Many terms were thrown around over the weekend - the one that sticks in my mind the most is TRANSPARENCY. A binary is being set up between what is transparent vs. what is incoherent. Or what subjectively people may reduce to "good" vs. "bad" work.

How well an artist does or does not express ideas is of course a crucial issue. If intentions are not clear audiences get caught up in the "jargon" of the performance space and stop experiencing the event.

There is so much jargon involved in using the technology I wonder if we (artists) aren't getting too caught up in it and not spending enough time on making the ideas strong, intentional, vital.

Without getting caught up in "good" vs. "bad" art -- can we talk honestly and critically about what was satisfying and not satisfying in the works shown this weekend?

I'm sorry I wasn't there when the idea of transparency was brought up. Does this refer to transparency of the artist's intentions through implementation of theatrical and technical tools/technologies versus ideas that get lost because we as the audience are focussing to much on how the tools and technologies are being used to create what we see?

If this is the case, I can say there was a great deal I found satisfying about Peter Kirn's work. I could tell that the sensor under the performer's dress was somehow feeding information to Peter who was doing something and then projecting it onto the screen, but to be honest I didn't focus to much on the workings of this circuit. That's because I was enjoying watching the images on the screen and how they related to the shadows created on the fabric of the lower part of the dress and the wall. I have to also say that I really enjoyed that the dress the dancer wore was both aesthetically interesting as well as practical in it's ability to serve as a surface to project on. This wasn't just a square projecting board, but rather something tasteful and interesting.