1st Affirmative Speaker (1st Group)

There is absolutely no doubt that watching a skilled dancer performing an intricate piece of choreography in a rehearsed dance work most definitely captures the audiences full attention. But the human body is nothing new, we are familiar with trained dancers pushing the limits of physical and muscular capabilities in-fact we expect this of them. But combine this skill with something new and unfamiliar such as motion captured bodies dancing with real bodies, throw in some digital images projected around the room, maybe a strobe light flashing every now and then, edited video footage projected on the dancers, with a revolving light obscuring audience view. The audience is now only vaguely watching the dancing. Not because the choreography is boring, or the dancers are average, the dance work could be amazing. But several multimedia effects occurring at the same time often create a sensorial overload and it becomes impossible to maintain focus on the one medium.

Not only that but the human eye is drawn towards the unknown, as Auslander says we look towards the virtual elements as they are more active, more lively than the moving bodies, the virtual elements challenge us to think about whats happening. The dancing bodies become immersed in a virtual world in which everything is experimental and new to the audience. Of-course the eye wanders to a motion captured, computer generated dancer because it’’s something unfamiliar, something we’ve never seen before. And when you think about it creating a piece of technology that advanced is hard to achieve in a world driven by technology.

The dancing is also far less likely to resonate with audiences as the virtual elements tend to distance from the emotionality of movement. The virtual takes away from the dancing, it distracts the audience, high resolution projections and displays steal the focus to create an all around cinematic experience. Its hard to become emotionally connected to a dancer when there is so much going on around them. The fact is that the virtual elements out number the dance , we’re not trying to say that there is NO element that isn’t recognizably dance, because of course there is, but as my. second speaker will tell you it’s not a matter of which element was most prominent throughout the performance, but rather which will leave a longer lasting impression.

Merce Cunningham often uses motion capture throughout his work, The Open Ended Group discusses motion capture, they state that Right away we lose all vision of muscle and flesh, and with that all sense of effort as well, since we can no longer make out the actual sweat of the performing body. With this we lose all form of expression and emotion, you cannot tell what the dancers intention is.

Marc Downie states that with relation to motion capture, a performance loses its essence of liveness, as going through the process of making a computer understand choreography live becomes research.

In conclusion when mediatised or digitised elements are added to a dance work, the work can no longer solely be called a dance work, as several art forms are now in operation, when several of these elements are displayed at once a sensorial overload can occur and it is hard to maintain focus on one medium. The human eye is drawn to the visual elements over the dance as they are the more overwhelming and unfamiliar to audiences, the dancing doesn’t resonate emotionally and creates audience disconnection due to the distraction of several media forms. With motion capture we lose the expression created by a dancer in real time. As Paul Kaiser states Virtual work pushes our notion of what imagery can be. I hope i’ve successfully demonstrated to you that dance +virtual = virtual.

2nd Negative Speaker

The negative side argued that Dance + Virtual equals a multimedia performance. But to clarify, the definition of virtual had to be given in order to understand the notion of this statement. Unfortunately, we neglected to touch on this meaning.
The standard meaning of virtual as we know it is, "signifying the absence of existence" (pg 164), In an essay called "Remembering Praxis: Performance in the Digital Age" by Marcyrose Chvasta (2005), Performance theorist, Pierre Levy disagrees with the meaning and argues that the term 'virtual' is not the direct opposite of 'live'.
So while we may accept the assumption that the 'virtual' is a technological simulation, we believe it adds to the dance performance, not dominate it. In relation to the dancer, to quote Levy again, "the virtualisation of the body is...not a form of disembodiment but a re-creation, a reincarnation...of the human" (pg 167), hence the virtual as an extension to the dancer.
It is from here that we claimed that Dance + Virtual equals a multimedia performance, a combination of the two to create a new and innovative kind of dance performance that can in a way be a response to our culture that has become so reliant and dependent on digital technologies.
We argued that the virtual aspects of a performance create an extension to the dance to utilise the digital tools that directors, choreographers, etc. have been provided with. But to add, as stated by Paul Kaiser, choreographers such as Merce Cunningham explored ideas in the most scientific sense, "parallel to what was going on simultaneously in computer science" (pg 24/98 of the Reader) that it seemed almost technically creative in the digital field but still remaining within the framework of dance.
We argued that the terms, Dance and Virtual provide an interdependency of each other in order to create a new form of dance. With the examples of Chunky Move's "Glow" and Merce Cunningham’s "BIPED", both works combine the 'live' aspect of dance with digital tools to engage with the audience providing new perspectives and challenging their expectations of what constitutes a dance performance.
If we were to remove one aspect of either of these works: the dancers or the technology, the performance would not provide the same experience and feelings if both forms remained.
Also argued that being temporally present for a dance performance, or any live performance, produces affective responses, something that no viewing technology such as TV and youtube can replicate. If audiences were instantly drawn to the virtual aspects of dance, we questioned what would be point of including the dancers if they become secondary to the performance. It does come down to the issue of perception. Not all audience members will be placing their focus simply on the virtual, or simply on the dancers. These different views and perspectives create new audience bases, appealing to those not just interested in dance, but also in other fields. Those in other fields would be able to appreciate this new form of dance – a multimedia performance.

Review of Debate (week 5) - Advisor 2nd Group

The debate is regarding Phillip Auslander's theory of liveness in performance, in which he first stated the equation: DANCE + VIRTUAL = VIRTUAL

It is important to remember that this equation has to be interpreted with an understanding of what Auslander had meant when he posited the equation.

In an interview with Performance Paradigm, he explained:

"What I meant when I said that ‘Dance + Virtual = Virtual' is that, because video and digital media currently possess greater cultural presence than live bodies, they become the framing elements of any performance that incorporates both. The live elements will be perceived through that frame—they will be seen in terms of the video or digital media, not the other way around."

Hence, my understanding of the equation is DANCE (component) + VIRTUAL (component) = VIRTUAL (dominant component in which performance is viewed. It can also be explained as the 'frame' of 'video or digital media' used to view the dance performance)

In the first argument, the first speaker of the Affirmative team expressed the view that "video produces thought without obliterating the body". She gave the example of 'Escape Velocity' where a form can exist, led by the body but at the place of performance, independent from it. Dancers can thus be at two places at once. She re-articulated their stand that it is the framework that is being argued, and agree on the dependency of both components. Another good phrase that illuminated for me the affirmative team's understanding of the equation is: "Dance is not disregarded, just reinvented". She went on to elaborate, expressing that with the virtual, interaction with the audience is maximised. In providing a clear starting argument, I recognised that this helped the entire group to pull together a cohesive argument.

When it was time for the Negative to speak, they alertly pointed out that they did in fact agree with the affirmative's view that dance is still present, and agreed on a few given examples. The first speaker stated the view that the virtual is "only a complementary extension of dance". They furthered this point by saying "Without the body, virtual cannot exist". Unfortunately, though this would have made for strong points should it oppose Auslander's argument, all it did was to reaffirm what Auslander had never denied. Auslander in the interview with Performance Paradigm (which I am using quite extensively to interpret his theories) elaborates, "I don't think we've changed our minds fundamentally about what dance is, but I think there's a great potential now to reconsider what kinds of entities can be considered dancers." I see this as Auslander recognising that dance is a cultural medium still very present. He is however arguing for the expansion of that field to include other entities. I suppose a better way of articulating this very point to the negative's benefit, might be to perhaps explain, that as virtual is only an extension, it would aid a dance performance by enabling an exploration of human attributes and potential, thus always keeping the human figure as the centre of attention.

The second speaker on the affirmative side followed up and made a good case concerning the current age of technology. The speaker stated that "cultural dominance is assigned to technological development", and furthered this point by explaining that the way we view performances is dependant on "cultural standards". She also argued that "cultural standards" are always changing, and in light of a continual emergence of new technology, we are constantly mediatised to aspects of our environment and even more so now than ever. She led us on to her revelation that the current "cultural status" is all about embracing technology and we have come to understand so much more through the use of digital media. Hence, multimedia performances provide for greater accessibility. The examples of Trisha Brown and Merce Cunningham were also mentioned. The second speaker explained that they started off as choreographers employing traditional choreography methods, but progressively began using technology as a means of expanding connectivity with the audience. In terms of tackling the question of a more dominant framework, I felt that this was a good exploration of the ubiquity of technology and its growing necessity as a means of understanding aspects of society.

In continuing their discussion, the negative team reaffirmed their point that the virtual is an "extension" and argued for the felt presence of the body. They brought up the very interesting example of 'New Creations' by Rafael Bonachela, which was a great example to use to their advantage. The production was described in detail, enabling the class to imagine the performance as much as description can do it justice. They elaborated on how the images projected on the scrim was based on the movements of the dancers, and were thus an "extension". What this process of arguing also demonstrates begs for its own case of analysis. It seemed that the only way this performance could be described is through an emphasis on the production's technological innovations and exploration. Perhaps what should have been emphasised was the uniqueness of the choreography and how the movements were central to the production, the virtual elements being aesthetic aides that contributed to an understanding of the human body. Numerous good points were brought up, but perhaps a re-wording might have proved a stronger case.

Nearing the debate's conclusion, the Affirmative's third speaker delivered the final argument in agreement of the equation. She restated the importance of "accessibility through technology", and once again emphasises that their stand does not at all support the elimination of the human body. There were also many other points brought up, such as the Fluxus movement. It was yet again, an interesting example, but as with time constraints faced by all speakers in the debate, it was unfortunate that the explanations were rushed and insufficient to pull together a tighter argument.

The Negative team's final speaker rebutted with a summation that I had initially found quite captivating, especially when it was mentioned that the "body achieves something that the virtual cannot contain". What is it that the body achieved, which the virtual cannot contain? It is a terrifically good question, one which I thought would have encompassed a winning argument should that have been expanded on more extensively. A second point that caught my attention was when the third speaker argued that "dance is the best form of resisting mediatised expectations". Interestingly enough, there is a direct quote by Auslander regarding this point.

He elaborated in his interview with Performance Paradigm saying, "I focus on dance here because it is a realm in which a great deal of experimentation of this kind is going on; it is also happening in film and music. The theatre remains more conservative: there is much less enthusiasm for virtual stage actors than for virtual dancers." Because Auslander has made his stand, being the observation that the public are much more receptive towards virtual dancers, I suppose that the odds are against the Negative team and a rebuttal against Auslander should need more substantial examples to convince one of a contrasting position.

The Negative team finally concluded with a reiteration of the point regarding the primacy of the body. It made for a good summary when the third speaker said that "contemporary dance companies use technology to point back to the primacy of the body". It is a very important stand that was often touched on by the Negative team, but I felt was not supported enough by the explanation of examples.

As with debates, it is not easy to fully express a view verbally as certain important emphases can be lost between thought process and speech. I felt that both teams had a clear idea of their stands, but from an audience's point of view, it did seem that certain mis-use of words made certain statements seem like a misinterpretation. Personally, I see this debate over the equation as more of reference towards a debate regarding Auslander's view, and without understanding his intent, arguing over a mathematical equation as such, would breed no right answer. Similar to the adjudicators, I felt the issue of a technological framework in this current day and age, was not refuted by the Negative team intensely enough. With regards to the topic of debate, my opinion is that the Affirmative had a more accurate reading of the question although both teams had strong cases that they proved well.

Bernice

(Advisor for second group)

Katies closing statement for the negative team

Here 'tis:

Dance is whole, dance is human, dance is temporal, and dance is ALIVE.

Auslander’s arguments reflect an unhealthy social trend which privileges technology and the virtual over the real. This illusion has resulted in a false anthropomorphisation of technology, thus, we falsely refer to ‘live’ internet connections or ‘dead’ batteries.

The curse of applying human traits to our technological devices has confused us to the extent where we might react with a deeper emotional response to a ‘dead’ mobile phone than a dead loved one.

We know that ‘live’ is always better than dead, and it is our position that only human bodies are ‘live’, while our technological gadgets, enhancements and extensions are never 'alive', they always dead, weather the batteries are charged or not.

The false privilege that has been afforded to the virtual and the attempt to bring it to life is a mechanism which works to dilute and erase the body yet in dance performances that engage with technology we often witness a human triumph over technological trappings. Think of the trope of the James Bond or catwoman style parkour movement though a lazer filled chamber or vault in pursuit of a diamond or to escape a prison. The body always wins.

Dance, and especially contemporary, non-matrixed dance, resists the virtual project of body erasure. It resists delivery of codes and morals, a movement cannot ever be repeated with purity or precision.

Dance is a celebration of the ALIVE body (and embodiment) as absolute, whole and yet fleeting and temporal. Technology cannot possibly supersede such a force.