thank you for your responses and comments, i will try to address them together [cite]Standards are a great idea. But what would we standardise?[/cite] I think there are several areas in which different standards could be developed, remembering that existing software and projects are already widely used. although the e-merge scripting language was not designed as a standardisation project it could be adopted as such for similar works. nick, i'm not calling for a common software but common languages on which tools can be built. that's why I suggest e-merge first. individuals will always want to build their own tools and have varying budgets, but a free common language to build those tools upon should lower financial costs. the bespoke projects and endeavours of individuals have enabled great leaps in our field but often remain inaccessible to those who might wish to build upon them. I too, do not believe in dogma for it's own sake, but tools designed to help us create work simply and effectively. technology that lets us draw on sound, vision, motion capture etc as our artistic need require. clearly no single standard will cover all need but perhaps there could be a coming together to identify areas of interest and existing projects. [cite]Would we create an XML [ http://www.w3schools.com/xml/default.asp ] schema for the encoding of dance? XMLaban? Would this technology have parallels with the developments in XChord; an XML schema for encoding music which then allows XSLT to provide key changes and similar transformations? Is anyone working on this already?[/cite] [cite]The Dance department at Ohio State University and the Dance Notation Bureau recently hosted a conference on exactly this. No standards have been established yet, but will hopefully be in the works soon. Stay tuned [/cite] I declare and interest here with xml based notation, but let me address other issues first. lars, i'm glad to hear that you are thinking of an xml based implementation, it is something I have looked at myself (i created a 'proof of concept' version of a laban xml whist experimenting with my own sysyten), I look forward to what emerges. Robert, I don't know xchord (url?) but Music XML [ http://www.recordare.com/xml.html ]. encoding dance is an option, but is an issue of notation which comes down to what do you want to notate. different notation forms have different strengths. I believe we should define languages that enable use to handle data more effectively (communication, storage and retrieval, re use, analysis) as to remove some of the hurdles of working with disparate technologies. I think that we have the individuals capable (and willing) to examine what we (dance and technology) do in relation to options such as SMIL [ http://www.w3schools.com/smil/smil_reference.asp ] and define something that handles what we need. regardless of the wider use of such systems the dance tech community could implement something successfully. what is important is that it helps, rather than hinders our working progress. I often run into the argument that dancers don't want to learn computer code but I think scott's assertion is correct; [cite]As more computer languages are invented to choose from it seems possible that an increasing proportion of people will find themselves writing and thinking in code[/cite] [ http://huizen.dds.nl/%7Esdela/sfd/scott.html ] my personal approach is to create 'transparent code' temporarily removing the content form it's structure. we should be able to plan and design with these languages on paper and computer, (as an open question do any dance teach courses teach the nut and bolts of computer languages?) share this information in development teams or save it as an archive of our work. in my own work I am looking at a handwritten and machine readable notation, although it has dance tech implementations it is not it's primary intention. I have recently submitted a paper on my system for review to the body space technology journal and so can only give some details here. # it has a small, familiar lexis, with a well formed syntax making it simple to learn, write and read yet retains the ability to define new terms according to specific needs. defined terms include: body parts, effort / dynamics, notes, comments, tasks , scripts, and properties [sfx, lfx, props] # uses numerical, word and absrtact symbol notational and a left to right reading score. # the ability to include drawings, scribbles or any abstract symbol the choreographer uses whilst retaining the notations machine readable capabilities. the notation can be used as a whole or in part form (it has two elements) and can be used for planning, as well scripting and notating dances. the system can provide a comparative framework for different artists choreographic methods as it retains the uniqueness of their approach. it can organise a wealth of choreographic material in a searchable format suitable for analysis and research. it is an xml based notational form but the handwritten version does not appear as such (see attached pdf). i have found other example of xml based dance notation but they are either only mocked up proposals or not not suitable for dance tech implimentation [ http://countrydance.sourceforge.net/ ]. this work came about via discussions and a meeting with Michael Klien and Davide Terlingo and I thank them for valuable input. my notation and an xml version of laban may at first seem at odds, but they address different needs. this is how I envisage a set of standards developing. rule based, procedural, structural and object oriented languages all have their place according to need. and i'm sure that my tests of a laban xml, was a very different implementation of xml to that suggested at the Ohio State University conference, due to differing concepts of use. [q] Does a computer need to operate an emergent program to participate in an emergent event?[/q] [a]no [/a] [q]Or does the computer provide the means towards emergence? If so, does it not undermine notions of emergence commonly found in performance (especially in the improvisational methods discussed) by introducing hierarchy?[/q] [a]rather than providing the means it is one of the emergent properties. I do not belive it will undermine this process look at duplex etc [ http://www.dancetechnology.com/dancetechnology/archive/2002/0203.html ], moreover improv has a hierarchy itself (start middle end) however minimal[/a] [q]What aspects of emergence dance software makes it different from randomly created, computer generated movements? Is it iterating over a concept e.g. responding to an elliptical curve, responding to colour changes etc? Are we able to find out why the software creates movements in such a way?[/q] [a] this comes down to an issue of programming. how you define the way in which the software responds. my personal approach is to use a mix of techniques using random [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random ](not pseudo random [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo_random ]) and and rule based algorithmic approaches. options include 'chaos', 'random', 'evolution' and remapping to vary responses to 'stimuli'. the software creates solutions that are converted into movement instructions. it a 'mindless' simulated dancer, with 'body intelligence' but no cognitive or emotional aspect. you can work out the system paths but as with real improv the 'why' will remain elusive. [q]The perennial question: can we tell that the software is emergent, does it matter, are similar effects achieved through other means?[/q] [a]possibly, no, and yes, but I think that the latter is true of all dance. I commented on this at choreograph.net recently; [cite]sometimes the process can be hidden in the result. I can think of cases where radical [dance] practice has been flagged up as something established because the process has not been examined, and conversely where the result may seem new but the process itself is not.[/cite] for me process is the personal part. at the end of the day the work itself should stand up as art (unless the process is the art). yet our process is what makes or work unique. my desire is to 'model the medium' [ http://www.brunel.ac.uk/depts/pfa/bstjournal/2no2/Papers/Sanjoy%20Roy.htm ] to glimpse at what I strive for in my improvising practice and see how other apply their own methods.[/a] I wonder if this forum could serve as a launch pad for working group to define areas of interest and highlight possible approaches. yours matt gough independent dance artist / researcher
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 05/11/04