In the case of this article, I think that's true. It was obviously written for the technology-minded reader as an announcement from Kaydara. There is little mention of artistic intent, other than a vague reference to present the "man and woman of today", whatever that's supposed to mean.
As with the case of most new art forms throughout history, there is a moment when artists are simply exploring the possibilities of a medium. I consider this exciting. Only history will tell which works are important (and often it's the works during an "experimental" or "revolutionary" stage). I *think* that the artwold has already moved past this in terms of computer-assisted, networked, created works. The novelty has worn off.
What is interesting to me about some of the writing and artwork which was done in the past twenty years or so, is how technology has inevitably become an extension of the body. There is the possibility of our neural pathways (electrical) to extend out of the body and into another sphere altogether. Our technology, both fictional and real, reinforces the notion of our networked identities and feelings of disassociation from our bodies. What better medium to explore these postmodern ideas in than dance?
Are you familiar with the work of Riverbed? They produced some interesting installations with Bill T. Jones and Merce Cunningham. In the "ghostcatching" installation, there was a true marriage of digital technology with the body. Pure movement itself was captured and transformed into a visual representation of the dancer.
Interesting questions arise about whether movement itself is independent of the body. It's like the record of movent left by a paintbrush and paint by an artist. There's the record of movement in a painting, the representation (if any) of an external object, the narrative of the subject matter, the narrative of the artist's process, and so on.
There's so many ways of reading a given work. Even in the most classical ballet, a viewer can concentrate on the technique of the dancers, the interplay of light and movement, the narrative structure of the story, or something else altogether. I think its unfair to dismiss digital works because the technology is new (although not so much anymore). I'm curious to know what you're referring to when you say "dance technology".
Watching the Riverbed/Bill T.Jones works is a truly awesome experience. It's about so much more than the medium/technique of motion capture itself. The work provokes so many questions about the nature of self possession, the purity of movement, gravity, light, space, one's soul.
Plus its just a damn cool experience--and the imagery is quite possibly something you've never seen before. It's strangely unfamiliar, but full of movement and sounds you can recognize.
There are too many concepts here to even express in words (and I simply don't have the time right now--I could go on forever), which is why I consider this to be a great work of art. AND I think that it's very much about the nature of dance itself.
Ghostcatching at Cooper Union[/url] Merce Cunningham--technology
BTW--This post may be sort of strange in "Backstage"--but I had to....
<small>[ 07 April 2003, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: lampwick ]</small>