The Challenge of the Inter in the Preservation of Cultural Heritage; The Intangibility of the Material and Immaterial Dancing Body in Performance

  • Sarah Whatley
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7990)

Abstract

The intersection between the dancing body and digital technology produces new kinds of performative events that often exist only in the ‘now’ of event/user/audience interaction, resisting documenting and preserving in conventional ways, so are largely absent from our cultural heritage. As interlocutor, the artist is forever vital in the work existing and communicating, yet removed and absent in what remains; the living artist disappears into ‘data’. How do these digital corporeal embodiments then generate new kinds of artefacts? Are these ‘re-enactments’ more easily captured and preserved and if so, how do they disrupt what constitutes ‘cultural heritage’ and how we access and value our performing artists and their outputs? This presentation will explore these questions by drawing on the work of UK-based dance artist Ruth Gibson who uses motion capture technology to create visualisations of dancers for intermedial environments (exhibitions, installations and applications for mobile platforms). What does this work tell us about our relationship with the material and immaterial in performance, and our tools and methods for its preservation? I will argue that dance’s contribution to our cultural heritage is intangible yet fundamental for emphasising the vitality of the corporeal, expressive body in our performing arts cultural heritage.

Keywords

dance digital motion capture corporeality intermediality materiality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Auslander, P.: Reactivation: Performance, Mediatization and the Present Moment. In: Chatzichristodoulou, M., Jefferies, J., Zerihan, R. (eds.) Interfaces of Performance, pp. 81–93. Ashgate, Farnham (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benjamin, W.: The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. In: Illuminations. Jonathan Cape Ltd., UK (1970)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Birringer, J.: Data Art and Interactive Landscapes. In: deLahunta, S. (ed.) SwanQuake the User Manual, pp. 37–52. Liquid Press, Plymouth (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borcic, B.: Guided Tour: Performance Art and its Relation to Archiving. In: GAMA (2007), http://wiki.gamagateway.eu/index.php/Guided_tour_:_Performance_Art_and_its_Relation_to_Archiving (accessed February 8, 2013)
  5. 5.
    Chatzichristodoulou, M., Jefferies, J., Zerihan, R.: Introduction. In: Chatzichristodoulou, M., Jefferies, J., Zerihan, R. (eds.) Interfaces of Performance, pp. 1–5. Ashgate, Farnham (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gibson, R., Martelli, B.: As Yet Impossible presents igloo: Kinosphir – she’s lost control (2013), http://www.salford.ac.uk/mediacityuk/mediacityuk/as-yet-impossible-presents-igloo-kinosphir-shes-lost-control (accessed February 8, 2013)
  7. 7.
    Gibson, R.: Interview: Bruno Martelli and Ruth Gibson (igloo)’s SwanQuake (2007). In: Gamescenes (2010), http://www.gamescenes.org/2010/05/interview-bruno-martelli-and-ruth-gibson-igloos-swanquake-2007.html (accessed February 8, 2013)
  8. 8.
    Hirsenfelder, I.: Characteristics of the 8 GAMA-Archives. In: GAMA (2007), http://www.gama-gateway.eu/index.php?id=40 (accessed February 8, 2013)
  9. 9.
    Jefferies, J.: Conclusion. In: Chatzichristodoulou, M., Jefferies, J., Zerihan, R. (eds.) Interfaces of Performance, pp. 199–202. Ashgate, Farnham (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jordan, S. (ed.): Preservation Politics; Dance Revived, Reconstructed, Remade. Dance Books, London (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lepecki, A.: The Body as Archive: Will to Re-Enact and the Afterlives of Dances. Dance Research Journal 42(2), 28–48 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McFee, G.: The Philosophical Aesthetics of Dance: Identity, Performance and Understanding. Dance Books, Hampshire (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Phelan, P.: Unmarked: The Politics of Performance. Routledge, London (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thomas, H.: Reconstruction and Dance as Embodied Textual Practice. In: Carter, A. (ed.) Rethinking Dance History: A Reader, pp. 32–45. Routledge, London (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Salter, C.: Environments, Interactions and Beings: The Ecology of Performativity and Technics. In: Chatzichristodoulou, M., Jefferies, J., Zerihan, R. (eds.) Interfaces of Performance, pp. 27–42. Ashgate, Farnham (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah Whatley
    • 1
  1. 1.Coventry UniversityCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations