Hi all, I go on with the answers. (more to follow) Johannes, I surely miss some of the uses of the terms performative and performatic, but since I think one of the significant foundational uses of performative is in performativity theory of language that I was mentioning, I think it is important to clarify the distinctions, since to me performativity theory, eventhough it is a very useful tool to understand certain dynamics of language and power is possibly not applicable outside the domain of verbal language, like in dance, unless we reduce dance to the paradigms with which we analyse verbal language, which I think is not a good idea. Performatics is a term I see as more devoid of specific philosophical and political intention and more open to define the praxis of performance in diverse of its inceptions. Now if performativity is not enough to understand the nonverbal processes of dance, music and other embodied forms of thinking and practice, I have approached the issue through what I call metaformativity, and which attempts to define a paradigm in which all the issues mentioned here are addressed, around <<generative and self-deforming...change over time... enfleshed meaning-making and understanding. And so, perhaps, that change, that performance, that transformation is actually more essential for, at the core of, the "thing," than the performative utterances that name its parts (or activities). ... engage with the embodied feedback loops between our presupposed understandings of such categories. >> (Nathaniel) It is true I think that performativity deals more with the permutation of existing (language) structures, and has little room for the emergence of new forms. This will always be the case if we start with language in the first place. If we on the contrary see language as an effect and sedimentation of nonverbal improvisations of the bodies we can start to understand the complex interactions of forces, of improvisations and sedimented forms, in the many levels of what we call non-verbal communication, in other levels of experience and consciousness, and in the unthinkable itself. This complex feedback, reflexivity, interrelation of forces is what I call a metaformative process. It dosen't exclude performativity, it rather includes it, but it exceeds it as well. It is a process in which the very structures thorugh which we "articulate" and "understand" emerge together with the realities we attempt to apprehend: it is the movement of thought itself, the self, that emerges in the process. Now we can understand this in the context of such theories of mirror neurons, enactive cognition and proprioception, perhaps, since everytime I see a movement of yours, I mirror it and embody it, and then it has become something else, If I attempt to reproduce it I cannot but generate something different, in the specificity of this body, your gesture is transduced to my field of forces, my register of associations, my open coordinates of interaction. The mirrorings that constitute embodiment have always fragmentary and deforming effects in the forces that are reflected. I hope to get back more extensively on a definition of metaformativity. i'm not sure I responded the question... As for your other comment, indeed we engage in little transcultural exchange, and dance-tech as we usually work with it here is a rather western context, I guess. If we start to listen carefully to the different uses of language amongst "western" colleagues and contexts, we will be all the more prepared to undergo the far more complex quest of opening the ears to the transcultural... Maybe the concepts used in the far east don't reach us because some of our eatern colleagues don't see us prepared to hear them without prejudgements from the "high academy"... do we have to make a move to show that we are open to hear what divergencies of meaning eastern concepts are producing with regard to western, without a trial and at the same time without intending that it's all the same: paying attention to the smallest dissonances with our major chord, and celebrating them? (I am assuming a we and a them, none of which I am too certain anyway... who is we, who is them? Am I reproducing the divide?) best jaime ----- Original Message ----- From: "Johannes Birringer" <Johannes.Birringer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <dance-tech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 9:11 PM Subject: [dance-tech] Re: Thread1: Posthuman-Postbody-Postself---Postcoreography Jaime --- after reading some your propositions, can you say a bit more about how you understand the notion of the < performatic > in the context of our discussions on the post-choreographic ? (also in context of Nathaniel's recent remarks: >>But one of the most fascinating things the study of structuralism, and for that matter the body, has taught me personally is that these things are not only performative, but also generative and self-deforming. They change over time, through per-formance, through their poststructure, through enfleshed meaning-making and understanding. And so, perhaps, that change, that performance, that transformation is actually more essential for, at the core of, the "thing," than the performative utterances that name its parts (or activities). Perhaps the being-with of change, the interrogation, the process itself, is a pre-condition (or at least co-condition) for structure. In this case it may be vital to, sometimes (but certainly not always), ignore structure and instead engage with the embodied feedback loops between our presupposed understandings of such categories. >> very well, then, this is about what I had in mind when i wote of "structure as outcome" as few weeks ago, in the very performative sense that is being addressed here by all of us. (Jaime, you seem to have strong thoughts on where "performativities" might have originally been discussed, in the arena of queer theory and gender troubling writing/philosophy - but you surely also saw the notion of the performative wander around a bit, and "Performanz" has been a firmly established theoretical concept now in the continental performance studies in Germany and also the postdramatic theatre field. (I will repost a posting by Heide Lazarus on this issue, which is very interesting from a historical and conceptual point of view, and unfortunately was not receiving enough attention here, and i am not sure that her reference to the german speaking reception of the performative are widely known in other parts of the world, e.g. the publications by Erika Fischer-Lichte, Gabriele Brandstetter, but also Martina Leeker, Sibylle Krämer.......) "performatics" will soon be a featured topic also in a british performance journal, and PR took their feature theme of "Performatik" from a discussion that went on for a while in Poland, where theatre practitioners and scholars got together to explore PERFORMATYKA *(see at bottom). again, if we were to ask now how the receptions of these terrms work in India or Brasil or Japan, or what terms might have travel to us from there (how come we don;t use more concepts from the japanese and indian dance technologies contexts?), we'd be in midst of the transcultural dynamics that was addressed by the posts on our languages & taxonomies. regards Johannes Birringer Jaime wrote: >>>[..] And this is also the framework in which I use the term POSTCOREOGRAPHY myself in relation to my own work: Firstly, when you coreograph a posthuman body, or when in the context of new media you work with nearly illegible bodies, fragmentary, new kinds of bodies that cannot be framed under the humanist project of which dance is part of (as far as we understand dance in western traditions, for there can be no general concept for dance), then we can speak of postcoreography. Secondly in a transdisciplinary, transmedia context, where the écriture of coreography is being developed in between, in a frontier zone of feedbacks with the musical, visual and other forms of écriture in which novel forms of proprioception and cross-modal perception may be enacted, then we are transgressing the frontiers of the discipline of coreography, and indeed the established territories and anatomies of the body in a deeper sense. In this respect I also speak of post-visual, post-musical and post-architectural. I am using the terms in the context of my work Microdances_Antibodies of Surveillance. pictures, videos and texts online here (we are completing the information and will soon launch it) http://www.reverso.org/Morf4_MICRODANAS-PERF.htm --- but the theoretical frameworks are not to be understood as ground for, nor as based upon, the work, they emerge in feedback and constitute independent fields, what other modes of thinking regarding the work there may be I do not know. So all these branches relate in different ways within the field of collapse of the contingent structures of our cultural traditions, knowledges, social structures and power, and we can work in between to create novel zones, bodies and architectures for new kinds of post-subjectivity. >>>>>>>>>>> *** In December 2006 the Grotowski Centre (now the Grotowski Institute) in Wroclaw, Poland in collaboration with Tomasz Kubikowski from the Warsaw Theatre Academy, hosted an international conference entitled in English 'Performance Studies: and Beyond'. The event marked the translation into Polish and publication of Richard Schechner's textbook Performance Studies: An Introduction but the conference hosts and conveners were keen to think beyond the NYU school of Performance Studies and seek relevance and application for the term (and field) within an advanced and sophisticated mode of theatre studies in Poland.