... context
anna asks « what’s in a name? » in reference to the myriad of terms for «screen dance». i used to use «dance for camera» but have switched to screen dance as i feel it is more appropriate.
names give context, screen dances are not made for cameras, but through cameras for viewing on screen(s). most of the terms anna articulates refer to subsets of screen dance rather than the area as a whole. e.g.:
- cinedance - filmed or presented in cinema format (digital or analog)
- videodance - filmed using camcorders and presented using televisions or video projection
- kinodance - low budget screen dance (see kino)
- media dance - screen based interactive - multimedia dance (web dance etc)
each subset has its own common aesthetics and approaches, which is why anna for example prefers «video dance». what i’m suggesting is that anna makes screen dance, but specifically the subset of video dance.
as ana pointed out, karen pearlman has also taken this approach suggesting that:
critical discourse around ‘screendance’ (which is ultimately my term of choice since it embraces film, video, new media, installation and future media) allows artists to identify their own priorities and to educate and develop themselves within and around the history of their own approach and mix of influences.
however, i would not place so much emphasis on the individuality of the artist. instead what seems significant to me is the shared principles and practices of artists which should lead us to the critical framing. leaving the shaping of theory to artists is a bad idea as many do not really understand their own praxis, let alone the praxes of others.
it is interesting to see anna and karen use the words «emerging, developing, maturing» in suggesting the form is still undefined. i would suggest the forms are quite clearly defined (thats another and longer post) and what they are actually referring to is the evolution of content within the forms.
read the post screendance for more information
blog comments powered by Disqus