Rosenberg, Douglas. Screendance: inscribing the ephemeral image. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Chapters 1 & 2

In Screendance: inscribing the ephemeral image, there is a clear effort to theorize the Screendance as an art form and differentiate it from other types of dance performance that uses a camera. In fact, throughout the introduction, Douglas Rosenberg risks to classify Screendance as a broad category, in which sub-genres include dance video, film dance, dance for camera, etc.

This idea, however, is refined later on Chapter 1, when Rosenberg start to delineate the boundaries of this art form. The term seams to fit better than others because of the looseness of the term screen.  It can include many methods of rendering or playback as well as any methods of projecting it (wall, television, computer screen, etc). That way, screendance, rather than video dance for instance, gives a more comprehensive idea to this art form.

Rosenberg also emphasizes the end point as an important characteristic of screendance. And I understand end point here in two ways. First, in terms of final product: screendance is an end point, because it’s the result of the performance + camera operator + editor. Second, in terms of exhibition: it can have different effects depending on how you show the final product (in an installation, at a movie theater, online, etc). For this reason, the site-specificity has an important role in the final product, in screendance as a whole.

My first impression about the boundaries of screendance was controversial. I questioned myself about the differences between dance documentation and real dance videos. For me, documentation could happen in two ways: first, filming a choreography for stage by setting fixed cameras from different perspectives; second, having a camera operator film the performer(s) randomly, as he wishes. In other words, camera moves that are improvised and instinctive . According to my initial conception, in both cases the final product would be dance documentation.

After I read the first chapter of Screendance: inscribing the ephemeral image, I came to the conclusion that my second example (instinctive, improvised camera moves) could actually be considered screendance. When we analyze form and content within the context of screendance, form has an important role. In my second example, form is the result of the camera operator’s guts: he moves the camera and discover new angles during the performance. As a consequence, the camera moves constitute a performance itself. Also, the moves result not only from the operator’s guts; it’s rather the product of mutual, live interaction between the operator and the dancer. The camera moves are part of the performance, because they are created in an improvised way, during the dance performance. That said, I accepted that improvisational, instinctive camera moves can be considered an actual screendance, instead of dance documentation.

Accordingly, my initial refusal to accept this speaks to my personal background as a filmmaker. Because I tend to plan all my shootings, I didn’t consider the improvised, instinctive videos as a legit type of screendance.

Based on that, when there is pre-production, and the camera moves are strictly planned, the form (camera moves) might end up not being a performance anymore, but actually a medium through which the dance is grasped by the audience. In this case, the camera moves work more like a modus operandi.

Thus, my question is: when a camera operator improvise the camera moves with the dancer, the camera moves constitute a performance itself. The final product will be the result of two performances: the dancer’s and the cameraman’s. On the other hand, when the camera moves are planned (they become specific scenes and shots), they work as a medium to coney the dance, a modus operandi. Still they can convey feels, intentions, tone… BUT, are they also a performance? Can we consider the planned camera moves a performance as well? Or just a modus operandi?

__________________________________________________________________________

Questions and thoughts that I raised during my reading:

DANCE DOCUMENTATION, preserve a choreography or performance
circulate a live performance, choreographic ideas and images in the larger marketplace
archive and teach choreography

“If dance documentation is subsequent to the moment of performance, screendance is preceded by the moment of performance.” p. 26
If that’s true, I wonder how the improvisational, instinctive shooting of a performance can be screendance instead of dance documentation. If the operator moves the camera as he feels, how different is that from dance documentation?
Is it different only in purpose? I mean, the improvisational shooting aims to be art, while dance documentation doesn’t have this pretension. (?)
Is the intention itself enough to define a work as screendance or dance documentation?

Answer might be:
Screendance: not dance for the camera, but dance by the camera. Good definition! Even though the dance may be made for the camera (intent), it is ultimately made by the camera. Screendance is essentially the process of recomposing, re-editing, and recreating a dancing body.
While the intent of the dancer or choreographer may be to situate the movement within the frame of the camera, it is ultimately the frame that defines the boundaries and reproducibility of the movement.

I didn’t understand what the author was trying to say (the theory around the aura) with Walter Benjamin’s concerns on page 22.

Performances discussed in the chapter: El fuego, Salt Drawing