Abstract
Around the turn of the millennium reviewers began to take note that the marriage of dance and technology had produced a few significant stage works which startled audiences and drew attention to digital dance and interactivity in the theatre. Projections of virtual dancers appeared on screens in Merce Cunningham’s Hand-drawn Spaces and BIPED, emanations or graphic phantoms that fluttered in space while the real dancers performed the choreography on stage.1 In Ghostcatching, Bill T. Jones’s animated figure danced a virtual solo, at times alone and then with multiple copies of ‘Jones’ spawned from the data extracted (motion-captured) from the performer’s body. The virtual Jones was heard talking, grumbling, and singing, which gave the animation an eerie sense of surreality. In Trisha Brown’s how long does the subject linger at the edge of the volume…, the projected graphic creatures interacted with the dancers on stage as if drawn to the human bodies and their movement gestures. The jagged geometric creatures as such (irregular triangles, squares, rectangles, and lines) remained indeterminate images hovering between abstraction and figuration, unaware that they were acting. Yet the graphic phantoms, sometimes referred to as digital doubles, have become supplements, algorithmic emergences allowing us to reflect upon the mediations between analogue and digital systems, between bodies and technical beings.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The most comprehensive study of new technological performance to date is found in Steve Dixon’s Digital Performance: A History of New Media in Theater, Dance, Performance Art and Installation (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007).
Johannes Birringer, Performance, Technology, and Science (New York: PAJ Publications, 2008).
Alexander R. Golloway, Protocol (Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, 2004).
Malcolm McCullough, Digital Ground (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004).
Felicia McCarren, Dancing Machines: Choreographies of the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 2003).
Inspired by McCarren’s historical analysis, Jennifer McColl’s PhD thesis, ‘Bodies and Labour: Industrialization, Dance and Digital Performance’ (Brunel University, 2011), tracks the role of performance from earlier industrial eras up to its function in contemporary late-capitalist digital art contexts. For a closer discussion of Marc Downie’s algorithmic creatures (which his collaborator Paul Kaiser describes as ‘thinking images’).
Johannes Birringer, ‘Thinking Images: Conversation with Paul Kaiser and Marc Downie’, PAJ 89 (2008), 17–37.
For the current research context of wearable fashion and performance, see Xiaoming Tao (ed.), Wearable Electronics and Photonics (Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing, 2005).
Jane McCann and David Bryson (eds), Smart Clothes and Wearable Technology (Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing, 2009). Some of the ideas in this chapter are of course indebted to my design collaborator Michèle Danjoux; see our jointly written ‘The Sound of Movement Wearables’, Leonardo 46.3 (2013), 233–40.
Siegfried Zielinski, Deep Time of the Media — Toward an Archaeology of Hearing and Seeing by Technical Means (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006), 227–53.
Muto Junko, ‘Enjoying Actor Prints: Imagining the Voices of Actors and Music’, in Gian Carlo Calza (ed.), Ukiyo-e (London: Phaidon Press, 2005), 10–11.
See Johannes Birringer and Michèle Danjoux, ‘Wearable Performance’, Digital Creativity 20.1–2 (2009), 95–113.
Roland Barthes, ‘The Grain of the Voice’, in The Responsibility of Forms, trans. Richard Howard (New York: Hill & Wang, 1985), 274.
My interpretation of earlier audio technologies and sound art experiments is here inspired also by Frances Dyson’s important book, Sounding New Media: Immersion and Embodiment in the Arts and Culture (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2009). For our film scenes in UKIYO, our ensemble took recourse to Michel Chion’s research on film sound in Audio-Vision: Sound on Screen, trans. Claudia Gorbman (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994).
See Antonin Artaud, The Theatre and its Double, trans. M. C. Richards (New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1958), 52.
José Gil, ‘The Paradoxical Body’, TDR: The Drama Review 50.4 (2006), 21–35.
Anna Munster, Materializing New Media: Embodiment in Information Aesthetics (Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College Press/University of New England, 2006), 56.
The phrase ‘hearing in’ is indebted to Tim Ingold’s persuasive account of the experience of sound in movement, experienced, like breath or like the wind, as a movement of coming and going, inspiration and expiration. See his ‘Against Soundscape’, in Angus Carlyle (ed.), Autumn. Leaves: Sound and the Environment in Artistic Practice (Paris: Double Entendre, 2007), 10–13. See also his ‘The eye of the storm: Visual perception and the weather’, Visual Studies 20.2 (2005), 97–104.
Julie Wilson-Bokowiec and Mark Bokowiec, ‘Sense & Sensation: The Act of Mediation and its Effects’, Intermedialites: History and Theory of the Arts, Literature and Techniques 12 (2008), 129–42.
Cf. Francis Lestienne, ‘Les sciences du mouvement: art & handicap’, Bains numériques, vol. 2 (2008), 81–7.
For information on the ‘Choreography and Cognition’ research project, see http://www.choreocog.net. For the wider context of cross-overs between neuroscience and dance, see Johannes Birringer and Josephine Fenger (eds), Tanz im Kopf/Dance and Cognition (Münster: LIT Verlag, 2005). The development of interactional performance in the dance and technology community can be traced back to the early and mid-1990s. An overview of software development for performance is offered by Scott de Lahunta: http://www.sdela.dds.nl/transdance/report/. He organized the path-breaking workshop ‘Software for Dancers’ at Sadler’s Wells Theatre in London (October 2001); it was followed by ‘Performance Tools: Dance and Interactive Systems’, at Ohio State University in January 2002; cf. http://minuet.dance.ohio-state.edu/~jbirringer/Dance_and_Technology/tt.html/. Most recently de Lahunta coordinated the research project ‘Choreographic Objects: traces and artefacts of physical intelligence’, which includes Emio Greco/PC’s Capturing Intention; Wayne McGregor’s Autonomous Choreographic Agents; the Siobhan Davies Dance Archive; and William Forsythe’s Synchronous Objects (http://synchronou-sobjects.osu.edu). My concerns about interactivity and its effects on performance aesthetics were first expressed in blogs released during my 2006 Interaktionslabor (http://interaktionslabor.de), and subsequently in ‘After Choreography’, Performance Research 13.1 (2008), 118–22.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2013 Johannes Birringer
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Birringer, J. (2013). Retro-Engineering: Wearable Sound. In: Reilly, K. (eds) Theatre, Performance and Analogue Technology. Palgrave Studies in Performance and Technology. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137319678_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137319678_8
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-45742-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-31967-8
eBook Packages: Palgrave Theatre & Performance CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)