- robo7
there are times i’m asked to ignore the technology when improvising, to ‘let it do it’s job’ whilst i do mine. of course the people asking me this do know that i’ll draw on aspects of the mediated output (video, audio etc) but what they want to see are two separate processes.
firstly they are looking at my engagement with the improvised score, transcribing concepts and context into embodied motion. secondly (or maybe firstly) they are considering how the software transcribes my output based on its on conceptual scores (patches and modules).
the technology is my partner, like one of those duet forms where dancer b follows dancer a but rather than mimesis (mindless copying) creates new material from what they see. we perceive, interpret, transcribe and output. there is no collision between us, no uncomfortable liminality.
when the system doesn’t work, its no more jarring than being out of sync with a physical partner. sometimes less so, i’ve never been dropped my software … except from a telepresence broadcast, and that didn’t hurt too much. in the better systems i’ve worked with, i sense the human element of the technology, or at least the processes of transformation and transcription that we share.
for me the richness of myself and the technology is the gradual teasing out of the processes we are engaged in. not things hidden from view but layered and perceptible to those who look with knowing and open eyes. that is the beauty of improvisation, and with the right performance technologies my practice is richer in diverse variations.
Recent Comments