In defense to those who believe that the first debate had little merit, I would firstly like to explain why I believe the first debate was less successful than the second. Due to the construction of the question as an equation as opposed to a statement, the line that both teams were working towards was something plus something else equals what. It is therefore not detrimental to the debate that both the positive and the negative teams were arguing that dance and virtual are combined to create something as this is the nature of the question. What I believe would have enhanced the individual arguments is a stronger emphasis on what each of us believed the sum equated to i.e. the positive team being virtual and the negative team decidedly focusing on it being transformed to multimedia performance. Also, defining what we thought each element was i.e. dance, virtual, multimedia etc. would have been beneficial. I felt that the whole organization of our debate was lacking, especially in the lead up when the teams should have been working together instead of individually.
My argument:
I would firstly like to start by refuting some of the positive teams arguments. A question we may all think about is ‘why can’t we think about the performance as if it were technology based?’ Secondly, there are always new and innovative ways of moveing. Without these new choreographic processes, there would be far less technological advances, especially seen in the works by the ‘OpenEnded Group’, in that their motion captures would constantly be capturing the same thing.
I the first negative speaker will be discussing and exploring how the dance and the virtual work together to create multimedia performance, and how this ultimately creates an extension of dance performance. My second speaker will address the interdependency of the live performance and virtual technologies as part of its extension to create a multimedia performance. My third and final speaker will be summing up and reaffirming our arguments by extending on some of the examples we have previously presented.
We the negative team believe that the concept of dance plus virtual equals virtual is a fallacy. In our opinion, a more accurate assessment would be that the combination of the two elements creates a multimedia performance. Furthermore, we the negative team believes that the addition of the virtual forms an extension of a dance work as opposed to a transformation to a virtual medium.
This idea of an extension of a dance performance in a literal sense can be seen in the dance work ‘Glow’. ‘Glow’ was performed by the dance company ‘Chunky Move’ and choreographed by their artistic director Gideon Obarznik for a solo dancer in a blank space. This single body moves in and out of human form to unfamiliar, grotesque, and sensual creative states. Different virtual elements are projected onto and around the dancer’s body, creating a sense of a shadow or even a gravitational force. These projections seem to radiate from the performer, which creates a literal extension of the dancers limbs and movements. At first, the dancer seems to be determining where the virtual goes, however, at other times it is the virtual that seems to be influencing the dancers movements. Gideon himself has quoted that “the relationship between the dancer and the graphics describe two entities that are in phase and at one with each other”. This reinforces my point that the two mediums are working together to make a multimedia performance as opposed to the virtual gaining dominance. Therefore dance plus virtual equal’s multimedia.
The collaborative team of Paul Kaiser and Marc Downie, along with Shelly Eschkar and numerous other prominent artists have come together to create the ‘OpenEnded Group’. [this is where my lost palm card goes, it described a little bit about the groups work till present]. On the OpenEnded group’s website, the collaborators stated that ‘though [their] medium is digital art, [their] works all bear the unmistakable trace of human presence’. This is most clearly seen in the many pieces of theirs that evoke human movement directly, whether of the dancers on stage, of children in the playground or of pedestrians in the city. For example, their work ‘how long does the subject linger on the edge of the volume….’ in collaboration with Trisha Brown is discussed in terms of multimedia in the ‘Thinking Images’ conversation between Kaiser, Downie and Birringer. The artificial intelligence picks up on the dancer’s movements to create its own interpretation. It is therefore reliant on the dancers and furthermore an extension of the dancers performance.
As mentioned in the interview by Downie, their goal in ‘how long….’ was not for the dancers to interact with the multimedia, but rather [they] were seeking to interact with Trisha Browns dance. It is therefore apparent that the imagery and the dancers work in coalition to create aesthetics. It is prevalent that this aesthetic means that both the virtual and the dancers are acknowledged by the audience. In conclusion, this disproves the notion that dance plus virtual equals virtual, and reiterates the negative team’s belief that the combination of the two elements creates a multimedia performance.
April 8, 2010
Summary and Comments on The OpenEnded Group - Frequently Pondered Questions
Why the interest in abstracting motion from the body?
The idea that necessary technology needs to draw out organic movement from a human being derives notions of roboticism (if that can be justified as a word). Paul Kaiser questions these ideas in his essay as it becomes more questionable to our understanding of self and the notion of the Other. The "Other" rather is becoming something of a technological guise in which our society wants to grasp and hold onto. It seems that we are continuously reaching out to technological realms to disguise humanity. The human form is becoming so technological that the system will soon be innate. Soon enough we will most likely have the most intimate of situations i.e. sexual intercourse turned into a robotic interplay. Can you imagine that? Humans telling robots to have sex for them. I wouldn't be surprised if this was already occurring...somewhere in the world.
What do choreography and computer science have to tell eachother?
"...a digital computer with a random element...a machine is described as having free will."
Wow, what a baffling statement. Kaiser touches on the essence of technology with humanistic sensory systems in correlation to the ideas of Marcel Duchamp and the simple action of throwing a dice can be considered as an expression of one's subconscious mind. In this subtext, Kaiser anticipates thought surrounding the idea that computer systems don't translate the same effects that art does and this is how the approaches differ radically. Choreographers and dancers would disagree profoundly however Kaiser goes on to articulate that this idea of 'dance + virtual = virtual'. The experiment that he makes in New York acts perfectly to suggest the ideals of humans as a focused computerised program. The idea streams from our already computerised society. The new experiment, called Pedestrian, aims to use projectors in replacement of streetlamps and it sounds as if the direction is the beginning of a technological trend in a new form of cyber reality in actual reality!
Will virtual dance replace or diminish real dance?
He certainly thinks not, as do I! The technological enhancements and experiments are just that. It does not replace nor diminish the dance art form.
Reading Summary: Deconstructing Language
A summary of: DECONSTRUCTING LANGUAGE
Jessica Davis
I was away on the 31st of March so this is a solo summary; I hope that’s okay.
This reading questioned communication, as Holmburg (1996) stated it broke linguistic codes and consequently created new ones. The reading continues to introduce the style of Wilson’s work “Einstein on the Beach” illustrating the evolution of theatre that lead to the 1976 performance use of Space, Time and aesthetics. Wilson subverted the representation of these elements through many techniques including performance of movement and dialogue (e.g. repetition), use of props (e.g. employing a chronometer), use of stage and set (e.g. having poetry written on the set). This Holmburg(1996) suggests motivates us to look at our use of prose in everyday life that has become so essential during the Age of Relativity, as the perception of language and meaning was so concrete. “Einstein on the Beach” is both non-narrative and non-linear, as the work is fragmented to provide the audience with space/gaps in between fragments to construct their own meanings, and narratives. Holmburg(1996) discussed the terms ‘fabula’ (story) and ‘syuzhet’ (plot), and how the concrete ‘syuzhet’ can be obscured by the perception of the ‘fabula’ (one example of the ‘fabula’ being manipulated upon is the spaces between fragments in ‘Einstein on the Beach’ ). Holmburg(1996) continues by describing different scenes of “Einstein on the Beach” and the stylistic devices and techniques employed (e.g. Unity through repetition, variation and reversal). Wilson examines societies ingrained instinct to relate all systems of representation, and consequently this highlighted the lack of reliability on our ability to communicate; this is represented through the various techniques used to represent the train (e.g. the painting of the locomotive juxtaposed to the pulsating music). Other techniques Wilson adopted include the dislocation of sound, captured through the music and dialogue (e.g. out of sync chanting), the circular structure of the narrative and the evolution of transportation in each scene; this created an unstable and uncertain, mythic view of history, and our representations constructed as a result of our history. Holmburg(1996) continues to critique the play questioning the boundaries that define high art and pop culture as Wilson refers to various resources that represent modern culture (e.g. cinema, dance, opera, pop songs). Holmburg(1996) then examines context by comparing the reproductions of “Einstein on the Beach” and how they have been subverted to fit their own context (e.g. costume); and how the quality of aesthetics for “Einstein on the Beach” are challenging to keep and evolve, due to the focus on box office revenue and the popularity of television drama. Holmburg(1996) had Glass reflect at the end of the reading on how “Einstein on the Beach” separated time structure and dramatic structure allowing the audience to appreciate “a sense of being”.
Jessica Davis
I was away on the 31st of March so this is a solo summary; I hope that’s okay.
This reading questioned communication, as Holmburg (1996) stated it broke linguistic codes and consequently created new ones. The reading continues to introduce the style of Wilson’s work “Einstein on the Beach” illustrating the evolution of theatre that lead to the 1976 performance use of Space, Time and aesthetics. Wilson subverted the representation of these elements through many techniques including performance of movement and dialogue (e.g. repetition), use of props (e.g. employing a chronometer), use of stage and set (e.g. having poetry written on the set). This Holmburg(1996) suggests motivates us to look at our use of prose in everyday life that has become so essential during the Age of Relativity, as the perception of language and meaning was so concrete. “Einstein on the Beach” is both non-narrative and non-linear, as the work is fragmented to provide the audience with space/gaps in between fragments to construct their own meanings, and narratives. Holmburg(1996) discussed the terms ‘fabula’ (story) and ‘syuzhet’ (plot), and how the concrete ‘syuzhet’ can be obscured by the perception of the ‘fabula’ (one example of the ‘fabula’ being manipulated upon is the spaces between fragments in ‘Einstein on the Beach’ ). Holmburg(1996) continues by describing different scenes of “Einstein on the Beach” and the stylistic devices and techniques employed (e.g. Unity through repetition, variation and reversal). Wilson examines societies ingrained instinct to relate all systems of representation, and consequently this highlighted the lack of reliability on our ability to communicate; this is represented through the various techniques used to represent the train (e.g. the painting of the locomotive juxtaposed to the pulsating music). Other techniques Wilson adopted include the dislocation of sound, captured through the music and dialogue (e.g. out of sync chanting), the circular structure of the narrative and the evolution of transportation in each scene; this created an unstable and uncertain, mythic view of history, and our representations constructed as a result of our history. Holmburg(1996) continues to critique the play questioning the boundaries that define high art and pop culture as Wilson refers to various resources that represent modern culture (e.g. cinema, dance, opera, pop songs). Holmburg(1996) then examines context by comparing the reproductions of “Einstein on the Beach” and how they have been subverted to fit their own context (e.g. costume); and how the quality of aesthetics for “Einstein on the Beach” are challenging to keep and evolve, due to the focus on box office revenue and the popularity of television drama. Holmburg(1996) had Glass reflect at the end of the reading on how “Einstein on the Beach” separated time structure and dramatic structure allowing the audience to appreciate “a sense of being”.
Second Speaker Negative Team Debate 2- Ebony
Good morning, Today as the second speaker for the negative team I will be continuing our argument that the virtual can only ever be an extension to the primacy of dance.
But first I would like to start by arguing that… what the affirmative have said..
As our first speaker has suggested Dance and performance is bodily, organic and real. You need the body to be present in order to generate these virtual elements. This realness and availability of life is merely extended through viewing the performance in a virtual gaze.
I think it is fair to say that when you are going to see a dance performance you go with expectation that this is what you will be seeing to some extent, whether we see it in the flesh or as a virtual form.
A dance performance to me, and to the others in our team is the process of bodily movement throughout space, no matter if the space is live or virtual. Thus expressing again this extension to dance that is virtual, allowing for an increase in development and exploration of the human’s moving body. When a dancers movement is manipulated into a virtual realm we no longer see human figures moving about on a screen rather we make connections between these movement and the movements that are familiar to us. Within virtual performances there is always a sense of connection, wether to intention or to the movement itself.
Within Sydney dance companies latest performance called New creations Rafael Bonachela makes use of a scrim placed at the front of the stage, where live bodies are able to discreetly move within the performance space to avoid being seen by the viewers gaze. Through computer generated technology virtual images appear on the screen at the beginning and end of the performance. Projecting small pieces of puzzles that slowly glue together to establish a sculpture of human figures. For the rest of the performance the scrim is lifted and the dancers are fully visible depicting an array of physical movement.
So why is the scrim only used at the commencement and conclusion of the performance if the virtual is in some sense just as significant as the movement? I believe it is because, especially in this instance, dance is primary and foremost the significant aspect for a DANCE performance. Bonachela states I work from the ground up “which makes a dance work and provide(s) inspiration that can inform the dancers BODIES” this assisting in our argument that dance is primary and virtual the extension.
We now cross to the more virtual aspects of dance performance, where dancing bodies or figures are displayed through virtual programs, such as life forms onto a screen within the performance space. I am going to use Merce Cunningham’s work Biped as an example of one of these types of works. The virtual figures are projected onto a scrim throughout the work and the live dancers are also seen taking on the movement of the virtual beings. I’d like to make clear now that programs such as life forms aid in bringing virtual elements into a performance and enhance the movement of the human body.
To make use of this program life form’s you must have an extensive knowledge of the human body, its capabilities and limitations. If you do not abide by these anatomical rules and restrictions the movements will not work. The movement must already be created even if it hasn’t be physically anticipated, the choreographer must know the movement that they are trying to portray onto this program.
For Cunningham to choreograph these virtual beings the live form must exist first. For a simple arm movement to be transferred onto the program the choreographer needs to be able to articulate exactly what is happening within the movement. For example when does the shoulder move, how high can the arms go, when does the wrist change directions and the list goes on.
While some argue that the fact that the live performing bodies are portraying that of the virtual is should be understood that the live existed first. Cunningham’s choreography takes on particular qualities that make the movement seem computerized and robotic, this is no reference to the influence to the life forms program rather his interest in shapes and how the body works. It is important that we don’t blur our understanding with movements taking on uncomfortable or robotic movement as the live taking on virtual influences; it is rather the interest in abstracting our dancing bodies.
Finally virtual can never completely over right or erase the importance of dance and the live moving body with its limbs, joints and muscles. The movement/ dance essense comes first before the virtual can be added. The virtual simply allows new ways of exploring the primary fascination of the exciting human body. Giving audiences new ways to view dance and adding new elements to the performances we see today.
But first I would like to start by arguing that… what the affirmative have said..
As our first speaker has suggested Dance and performance is bodily, organic and real. You need the body to be present in order to generate these virtual elements. This realness and availability of life is merely extended through viewing the performance in a virtual gaze.
I think it is fair to say that when you are going to see a dance performance you go with expectation that this is what you will be seeing to some extent, whether we see it in the flesh or as a virtual form.
A dance performance to me, and to the others in our team is the process of bodily movement throughout space, no matter if the space is live or virtual. Thus expressing again this extension to dance that is virtual, allowing for an increase in development and exploration of the human’s moving body. When a dancers movement is manipulated into a virtual realm we no longer see human figures moving about on a screen rather we make connections between these movement and the movements that are familiar to us. Within virtual performances there is always a sense of connection, wether to intention or to the movement itself.
Within Sydney dance companies latest performance called New creations Rafael Bonachela makes use of a scrim placed at the front of the stage, where live bodies are able to discreetly move within the performance space to avoid being seen by the viewers gaze. Through computer generated technology virtual images appear on the screen at the beginning and end of the performance. Projecting small pieces of puzzles that slowly glue together to establish a sculpture of human figures. For the rest of the performance the scrim is lifted and the dancers are fully visible depicting an array of physical movement.
So why is the scrim only used at the commencement and conclusion of the performance if the virtual is in some sense just as significant as the movement? I believe it is because, especially in this instance, dance is primary and foremost the significant aspect for a DANCE performance. Bonachela states I work from the ground up “which makes a dance work and provide(s) inspiration that can inform the dancers BODIES” this assisting in our argument that dance is primary and virtual the extension.
We now cross to the more virtual aspects of dance performance, where dancing bodies or figures are displayed through virtual programs, such as life forms onto a screen within the performance space. I am going to use Merce Cunningham’s work Biped as an example of one of these types of works. The virtual figures are projected onto a scrim throughout the work and the live dancers are also seen taking on the movement of the virtual beings. I’d like to make clear now that programs such as life forms aid in bringing virtual elements into a performance and enhance the movement of the human body.
To make use of this program life form’s you must have an extensive knowledge of the human body, its capabilities and limitations. If you do not abide by these anatomical rules and restrictions the movements will not work. The movement must already be created even if it hasn’t be physically anticipated, the choreographer must know the movement that they are trying to portray onto this program.
For Cunningham to choreograph these virtual beings the live form must exist first. For a simple arm movement to be transferred onto the program the choreographer needs to be able to articulate exactly what is happening within the movement. For example when does the shoulder move, how high can the arms go, when does the wrist change directions and the list goes on.
While some argue that the fact that the live performing bodies are portraying that of the virtual is should be understood that the live existed first. Cunningham’s choreography takes on particular qualities that make the movement seem computerized and robotic, this is no reference to the influence to the life forms program rather his interest in shapes and how the body works. It is important that we don’t blur our understanding with movements taking on uncomfortable or robotic movement as the live taking on virtual influences; it is rather the interest in abstracting our dancing bodies.
Finally virtual can never completely over right or erase the importance of dance and the live moving body with its limbs, joints and muscles. The movement/ dance essense comes first before the virtual can be added. The virtual simply allows new ways of exploring the primary fascination of the exciting human body. Giving audiences new ways to view dance and adding new elements to the performances we see today.
April 7, 2010
1st Speaker Negative (2nd Group)
Good Morning my name is Jaimelee and I am the first speaker for the negative team. Dance + Virtual = Virtual – we, Ebony, Katie and I will be arguing that the virtual can only ever be a complimentary extension to the primacy of dance. I will be talking about our response to Auslander’s idea of dance + virtual = virtual and how we believe that without the body or the dance, the virtual cannot exist. I will be using the work Glow by Chunky Move as an example on how the virtual can only be an extension of dance.
Our second speaker, Ebony, will be discussing the idea that dance is primary to the virtual elements of performance. She will be using Merce Cunningham’s Biped, and it’s use of Lifeforms as well as Sydney Dance Company’s New Creations to further develop her argument.
Finally, our third speaker, Katie, will be summing up what Ebony and I have discussed and will be giving her input and final statement on how we believe that dance + virtual does not equal dance but the virtual is and can only ever be a complimentary extension of dance.
Rebuttal – quote from Auslander – supporting our argument that without the body the virtual can not exist.
According to Auslander, Dance + Virtual = Virtual. To start with, what is dance and what is virtual? Dance – A successive group of rhythmical steps or bodily motions, or both, usually executed to music. A performance. An art. Virtual – Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form, or name. Temporarily simulated or extended by computer software.
So if we say that Dance equals the body and Virtual equals media, Auslander’s suggestion works towards the media erasing the body. If dance + virtual = virtual then his argument is that once a virtual element has been added to dance, the body disappears in the performance. Eliminating this body would mean that the virtual would be erased too. How can the virtual exist without the original body in the first place? How can the virtual give the same experience without the live physical bodies of the dancers?
Dance and performance is bodily, organic and real. It is about the body, movement, blood and muscles and all those things that contribute to creating the choreographed shapes, patterns and pathways. You need the dance and the body to be present to be able to generate that virtual element. As I have just mentioned, virtual means – temporarily simulated or extended by computer software. The key word there is extended. The virtual element in any performance does not and will never eliminate that physical component of dance, however, it is an extension of the performance.
The example I am going to use is the 30 minute performance we viewed last week called Glow by Chunky Move.
Performed on the ground and viewed from a very high angle, Glow is lit by a data projector from the ceiling using real time generated graphics to work with the movement of the dancer. There is an infa-red video camera that is actually watching the dancer in the space and informing the computer where the dancer is, how fast they are moving, where they are moving and what part of the body they are moving. From that data, the computer runs a series of algorhythms which generate the graphic response to that dance.
This is another description from the concept explanation of Glow on the Chunky Move website: “By utilising the latest in interactive video technologies, a digital landscape is generated in real time in response to the dancer’s movement. The body’s gestures are extended by and in turn manipulate the video world that surrounds it.”
Both of these explain how the virtual element in this dance piece is a response to the dance, the dancer and the movement. Clearly, dance and the body is not and can not be eliminated from this piece nor is the virtual taking over the physical body. The dancer is in control and without the dancer’s body or the choreographed movements, the real time generated graphics would not be projected onto the performance space.
The digital media relies on the dancer and the choreographed movements and therefore it cannot erase it, although it does help to highlight it.
Finally, the virtual can never erase the primacy of the dance. The digital graphics are an illustrative extended motion of their movement creating visual outlines of the shapes, patterns and pathways created by the body of the dancer. The virtual can only ever be a complimentary extension of the primacy of dance.
Debate Report 1st Group (Fiona Hallam - Advisor)
As advisor of this debate it was my role to evaluate both sides of the question, Dance + Virtual = Virtual. The evaluations of both affirmative and negative point of views were overlooked as an advisor. Assisted points that I felt were relevant and complimented in expressing the answer to the affirmative and negative answer were discussed with both teams. This was voiced prior to the debate and during the debate before rebuttal stages with both affirmative and negative teams.
The affirmative team initiated the debate off with a strong opinion agreeing to dance plus virtual is equal to virtual.
This was achieved with the discussion of strong essence of technology and media to the work demanding audiences view. This can distract the quality and connection of the dance with the audience. The point that was this speaker strongly argued was the ‘sensorial overload’ that is created with the new creations and developments that technology creates and performs in these works.
The use of various technical and media aspects can overwhelm the unknown human eye and loose the focus of the dance in the piece. This focus of the eye can be created by the expectations of the dancers doing skilled physical activity contorted and demonstrating strength, flexibility and co-ordination. Although viewers have this predetermined assumption the ever-growing technology driven culture we live in the audience expects to see new and innovative things, which is where the technology comes in and can detach the emotion and the essence of dancing from the work.
The first affirmative speaker proposed evidence of a relevant and strongly argued speech initiating the debate.
To begin the rebuttal the first negative speaker clearly presented their focus of their speech being that dance and virtual are their own separate identities on their own. The way in which they approached the argument dance plus virtual equals virtual, is that these to mediums collaborated together can create multimedia. The reoccurrence in the negative side was the argument that virtual and technological aspects are just an extension of the dancing. The examples that effectively assisted this were reference to Chucky Move’s ‘Glow’ and the Open-ended group. Collaborating two mediums enhance the extensions and movements of the dancer or dancers to create contemporary and interesting aesthetic to the work.
The affirmative chose to rebut what the negative side had approached in discussion but in this attempt confused the two ways in which both sides were approaching the question. The rebuttal was that dance and virtual are two separate components. The virtual component being a new aspect bringing a new intensity and life to the work. Which is all well enough to be said but unfortunately this affirmative team had not detected the negative team main speech line being that the their argument was dance plus virtual equals multimedia and not in fact virtual. This rebuttal slightly contradicting and confusing the audience in which way both teams were approaching the argument. This speaker concluded their argument be reinstating that a new meaning was created through the use of technology that overpowered the meaning of original dance movement.
The negative side continued to enforce the notion that the two components together combine multimedia and is infact a collaboration to extend the dancing not the virtual dominating. The brought in the discussion that technology may assist in narrating the story that dancing is expressing and inturn could impact on the way in which the audience views and interprets the movement however you can only interpret the dance, not the virtual.
The affirmative side concluded their discussion with stating that art in this world has dramatically changed over the years. This evaluated with the developments of technology and their coherent existence in our culture being utilized to depict storyline furthermore than the dance expresses. This was slightly blurred I the delivery of wordings as hadn’t gone through how art has developed into technology and then discusses technology being brought into the dance. This speaker tied up all that had been discussed throughout the argument from her side with the main intention of technology overpowered the original dance movement.
The negative side summed up the duration of the debate and the topics and also delved into to more information and topics. This commenced by reinforcing the idea that the virtual merely a supporting role and not an overshadowing, which creates multi media work. This collaboration of technology can support the narrative within the dance movement and can enhance the overall impact of the performance. This speaker did well by covering all topics that had been discussed and relating them to the essence of the negatives approach to the argument.
To summarize the course of the debate was difficult tot follow as both the negative and the affirmative teams didn’t present a clear speech line throughout each speaker that reinforced their approach to the question. This topic being very blurred in the way that both dance and virtual were not discussed deeply solely on their own as a component.
The clarity and structure of the speeches could have been more precise in order to be a more successful debate. Over the two sides there was lot of overlapping of information and contradictions. The affirmative side had more consistent flow and presentation of their approach and main point throughout their speeches and was awarded the first lace in the debate.
As advisor I had discussed with both sides what their speeches were about and had some points for each side to retaliate and discuss to present relevant information and support their approach to the question. Unfortunately these pints were not clearly discussed and or presented with the height of nerves before the speech and the overload of information during the debate. So unfortunately I could see this information overlapping and tried to enforce some rebuttals that would assists in roving each sides points. All in all there is a lot to verbally express in this debate with a very fine line in depicting the separation, as there is such a high collaboration of these dance and virtual elements. With more time and deeper research this debate could have been more successful.
(Advisor - 1st group)
week 5 second debate
Prior to the debate Amanda, Bec and I as the adjudicator’s we decided that we would follow the adjudicating system of the 3ms. That is Matter (the content the individual speaker covers including theoretical and examples) Manner (the clarity of the speaker) and Method (the use of rebuttal by the speaker). The 3ms were helpful in constructing a marking system separate to our own ideas surrounding the debate topic.
The affirmative team, Emily, Rosie, Jess, opened up the debate with their main line of argument that when live dance corresponds and interacts with technology to ‘create a new virtual experience for the audience.’ They went on to explain that the live aspects of the performance are perceived through the mediatised and dramatically enhances the performance. This primary argument draws upon Auslanders idea that ‘the live element will be perceived through that frame - they will be seen in terms of the video or digital media, not the other way around’ (Auslander 1999). This mediatised society according to the affirmative team influences the behavioural responses for both the dancer and the audience. In particular the second speaker Rosie brought up some key ideas of Auslanders that contributed to the argument that D+V=V. She argued that the negative teams definition of the virtual as static as definitions are always changing. By challenging the negative teams definition she undermined the entire negative teams argument. Rosie also discussed the idea of cultural dominance. She argued that cultural media allocates levels of dominance and that it is a shifting hierarch. Furthermore she argued that the live aspect alters with the technological and not the ontological. For the affirmative whilst dance is not eliminated the Virtual is given supremacy in relation to the cultural hierarchy and therefore D+V=V.
In contrast the negative team, Jamie Lee, Ebony and Katie, argued that the virtual is only an extension of Dance that without Dance the Virtual cannot exist. The negative team argued that because Dance is the primary element to the Virtual the latter could only be complementary. The negative team drew upon the example of the dance software Life Form as an example of the body triumphing over the technology. This is because the body is needed for the computer to map out the physicality of the dance movements. Katie, the third speaker, addressed the arguments from the affirmative team about Auslanders idea of the mediatised. She argued that dance resists the mediatised expectations. According to Katie contemporary forms are choosing to convey the primacy of dance. That Dance is reverting back to the understanding of the human body and that Virtual is an extension not ‘live’. Katie raised some interesting points to the debate however as they were presented at the end it was impossible to fully develop the ideas presented.
Overall the debate was well constructed with both teams presenting clear concise arguments making it a hard debate to judge. When given our 10 minutes we were torn between the two sides of the debate. In fact I was the only one who was in favour of the affirmative. Whilst both team bought forward convincing arguments the affirmative engaged more with the negatives ideas and had a strong rebuttal. Therefore after dissecting the debate, and each of us laying forth our reasons for the winning team it was decided that the affirmative won 2/1.
Adjudicator Kathryn Kennett
The debate for week 5 was 'Dance + Virtual = Virtual', derived from Philip Auslander’s statement in the assigned reading ‘Live Performance in a Mediatised Culture’, discusses the idea that when placed together dances mergers with the more ‘culturally dominant’ (Auslander 2008; P38) virtual to become a completely virtual experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)