Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T06:29:45.594Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Body as Archive: Will to Re-Enact and the Afterlives of Dances

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2012

André Lepecki
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Laurence Louppe once advanced the intriguing notion that the dancer is “the veritable avatar of Orpheus: he has no right to turn back on his course, lest he be denied the object of his quest” (Louppe 1994, 32). However, looking across the contemporary dance scene in Europe and the United States, one cannot escape the fact that dancers—contrary to Orpheus, contrary to Louppe's assertion—are increasingly turning back on their and dance history's tracks in order to find the “object of their quest.” Indeed, contemporary dancers and choreographers in the United States and Europe have in recent years been actively engaged in creating re-enactments of sometimes well-known, sometimes obscure, dance works of the twentieth century. Examples abound: we can think of Fabian Barba's Schwingende Landschaft (2008), an evening-length piece where the Ecuadorian choreographer returns to Mary Wigman's seven solo pieces created in 1929 and performed during Wigman's first U.S. tour in 1930; of Elliot Mercer returning in 2009 and 2010 to several of Simone Forti's Construction Pieces (1961/62), performing them at Washington Square Park in New York City; or Anne Collod's 2008 return to Anna Halprin's Parades and Changes (1965), among many other examples.

Type
Articles
Information
Dance Research Journal , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , Winter 2010 , pp. 28 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © Congress on Research in Dance 2010

References

Works Cited

Agnew, Vanessa. 2007. “History's Affective Turn: Historical Reenactment and Its Work in the Present.” Rethinking History 11 (3): 299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjamin, Walter. 1996. “The Task of the Translator.” In Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings. Volume 1, 1913–1926. Edited by Bullock, M. and Jennings, M. W.. Cambridge, MA: Belknapp Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Benso, Silvia. 2000. The Face of Things. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Brandstetter, Gabriele. 2000. “Choreography as Cenotaph.” In ReMembering the Body: [on the occasion of the exhibition “STRESS” at the MAK, Vienna], edited by Brandstetter, Gabriele and Vèolckers, Hortensia; with STRESS, an image-essay by Bruce Mau; with texts by André Lepecki; Translated by Scrima, Andrea and Emig, Rainer. Ostfildern-Ruit: Hatje Cantz.Google Scholar
Burt, Ramsay. 2003. “Memory, Repetition and Critical Intervention: The Politics of Historical Reference in Recent European Dance Performance.” Performance Research 8 (2): 34–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deleuze, Gilles. 1990. The Logic of Sense. European Perspectives. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Deleuze, Gilles. 1991. Bergsonism. Translated by Tomlison, H. and Habberian, B.. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
Deleuze, Gilles. 1993. The Fold. Translated by Conley, T.. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Deleuze, Gilles. 1995. Negotiations. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Deleuze, Gilles. 2001. Spinoza: Practical Philosophy. San Francisco: City Lights.Google Scholar
Deleuze, Gilles. 2006. Nietzsche and Philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Deleuze, Gilles, and Guattari, Felix. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. London: Athlone.Google Scholar
Deleuze, Gilles, and Lapoujade, David. 2006. Two Regimes of Madness: Texts and Interviews 1975–1995. New York and Cambridge, MA: Semiotext(e), distributed by MIT Press.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. 1995. Archive Fever. Translated by Prenowitz, E.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Foster, Hal. 2004. “An Archival Impulse.” October (110): 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge. Translated by Smith, A. M. S.. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Franko, Mark. 1989. “Repeatability, Reconstruction and Beyond.” Theatre Journal 41 (1): 56–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Avery. 1997. Ghostly Matters: Haunting and the Sociological Imagination. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Harris, William. 1998. “Dragging Martha Back from the Dead.” New York Times, December 6, 10.Google Scholar
Laplanche, J., and Pontalis, J.-B.. 1974. The Language of Psychoanalysis. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Louppe, Laurence. 1994. Traces of Dance: Drawings and Notations of Choreographers. Paris: Editions Dis Voir.Google Scholar
Massumi, Brian. 2002. Parables for the Virtual. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Stephanie. 2008. “Agency for Action.” In Allan Kaprow: Art as Life, edited by Meyer-Hermann, E., Perchuk, A., and Rosenthal, S.. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute.Google Scholar
Santone, Jessica. 2008. “Marina Abramovic's Seven Easy Pieces: Critical Documentation Strategies for Preserving Art's History.” Leonardo 41 (2): 147–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Rebecca. 2001. “Archives Performance Remains.” Performance Research 6 (2): 100–108.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Selby Wynn. 2010. “Martha@Martha: A Séance with Richard Move.” Women and Performance: A Journal of Feminist Theory 20 (1): 61–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Diana. 2003. The Archive and the Repertoire: Performing Cultural Memory in the Americas. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar