*** This email has been sent from the MEDIA ARTS AND DANCE email forum. To respond to all subscribers email [log in to unmask] ***

> Dear Doug and all still in this conversation
>
> Speaking as a video dance maker who submits works to video dance festivals 
> and  as a curator/programmer/founder of my own video dance festival 
> (montage), I am getting a clearer understanding of the problematics 
> inherent in both endeavours. On reflection, my experierence in both 
> capacities in this developing country, South Africa, not overly concerned 
> with this form of art (it is considered to be out of reach/elitist for 
> many here), could perhaps shed some light on this debate of curatorship 
> and screendace in general.
>
> Firstly, I think we do need to start "opening up" as we do not seem to be 
> getting any closer as to how to curate nor programme. In my mind's eye, 
> there should not be, a blanket recipe for curating/progarmming nor video 
> dance making. We cannot adopt hard and fast rules. We need to respect 
> difference and support it. As I see it, we should adopt a more postmodern 
> approach and accept the ruptures and differences that surface at every 
> festival and or video production. This is after all a global phenomenon 
> and each artist or curator is subjected to different 
> environmental/economic/cultural forces in their approach and video dance 
> making. I am amazed that the "classical" approach has already surfaced in 
> screendance and that that is what sways video dance production and 
> selections. So yes Doug, we do "need to begin to name the trends in 
> screendance in order to talk about them and encourage other visons as 
> well." And that this can be done "by curating an alternative to the strand 
> of work that seems too ubiquitous, and by creating an essay that frames 
> it." Then "one can illuminate another set of possibilities and move the 
> field forward."
>
> However, as I write I see a symbiosis and eternal conundrum here. As the 
> curator decides the criteira or trends for selection, so the video dance 
> maker makes work, sometimes oblivious to these criteria or trends, but 
> then sets new trends. So what comes first - the video or the festival?
>
> Seems as though, on both sides of the field, we need to become aware, 
> question, analyse and produce according to the form and content of current 
> and possible trends. Will this open it up or close it down? It goes 
> therefore without saying that the curators and video dance directors, 
> often self appointed, need to be educated. So yes it is an intellectual 
> pursuit/view we are looking for and hence the lable of being elitist, as I 
> take it that we are not producing for Hollywood, Bollywood nor Nollywood!
>
> I agree with Doug that we need "a set of strategies that are intended to 
> speak back to the form very directly" and  "to make works of art to make a 
> definitive statement that sometime lies outside the form, such as 
> disability, gender, etc." However what to do when most of the works 
> submitted seem not to serve that agenda? On one hand I need to grow the 
> medium here in South Africa and with the above strategy, are we not 
> pushing the medium into an intellectual zone where most video dance makers 
> do not create work?
>
> Training and education all round seems necessary. If we can't name it, we 
> can't claim it nor make it grow! Yet another contradiction! How do we 
> encourage "otherness" in the attempt to be "open" when we are constantly 
> labelling things?
>
> best wishes
> jeannette
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Douglas Rosenberg
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 7:18 AM
> Subject: Re: Opening up screendance and reply to dance tech idea
>
>
> *** This email has been sent from the MEDIA ARTS AND DANCE email forum. To 
> respond to all subscribers email [log in to unmask] ***
>
> Dear Pascale, Johannes, et al,
>
> Happy to see you are all engaged in this important dialog.  I would like 
> to offer some thoughts on questions raised in this strand. I hope this is 
> not too pedantic, but I am also thinking about these issues for the 
> upcoming ADF conference on curating.
>
> Pascale says, “On the curation aspect, I must say I am still not sure what 
> the debate is. Is the core underlying question 'how do curators select 
> work?', 'why a focus on a theme rather than another one', etc.
> It is in my eyes illusory to completely rationalise the curation process.”
>
> Curating is quite different than arranging or programming.  It relies on a 
> set of strategies that are intended to speak back to the form very 
> directly and in many cases attempts to move the form in a particular 
> direction.  It is also about using works of art to make a definitive 
> statement that sometime lies outside the form, such as disability, gender, 
> etc. Programming seems to be a cross between the way film festivals are 
> often created and the way dance events are conceived.  In both cases it 
> follows an entertainment model, a model which is contingent on ticket 
> sales and therefore has an agenda that is perhaps colored by audience 
> expectations. Programming may be done around a theme but is still a 
> different undertaking than curation, with a different outcome to be sure. 
> Curation as it is practiced in the gallery and museum world is in the 
> first iteration, free of certain encumberances such as ticket sales, 
> (galleries can be entered without admission fee as can most museums at 
> least once a week).  In subsequent iterations, the curator functions as an 
> interface between public and artists as well as assuming the 
> responsibility for the gestalt of the exhibition.  The exhibition itself 
> is often intended to further iterate a particular point of view using the 
> art objects as a kind of text in order to do so. Some of the concerns that 
> Pascale raises have more to do with the jurying process, one in which the 
> artist does often feel “in the dark” about criteria, etc.  I think that is 
> a different but connected issue.  In a sense, we are holding little 
> competitions each time we jury a group of films and as such our process 
> should be transparent.  Who are the jurors, what is the mission, etc?
>
>
> The term “screendance” is roughly the equivalent to the term “painting”. 
> In other words, it describes a practice by its formal characteristics in 
> the broadest terms. The articulation of a practice beyond those terms 
> requires a subset of language that begins to speak about the work in more 
> particular terminology.  That is, terminology that begins to allude to 
> style, content, affiliations, histories, provenance and lineage as well as 
> movements whether art historical, dance historical or otherwise.  To have 
> a show of “painting” without naming the frame of the specific works in the 
> exhibition would be rather rare in the art world at large.  It is in that 
> scenario, the job of the curator to choose the paintings for inclusion and 
> to subsequently create a statement in the form of a catalog essay or some 
> other text that lays out a rationale and a frame or lens for the show.  In 
> that essay, the curator would address why the group of paintings was 
> gathered and arranged in a particular way, what is the connective tissue 
> between the works, what are the intertexts, (in other words, what do these 
> works have to say to each other and to the form?) and perhaps speak about 
> the form itself.  What is the state of affairs in painting, does this work 
> indicate a change in course for the practice, does it restate an existing 
> course, etc?  While curation per se is rare in the dance world, it has 
> existed from time to time as artist led practice, (Judson Church anyone?) 
> and in the gravitational pull of downtown dance in New York for instance 
> as well as the self-organizing nature of post-modern dance as it 
> established itself as an alternative to Modern dance.  Dance was also 
> articulated through the modern era by writers/critics like John Martin and 
> later Sally Banes and others.  This model is one that screendance would do 
> well to consider if only as a starting point.
>
> Pascale says, “I feel that the community needs some fresh new blood and 
> inspiration and that just dance and film is a bit too narrow. We end up 
> seeing the variation of the same pieces over and over again.”
>
> Again, in the painting analogy, this would be recognized as a movement and 
> named, (abstract expressionist, realism, etc).  We need to begin to name 
> the trends in screendance in order to talk about them and encourage other 
> visons as well.  In another frame, “the same pieces” might be referred to 
> as “classical”.  As makers, and curators, we have the ability to create 
> the kinds of discourse through curating and exhibiting as well as through 
> writing that can illuminate these ideas to the field.  By curating an 
> alternative to the strand of work that seems too ubiquitous, and by 
> creating an essay that frames it, one can illuminate another set of 
> possibilities and move the field forward.
>
>
> To speak a bit to Johannes, the “dance-tech” community (in my opinion and 
> with respect of course) is also guilty of a bit of obfuscation in the use 
> of terminology that alludes to materiality without articulating much in 
> the way of meaning. So we get workshops in motion capture technologies and 
> pieces made with same, a plethora of discourse on the technical 
> specifications of software/hardware/digital spaces, second life, etc, but 
> not much in the way of how this all may congeal as content.  Meaning is an 
> accretion that must be teased out of the overlaps between one media and 
> another and given the possibilities that abound in this technological era, 
> the question I often ask myself upon seeing or reading about work that 
> comes out of a dance-tech milieu is, what does it mean?  What is it 
> ultimately about?  Again, I would say these are questions that can be 
> addressed by curation and certainly by writing.  And certainly screendance 
> is more than a subset of dance and technology differing in numerous ways. 
> By vocalizing this difference it may be possible to elevate the form 
> beyond its current state.
>
> This summer’s ADF conference focuses on the practice of curating (curating 
> as practice).  It is a shame that more of you can not attend to engage in 
> this important dialog.  The current scenario in the screendance 
> environment, in which festival models prevail and in which films are often 
> referred to as “the best” of a given year or “the best” festival choices 
> and subsequently tour the country creates a model that is self 
> perpetuating.  If these are the best film then as a viewer and maker, 
> wouldn’t it be logical that I would emulate the style of work that is 
> being granted such status?  If instead, touring programs were curated to 
> make a number of statements that move beyond the films and engage broader 
> dialogs about the culture at large, about media, about humanism, then 
> perhaps we could move away from the current state of the practice.
>
> One more note about “elitism”.  The term “academic” has come to be almost 
> pejorative it seems. It is often used to differentiate between those who 
> make art and those who theorize or teach.  The difference is more often 
> than not without merit.  Practice and theory have become fluid 
> demarcations, (in my opinion they always were) which makes the idea that 
> only those with university affiliations can be “academics” moot.  I would 
> offer the term intellectual in its place.  Intellectual rigor is what 
> allows us to debate critical issue in our field and I would hope that more 
> of us will take part in these conversations about the future and past of 
> the genres we are engaged in articulating.
>
> Very best,
> Doug
>
>
> On May 22, 2008, at 8:32 AM, Pascale Moyse wrote:
>
>
> *** This email has been sent from the MEDIA ARTS AND DANCE email forum. To 
> respond to all subscribers email [log in to unmask] *** 
> Hello all,
>
> finally taking time to read the long exchange about elitism and curation 
> in screendance.
>
> It strikes me that the 'screendance community' seems to have a discourse 
> on itself as a whole instead of focusing on a trend, or a piece in 
> particular. It is as if the film community would only talk about film in 
> general and not explore specific aspects of what film offers as a medium 
> or even debate one single film or a set of film converging for 
> aesthetic/artistic reasons for instance.
>
> As some of you may have noticed, moves has increasingly moved away from 
> pure dance. We explore the experimental side of screendance in relation 
> with other cross-genre work more sound-or animation-based for instance. So 
> to reply to Johannes, please, do not have just one list for dance tech and 
> screendance as dance tech is about the performing arts and necessarily 
> involves dance whereas screendance - to me at least - is about exploring 
> the screen platform only, without any 'live human' element to it. I would 
> even say that screendance does not require dancers - but that may be why 
> moves is not called a dance on screen fest but movement on screen.
>
> I feel that the community needs some fresh new blood and inspiration and 
> that just dance and film is a bit too narrow. We end up seeing the 
> variation of the same pieces over and over again.
>
> On the curation aspect, I must say I am still not sure what the debate is. 
> Is the core underlying question 'how do curators select work?', 'why a 
> focus on a theme rather than another one', etc.
> It is in my eyes illusory to completely rationalise the curation process.
> At moves we have a clear set of factual criteria that make a piece 
> eligible or not, ie. year of production, never been shown in a public 
> screening in Manchester before.
> Some other criteria are already more open to debate obviously such as: 
> 'the piece must showcase a sense of choreography or structured movement', 
> perceived quality of the work, how it fits in a programme, eg as part of 
> the Discovery strand we select pieces that have a strong/unusual 
> element/idea although the general piece may be too long or clumsy at 
> times, etc.
> Of course I can see why it is frustrating for the makers that someone else 
> decides on whether their piece is too long for instance. My answer to this 
> is then not to submit work if they don t want to be what is felt 'judged' 
> or start your own festival and show what you think is good, which is 
> exactly why I started moves in the first place; and I would assume why 
> people start festivals generally.
> Last but not least, I have found it very enriching to invite external 
> curators to contribute to the programme as they always bring a new take on 
> the chosen topic of the year. For instance Clermont-Ferrand showing 'Fear, 
> Little Hunter' as part of the interpretation of 'Interaction of sound and 
> movement on screen' where the violence of the movements of the bodies can 
> only be understood through sound and we only get to see a 3-min fix long 
> shot.
>
> I hope this contributed to the debate,
>
>
> Best,
>
> Pascale
>
>
>
> Pascale Moyse
> Festival Director ¦ moves: movement on screen
> moves08: 22-26 April 2008 in the UK
>
> moves08 programme is online: 
> http://www.movementonscreen.org.uk/programme08.asp
>
>
>
>
>
> Johannes Birringer wrote:
> *** This email has been sent from the MEDIA ARTS AND DANCE email forum. To 
> respond to all subscribers email [log in to unmask] ***
>
> hello mall
>
> I enjoyed this very interesting debate on elitism, 'naming one's critical 
> framework,"  curatorial policies and selections, independent production/ 
> dance filmmaking, etc etc.,  and for some reason i was thinking of a 
> producer, a little while ago,  remarking to me that she regretted that 
> there was so little critical discourse and that the screen dance community 
> didn't seem to participate too often in the -- at times -- much more 
> vigorous debates on the dance tech list and dance tech net site or the 
> kind of sustained discourse and analysis which might happen on other 
> technological arts/rhizomes maillists or transdisciplinary discussions 
> lists such as Empyre...............
>
> in other words,  and i had been meaning to ask Simon about this (when the 
> media-arts-and-dance list started up), whether the screen dance community 
> (is there a general sense of such a producing / critical / research 
> community?) was indeed separating itself into a further niche, or whether 
> they did not actually perceive themselves as working in the common 
> framework with dance technologists/dance and performance makers,  digital 
> artists, are there specific or distinct differences between the dance 
> community or performanmce community and media arts that might create 
> obstacles for shared discourses?  are platforms and modes of dissemination 
> really that different? do we not go to the same festivals?
>
> The reason i am writing is that the debate on (critical) frameworks is of 
> course a wider debate (including history, discursive formations and 
> critical traditions, curatorial traditions & power structures, funding 
> policies across different regions/countries,  and the location of the 
> various arts not only in the market but also in education/institutions and 
> the alternative culture sector),  and it is fascinating to me that in the 
> UK,, at the moment, there is a whole discussion going on about art as 
> research, practice based art, evaluations of such reseacrh-as-art, markers 
> for values, and contribitions to new knowledge, new experimental and 
> collaborative methodologies of creation/process/investigation.
>
> How is this discussion in screen dance/media arts?  i remember going to a 
> meeting for advisers on Phds in "moving image media"  (that was a few 
> years after practice-led research in performance seemed to gain mileage 
> and critical legitimacy.   This is UK.  I am not sure the US  or South 
> East Asia or Latin America the funding bodies or academic postgraduate 
> institutions are pushing for research in the arts fields  - and mind you, 
> there may also be reservations amongst artists to be pushed towards 
> formulating their practice through certain research method languages.
>
> Then again, talking bout screen dance as a niche,  where do younger 
> artists and artist researchers align themselves with?  Current 
> festivals -- surely as  makers and producers, we submit, wanting the work 
> out there to be seen. New contexts, welcomed too.  I just submitted two 
> shorts (6o seconds each) to the Choreographic Capture competition 
> organized by Joint Adventures in Munich.
>
> I am sorry i won't be traveling to the US (and ADF) at the moment, I opted 
> to go to South America in the summer to learn more about their work, their 
> contexts of production (in Brasil).     Recent festivals in the UK that 
> interested me?   Triptych in Scotland.    Moves 08 in Manchester,  which i 
> missed.
> Was there any screendance at Moves 08?   last year there was  conference 
> on screen dance lined to MOVES,  and there were young researchers, working 
> on their Phd, not necessarily in making screen dances though.  the level 
> of critical reflection was not always as enlightening as one might expect, 
> having just read the debate here, after Doug's spirited defense of elitism 
> and disciplinary knowledge.
>
> It seems, reading Sabine Klaus 
> (http://www.creationeditor.co.uk/home.htm) --  thanks Sabine !! --- that 
> MOVES08 had much to offer, including demos on moton sensitive toys, on 
> dj'ing (a fine arts based former DJ now working with audio-visual 
> compositions)  and an EyesWeb workshop by InfoMus Lab (on interactive 
> software)., etc etc,  a spectrum of presentations surely beyond more 
> narrow defs of 'dance -on camera...... interesting.
>
> This makes me wonder whether in fact "screen dance" does have a critical 
> tradition of discourse, or whether it will always be an affiliate, to film 
> studies, to dance studies, to media arts, --  thus necessarily 
> marginalized. It would then not be an elitism, but a self minoritization, 
> no?   without the subversive volumen that Deleuze seems to have implied.
>
> regards
>
>
>
>
> Johannes Birringer
> director, DAP Lab
> School of Arts
> Brunel University
> West London
> UB8 3PH   UK
> http://www.brunel.ac.uk/dap
>
>
>
> You're quite right, of course, Doug, the 06 ADF Screendance Conference was 
> a
> great exchange of ideas and images, and the growth of the Screendance
> Journal out of it is a terrific initiative.  I look forward to continuing
> the conversation, even from a great distance, through contributing to and
> reading the journal.
>
>
>
> I can't attach an image of the "Venn Diagram" we came up with in 06, (the
> list server doesn't seem to want to accept attachments) but will post it
> under "Ideas" on the Physical TV website if any one wants to have a look 
> at
> it again.  Also, here is a link to a paper I am working on which 
> explicates
> the model and gives some examples from within the Australian landscape,
> before it goes on to talk about another issue which is concerning me at 
> the
> moment: how the dancing figure within these three different frames 
> addresses
> its audience.  This link is to an online 'pre-publication' by Critical 
> Path,
> the Australian Dance Research organisation based here in Sydney, and I'd
> welcome dialogue with readers before I re-write in preparation to submit 
> for
> publication - who knows, maybe even to the Screendance Journal!
>
>
>
> http://www.criticalpath.org.au/docs.php
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Karen
>
> .
>
>
>
> Dr Richard James Allen and Dr Karen Pearlman
> The Physical TV Company
> PO Box 522
> Surry Hills
> NSW 2010
> Australia
> Phone + 61 2 9699 1147
>
>
>
>