idanca.net

Throughout western history, society has been relating with the body in many different ways, many of which were prejudiced and moralist. It was instilled with perversities, shameful instincts, weaknesses, limitations. The body was immoral and pushed a man away from himself, while the soul elevated him towards the sublime, approximating man to God, or to reason. It was necessary to tame the body, domesticate it, in order for it to live socially, so it could allow the development of the “good soul”. Similar notions spread not only among religious thinkers, but also among scientists, artists and philosophers.

According to theorist Jesús Martín-Barbero, the new media’s audiovisual communication is seen as a dismantlement of the “rationalist hegemony of the dualism that opposed the rational to the sensitive and the emotional” (2006, p. 53). It is the end of the authority of literate culture, now, the letters are added to other forms of knowledge, other aesthetic forms, other fields. We live in a moment with great potential for the production and circulation of “speeches”, “a new ecosystem of languages and writings” (ibid., p. 70), characterized by a myriad of knowledge fields, reconciling cultural fields with oral expressions, dances, music, myths (builders of popular imaginary systems), hybridized in the “new technicality”.

Hence, after centuries of the body-mind dualism and the supremacy of reason over emotion, cultural practices point to a revival of experience, of the body and, consequently, of dance, in a context of super-production and exposure of images. Nowadays, acting in the production of images, especially images that have the body as focus in any way, be it a dancing body or not, becomes a distinctive element in the cultural market, a sing of “connection”[1], and precisely because of that, it becomes more of a common place.

Ironically, the individual has all the “freedom of choice” to decide whether or not he or she wants to have a healthy body, a productive body, a beautiful body, a body established as an ideal one (habitus)[2]. Foucault draws attention to the fact that “power penetrated the body, it is exposed in the body itself…” (1979, p. 146), it is not about control entities acting by means of repression, “but control-stimulation: ‘Get naked… but be thin, beautiful, tanned!” (ibid., p. 147).

Villaça (2002) argues that the limit between the deconstruction of the body as appropriation and deconstruction as alienation technique is very flimsy. Globalized financial capitalism uses values achieved by social movements – body freedom, flexibility, fluidity, boldness, etc – in order to adopt a new moralism that prescribes the dictatorship of fitness, instead of body expression, a market framework of differences, instead of asserting cultural difference, draining all of its meaning. As a consequence, dance frequently appears (in music videos, soap operas, talk shows, movies) as a way to show off a healthy, sociable, seductive, desirable body; and rarely an end in itself, an expression of a wholesome body.

Therefore, we must reflect about which functions we wish to carry out with this body in the combination of the universe of dancing images. We take this opportunity to think about the representation of the contemporary body, specifically in videodance.

Aesthetically, videodance is beginning to define itself as a hybrid art, it is not only video and it is not only dance, sometimes it is even made without video and without dance[3], a new artistic expression, a result of the dialogue between dance and video. As Alonso said, “videodance developed itself upon its own practice, indifferent to definitions and norms (2007, p. 48).

For artistic conception, the absence of a definition of its object is liberating. As Uruguayan dancer and videomaker Tamara Cubas said in an interview (BELING, 2004, s/p): “The contemporary distinguishes itself by something that doesn´t have parameters, doesn´t have limits, you must take what you need to say what you want to say”. However, for the consolidation of a field, the absence of limits is not so soothing. In real life, legitimization entities need parameters, and end up creating them.

Throughout a masters research which resulted in the dissertation called Cinema, dança, videodança (entre-linguagens)[4], it was noted that the field, still in the process of creation, already manages differences among its own agents. On one side, some, like Conrad, defend the specificity of dance as an abstract way to organize the world through human movement – “dance doesn´t need narrative more than music” (2009, s/p) – and accuse television station’s financing as being responsible for lowering the artistic level (resorting to narrative) to please audiences. On the other side, some say that “Without bending for the box office as if it were God, it wouldn´t hurt having more dance films circulating with clear intentions” (TOWERS, 2006, p.18). Towers argues that the field is so closed within itself, in internal struggle for artistic distinction, that it doesn´t realize the need to communicate with the audience. It is a silent struggle, in which each one defends their own place of speech.

The research aimed to reflect about the space of videodance as a contemporary communication phenomenon, the internal and external conflicts in the establishment of a field, with the social and cultural consequences of such feat. The dissertation concluded that the big issue for videodance, which causes a split in the field, is that it assumes an “introspective” stance, concentrating in its specificities, in the overcoming of its own codes, originating what Bourdieu calls “art for art’s sake”, which only connoisseurs are able to appreciate; or it turns to the outside of the field, ceasing to worry about its own limits, making alliances with other fields and prioritizing the relationship with the audience. In the case of “art for art’s sake”, Pierre Bourdieu sums up the process saying:

“Besides expressing the rupture with external demands and the will to exclude artists under the suspicion of giving in to such demands, the assertion of the primacy of form over function, of the means of representation over the object of representation, actually constitutes the most specific expression of the claim for autonomy and its intention to detain and impose the principles of a properly cultural legitimacy, both in the production level and in the reception of an art piece.” (2007, p. 110)

There is a “mythification” of artistic production and reception, a construction of legitimacy that is proportional to the difficulty of symbolic access to the art piece. The first conference Screendance: the State of the Art, in 2006, produced by the American Dance Festival (ADF), aimed exactly at thinking about the implications of consumption in the field of videodance.

Douglas Rosenberg, director of the conference, proposes a series of paradigms for the discussion and production of dance films or videos. Among the paradigms is the issue of the director, who is often the weakest figure in videodance production, which results mostly from the choreographer’s work. Maybe the role of the director, as it is classically known in the cinema field (the artist who is named as the author of the film) does not fit in this case, it is rather a co-direction composed by two roles, a “double-authorship” of the choreographer and the filmmaker or videomaker. About the issue of authorship, Tamara Cubas said:

“In videos made only by a choreographer, there is a tendency to exaggerate the use of special effects. He does what he can´t do on stage, for instance, he falls 40 times, he gets upside down… he overuses the technical possibilities, to do on screen what he can´t do on stage. On the other hand, when it is made only by a videomaker, the relationship with dance and the discourse of the body seem weak. But when the work is done by a filmmaker and a choreographer, with knowledge and communication of both fields, it becomes more interesting” (BELING, 2004, s/p).

In the same way, in order for videodance not to be restricted only to research of dance parameters, Rosenberg claims for the authorship of the director in consonance with the choreographer’s, as well as the research about videodance reception, which is different from the enjoyment of live dance. In his words: “Much has been written about the way in which we, the viewers, have a kind of sympathetic response to live dancing bodies. However, little has been written about how that sympathetic, kinesthetic sensation is translated to the screen” (2006, p.13).

Videodance is a privileged space for the debate about the representation of the body in contemporary society, using it for movement research only is to underuse it. Cinema/video and dance are two potentialities for expression that can either mean a lot or mean nothing at all. Better yet, the option for saying nothing, actually means accepting and confirming what has been said before.

How is the production of this new expression translating the paradox of the new environment that values feeling over meaning? Are there detours of media value systems? If videodance inscribes images and the body outside the consumption logic (as producers claim) in another register, which would this register be?

Videodance is still looking for its “place of speech”, it still inhabits a non-place, a between-fields, between-languages, and maybe that is the best place for it to be, an extension of what Dubois (2004) said about video – a state – the state of diversity. And for the last sentence not to stay in the world of ideas, production must be diversified, as well as the representation of bodies and dance, the audience’s projection (cinema/video field and dance field), as can be seen in the examples – The cost of living (2004), Dois ambientes (2004) and Divagações em um quarto de Hotel (2005).

(Watch an excerpt  of  The Cost of Living)

The cost of living was directed and choreographed by Lloyd Newson, from the dance field. Dois ambientes is a partnership between choreographer and performer Rodrigo Pardo and videomaker Guiye Fernández, both directed the video. Divagações em um quarto de Hotel, in its turn, is directed by two filmmakers: Philippe Barcinski, who directed award-winning short-films, distinguished by their experimental quality, besides the feature film Não por acaso (2007); and Dainara Toffoli, director of short-films, advertisement and documentaries. Three different creation process that are different, initially, because of each filmmaker’s place of speech.

In The Cost of Living, Eddie and David, the anti-hero protagonists, are socially, economically and culturally marginalized bodies. Eddie is a quarrelsome chatterbox and David is a legless dancer who won´t allow society to undermine him. Both friends walk through the city, going through unexpected, and many times baffling, situations. We see dramatized bodies, based on abstract and metaphorical movements, whose associations with a naturalist language of images and dialogues allows narrative clarity, which in its turn invests in a critical discourse about the contemporary body. It is an example that approaches the complexity of cultural contradiction in a humorous way and questions the dominant habitus.

In Dois ambientes, we also see a dramatized body, however, the piece majorly re-creates the mimesis of daily gestures, therefore using a more direct body language, as well as cinematographic language. Here, experimentation follows the direction towards a construction of the protagonist’s subjective point of view, since the conflict focuses on a psychological issue, a love relationship in crisis. It takes off from an objective dimension, created both with dance’s own codes and with those of cinema (therefore, a direct perception), to reach a subjective dimension, through small detours from the built pattern. For instance, the bathroom scene, which is absolutely classic and has direct communication in terms of cinematographic and dance language, is creative in subverting the context – a seduction dream, a masterful dance, inside a bathroom!

The core of Divagações em um quarto de Hotel is also a psychological issue, the choreography is a reflex of the confusion within Willow, also shown through the voice over, the said divagations in a hotel room. Barcinski said “dance starts to give shape to those thoughts”. In this co-production between Brazil and France (an adaptation of a dance show, Bruno Beltrão’s Eu e meu coreógrafo no 63), the dramatized body follows a third path, the abstraction of body movements is added to the abstraction of representation of the choreographic body. In the original version, a balance is sought with the insertion of the naturalism of present time, the emphasis on the memory and the narration; however, in the television version [5], the potential for communication with the spectator may be reduced by the editing required for subtitling. Such conclusion leads us to the question: who are the videodance consumers?

If we consider the videodance audience to be composed, mostly, by members of the dance field, which means they are agents able to dominate dance´s poetic abstraction, Divagações… can be perceived as being redundant, since it reinforces the feeling of the dance through the voice over, the visual effects, etc. However, we observe the preoccupation of some agents of the field not to close the videodance practice within the dance world, on the contrary, there is an effort to reach other spectators. And for an outsider of dance, Willow’s choreography may seem too obscure, without the support of more “narrative” elements.

Cyclically, we return to the issue of field. Out of the three videodance we analyzed[6], the only one made by a filmmaker[7], was also the one that got closer to videoart’s dominant representation, with its experimentating quality, its research and innovation of the audiovisual language. This conclusion is not surprising, if we consider image as a more central object of investigation for the cinema field that for the videodance field, which leads us to the issue of the spectator once again.

The relationship between cinema/video and dance is full of conflicts, but once they are overcome, they can generate a balanced artistic expression, presenting a wholesome body in a dance-image that neither dance nor film can accomplish alone.

In order for videodance to be seen and understood as a cultural production beyond counterculture or political resistance (which can become an exercise of restrictive power as much as its object of opposition), but rather a process of singularization, a showcase of bodies aware of their creative possibilities and a multicultural media representation; a high quality education is necessary for the understanding of the media’s subjectification process and to convey the habitus of artistic expression and not just the reproduction of a pattern.

Videodance can and should use the richness of its possibilities for expressive material as opposed to mass images, but we cannot forget the “masses”, meaning, we cannot forget that art must also have communication, exchange, sharing.

Ana Paula Nunes has a masters degree in Cinema studies by Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF). She directed the short-film Âmago and the video Mãos. Cinema professor at UFRJ dance course (2006-2007) and Cinema and Dance professor at UFF Cinema course (2008). Works as teacher in many projects of the NGO CINEDUC – Cinema and Education.

[1] Theorist Nestor García Canclini (2007, passim) alerts that at the same time culture can creatively strengthen an ethical attitude of collective life, culture framed into consumer society can cause social inequality (seen as distinctive), cultural difference (which can generate nationalism and fundamentalism and disconnection (those excluded from society, lack of social representation). Meaning, in the world of contemporary relationships, for someone to be “socially recognized”, they must be connected to the social signs of worldwide signification (product brands, cultural references and    lifestyles). Communicating has become synonymous with consuming and the currency is the cultural capital.

[2] A concept of Pierre Bourdieu, who refers to socially constituted dispositions, but that are constantly updated according to individual biography, it can either be an instrument for reaffirming social order or to turn itself into a potential attitude to disband the same order.

[3] “although it seems like a contradiction, there is videodance ‘without video’ and ‘without dance’. Many pieces are filmed with cinematographic support, or are made in video, but with a strictly filmic vocabulary. In other cases, no one ‘dances’ and there is no movement we can identify as being ‘dance’. Sometimes, the editing is what creates a choreography with static images; in other cases, it is the focus in some movements that transforms them into ‘dance’” (ALONSO, 2007, p. 48).

[4] The research was financed by CAPES, in the Communication post-graduate program of Universidade Federal Fluminense, advised by Prof. Dr. Antonio Carlos Amâncio.

[5] The video is na episode of the series Dance, dance, dance, from French TV station ARTE.

[6] And we briefly present it in this article. To read further about the issues presented here refer to NUNES, Ana Paula. Cinema, dança, videodança (entre-linguagens). Niterói, 2009. 134f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Comunicação) – Instituto de Artes e Comunicação Social, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niterói, 2009.

[7] This denomination refers more to the integration with the cinematographic field than to practice by itself, meaning that the filmmaker would be the one inserted in the cinema institution, with professional training, working in the movie business, legitimized by specialized criticism etc. A situation different from that of a videomaker, who is independent from artistic knowledge and at the fringe of the movie business or in an informal market without the field’s symbolic capital.