on tour and unwell … getting back under the covers.
Archive for March, 2007
- rose&olive
when asked by the choreographer what your thoughts on the work are, remember to simply repeat what they have said to you. off the cuff crit’s 30mins before the show are (usually) not welcome … look pretty androgynous and dance.
actually i should learn not to say whats on my mind in the presence of people more often. i tend to respond to the question rather than realizing its an attempt to pass time. as a dancer people generally want to see your interpretation of a work, not hear it. in spite of all that thinking dancer guff *, dancers who conceptually engage and articulate their thoughts are considered suspect. its as if the dance can’t be in your body if you establish a clear critical (and theoretical) position on it.
just think about it, how often do you read in depth article from dancers about how they engage with, interpret and recreate dance works.
* all dancers have to think, what they really mean is critically informed dancers.
missing a particular friend of mine, wish i could do a lindenberg and see them,
the winds of march that make my heart a dancer
a telephone that rings but who’s to answer?
oh, how the ghost of you clings
these foolish things remind me of you
© Tara Donovan
whenever i see installations like the one above, i want to jump in and dance. then i get to thinking why are more dance works with installations show in galleries. and i don’t mean one off site specifics, but dance installations that travel from gallery to gallery. if performance art can pull of such works, why can’t the dance world?. i’d love to be able to walk into a gallery and stumble across a durational dance.
lets be clear; i’m not talking about something that gallery visitors can participate in (no touching the dancers please). but something that exposes the fine arts community to contemporary dance works.
if you know of anyone doing something like this, let me know. especially if they are looking for dancers
when contact improvisation (ci) is good, its like a multi layered, textural and dynamic conversation. in a duet (for me) its a three way dialog with my partner, the context (space, audience, music etc) and myself. i enjoy duet form the most, especially those times when you dance for and hour and only touch your partner once or twice. for music, (preferably live) nothing beats a rolling jazz funk groove with a shifting break beat. horn, keys, bass, drums and a real soul-felt voice.
for some ci is a therapeutic tool, i practice ci as as a movement form in its own right. that doesn’t mean that (at times) i don’t get a mental, physical or spiritual boost from it, but simply that’s not what i go looking for. i try to avoid ‘hug’ jams in which there is only supporting, holding and pouring. contact is dynamic, not a monolithic self referential hippy fest.
yesterday was a good jam day. i’m always thankful for those, they can happen so rarely when you are constantly on the road. rather than feeling homeless, you find your community, extended family of like minded and practicing people on the road. and there, with such a diverse range of interests on offer there is always something new to learn/do outside the studio.
the past week or so has been a little turbulent, getting back to practice has eased the flow.
doug fox at great dance has made two posts about numbers, first the number of dance blogs on his blog roll and second his site stats. whenever i’m performing at dance technology events all the practicing theorists talk about how accessible technology has made their work, that they can reach out to more people.
so where are their blogs?
oh, and check out flailbox (via doug), way cool.
off to a contact improvisation jam in a ‘new’ city with ‘new’ people, wish me luck.
notes on temporal interference
Published March 2, 2007 dance technology , improvisation , notes 1 Commentlast week i went to see temporal interference (ti), the next day i chatted with matt about the performance technologies in the show before i flew out to toronto. i’m not able to separate out our conversation so i’m just acknowledging matt’s input.
the primary interface for ti is a theremin suspended from the ceiling from which the pitch and volume antenna are dressed with plastic tubing that extends to the floor. an iSight (webcam) pointed between the two antenna towards the audience is the secondary secondary interface controlled by the theremin and max/msp . the installation also makes use of a sound system, video projector and scrim which you can see in the picture above and my map of the performance space.
you have probably heard a theremin even if you didn’t know what it was. the theremin’s two antenna have a electromagnetic field in which the resistance of your body actives the theremin. For ti the theremin used a ’soft’ set-up to have a large electromagnetic field with minimal background interference. this type of set-up results in a significant loss of fine control and sensitivity in the interface. a ‘hard’ set-up is more complex and involves modifying the physical components of the theremin for greater range and control. hard set-up’s are complex and i believe that this was the desired set-up for ti, but was sadly not achieved.
From my brief experimentation (the system was live before the performance) it seemed as is the theremin had non-linear control. Given that the soft set-up used limits the control with which the theremin can be ‘played’, linear control would heave been more useful. Its much easier to ‘learn’ how to play a theremin with linear control. the accuracy with which you can play a linear control theremin is amazing. a few years ago i worked with four theremin installation and each thermin was expertly set-up. i really enjoyed developing the performance over time as the interface was regular, even if the audio processing shifted.
- Linear control: the physical distance between intervals /switches is evenly spaced along the entire interface (like a piano).
- Non-linear control: the physical distance between intervals / switches decreases along the interface (like a guitar).
i can usually tell if the interface i’m working with has linear control by watching the set-up. if the tech people are using a specific (measured) calibration method then it normally means there is linear control. this does not happen as much as i would like. interface control is important because it is how the performers (dancers or public) interact with the installation. this is a rough sketch of the interface & processing mapping in ti (thanks matt),
the midi values from the pitch and volume antenna are used by various max patches to affect audio (pitch, oscillation, synthesis etc.) and video ( zoom, fps, saturation, image permanence). in another post i might talk more about my physical experience of playing in the installation, but for now i suggest that you go play with ti and watch the performance yourself this weekend.
you might want to read ti 4 n00bs if you want a simpler version of this post.
Recent Comments