Posts Tagged ‘ADF’

by Anna Brady Nuse

The papers presented at last year’s Screendance: State of the Art 2 Conference at the American Dance Festival have just been posted online and are available for download. It is nice to revisit the ideas around curating that were presented at that conference, as I’m in the process of planning next Fall’s Kinetic Cinema series. My paper was all about the model of artist-driven curating that I have been cultivating through Kinetic Cinema. I wrote a couple of follow-up posts on this blog about the Screendance conference at ADF last summer here and here if you would like to follow the thread of the discussion.

You can download the latest essays for the Screendance Journal on the following topics here: http://dvpg.net/screendance2008.html

Thoughts on Curating: How to Bring About a Shift in Perception

Anna Brady Nuse

“Screendance is growing worldwide. Every year more dance film festivals spring up; new courses in dance for the camera are added to college dance curriculums; and symposiums, workshops and panels take place all over the world. Despite this trend, screendance is still virtually unknown in American culture at large.”

Does Screendance need to look like dance?

Claudia Kappenberg

This is an edited version of a paper, which was first presented at the American Dance Festival, ‘Screendance State of the Art 2’, Duke University, North Carolina in 2008, and re-presented at the conference ‘Exploring the Screen as a Site for Choreography’, University of Bristol, Department of Drama, Theatre, Film & Television, April 2009, in response to debates at the Bristol event. Drawing on a wider field of visual art, film, dance and theatre studies the paper proposes a new knowledge map for screendance aiming to articulate the complexities of choreographic sensibilities and identifying a set of Screendance strategies

Curating the Practice/The Practice of Curating

Douglas Rosenberg

This paper in a slightly different form was presented at the Curating the Practice/The Practice of Curating conference at the American Dance Festival in Durham, NC, USA on Thursday July 10, 2008. Some of the ideas contained were originally posted (by Douglas Rosenberg) in a number of on-line discussions during the last year. Please use with permission. rosend@education.wisc.edu

Curator’s Notes for Linssin taka / Beyond the Lens

Sini Haapalinna

A national video dance screening program, coinciding with the dance and live arts festival Z – in – Motion, organized by Zodiak, Center for New Dance in Helsinki, Finland, and curated by freelance artist Sini Haapalinna.

by Anna Brady Nuse

(re)Action by Victoria Murphy

At Victoria Murphy’s talk and screening at Kinetic Cinema last Wednesday, she proposed a set of terms and definitions for classifying and identifying different forms of dance on screen. Murphy’s lexicon had similarities and differences with other proposed frameworks for screendance that have been presented and discussed at various forums and conferences in recent years. There is no doubt that this kind of discussion and debate is extremely important for the development of the genre (or some would say art form), so I would like to point out some of the main theories that exist today, and discuss how they intersect and overlap.

Screendance, cinedance, videodance, dance film… Which term to use?

In most debates about dance on screen, the first question that pops up is what is this genre called? Many different terms are in use, and in some cases they point to different genres while others are a catchall word for all dance on screen.

I think one of the best explanations of the different terms in use is by Karen Pearlman of the Physical TV company in Australia. In her article, “A Dance of Definitions” published in RealTime Arts, an Australian-based art and media blog, Pearlman reported on the dialogue at the first Screendance Conference at the American Dance Festival in 2006 around a question she raised which was: “Is dance on screen a dance art, a cinema art or a visual art?” In her estimation many of the different terms used today describe specific mixtures of two or more of these art forms at play. For Pearlman, screendance is a catchall term which could include any combination of dance and movement with “film, video, new media, installation, and future media.” The other terms are more specific in their focus. Videodance “is based in the thinking of a video art maker, a performance art maker or a visual artist will have its effect through techniques, schools, theories and premises of those disciplines.” While dance for screen “prioritises dance as its central discipline [and] will foreground the composition and exhibition of the danced movement.”

Screendance Venn Diagram by Karen Pearlman

Read the rest of this entry »

Kerrie Welsh, cinematographer of Fünf 'n' Twist, a new videodance by Anna Brady Nuse. Photo: Susanna Christians

Jessica LaCombe wrote a great article in Dancer Magazine this month about making dance for screen, and I was honored to be included in it. My friends and colleagues, Ellen Bromberg (professor of dance at University of Utah and director of the Dance for the Camera Workshops in Victoria, BC) and Douglas Rosenberg (professor of art at University of Wisconsin-Madison and director of the Dancing for the Camera Festival at ADF) were also featured prominently.

The article gives a well-organized overview of the state of the field today, and some practical advice for new would-be film-makers coming from a background in dance. I’m pleased to see a more main-stream dance publication turning its attention to this burgeoning hybrid medium. As I say in the article, “This generation of choreographers have grown-up with media and been exposed to media so much more even than live dance, that they think in terms of media.” It’s time for dance teachers and educators to wake up to this reality and start helping the new generation navigate the vast media landscape of today and tomorrow.

Check it out and let me know what you think!

At the Screendance conference at ADF two weeks ago, I presented a paper that put forth an argument for the value of “artist-driven” curating in developing and galvanizing an art form.  I wanted to propose a way of raising awareness about screendance among dance communities that would help dancers feel like they can enter this art form that is new to them with a set of useable skills and knowledge already in place. In forming a strategy, I drew upon Paulo Friere’s concept of praxis from his pivotal book on liberation education, Pedagogy of the Oppressed. For Freire, the way to raise consciousness among any group of people is by posing problems. This process of asking questions and raising problems, activates both students and teachers in a dialogue that brings about reflection and leads to future action.  Freire calls this pattern of action-reflection-action praxis, and it is through praxis that people engage in cognitive discovery of their lives that is transformative and empowering. From third world peasants to American dance artists, this process enables people to transform their daily realities and create lives full of meaning.

In my Kinetic Cinema screening series I posed a question to my guest curators from the  NYC dance community, “What films and videos have influenced and inspired your work in dance?” Each curator came up with a completely different way of answering that question, and the works they chose revealed their own unique thinking patterns and artistic processes. Some curators, such as Malinda Allen, chose to curate autobiographical evenings, chronicling their artistic development through pivotal works that have inspired them. Other curators, like Levi Gonzalez, chose to show work that was new to them, and investigate the commonalities and differences between screendance and dance performance. Still others such as Jonah Bokaer and Kriota Willberg, have studied the history of film and video art extensively, and for their programs they decided to delve into very specific areas of research such as feminist video art and the female body, or “bad dance” films.

Judson Dance Theater, photo Elaine Summers
Kinetic Cinema is an example of what I have dubbed “artist-driven” curating, in which artists get together and share works that have meaning to them, often in informal intimate settings. The value of this type of curating is that it sparks artistic dialogue and exchange between the “makers” in a field, which can then lead to new art movements with distinct identities and progressive agendas. There have been numerous artist-driven curating collectives in the past that have had a huge impact upon the development of dance and film. A classic example of artist-driven curating is the Judson Dance Theater that formed in the early sixties as a collective of experimental dance artists interested in pushing the boundaries of post-modern dance. They were given the meeting room of the historical Judson Church to conduct their investigations and present public performances. The work that resulted from these programs went on to fuel the modern dance community for decades to come, with generations of dancers and choreographers spring-boarding off of the ideas and breakthroughs of the original collective.

On the film side, Jean Luc Godard would never have developed his unique and influential style without his competitive and close relationship with fellow French New Wave director, François Truffaut. Although they were very different in many ways, their artistic visions were honed and shaped by the intense dialogue and exchange of ideas they had with each other over many years. The French New Wave was born out of the critical discourse started by writers and cinephiles in the film journal, Cahiers du Cinéma. These writers were seeking a new type of cinema that didn’t exist in France at the time, one that married their love of low-brow Hollywood genre flicks, with more experimental, intentional, and referential nuances found in high art, all brought together by their strong vision of the director as auteur. When these writers began acting upon their critiques, and creating work of their own, the French New Wave was born, and gave rise to a new era of filmmaking that completely changed the art form in much the same way the Judson Dance Theater group did for dance.

There have never been more ways for individuals to share and distribute their media content than there are today. With the rise of the internet, and the social media of Web 2.0, today’s artist-driven initiatives are less inhibited by distance or financial limitations. Some recent examples of artist-driven projects for screendance on the internet are the social network dance-tech.net founded by NY-based dance media artist, Marlon Barrios-Solano, blogs such as this one, and email lists such as the media-arts-and-dance listserv moderated by Simon Fildes. These online forums are bringing together an international community of dance filmmakers who can interact and share work and ideas with each other easily and instantaneously. The result will be a more unified and cosmopolitan screendance community, where new entrants can feel part of an existing movement.

New art movements and genres don’t get made overnight, but in the case of screendance, it is crucial to raise awareness and interest in the dance community. Through curating initiatives that pose questions and engage artists and audiences in dialogue, we can facilitate praxis. This process involves leading artists to examine, critique and analyze dance in media, and also to make work of their own, thereby transforming and shaping the genre and, by extension, the world. Artist-driven curating is one proven way to galvanize an arts community and further the identity of an art movement. These artist-driven initiatives, while often underground and informal, serve as springs that feed into larger institutions, such as dance film festivals, museums/galleries, performance venues, and universities. It is in these small, seemingly insignificant ways, that we can move screendance into cultural prominence, and make dance relevant in today’s mediatized world.

Read the rest of this entry »

I’m finally home after several weeks on the road, crossing the country and then heading south for the second Screendance: State of the Art conference at the American Dance Festival. The topic for this year’s conference was CURATING THE PRACTICE/CURATING AS PRACTICE. There were about 20 registered participants, coming from all over the US and Europe, and we were a good mix of artist/makers, teacher/scholars, and curators. While some of the old topics came up (like what is the definition of screendance?) the presence of the over-arching theme of curating helped guide many of the discussions into new territory, and keep us on topic.

Douglas Rosenberg, a filmmaker, scholar, and organizer of the conference started off the proceedings with a lecture about the history of curating as it arose out of the visual arts field and how this practice has gradually slipped by the wayside with the rise of the festival model in screendance. He spoke about the original premise of curating in the art world as a means of creating meaning by grouping different works of art together. This combination of art works creates a meta-narrative between the pieces and can serve to support a thesis about the art put forth by the curator. In this way curating can help shape new ideas in art.

I appreciated learning about  how curating differs from “programming”, which is generally how dance film festivals work. For a long time I’ve felt dissatisfied by the programs at festivals, particularly the shorts programs, because they can be such a grab bag of films that seem to have nothing to do with each other. Usually these programs are billed as the “best” new dance films of the year, with the dubious value judgment of “best” being the only unifying theme. With no other underlying meaning to connect the films together, I as a viewer often find myself feeling disappointed when the films fall short of my expectations of what “the best” dance film should be. I leave most screenings feeling like the vast majority of screendance is boring and uninspired, when in reality, I just didn’t have enough context to view them under.

Helping to illustrate this difference between curating and programming, there were several curated screenings during the conference as well as screenings that were part of the “Dancing for the Camera” festival. One of these curated programs was put together by Claudia Kappenberg, an artist and scholar from the University of Brighton and was entitled “Paradoxical Bodies.” In her program notes Kappenberg described “Paradoxical Bodies” as seeking “to address the peculiar premise of real bodies on screen, in itself a paradoxical proposition, which mixes and purposefully confounds mental states and actual physical existence.” With this introduction we watched seven experimental films that were often oblique and seemed to float in the timeless space of ritual. The program included ELEMENT (1973) by Amy Greenfield, HWRGAN (BY THE LATE HOUR) (2006) by Simon Whitehead, K (1989) by Jayne Parker, THE NIGHTINGALE (2003) by Grace Ndiritu, SAND LITTLE SAND (2006) by Becky Edmunds, IT IS ACHING LIKE BIRDS by Lucy Baldwin, and SPRUE (2004) by The 5 Andrews. Most of these films have never been shown in dance film festivals before, either because they are not generally considered “dance”, or they are not the typical show pieces that would past muster with a festival’s judging panel. Despite their challenging and experimental nature, I was captivated by this program. After Kappenberg’s introductory statements I was prepared to grapple with the paradoxes, ambivalence, and alternative notions of the body put forth in these films, and I was freed from having to compare them to my usual standards of what’s “good” and “bad”. Instead, I appreciated them for what they each said to me within the framework of the program’s topic.

In contrast to Kappenberg’s curated program, Sini Haapalinna, a freelance artist from Finland, presented a program of shorts from her first curation for the Finnish dance film festival “Beyond the Lens” which sought to show a snapshot of “the state of the art” of Finnish screendance. This was a good example of the usual festival model of programming, which culls work from an open call for entries, and then seeks to show the best ones of the group. While it was probably meaningful for Finnish audiences to see what work is being made in their own country, for an international group of screendance experts gathered in North Carolina, the program seemed jumbled and out of context. The works were all over the map in terms of style, production value, content, and intention. The result was a muddy program that had some nice isolated moments, but was somehow lesser than the sum of its parts. While Haapalinna probably didn’t get the reaction she was hoping for from the conference attendants, it was actually really useful and informative for us to see this kind of program in light of the curation model Rosenberg had just presented. Finally we were able to critically respond to the festival model of programming, and articulate about why it isn’t as effective as it could be at promoting and advancing screendance to the public.

In my next couple of posts, I’ll talk about my presentation on “artist-driven” curating, and summarize some of the other discussions that went on at the conference including a theory for mapping screendance by Kappenberg, how a curator’s role is always political by Gita Wigro, and a modified Venn diagram for curators of screendance proposed by Martha Curtis.

To be continued!