|
Douglas Rosenberg is an EMMY nominated director and the recipient of the Phelan Art Award in Video. He is well known for his collaborations with choreographers including Molissa Fenley, Sean Curran, Ellen Bromberg, Joe Goode, Li Chiao-Ping, Eiko and Koma and others. He is the Director and Curator of Dancing for the Camera: Dance Film and Video Festival. |
 |
Making a Scene – Mandy Morrison
Douglas Rosenberg is an EMMY nominated director and the recipient of the Phelan Art Award in Video. He is well known for his collaborations with choreographers including Molissa Fenley, Sean Curran, Ellen Bromberg, Joe Goode, Li Chiao-Ping, Eiko and Koma and others. He is the Director and Curator of Dancing for the Camera: Dance Film and Video Festival.
Mandy Morrison: What are you interested in accomplishing by curating dance films program for a) the artist and b) the public?
Douglas Rosenberg: I am interested in creating a dialog about mediated bodies on film and video which includes issues of representation and agency, and that raises fundamental questions about the genre itself. I am also interested in creating a context for the work that extends the metaphors of screendance beyond the borders of dance or film/video alone and that puts it within a historical and contemporary discourse.
MM: In the past ten years, have you noticed a change in the artists vis a vis their practice and/or interface with technology and/or attitudes toward their practice and their audiences?
DR: Cheaper technology and raised awareness of the field have opened it up to many more practitioners and have prompted a spate of new festivals. The downside of this is that screendance festivals are programming toward entertaining audiences, without providing a format for a deeper understanding of the genre. There is very little curating going on in the strict sense of the word.
MM: Have you noticed a change in the audiences for your programs?
DR: Audiences seem to be much younger and larger. As university dance departments have added dance/video courses to their curriculum, there is a much greater awareness of the field. Festivals and touring programs have also helped.
MM: What distinguishes seeing dance/film work from the proscenium experience?
DR: It is work that is not possible in a "live" proscenium experience. Ironically, much of the work still maintains the feeling of a proscenium experience, transferred to the screen.
MM: If provocative work is more likely to alienate than engage its audience, is it in the host or the organization’s best interest to provide that artist or group a venue? Why or why not? (Is it worth doing?)
DR: Edgy and provocative work is a must for any form to move forward. However, provocative does not always equal aesthetically or formally successful. That is where curation comes into the picture.
MM: What do you think is important for chorographers/artists to consider in creating dance for film- or video-specific work as opposed to proscenium work?
DR: There are a million things to consider, but start with, "Why am I doing this?”
MM: You held a conference last year based on the curatorial program you had been presenting for 12 years. What inspired the conference you held in Durham, NC last year, and what ideas came from the presentations/panels? Did any of these surprise you and why?
DR: The conference at ADF was called, "Screendance: The State of the Art,” and was attended by over 50 participants from around the globe. It was four days of papers, dialog, screenings and panels dedicated to creating a dialog around just these issues. Makers, programmers and academics attended the conference, as well as choreographers and others interested in the form.
There is a universal desire for a deeper discourse about the genre. Participants really dug into issues that are rarely written about critically and almost never spoken about in festival settings. It is clear that the genre is at a precarious point in its development: it has a history and some critical mass, but no really serious method of critique, such as a journal or other publication.
MM: What has been your most gratifying program/presentation as a curator and why?
DR: I would have to say that the conference last year and another I organized in 2000, at the University of Wisconsin, were both very gratifying in that they brought people who were very serious about the genre together in a room to have a discussion that otherwise would not be taking place.
MM: Given the current political climate in the US, do you feel that a personal aesthetic in the performance realm diminishes the larger issues that we in Western culture collectively face, or can it enhance these issues?
DR: The lack of recognizable authorship, (the auteur for example) or what use to be called personal style has manifested in a kind of homogenized art world. Artists are very savvy these days and especially those working in media. Visual rhetoric has replaced authentic artistry in many cases and has deteriorated the artist’s ability to critique culture in a meaningful and unique way.
