1. Can we develop a working definition of technology as it applies to dance performance?
2. What constitutes "effective" use of technology in dance?
4. What affect does the use of technology have on our general conception of what dance/live performance is?
I wonder if we need "...a working definition of technology as it applies to dance performance?" For starters it's clearly not a new phenonenom, as lighting design is part of the technology input. Further, back or front projection is is a form of set design; I remember a striking use 10 years ago in a cash-strapped Royal Ballet production, when interior and exterior "sets" of a large country house and estate were all achieved by projection.
Fundamentally, choreographers work with a range of other artists and designers to achieve their collaborative goals, but now there is a wider range of artists to work with. And many of them are utilising new or recently developed forms of technology.
What constitutes "effective" use of technology in dance?
If we look at the question: "What constitutes "effective" dance?" then I would respond that there are so many ways that dance can be effective that the question is almost impossible and I feel the same way about Karl's question.
However, the question: "What constitutes "ineffective" use of technology in dance?" is perhaps easier. Namely, when the design elements take over the show. I remember a short dance work using pastiche ballroom dance with huge back projection of clips of films, such as of "Casablanca" which would then freeze for a minute or so. We were all glued to the fab images on the screen and the dance just couldn't compete.
Our view of what constitutes dance has expanded SO far, with conceptual works such as Jerome Bel's "Shirtology" (guy taking off some 30 t-shirts) that technology is a far less radical input in such a definition. Indeed, some in Europe do not describe themselves as "dance artists" but as "artists" working with other artists.
But don't get me wrong I value and cherish the work of modern designers/artists collaborating with choreographers to achieve results in lighting, sound design, projection and space creation to enrich the lives of audience members like myself. Here's what I wrote about a work in the Lublin Festival at the end of 2006:
"In sharp contrast, Gideon Obarzanek's Chunky Move from Australia brought “Glow”, employing state-of-the-art motion capture to generate a digital landscape around and on a dancer in real time. This breath-taking and riveting 25 minute work uses hi-tech to enhance the dance experience, rather than a distraction, which one often sees. On a white square, surrounded by the audience, Sara Black crouches in one corner, at the focus of a cross of light and enclosed by an illuminated outline. As she moves slowly across the stage, these boundaries move with her. From time to time, she attempts to break free and the frame splinters into jagged shards, but as soon as becomes still, the constraints return.
We see such a variety of effects, that there is no chance of tedium: in one section parallel lines of light cover the stage and the dancer's contours as she moves in the manner of a gymnastic floor display, to beautiful effect. Then in a section heavy with apprehension, blotchy, dark patches are generated by the dancer, and when she moves to the edge of the stage, these dark shadows at first remain in place and then move across the floor to reclaim her. “Glow” provides the most compelling use of motion capture I have seen to date, and the contrast between the innovative use of traditional technical means by Alter and the 21st Century technology of Obarzanek lifted my spirits as signposts for new ways to create dance."