Blogs

Comments

• 

  Julie N. Cruse May 6, 2008 at 7:38am

  "In a sense, the modernist imperative toward ceaseless change and development involves an embrace of the ethos of capitalism, in which variation of product means new markets, shifting tastes, and more profits. During the modernist century (approximately the 1850s to the 1950s), the artist was forced to sell his or her wares on the market, indepenceht of the partronage systems that formerly supported art. This led to an internal contradiction within modernism between the need to produce novel and attractive products for the market and the urge to purify art of anything external or extraneous to the art object. Thus, conflicts erupted between the logic of aesthetic autonomy and its religion of "art for art's sake" - driving modernists to avoid contaminating their art with mass society and mass culture - and the imperative to sell their products for the highest price."
  - Kellner and Best, The Postmodern Turn (p. 129)
• 

  Julie N. Cruse April 15, 2008 at 5:23am

  i love the coffee bit. thanks for the post. i thought the creative commons license was part of the network?
  
  and - i was thinking about the pros and cons of publishing vs. posting -
  
  and i thought about how books often include lists of contributors, and always one or several editors. one thing blogging does is make their conversations transparent. we see who did what.
• 

  Marlon Barrios Solano April 13, 2008 at 5:52pm

  Hello J,
  I think that the idea is that dance as a product is part of the conversation, is a language that we have also understand.
  I think that your concerns are valid and what we have to be aware of the huge impact that social media+rich multimedia are having on dance/cultural institutions in how to legitimize performances and create confluence for live events.
  I think that there many levels and kinds of participation and we are making it as we go. Social networks are a process and we have such a product oriented minds that sometimes it is hard to grasp the "whole".
  So, dance is and will be online... the issue is how we balance, protect and study the implications on authorship, distribution and livelihood.
  I think that you can also take important steps such as put in your page the kind of creative commons licenses in relation to what you post and write in this network and in your blogs.
  I firmly believe that the use of social networking/or social software platforms is an enabler and enhances your distributed presence and people will go to your shows...important exampled in the performing arts such as OK GO and Leslie and Lyes...
  The internet is also an important site of performances that are emerging as forms...is like a public and global underground
  So, it is constant sensing and leaning...
  The institutions (presenters and universities) have always been the formal networks for performances and producers...now we can exist in parallel and inter-penetrate the formal institutions collaborating and also having an opinion.
  So it is a matter of keep thinking and keep your research on how to make good dance or choreography, or how to create a more solid theoretical foundation for dance studies (that I think Tony, Matt and Johannes are examples).
  I think we all consider dance relevant in many ways...
  but remember we have dancing robots and also trance dance of tibetan monks that are been eliminated...
  There are many and we can think about dance in many scopes...we might have certain impact.
  Anything that we do has political implications...
  Morning ramble! lost of coffee...Starbucks coffee
  you see?...there is an economic network...and coffee is information...
  I might dance different today because of caffeine and because my knowledge about exploited workers in Colombia...and we might not be aware
  So, I think that whatever we think "dance" , or "dance-tech" is will always be carried and impacted by the technological milleau, just because dance is human and humans do stuff socially and within networks that we can access
  A social network is just a social prosthetics...
  is like in our own life...we will see,
  cheers
• 

  Julie N. Cruse April 13, 2008 at 4:45pm

  and marlon has done a great job by networking connections with institutional friends
• 

  Julie N. Cruse April 13, 2008 at 4:42pm

  Continuing with my recent unfolding considerations - I feel that there should only be a balance that we are aware of. Conversing and sharing is a wonderful thing, and I should surely hope that dance artists continue to do so online, over the phone, just about anywhere - and I happen to think that online is great for the purpose of archiving. Okay - so what's all the fuss about for me?
  
  It's about finding a balance, or becoming aware of one. It's about paying attention to how much we use (sort of like water conservation or recycling - things we do to continue living a comfortable life while also taking steps to avoid the possible negative outcomes of that use).
  
  So, I think my final thoughts on this topic are that using the internet is great, putting dance online can be wonderful - - - but we need to do so conscientiously. making sure that we are supporting one another offline as well - where the artists need it the most.
• 

  Julie N. Cruse April 6, 2008 at 9:54pm

  Tony,
  
  thanks for the recommendations. not sure if you're still here, but, in case you are
  the issues emerging are.
  
  1. How do we balance the voices of a few with the voices of everyone?
  
  2. What is the difference between art motivated by profit and supporting artists, and their work?
  
  3. What is the value of opinions? who's opinions? why?
  
  4. What does it mean to be legitimate?
  
  money pays bills. it puts food on the table. academia does that too - right sarah lawrence? Does not taking money for our work help shift the priorities in our cultures? What kind of message is that? What's a message without a method? Why don't you support concern for the artists?
  
  as for "context", I checked off this conversation at the bottom of page one. I thought it best to stop putting work online for the time being, and will continue to do so, not because I'm not being "rewarded" but because I'm not sure how its affecting the field, which long-term affects us all - but the subsequent remarks were not critical in nature, so I revisited the conversation from the standpoint of personal interest, not professional (fine line). I have not been blogging about how bad blogging is. That last post was my reference to the danciti article. I have been blogging about how putting dance online, in various forms, could be depriving the artists of much needed support. It's a question that I'd hoped to start to sort out.
  
  One that questions what artists value in putting work online, and one that opens this subject for discussion and discovery. Possible value conflicts I've mentioned, which no one has addressed, are the values of information vs. artist. voices of "anyone" vs. voices of "legitimacy".
  
  Matt Gough probably hasn't posted my comments to his blog yet. I noticed that he hadn't posted here, and thought maybe he'd addressed this discussion in his own site, and judging from the dates it looks like that could be what happened. He's also addressed the proposal that I emailed him. I'm not seeing anything new there. I'm not sure how you've arrived at the idea that he's filling me in on something.
  
  I started this conversation to investigate implications - not picket marlon's network... as your responses (or your "character's") suggest you have interpreted. I'm here and have been here to learn and ask questions. If you think that my points of inquiry are not valid or worthwhile, then tell me why. Give me information instead of sarcasm, respond to my words instead of twisting them, ask questions to clarify instead of jumping to conclusions and wasting time, and maybe then we'll get somewhere.
• 

  Julie N. Cruse April 6, 2008 at 3:03am

  http://danciti.com/post/3037958
  
  "So pat yourself on the back Blogger, you fired Deborah Jowitt."
  -danciti
• 

  Julie N. Cruse April 6, 2008 at 2:57am

  is it that simple?
  
  what attributes do yo affiliate with
  form
  context
  location
  in order for you to say that these particulars of my position undermine me?
• 

  Julie N. Cruse April 5, 2008 at 10:43pm

  I believe we should all partake in critical conversation - or why would I be here?
  
  How do you view the word expert, or anything standing for expertise? Your tone, again textual, implies that you interpret the term expertise as a decorative term ascribed to people who get more credit than the rest of us for something we all do.
  
  I don't put myself on the same level as Marlon, or Johannes, or Deborah Jowitt or Sally Banes or Alwin Nikolai, or Trisha Brown, or Yvonne Rainer, or Steve Paxton, or even you. I believe expertise is accomplished through knowing, doing, understanding, and passing, or even surpassing peer scrutiny.
  
  Do I scutinize history? Yes. Am I skeptical that those were the only experts? Yes. Does that mean that I do not respect those who have done the work and the research to lead us to where we are simply because I may have a similar potential?
  
  You can very well declare yourself an expert --- but the question is, does anyone believe you? It is ultimately the critical trust of your peers that is final.
• 

  Julie N. Cruse April 5, 2008 at 7:41pm

  It really depends on what you - no WE - value more... the information, or the artist.