Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
In this chapter, Francksen examines technology’s role as a key creative agent within digital dance performance and discusses the impact this is having on the dancer’s experience of making movement. Importantly, this chapter makes a case for the positive impact technology can have on the ways in which dancers both create and experience movement, particularly when it is integrated within the studio setting. Through an analysis of the author’s own practice, Francksen explores how technology can change the ways in which dancers produce, engage with, and ultimately create movement. In so doing, this chapter promotes the experiential awareness of the dancer as key to appreciating the affordances of technology in dance specific to our digital age.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
One of the defining features of digital performance is the possibility to combine live theatre practices (i.e. the management of performers, actors, dancers) with digital processing tools (film, video, projection, etc.), which also includes the use of virtual and/or augmented reality. Virtual in this context refers to a technologized form of representation, via a camera or through an online portal for example, and in relation to animated virtual figures such as avatars. For an alternative view of the virtual, please see Brian Massumi’s definition in terms of perception and experience. He states, “For the present is lost with the missing half second, passing too quickly to be perceived…This requires a reworking of how we think about the body, something that happens too quickly to have happened, actually is virtual” ( 2002, 30).
For an exemplar of movement and technology working as part of a well-timed and structured choreography with digital images and sound see Motion House’s performance Scattered (2009).
“Isadora is a real-time software tool to support the creation of interactive live performance work for installation or stage and is programmed primarily to manipulate digital video” (DeLahunta 2005, 31).
See http://ears.pierrecouprie.fr for Pierre Couprie’s definition of acousmatic sound.
Kalay discusses “We have been conditioned from childhood to disbelieve what we see on the screen—otherwise, it would be hard to watch gory films and play vicious computer games” ( 2008, 6).
Jodie Davis. 2014. Interview with K. Francksen on 13.03.14. De Montfort University, Leicester (documentation in possession of author).
Affecting is referred to here in accordance with Susan Melrose, who writes, “It is ‘affecting and being affected’ which seems to challenge certain in(ter)ventions specific to the digital economy” ( 2011, 8).
I use the term “affecting” here not merely to denote an emotional response; rather this discussion also aims to align itself with those discourses where the “so-called affective turn” (Reynolds 2012, 126) implies affect as inherently embodied.
Auslander, Philip. 2008. Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized Culture. Oxon: Routledge.
Bailey, Helen. 2007. Ersatz Dancing: Negotiating the Live and Mediated in Digital Performance Practice. International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media 3 (2–3): 151–165. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1386/padm.3.2-3.151_1. CrossRef
Benford, Steve, and Gabriella Giannachi. 2011. Performing Mixed Reality. London: The MIT Press.
Birringer, Johannes. 2003. Dance and Interactivity. Dance Research Journal 35 (2): 89–111.
Broadhurst, Susan. 2007. Digital Practices: Aesthetic and Neuroesthetic Approaches to Performance and Technology. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossRef
———. 2011. Intelligence, Interaction, Reaction, and Performance. In Performance and Technology: Practices of Virtual Embodiment and Interactivity, ed. Susan Broadhurst and Josephine Machon, 141–152. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Causey, Matthew. 2015. General Introduction. In the After-event of the Virtual. In The Performing Subject in the Space of Technology: Through the Virtual, Towards the Real, ed. Matthew Causey, Emma Meehan, and Neill O’Dwyer, 1–8. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossRef
Combi, Mariella. 2016. Cultures and Technology: An Analysis of Some of the Changes in Progress—Digital, Global and Local Culture. In Cultural Heritage in a Changing World, ed. Karol Jan Borowiecki, Neil Forbes, and Antonella Fresa. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
DeLahunta, Scott. 2005. Isadora ‘Almost Out of Beta’: Tracing the Development of a New Software Tool for Performing Artists. International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media 1 (1): 31–46. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1386/padm.1.1.31/1. CrossRef
———. 2006. Co-descriptions and Colaborative Composition. Opening presentation at Choreographic Computations (a NIME06/IRCAM workshop), Paris, 4 June.
Dixon, Steve. 2007. Digital Performance: A History of New Media in Theatre, Dance, Performance Art, and Installation. London: MIT Press.
Francksen, Kerry. 2011. Rehearsal Documentation. Leicester: De Montfort University (Documentation in Possession of Author).
———. 2014. Modulation_one. Kerry Francksen and Simon Atkinson, Leicester: De Montfort University.
Grosz, Elizabeth. 1994. Volatile Bodies: Towards a Corporeal Feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Kalay, Yehuda E. 2008. Introduction. Preserving Cultural Heritage Through Digital Media. In New Heritage, New Media and Cultural Heritage, ed. Yehunda E. Kalay, Thomas Kvan, and Janice Affleck, 1–11. London: Routledge.
Langer, Susanne. 1951. The Dynamic Image: Some Philosophical Reflections on Dance. In The Dance Has Many Faces, ed. Walter Sorell. New York: World Publishing.
Mackendrick, Karmen. 2004. Embodying Transgression. In Of the Presence of the Body: Essays on Dance and Performance Theory, ed. Andre Lepecki, 140–156. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.
Manning, Erin. 2009. Relationscapes: Movement, Art, Philosophy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Massumi, Brian. 2002. Parables of the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation. Durham: Duke University Press. CrossRef
Melrose, Susan. 2011. Bodies Without Bodies. In Performance and Technology. Practices of Virtual Embodiment and Interactivity, ed. Susan Broadhurst and Josephine Machon, 1–17. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Merleau-Ponty. 1968. The Visible and the Invisible. Evanston: North Western University Press.
Nibbelink, Liesbeth Groot, and Sigrid Merx. 2010. Presence and Perception: Analysing Intermediality in Performance. In Mapping Intermediality in Performance, ed. Sarah Bay-Cheng, Chiel Kattenbelt, Andy Lavender, and Robin Nelson. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Phelan, Peggy. 1993. Unmarked: The Politics of Performance. London: Routledge. CrossRef
Portanova, Stamatia. 2013. Moving Without a Body: Digital Philosophy and Choreographic Thoughts. London: MIT Press.
Reynolds, Dee. 2012. Kinesthetic Empathy and the Dance’s Body: From Emotion to Affect. In Kinesthetic Empathy in Creative and Cultural Practices, ed. Dee Reynolds and Matthew Reason, 123–136. Bristol: Intellect.
Stern, Nathaniel. 2013. Interactive Art and Embodiment: The Implicit Body as Performance. Canterbury: Gylphi Lim.
- The Implications of Technology in Dance: A Dancer’s Perspective of Moving in Media-Rich Environments
- Chapter 4