If you haven’t noticed yet, I have a real interest in Dance for the Camera. This is a genre of art that is not just dance and not just film – it exists only when the two media are brought together. Check out these clips by French dance filmmaker Philippe Decouflé. The first is more light-hearted, the second more serious. Take note of those things that cannot be done on a stage in a live performance. These elements make it imperative for this dance to become a dance film.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKwvwoVs41U
Corollary Question(s):
How important is "live" art to you? Is "live" dance becoming obsolete, replaced by dance films and other pre-recorded media? Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Why? Do you think that Dance for the Camera pieces like you just watched could introduce new people to contemporary modern dance? Brainstorm a few other ideas to help promote contemporary modern dance’s cause.
I think that live performance is extremely important and it will never be replaced by pre-recorded media. Art is such a personal and enjoyable activity that only conveys its meaning fully through emotional expression. I don't enjoy watching videos of dance as much as I like watching live dance because feeling the energy of the dancers is very important to the experience. Obviously there are really cool things that can only be done in Dance for the Camera pieces such as the prairie setting with the cow in the first video. While these specific settings, props and extra characters add another level to the dance piece, I still believe that the main focus should be the movements of the dancers. It is easy to get distracted by other things when really the most important part is what the dancers are expressing with their bodies.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, these Dance for the Camera pieces can inspire other people who are interested in artistic expression of all mediums because the video allows for a lot of factors to come together to create a dymamic piece. Contemporary modern dance has so many varieties and I think the limitless creative possibilities inspire people to try new things and incorporate dance into different aspects of life.
I think that live performance is very important to dance as a whole. Dance is about expression through the entire body and with pre-recorded media, it is sometimes hard to capture all of the body in the correct matter. I believe that pre-recorded medias and dance films can be a useful tool to allow dance to rapidly spread all over in a short amount of time. For example, through the use of youtube, dancers can gain instant exposure in a matter of hours. I think that it is a good to use these medias, however, it should never completely make "live" dance obsolete. There are certain qualities that "live" dance has that could never be fully captured on media. Like facial expressions that go with each body movement and the three dimensional quality a dancer has with space live. I definitely agree that Dance for the Camera and such pieces can give exposure of modern dance. It allows people who are just curious about modern dance to get a taste of what it is about in a more accessible manner. I think other ways to expose modern dance to the society would be through dance films or through music videos. If modern dance could somehow be incorporated into a popular musical artist's song, many people would be interested in viewing the music video and therefore modern dance could be promoted.
ReplyDeleteLive art is very important because when I think about live art, I think of a vast array of examples like the performance Cloud Gate 2, Broadway musicals, America’s Best Dance Crew etc.. For this reason, it will not become obsolete because it grows as media grows. Surely these pieces are gaining views and publicity through youtube and other forms of media --introducing people to contemporary modern dance. At the same time, I think that with time and integration into mainstream, contemporary modern dance will gain more popularity.
ReplyDeleteLive art is important to me, and I don't think it is becoming obsolete at all. I think that it may be becoming a rarer experience, but definitely not obsolete. But in becoming a more rare experience, it is also becoming less common and more unique. As people mentioned above because of the pervasiveness of mediums like youtube, it is becoming more accessible for people to see good dancing. However seeing so much dancing on a computer or video screen so often makes the experience of seeing live dancing that much more exciting and personal. I think the dance for the camera pieces are great, it allows for people all over to be introduced to modern dance without having to live near a performance hall or pay an entrance fee. Hopefully if people who see modern dance for the first time via a digital medium become interested enough in the art, they will seek out live performances.
ReplyDeleteI think that the use of elaborate props and sets would be an interesting addition to contemporary modern dance in a live setting. I would be interesting to attempt to create the same feel as first video in a live setting using different methods of prop creation, set design and lighting.
Live dance is becoming harder to find, as digital arts jump into the world. It is becoming more unique, but because it is so rare it leaves a greater impression with a greater excitement. As live theater became less common with the introduction of television, live theater remains as the means of experiencing arts. I do not think it is a bad thing that digital arts met with dance, rather it is a better source to share and spread dances with more people all over the world. It would be an interesting way to introduce new people to contemporary modern dance with dance for the camera pieces, but it would not be the perfect way. It would draw interests and attention, but it would not fully explain the concept of contemporary modern dance. Dance for the camera pieces, I think, are the most effective way to promote contemporary modern dance.
ReplyDeleteThe personal experience of viewing live art is vastly different from viewing a secondary copy. This is especially true in regards to dance since the artists are not only moving their bodies but are engaging with the audience. Live dance is not becoming obsolete, even though there is a strong resurgence of dance films and other media. However I do think that there is a smaller audience that views a live dance performance than an audience that views a recorded version. This is probably due to the convenience of contemporary technology. Dance for the Camera pieces could introduce new people to contemporary modern dance, since it is made available to a larger audience. Whereas the general public would not be aware of a performance, unless they were socially included in the dance group, now they would be able to google "dance for the camera" and would have access to an unlimited amount of videos.
ReplyDelete-Janise Morrison
Dance films and other pre-recorded media are good in that they allow the viewer to see details, moments that had been missed, and shifts in viewpoints that make the choreography come to life. In addition, as seen by the videos, pre-recorded media allows different settings or props to be incorporated into a dance that would otherwise not be able to exist. However, with everything being watched onscreen nowadays, recorded dance media may become just another film or video clip that we watch; and we may not be able to fully appreciate the dance and movements for what it is. Hence, I do not believe that live dance is obsolete. Live performances often show the true grace and talent of the dancers that can’t quite be captured or expressed on camera. In addition, there is something about being in the actual presence of the dancers that enhances the performance and makes it more real and amazing. Having said that, Dance for the Camera pieces could definitely introduce new people to contemporary modern dance because with new ideas and performance styles being brought into contemporary modern dance, it would appeal to a wider range of people.
ReplyDeleteI believe that live art is important. There's something that happens within the mind and heart as I watch a live art performance. It's more than just watching the dancers move. It's an art produced by countless people, from patrons, directors, choreographers, sound crew, stage crew, box office attendants, etc. There's hard work placed into a live art performance to bring something of worth to the audience.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I feel like the current generation does not have a habit of attending live dance performances. I've been to a few live dance performances, and many audience members were older people. In part, I think younger people assume that dance performances are expensive and not worth spending the money when a similar dance can be viewed on YouTube or DVD.
Media is beneficial for the growth of contemporary dance because it allows those who cannot afford dance performances to take part in the dynamic and free artform of contemporary dance. Camera work can also allow multi-angles, bringing a new perspective into a certain piece of contemporary dance that is otherwise view from stage view in a live performance. However, there is something essential in participating in a live dance performance. I feel like media can spark an interest in contemporary dance, but participation in a live performance or even taking an actual class fuels the passion for the art of contemporary dance.
Possible ideas to promote contemporary dance may be guest performances at local high schools, even middle schools. A great place to impact people starts at the schools where young children are learning and making sense of the ever changing culture.
Live art to me is something that helps me understand the performance or art. Its kinda like "look at me", not in a commanding way but in a way that it tells me look; what is possible and the many ways it expresses that.
ReplyDeleteI believe that dance is taking on a whole new level with combining with media and other modern forms. Dancing i believe will never fade it can just grow and seeing that growth in a live performance is beautiful. live art in many ways is changing and can faded but i believe it wont. It can be a good thing and a bad thing, some people do appreciate a live performance here and then but also as i said before dancing is becoming more and more revolutionary and is now coexist-an with the modern technology of today's society. Contemporary Modern dancing is always going to change its going to be influenced by its surroundings , that's why its called contemporary modern dancing. An idea to promote contemporary dance might just be in films or in a performance a way to grasp individuals attention and spark an interest. The beauty of dancing is that everyone knows how to express themselves they may not be the best dancers in the world but they have a mind of their own and their own ways of expressing dance.
I remember taking a theater class in the summer of 2010, and the question of whether or not theater or film is the "superior" art form was raised. The argument on behalf of theater is that every show is different, and has a much more organic quality, whereas film is more contrived, immutable and set in stone.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, the argument for dance films, such as the one I saw (the second link didn't work) compared with live performances is a heated one. I think both forms of dance are arresting and beautiful. I can fully appreciate the more improvisational, "moment in time" dynamic that a live performance creates, but I also enjoy the extremely polished, rehearsed final product that we see on film. I especially noticed how the environment was interacted with in this film, which brings to mind something I've brought up in several of the past blogs; being aware of the environment, even down to its simplest components. An open window, a person's backpack, the tactility of the floor beneath one's feet...all of these factors can act as "characters" in the performance, taking on a life and meaning of their own. They are not to be ignored!
I don't think dance in film will ever replace live performance...and I certainly wouldn't want that to be the case. However, I would like to see more dance in film (there's something in the Criterion Collection by Martha Graham) because I'm stimulated by cemented images and iconography, but I can't deny the power and impression something like Cloud Gate II made on me either.
---Charlie
I think the feeling of watching a good "live" performance outweighs the feeling of watching a filmed dance dance because live dances have the ability to immerse the audience into the performance. The live dance is happening in front of your eyes and the audience is able to see everything that is happening and take in the piece which makes it more powerful. However, I do appericate a well thought out filemd performance like the clip for this week. The camera is able to record the movements produced slow motion and fast motion. The camera is able to focus the audiences attention are one particular area of motion where it could not easily be done in a live dance. Film dances can also be shot in several environments and locations where audiences may not be able to view the dance comfortably.
ReplyDeleteI think live and filmed dance give the audience a different unique experience and one type cannot out shine the other in creative ability. If live dance is being replaced by filmed dance, we would be losing that type of unique viewing experience. Again, live dance is able to involve the audience allowing a deeper connection to the piece.
Dance for camera can definitely promote modern dance by allowing the viewers attention to be focused on the detailed choreography of dance. The movement can be slowed down, sped up, zoomed in, and shot in different environments and different angles. This would intrigue the viewer into wanting to see more.
~Nicole B
I prefer "live" art over dance films and other pre-recorded media because when I am physically there to see a performance, I feel as if I can connect to the performers and it's more powerful in a way. Being there allows me to feel the emotion behind each of the dance movements. I also feel like "live" art is more engaging and it has the ability to leave a lasting impression on the viewers.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think that dance for camera pieces is also very important because it combines elements from dance and film. It blends them together to create something that's very interesting. I feel like camera pieces do a better job at telling a story because it's almost like acting in a movie, but with dance movements. It can in fact introduce new people to contemporary modern dance too.
Sharing music through Facebook and Youtube is a good way to promote contemporary modern dance's cause just because so many people use Facebook and Youtube.
As a film/video major who has also been highly involved in live theater since the age of four, this question speaks to a large and constant internal conflict with which I wrestle. Looking at this question from the perspective of the performer or creator as opposed to the audience, I believe there is nothing more magical than being in the same space as your audience, not just performing but listening and responding within an ephemeral moment. At the same time, I plan to devote my life's work to creating works of video art and narrative film, I see something equally enchanting about transporting viewers into a different dimension through combinations of images and sounds on a screen. The perks of a dance film as opposed to a live performance are the camera's ability to place the dancers in any location (a field in this instance) and to focus in on the intricate movements of specific body parts.
ReplyDeleteInstead of viewing these two as separate entities, why not combine them like Janet Hayatshahi did in her revolutionary piece "The Rest is Silence." This explosive live performance included projections and video screenings which added layers of complexity and stimulation. I think that intersections between live and recorded art forms are the future of performance!
-Rebecca
I appreciate art in all forms, live or through video. I am fascinated by the art form of dance and art as film itself and the combination of both holds high interest for me. I believe that both art live and art portrayed through video have different purposes and reasons for being explained and illustrated through that specific medium. Therefore, as important “live” art is to me, Dance for the Camera is just as important to me, as it explores new concepts, a new medium, and new ways of expressing and getting feelings across to audiences. Additionally, I do not believe that “live” dance is not becoming obsolete; I believe that both can co-exist as they both hold different values in the art world. Dance for the Camera draws in a new audience, ones that are previously attracted to film. It opens new doors for new audiences and new perspectives for existing dance and film lovers.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that especially caught my attention in the first light-hearted video was their use of almost sign language hand shapes. I have a strong passion for sign language and to see them incorporate some of their characteristics and features such as the importance of facial expressions, small tiny body movements, and specific hand shapes, drew me into the video even more than the contemporary dance aspect. I believe that dance film can pull and fuse together many types of art, cultures, and ideas. Dance film can extend to almost any genre, and by being creative and including small yet noticeable aspects such as sign language, or even a simple cartoon, different communities and cultures have the opportunity to be drawn into the concept of contemporary modern dance and be willing to explore it.
- Nicole Wong
Live art allows for the audience member to experience the dancer’s emotions, movements firsthand in a way that one cannot through technology because in our society, there exists an impression that seeing something firsthand makes it more real and special; however, technology allows for dancers emotions and movements to be expressed in dimensions and angles different/complex than live. These new layers of angle and complexity can spotlight a movement that would otherwise go unnoticed in a live performance or it can enhance the dancer’s beauty. Moreover, Dance for the Camera can create environments that one might want to create for their audience besides sitting in a theater and just merely watching a performance; videos can therefore make the dance piece more interactive such as the clip by Philippe Decoufle. He created a scene that could otherwise not be in a theatre- the dancers performing in a field would require the audience to move into a field. Therefore, I believe combining the two forms of art- film and dance- can create a beautiful introduction to contemporary modern dance that live art alone could not. Whether it is spreading the modern dance worldwide through technology or experiencing different aspects of a dance piece through angles of a camera- film can promote contemporary modern dance’s cause.
ReplyDelete-Sabrien Pabla
Live art is very important, although I enjoy both live and pre-recorded performances. I don’t think live dance is becoming obsolete, the art form is just branching out to a different audience that may not have discovered it if it weren’t for pre-recorded dance on the internet or on television. Overall, the use of media and pre-recorded performances can be positive for dancing and art because it will grow in popularity and different people will discover the love of dance.
ReplyDeleteLive art to me is very important. I feel that live art is helpful in giving dancers ideas and emotions that you cant just get from a recording or video broadcast. Live art performances help the body feel the energy projected from the dancers. Viewing live performances is helpful in observing how other dancers project imagery and help feel what the audience should feel. Live dance is being replaced by videos on youtube or performances shown on television and broadcasted online. This is neither a good or bad thing. It has positive and negatives. Positive is that super expensive performances are available to be watched on youtube, but the negative is that you don’t really fully experience the performances energy through a video as you would live.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of “live” art is absolutely important to me. As opposed to pre-recorded art, live art allows the audience to become one with the performers/performance—whether it be by hearing the performers take their breaths and steps, or seeing the performance as a whole from multiple dimensions. There is an excitement/thrill that comes with not knowing what may happen, since no two live performances are exactly the same. With pre-recorded performances however, you are only able to see what the camera chooses for you to see, and no matter how many times you watch it, nothing will change. I don’t think that live dance is becoming completely obsolete, but it definitely has somewhat disappeared with the emergence of dance films. Although this is not preferred, pre-recorded media is beneficial in the sense that it introduces more people to contemporary modern dance. People who may have had no prior experience/knowledge about modern dance due to an inability to see live performances are now able to access it through pre-recorded means. These films can be accessed both more easily and more quickly than live performances, allowing people of all ages, classes, and races to view them from anywhere in the world. Similar to what we do in these blogs, internet sites like YouTube & Facebook are affective ways of promoting contemporary modern dance’s cause.
ReplyDelete-Katherine
As someone who does and hopes to continue doing live theatre in the future, live art has a great personal importance in my life. I don't think the novelty of having people perform in front of you will ever really wear off. It's something special, I think, to see a performance that can only truly be done once and never replicated the same way regardless of recordings or multiple viewings because the eyes of the audience catch different things at different moments onstage, and each person's view will never really match another person's even if they're in the same audience. Having that sort of uniqueness in point of view for a live performance seems to be the biggest draw. There's a phrase that we often use, something along the lines of, "Oh, it was different then, you had to be there," because partaking in live events makes you part of it. In live theatre, different audiences can make or break performances. The energy gets into a feedback loop, where if the artists sense the audience's responses they will be more in tune to what they want to see.
ReplyDeleteThat's not to say that recorded performances lack any importance in theatre either. Sometimes watching a dance or show in person is impossible due to distance, time, or money and the only way to partake in that work is to see it through various forms of media. It's why we have mp3s and videos of dances such as the ones above; they show off the best of the performance and encourage their audience to continue supporting them. They may even encourage someone who has only been exposed through media to go out and watch the artists live. Videos can also ensure that the piece of art is immortalized; even when the dance is no longer performed live it will live forever in other forms. There is also a certain beauty in cinematography where the artists can choose what it is they want their audience to focus in on and what is considered important enough to warrant screen time; this can showcase what the artists' opinions are and what message they want to convey through their piece.
Experiencing Live art in itself is an experience that is can't be explained but rather, felt. The emotions that artist's cultivate to their audience is an experience that is absolutely breath-taking' and it really puts the audience in the artists' shoes. There's something beautiful about the act of experiencing 'live art' rather than dance films/media. However, this is not saying that dance films and pre-recorded is a bad thing, but merely the act of watching live art has its own effect. I don't think 'live' dance is becoming obsolete because there is always that thirst that artists' strive for in organizing live expressions. I really find this video and style very intriguing because their expressions really portray a story through their creative embodiment. I believe this may introduce individuals to contemporary modern dance because people may be interested in the movements they are doing and how movement may tell a story. Youtube, Facebook, Vimeo, and other social network sites are a way to mediate contemporary modern dance.
ReplyDeleteWell, from where I stand, although the dance films and records is an easy tool to make people see the performance without much effort, the experience of watching the real performance is gonna to be so wonderful. Why people prefer to go to the concert to see the real performance, even with relatively expensive price? Why people prefer to see the live art to spend their leisure time. The answer is that it is the power of real arts. However, it is not true to say that the dance films and records are bad things. Every coin has two sides, right? In fact, I don’t think live dance is becoming obsolete, the art form is just show to different audience by the media, such as online films, you tubes, in order to make people know it.
ReplyDeleteI'm skeptical when it comes to most things. Consider the following:
ReplyDeletePerformance started off around a camp fire. It progressed and was put on a stage. It was then recorded and projected. These projections have become available in "3D", changing the game, bringing the projection even more-so to the audience. Given time, will projections become nearly the same as a real-life performance?
I feel that although currently, there's a clear distinctiveness of "real-life" and "recorded" performances - time and technology might shatter the known, and create something new and fantastic.
But until that time, media performs the necessary things for dance, and performances. It helps to promote it, and allow people to experience it on some level. For the time being, performances seem to be more readily enjoyed when witnessed live. Who knows if that will change. But to be resistant to change, is to stifle creativity.
I might've missed the point somewhere along while writing this. I hope this doesn't sound like complete garbage :]
I feel like a good analogy for this is found in theater and film making. There was a time when everyone went to plays, always. Now everyone goes to movies. I guess my point, however simple, is that people still go to plays. Making an entire ship sink on stage is impossible, but Romeo and Juliet is not the same on film. Maybe not as many people seek out the theater and miss out on a lot, but the people who do continue to seek it out appreciate it. I think it would be wonderful if people went to the box office and paid 12 dollars to see a 2 hour dance film. Modern dance might reach a lot more people. And while some elements will inevitably be lost, I think a lot more will be possible with technology. And if the interest begins there, people might seek out the live and in person experience, too.
ReplyDelete(This is really late, but I figured I might as well do it)
ReplyDeleteI like both a lot. Maybe it's because I'm a product of the short attention span, but really long dance shows risk losing me if there isn't a type of narrative to follow along with. A lot of filmed dance pieces are either shorter or end up with a narrative. And if they're really long I can pause, do something else and come back to the video to continue watching.
You can do things on film that you can't do on stage, such as cut from place to place, close ups, dance in places that you couldn't usually have an audience, etc. It is another art form all in itself.
However, seeing a live piece of dance filmed is not the same as seeing a piece of dance made for film. The energy seems lost when you see a recording of it; flat, static in some way. So I don't think that technology could ever wipe out live dancing, but it can simply exist as another form side by side.
It's very easy to share dance pieces via the web. If I do a dance show I can't get all of my friends to come see it, but I can send them all a video of my performance that they will hopefully watch. And though it isn't the full thing, it still shares my work with them.
I think technology can also help modern dance explore new boundaries when not confined to a stage or a performance place (wherever that might be) to have an added challenge of putting your energy out there with no audience to feed off of. It's also interesting to be able to manipulate time with technology as they did a lot in the first video. So I feel technology can help regular modern dance push boundaries and be shared, but it shouldn't completely replace live dance performances.
I really appreciate the rawness and honesty in live art. I definitely feel film/media is now quite a large component of contemporary dance these days, which is reflective of society exploring technological capacities in tandem with movement. Though, I am not of the opinion that 'live' dance is being replaced by film, it is however more prominent and accessible by many by way of social media. Through film medium dance can be transformed into an experience where one can truly have a glimpse into the imaginations of the artists in a very different way. Using the film method, especially in this piece, the portrayal of dance allows for the audience to ultimately escape in the personal visions of the artist. Live and film are essentially to different experiences depending on the intent of the artist. Introducing dance through film is creating a platform to narrate something in a way which perhaps people may feel they have an easier time directly relating to the content. This maybe contributes to the idea that film could be a good thing as it may reach a wider audience. My aforementioned comment regarding social media is largely promoting (or has the potential to) the modern dance cause. Films and TV/media/internet/images are such a large underpinnings of our culture that it is only natural that dance film be a prevalent part of the contemporary coarse of the career of modern dance. I think there is some movement, concept, or artistic component to modern dance that people can connect to it's just a matter of people being open to the experience. Maybe the use of less traditional means to share the performance is the key. ?
ReplyDeleteMaddy