How do choreographers create dances that speak to software developers? In other words, how can layers of meaning and "hidden features and functionality" be made known to people who specialize in creating user interfaces?
First, I encourage you to read Alex Iskold's post "The Rise of Contextual User Interfaces" in ReadWriteWeb. This article points out that software interfaces have for too long been difficult to decipher and encumbered with too many features. We are moving to contextual user interfaces that present users with just the minimal number of features that they need when they want them.
Vimeo is offered as a good illustration of the new generation of minimalist user interfaces. As you'll see in the following video, once you start to play the clip and then move your cursor away from the video player, the available features will disappear from the screen. Then, a small number of features reappear once you move your cursor back over the player. Here's a site-specific performance by Sahra Huby and Philip Bussmann:
To see the contextual functions of the Vimeo player in action, place your cursor over the video player, then click the "Embed" link. Finally, select "Customize size, color, and other options." In all instances, just the functionality you want at any given point in time is made available to you. You are not presented with too many options or irrelevant functions.
Revealing the Layers of Complexity in a Dance
Getting back to my initial question: Say, you were creating a dance piece for a geeky audience of software developers. How would you go about creating and structuring a dance so that developers could relate to it as if it were, in some sense, the user interface for a software program?
How is meaning, in all its forms, made known and revealed? How do the layers of a work that build one on top of another reveal themselves to viewers? How do hidden elements of a work all of a sudden make sense and, possibly, transform the dance? What contextual cues are offered to viewers so that they can get inside a work? How dense or minimalist is a work and what are the trade-offs of each approach? How, overall, does the audience make sense of the structure, movement vocabulary, connections (or lack of connections) among dancers, the emotional quality and changes over time, the narrative and aesthetic flow?
I would find it very interesting to speak with choreographers who have pondered some variation of my questions connecting dance to user interface design. Or who have created dances for non traditional dance audiences.
Posted by
Doug Fox on May 21, 2008 6:55 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://greatdance.com/mtadmin/mt-tb.cgi/2391
Hey Doug. With all these questions it sounds like you should start doing some of your own experiments with software design and choreography. This could help you to start to elaborate your own ideas.
Maybe you want to investigate dances about or as representations of software. Or perhaps you would like to incarnate dances in software or develop dance that function as software.
I would love to get you started. You have lots of curiosity, technical capacity and knowledge. I think its time for you to start making your own dance machines.
Wow... some envelope-pushing questions here that just beg to be explored.
I think the world of technology and dance have been yearning to co-exist for many years now, and when done properly, can exceed an audience's (and artist's) expectations and imaginations about the dance world.
Limitations no longer exist in the marriage of tech and dance, and often, the lines between "tech geeks" and "artists" get blurred... not to mention the lines of choreographer and editor. I think a good video editor might actually be considered the choreographer in some instances.
Thanks for comment and enthusiasm for melding dance and technology.
I think that there is overlap with this topic and the post I wrote more recently "Applying Laban Movement Analysis to Interaction Design" - especially in the comment that analyzes the iPod interface from a Laban Movement Analysis perspective from Leslie Bishko.
The Kinetic Interface blog on Great Dance starts with the premise that by focusing on the body and movement we can better understand, engage with, and contribute to many of the technological and scientific changes that are reshaping our daily lives.
To share stories and ideas, offer feedback, and ask questions, please email Doug Fox.
4 Comments
Hey Doug. With all these questions it sounds like you should start doing some of your own experiments with software design and choreography. This could help you to start to elaborate your own ideas.
Maybe you want to investigate dances about or as representations of software. Or perhaps you would like to incarnate dances in software or develop dance that function as software.
I would love to get you started. You have lots of curiosity, technical capacity and knowledge. I think its time for you to start making your own dance machines.
Thanks, Tony!
I appreciate your offer to help me get started with different programming environments. I think I'll take you up on your offer.
Wow... some envelope-pushing questions here that just beg to be explored.
I think the world of technology and dance have been yearning to co-exist for many years now, and when done properly, can exceed an audience's (and artist's) expectations and imaginations about the dance world.
Limitations no longer exist in the marriage of tech and dance, and often, the lines between "tech geeks" and "artists" get blurred... not to mention the lines of choreographer and editor. I think a good video editor might actually be considered the choreographer in some instances.
Gee, I could go on and on forever about this : )
Rachel,
Thanks for comment and enthusiasm for melding dance and technology.
I think that there is overlap with this topic and the post I wrote more recently "Applying Laban Movement Analysis to Interaction Design" - especially in the comment that analyzes the iPod interface from a Laban Movement Analysis perspective from Leslie Bishko.
Leave a Comment