Maze as Dance
From Maze
(Difference between revisions)
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
In the case of 10PRINT, simplicity affords us a clear and straightforward example instance of reading code as choreography. First of all the line 10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10 reads as code, not plain English and not graphic. It can be said to read as notation, thought not, for sure, in the classic Labanotation/kinetography or Benesh method of notation (from the late 1940s). Notation in the world of dance is used both as instruction and memory, as blueprint and as record. | In the case of 10PRINT, simplicity affords us a clear and straightforward example instance of reading code as choreography. First of all the line 10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10 reads as code, not plain English and not graphic. It can be said to read as notation, thought not, for sure, in the classic Labanotation/kinetography or Benesh method of notation (from the late 1940s). Notation in the world of dance is used both as instruction and memory, as blueprint and as record. | ||
| − | To think of the 10 PRINT line of code as a line of choreography affords us the opportunity to underscore some of its characteristics. It suggests that computer code, written to be interpreted by computers, may be interpreted by other means – namely, in this instance, by human beings, with unexpected, choreographic intentions and/or results. As a matter of fact, it may appear coincidental, but it is utterly convenient to recognize in the 10PRINT line of code instructions for two feet in motion. Each foot can easily be seen in the Commodore64’s “back” and “forward” graphic slashes. The performance of these feet on the screen are the computer’s interpretation of the code, but this is code that an aerobically healthy dancer could and might well perform as well on stage – and not just because the two feet make it conveniently human. | + | To think of the 10 PRINT line of code as a line of choreography affords us the opportunity to underscore some of its characteristics. It suggests that computer code, written to be interpreted by computers, may be interpreted by other means – namely, in this instance, by human beings, with unexpected, choreographic intentions and/or results. As a matter of fact, it may appear coincidental, but it is utterly convenient, to recognize in the 10PRINT line of code instructions for two feet in motion. Each foot can easily be seen in the Commodore64’s “back” and “forward” graphic slashes. The performance of these feet on the screen are the computer’s interpretation of the code, but this is code that an aerobically healthy dancer could and might well perform as well on stage – and not just because the two feet make it conveniently human. |
This line of code captures other choreographic concerns. As a loop, it denotes choreographic repetition; its “loopiness,” like its bi-pedal characteristic, emerges in the work of many choreographers. The work of Pina Bausch, for example, amply demonstrates the innocence and tameness of a simple motion or step, as against the power and the violence that same motion acquires when repeated and repeated and repeated in numbers that acquire momentum before one’s very eyes. The effects in Bausch’s work, captured first visually, spill over into the audience’s full-bodied experience of physical pain and sensory re-adjustment. 10PRINT uses only two “steps” to mesmerize the viewer. The incessant hopping around on two feet that 10PRINT choreographs would not but affect audiences similarly. Repetition, in Bausch’s work, typically starts as sort of boringly mesmerizing but may be experienced, in the end, painfully boring, assaulting, and even traumatizing. Quite a bit can be learned here, not least how the human body in motion affords audiences new imaginaries and the intertwining of old histories with new and novel creative futures. | This line of code captures other choreographic concerns. As a loop, it denotes choreographic repetition; its “loopiness,” like its bi-pedal characteristic, emerges in the work of many choreographers. The work of Pina Bausch, for example, amply demonstrates the innocence and tameness of a simple motion or step, as against the power and the violence that same motion acquires when repeated and repeated and repeated in numbers that acquire momentum before one’s very eyes. The effects in Bausch’s work, captured first visually, spill over into the audience’s full-bodied experience of physical pain and sensory re-adjustment. 10PRINT uses only two “steps” to mesmerize the viewer. The incessant hopping around on two feet that 10PRINT choreographs would not but affect audiences similarly. Repetition, in Bausch’s work, typically starts as sort of boringly mesmerizing but may be experienced, in the end, painfully boring, assaulting, and even traumatizing. Quite a bit can be learned here, not least how the human body in motion affords audiences new imaginaries and the intertwining of old histories with new and novel creative futures. | ||
