Thank you for the detail of your experience. Your message inspiries me to
reflect on the first days of my telematic projects and see if I can go into
the next one bit more consciously.
>Yes, Terry, I think you are right.
>But somehow I also can understand Scott.
>Last summer we gave a workshop -LBLM- together with Johannes Birringer at
>the Chichester Institute of higher Education, University of Southhampton,
>UK. It took place as part of the SPLIT SCREEN Arts Conference organized
>there by Chris Butler, head of the Realted Arts Program. You probably
>heard of it already.
>Well, we had 18 people coming from different backgrounds: dancers,
>pupetriests, musitians, actors, computer programers, visual artists... We
>tried to make clear the goals of the work, we also gave some specific
>ideas and concepts to follow and look into, so that the energies and
>works would have a link or a certain unifying base. We all agreed that
>all the great equitment sorrounding us was nothing but new tools to give
>our ideas and concepts new dimentions and possibilities. Nevertheless,
>after the first four days we realized that most of the work was not much
>more than playing arround with the instruments, and so we had to sit down
>again and raise the issue once more.
>Now,though, after some months, I can see that those first days where
>necessary, vital. In those three days the exchange of information and
>knowledge between the participants gave new parameters to each of them to
>work with. Some people did not even know how to switch on a camera, how a
>mixing board looked like, what did it mean close circuit... Others where
>motivated by seeing and listening to raw ideas, concepts, images and
>texts...It was a very active and busy time which taught all of us a lot,
>but it did not become fruitfull until we questioned ourselves why were we
>learning all of that. Were there real things we wanted to say? What were
>we pursueing realy?
>>From then on creativity started to get some different colours, to take
>spacific and challanging directions which spoke in very reach and diverse
>ways. It was a pitty we only had 9 days to work with eachother, but I
>think it opened everybody's way of seeing technique and the use we should
>be doing of it, we learned how our ideas can be read in different ways
>and get different meanings by making choices and challanging the
>So I would suggest Scott to be carefull. You know how we dancers are, we
>get excited when we can put our hand on any kind of machine that
>transforms time, flow, the way we are or look in the space; but we tend
>only to play arround with it, to get imnotized. Try to keep them awake
>about the utility those machines have for us, about the real goals and
>ideas each dancer might have -or not-...They might need to spend sometime
>playing, but get them to think of more elavorated concepts than comings
>and goings, or beginings and endings -unless someone aproaches cicles of
>life, physical and psicological changes, migration,..(you know where I am
>trying to get to)-.
>Have fun with it.
Lisa Naugle, Ph.D Candidate
New York University
Music and Performing Arts Professions
Canada: (604) 731-8385
Fax: (604) 731-0128
Researching at Simon Fraser University
School of Contemporary Arts