suggestion here is that those who make claims about the (higher) status of so called live performance are actually making a virtue out of necessity!

That's probably enough of all that ... I guess my main concern was that the debate doesn't necessarily have to be about which is better - particularly if the distinction between the two is increasingly difficult (or even impossible) to make. At the same time, the dance world is probably too small for it to be fractured even further.

All the best
Simon

* I was going to suggest a Cunningham work but given that he makes most current work using lifeforms ... !

Added: November 1, 2007 3:15 AM | Permalink

clare byrne said:

thanks, this is all very helpful.

I've been thinking from working with video that everything we perceive comes through screens/filters/channels -- there is no unfiltered experience.

Been wondering the same about performance and its slippery borders -- when, in public (or in private) are we not performing?

Added: November 1, 2007 3:40 PM | Permalink

Leave a Comment


© 2007 Great Dance. All rights reserved.
Great Dance is a registered trademark.