Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Fig. 9.1
The Crack-Up, 2013
to the dramaturgy of a dance work seems more problematic. The difference here
is a shift from technology serving the meaning or the narrative of a performance,
as opposed to presenting a competing 'body' within the space. From the audience
member's perspective, in the absence of the ability to taste, touch or smell the digital
entities, both the biological and the digital are perceived visually. Both are 'real,'
and both lay claim to playing an integral performative role in the work (Fig.
9.1
).
Steve Dixon has described the tension this creates. “The artificiality or falsehood
of the digital image has therefore limited appeal to many live artists on aesthetic,
ideological and political grounds. This is particularly the case in fields such as
physical theatre and body art, where the primary aim is the enactment of 'embodied
authenticity', realized through the 'no smoke and mirrors' and 'no-strings-attached'
material tangibility of the visceral, physical body. There is therefore a tension, even
conflict, between those within performance practice and criticism at either side of
the digital divide, which should not be underestimated. This has been exacerbated
by the paradoxical rhetoric of disembodiment and virtual bodies, which have turned
ideas of corporeal reality full circle by the claim that the digital body has equal
status and authenticity to the biological one. The paradox that projected databodies
and alternate identities enacted in cyberspace can be viewed as being just as, or even
more vital and authentic than their quotidian referents, is now a source of belief and
wonder to some and a totally unpalatable conception to others” (Dixon
2007
: 24).
Underlying these divergent perspectives is a question of ontological cohesion.
Observing a human performer is an experience of a different order to that of
