*** 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
|
