2
RE_CONNECTION
An exploration of the relationship between human beings and technology to interpret theinteraction between performers and (digital) technology in mediated performances
Master thesis for the Master Dramaturgy, University of Amsterdam (2018) Published Uva Scripties Online: 31-05-2018 Charlotte Martha Elisabeth Lemstra Student number: 6124712
Supervisor 1: drs. Hein Goeyens Supervisor 2: Ricarda Franzen Second reader: prof. dr. Kati Röttger
3 A SPECIAL THANKS
I would like to give thanks to my supervisor Hein Goeyens for supporting me during the process of researching and writing my master thesis, for giving me time to explore, for accepting my way of working, and for the inspiring and interesting conversations about dance, theatre and research. I also like to thank my second reader Erik Lint, for reviewing my master thesis, but also for starting and encouraging this interesting journey of doing research about (the body of) the dancer and digital technologies, which started during his supervision of my bachelor thesis.
I would like to give my special thanks to my father, Dr. ir. Wolter Lemstra, who followed and supported me from an academic perspective from the first day I started at the university and put a lot of effort and patience in the research for my bachelor and master thesis.
Many thanks go out to my loving family and friends who encouraged me to continue my research and interests, and to follow my ambitions and inspirations.
But above all: never to give up.
I would like to thank ICK for the great opportunity to conduct my dramaturgy internship at this fantastic company, at which I felt at home from day one, and to provide me the opportunity to explore my ambitions regarding doing research and perhaps pursuing a PhD. Secondly, giving me the time and access to all the literature and knowhow I needed for my research, specifically regarding the performance One Man without a Cause. My special thanks go to: Jesse Vanhoeck, Annet Huizing, Francesca Magini and Suzan Tunca who all helped and advised me in doing this research.
4 ‘WE OURSELVES ARE NEITHER ANGELS OR MACHINES BUT LIVING BEINGS. WE COME TO THE WORLD NEITHER AS DATA-CRUNCHING INFORMATION PROCESSORS NOR AS GHOSTLY APPARITIONS FLOATING OVER THE SURFACE OF THE WORLD LIKE A FOG.’
Quote from Maurice Merleau-Ponty
Phenomenology of Perception (2012)
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction | 8
1.2 Motivation | 8
1.3 Technology and One Man without a Cause | 12 1.4 Contexts | 13
1.5 Inquiry | 15
1.5.1 Research questions | 16
1.6 Outline of the chapters | 16
CHAPTER 2 – EXPLORING THE CONTEXTS
2.1 Introduction | 18 2.2 A dance context | 18
2.2.1 A historical perspective | 20
2.3 What is interactive art? | 23 2.4 A philosophical context | 26 2.5 Conclusions | 30
CHAPTER 3 – EXPLORING POSTHUMAN NOTIONS
6 3.2 Braidotti’s account of the posthuman subject | 32
3.2.1 Anti-hunamism: the Death of Man | 33
3.2.2 Posthumanism: new alternatives for human subjectivity | 35
3.3 Going back in time: a story of cybernetics | 38
3.3.1 Three periods of development in cybernetics | 39
3.4 From the posthuman subject to the body | 41
3.4.1 An insight in the work of Stelarc | 43
3.5 Conclusions | 50
CHAPTER 4 – EXPLORING POSTHUMAN NOTIONS IN A PERFORMANCE CONTEXT 4.1 Introduction | 52 4.2 An embodied subject | 52 4.2.1 Embodiment relations | 56 4.3. Other perspectives | 58 4.4 Conclusions | 59
CHAPTER 5 – A CASE ANALYSIS OF THE INTERACTION BETWEEN DANCER GRECO AND THE DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY
5.1 Introduction | 61 5.2 Interactive or not? | 64
7 5.3.1. A posthumanstic network | 70 5.3.1.1. Embodiment connections | 72 5.4. Conclusions | 73 CHAPTER 6 – CONCLUSION 6.1 Introduction | 74
6.2 Conclusions and recommendations | 74
6.2.1. A dramaturgical perspective | 79
8
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the background to the research project is introduced. First, I will outline my motivation for doing this research. This is followed by an explanation about my fascination with the integration of digital technology in the performance One Man without a Cause, which forms my main case study. The performance raised many questions and the one that kept stuck in the back of my head was: how can this special interaction between the dancer Greco and the
digital technology be described? In the first attempts to formulate an answer/analysis, I
discovered that my knowledge about performance theories and my tools as a dance dramaturg were not enough to get grip on this interaction. It interested me to search deeper about this interaction, which brought me to an exploration which led me beyond the mainstream theatre and dance paradigms. Therefore, I provide in this chapter a short introduction on the contexts I have explored and end with the inquiry and the outline of the chapters.
1.2 Motivation
As a member of the ‘Generation Y’ or ‘Millenial Generation’1, I grew up with technological
tools and applications such as the earlier smartphones, MSN and Hyves2. These devices and
applications were in my perspective self-evident, but certainly they were not self-evident for the older generation. I can still remember my parent’s surprise that I could chat with my friends all day long via MSN without paying any extra costs. This way of communicating via
1 The name for the generation that was born between 1982 and 2001. Although scholars are not in agreement on the end of the period.
2 Hyves was a Dutch social media website established in 2004. In the beginning the website grew quickly, but after the introduction of Facebook in the Netherlands, the popularity of Hyves declined fast. In 2011 Hyves stopped as a social media website.
9 smartphones and computers is still for me the most natural3 thing to do. Although, I recognize
that with the youngsters of today, that using Facebook, Whatsapp, Instagram, Twitter, and so on, it is more self-evident then it was with MSN and Hyves was for me, when I was young. Nowadays different generations are making use of these technological tools and applications – also my mother uses a smartphone and WhatsApp, something I could not imagine in my youth –; there is a shared involvement and interest in their functionality. But, in the emerging years of MSN and Hyves I experienced a greater degree of wonder about the possibilities it was generating. Now, I am noticing that we are less surprised about the new facilities provided by our current technologies. In fact, I am experiencing that technology is so common in our daily lives, that it becomes almost impossible to think about our daily work without the technological devices and systems that support our activities. Technology is everywhere we go. Despite of different perspectives on how dependent we are on technology and to which degree we must tolerate this technological interference in our lives – for example regarding biotechnologies – what is certain is that technology has radically changed our lives and will change it in the coming years.
Moreover, I am intrigued by the philosophical and sociological discourses on the relationship between human beings and technology, discourses which I am following closely, also in my work as a dance dramaturg I have a strong fascination with the merging of dance and technology, most of all digital technologies. Specifically, how the body of the dancer operates in (highly) technological, theatrical environments. The integration of digital technologies calls for new ways of choreography. At the same time, from a theoretical perspective, it questions the notions as liveness and virtuality, the boundaries of the live body and the virtual body, as well as the process of embodiment – to name a few. This fascination, that started during writing my bachelor thesis,4 led me to a deeper research for my master thesis.
At the same time as my master thesis research was being structured, I started my dramaturgy internship at ICK in Amsterdam. ICK (International Choreographic Arts Centre) is an
3 I mean with ‘natural’ that it goes automatic. Communicating via these technological tools are part of my communication system.
4 In my bachelor thesis, I explored Bernard Stiegler’s philosophy; his approach to the human being as a
technological being. After setting out this philosophical framework, I have illustrated on the basis of the work of Merleau-Ponty, Mark B. Hansen and David Saltz, how Stiegler’s approach could be translated to a theatre context through key concepts as embodiment, liveness and potentiality. In the final part of the thesis, this theoretical framework was applied to the dance performance Double Points: OYTIZ (2010) by the
choreographers Emio Greco and Pieter C. Scholten. After finishing my bachelor thesis, my interest in this field of research increased and in order to feed this curiosity the subject for my master thesis shaped itself along the way.
10 international platform for contemporary dance. It is based on three pillars: the first pillar is the Company (the pillar for producing performances at home and abroad with a core company of six dancers); the second pillar is the Guest Artists (providing artistic and business support to young choreographic talent, co-producing with proven talent and artist associates); and the last pillar is the Academy (transfer of know-how in the field of dance practice through research and educational projects). Since 2013, ICK is the city company of Dance of Amsterdam. Under the artistic leadership of Emio Greco and Pieter C. Scholten ICK has the mission to contribute to the development of contemporary dance in an international setting. Since 2015 Greco and Scholten are also the artistic leaders of Ballet National de Marsielle.5
Before I officially started as an intern at ICK, I was privileged to follow the creation process of the performance One Man without a Cause (2014) (originally called L’étranger6). Inspired by
the existentialistic philosophy of the French philosopher Albert Camus, in particular his novel
The Stranger (originally called L’étranger) and his work L’Homme Révolté (1951) (in English
called The Rebel), Greco and Scholten created a performance in which the world of dance intertwined with the world of technology in a fascinating manner. The novel tells the story of protagonist Mersault, who receives the message that his mother has died. Instead of showing grief, Mersault goes to the movies. He acts against the grain, which people around him do not understand. He becomes more and more a stranger and isolated from society. At a certain point, Mersault murders an unknown Arabic man on the beach. During the trial, the main case is not so much the murder itself, but revolves most of all around the question if Mersault is able to show remorse. Especially after his ‘strange’ reaction to the death of his mother, everyone is focussed on his unemotional behaviour. Greco and Scholten were inspired by Mersault’s rebellion behaviour and how he fought for his own place in society. He became a stranger, because he refused to play according to the rules of society. Greco and Scholten posed an interesting question regarding this novel: what does this rebellion and struggle of this single man tells us about society as a whole? The performance One Man without a Cause is not, however, a translation of the novel to the stage, where Emio dances the role of Mersault. Greco and Scholten took the element of conflict between the individual and society into the realm of dance, by showing through the body of Greco the revolt of a man. This process of how an individual gets alienated from his/her environment and by revolting against the rules of society
5 Source: www.ickamsterdam.nl
6 The performance premiered on the 6th of November 2013 at Théâtre du Jeu de Paume in Aix-en-Provence in France with the name L’étranger. The Dutch premiere was on the 12th of October 2014 at the Stadsschouwburg Amsterdam and was called One Man without a Cause.
11 becoming more and more a stranger, inspired Greco and Scholten by putting Greco into a technological universe on stage. On stage Greco is surrounded by three big screens (consisting of black curtains) hanging on all three sides of a ‘black box’, on which video fragments are projected, and in front of these screens there is another set of curtains of thousands of LED-lamps, which can all be controlled individually. Greco is surrounded by technology and has to relate constantly to this technological environment, there is no escape. During the performance, an interactive game of power arises between the technology and the body of Greco, whereby the technology could be approached as ‘society’ against which Greco, as a revolting man, dances.
Their interest in the revolt of an individual against society, as Camus describes in The Stranger, has not been the only point of departure for Greco and Scholten for creating One Man without
a Cause. The performance is also part of a greater theme, called The Body in Revolt. According
to this theme, Greco and Scholten are creating a series of performances spread over a period of five years. In this series, they are exploring from different perspectives how our body reacts to our current, rushed society. A society which runs on efficiency and output, whereby diseases as burn-outs and stress symptoms have become common phenomena. Greco and Scholten pose questions regarding this theme, such as ‘are we still connected to our bodies’ and ‘are we still aware of our physical sensations’. An important frame of reference is the tired body of the rushed human being. However, as they argue, at the same time as we impeded by losing our physicality, the counter movement is already visible. The revolt reveals. This is visible in the increasing popularity for wellness, yoga and meditation, for example. There is a new interest in the body, whereby the body has become the main focus again. Despite of the threat of losing our connection with our bodies and the intensive searches to reconnect with our bodies, we would never lose completely our connection with our body, as Greco and Scholten argue. They explain this by, what they call: the social body. This means that the body always bears sociological and political notions. A body immediately shows us, to a certain degree, if the gender is female or male. A neutral body does not exist. A body always bears meaning and regarding dance, a dancer is always part of a society and this membership does not stop when the dancer steps on stage.
12 Image 1. Emio Greco in the performance One Man without a Cause.7
1.3 Technology and One Man without a Cause
During the creation process of One Man without a Cause, working with the technological devices and to synchronize them all – the technology and the choreography – caused interesting creative tensions and challenges. The most challenging, in my view, was the exploration in the search for an interesting dialogue between the more fragile and live dancer Greco and the technology which had such a dominant presence on stage. Throughout the work process it raised the question: how do you create the ‘right’ conditions in order to generate an interesting dialogue between the choreography, the body of the dancer and the impressive technological environment, without ending up with a ‘show off’ of technological capabilities being segregated from the dance performance? In other words, what kind of environment has to be designed in order to give Greco the freedom and artistic space to find interesting connections between him and the technology?
It was precisely this way of exploring interactions between dance and technology that occurred in the creation process of One Man without a Cause that grasped my fascination. My first encounter with the work process was by watching a ‘run through’ and already this first time of
13 watching, I was intrigued by the performance and it raised a lot of questions. As a spectator, I first assumed that Greco was wearing sensor equipment by which he could control the technology that was surrounding him. I assumed that he was in control of how his environment was changing and that he could interact with it. At certain moments in the performance the interaction between his physical movement and the visible or audible output of the technology was so timely, that it must have been accomplished by a sensory connection. But sometimes the interaction was not immediate and I was starting to doubt the construction. Because this delay returned several times in the performance, my doubt became stronger. I was constantly asking myself: how does this interaction work precisely? Or is Greco just playing with me? Or am I fooled by the technology itself? Is it the delay in technological equipment? It became even more confusing during the last part of the performance, when Greco took off his clothes and a sensor pack was revealed. It was not connected. But was it connected before? When he put one of the plugs in his mouth and we heard the sound of his breath, you were almost convinced that the sensors were attached to his body before and that he was in control all the time. Until the point that the sound of the breath and his movement of taking deep breaths did not correspond anymore: the doubt was back again. This mental play with who is in control, of how the interaction between the body of Greco and the technology works and whom is played by who, added an interesting aspect to the performance.
1.4 Contexts
Already in an early stage of the creation process, it was clear to me that there was something extraordinary about One Man without a Cause. However, I could not pinpoint that specific element/aspect. Maybe it was the (digital) technology? The technology was impressive, especially the complex system that supported the technology, but soon I realized that the (digital) technology used was not new or never used before and the way of integrating this technology in the performance was neither front running or progressive. Hence, this extraordinary feeling originated from the way Greco interacted with his technological environment. This mental play about who is in control and how the interaction between Greco and the technology worked intrigued me and interested me to explore further how this relationship could be analysed and described. Therefore, my prime interest goes to the relationship between the dancer, specifically the body of the dancer, and (digital) technology; and which tools are needed to analyse this specific interaction in One Man without a Cause.
14 In analysing this interaction, the first things that came to mind were theatre/performance notions such as ‘intermediality’, ‘interactivity’ and ‘embodiment’, to name a few. These relate to theories that are applied regularly to digital (dance) performances. Although, these theories and notions were interesting, I was looking for a perspective in order to get closer to the specificity of the interaction between Greco and the technology.
In my opinion, in digital (dance) performances digital technologies play such a key role, that it is important to consider the broader sociological context, as these technologies play an important role in our daily lives: in how we stand in the world, how we perceive the world and encounter it. In other words, how we are embedded and embodied in the world through and by digital technologies. Or as Susan Broadhurst describes it: ‘[…] [Digital] practices have emerged within the context of a broad-based technological infiltration in all areas of human experience […]’8. This influences not only the way choreographers work with digital technologies, it also
profoundly shapes the reference framework of the spectator.
My aim of this research is to look beyond the theatrical borders and to include other perspectives to engage in a dialogue with the theatre/performance notions by describing a broader delineation and analysis of the relationship between human beings and (digital) technologies. Therefore, I provide a perspective of posthumanism in order to analyse the interaction between dancer Greco and the digital technology in the performance One Man without a Cause. In order to establish this perspective, I have first outlined a philosophical context of posthumanism. I have included the work The Posthuman (2013) by Rosi Braidotti, which provides a current view on the posthuman subject that undergoes radical changes, as we are part of a broad network in which we are connected to each other, but also to technology, in a complex way. This means we are vital, connected, embedded and embodied in a highly technologized society. Next to Braidotti’s perspective on posthumanism, I have also outlined alternative approach to the posthuman subject by Katherine N. Hayles, based on her famous work How we became
posthuman: virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics (1999). From a cybernetic
perspective, Hayles describes a posthuman account of the human subject whereby the human body lost its boundaries. She describes the posthuman subject in terms of a ‘material-informational entity’. The human being has become part of a cybernetic system/network in which information/data flows through us and in which technological artefacts play an important
8 Broadhurst, Susan. Digital Practices. Aesthetics and Neuroesthetics Approaches to Performance and
15 role. We are connected to each other, both to other human beings as to technological artefacts, by a process of data exchange and endlessly on going feedback loops. Although the work of Hayles has been written fourteen years earlier than Braidotti’s and both have been written from different perspectives, both approaches have interesting similarities and differences. In this way, it represents a kind of historical perspective on the earlier thoughts about the posthuman as well as a more current view on how we can approach the (post)human subject regarding our current interaction with technology, taking into account the technological developments that have been taken place.
Braidotti’s and Hayles’ philosophies about the posthuman subject, raise questions about the way (digital) technologies had been used in theatre practices, especially regarding dance. By applying a posthumanstic perspective to a dance performance, a philosophical paradigm automatically intersects with a paradigm of dance. Therefore, I have included a dance context which is focussed on the development of dance and technology. I have outlined a dance context that describes, in short, the historical development of dance and technology and the most profound notions that emerged with it, such as the notion of interactivity.
The performance One Man without a Cause raises two important questions. First of all, what kind of interactivity is at stake in the performance One Man without a Cause? Secondly, and most importantly: how can a context of posthumanism be used as a tool to analyse the interaction between the dancer Greco and the technological environment?
In this research, I look beyond the theatrical boundaries. Studying the philosophical discourses outside the theatre context – and which are undoubtable intertwined rather than separated – provides other insights which are interesting to put into dialogue with the theatrical context. Therefore, in this research I propose a perspective of posthumanism in order to analyse the specific form of ‘interactivity’ that haunts the performance One Man without a Cause.
1.5 Inquiry
This master thesis aims to formulate an answer to the following main question:
v How can a context of posthumanism be used as a tool to analyse the interaction between the dancer Greco and the technological environment in the digital dance performance
16 1.5.1 Research questions
1. What is or are the context(s) in which the performance One Man without a Cause can be meaningfully analysed?
2. What are the main posthuman notions deriving from Braidotti’s and Hayles’s account of the posthuman subject?
3. How are the posthuman notions implemented into a performance context?
4. How can the interaction between the dancer Greco and the digital technology in the performance One Man without a Cause be described using the (posthumanistic) notions?
1.6 Outline of the chapters
In chapter 2, the dance context of the performance One Man without a Cause is discussed. In this chapter I will outline the contexts of the performance by clarifying first the term ‘digital (dance) performance’ and provide some insights in how this has developed over time. This is followed by a short explanation of what can be considered as (an) ‘interactive art(work)’. In chapter 3, I explore the main posthuman notions that can be deduced from Rosi Braidotti’s and Katherine N. Hayles’ accounts of the posthuman subject and explain the notion of the cyborg, deriving from Hayles’ perspective of cybernetics, further according to the work of performance artist Stelarc. By exemplifying the work of Stelarc, I introduce the step from posthuman notions to a performance context and thereby the connection between Braidotti’s and Hayles’ approaches of the posthuman subject to the human body.
How the posthuman notions are integrated in a performance context, I explore further in chapter 4. In this chapter I focus on the process of embodiment and embodiment relations, because from both Braidotti’s and Hayles’ perspectives on the posthuman subject – mainly from Braidotti’s account of the posthuman – the embodied subject comes strongly to the foreground. In order to give more insight in what this ‘embodied (posthuman) subject’ means, I introduce the famous work Phenomenology of Perception (1945) of Maurice Merleau-Ponty to clarify what the process of embodiment encompasses from a phenomenological perspective and how this is connected to technology and our way of interacting with (digital) technology and (technological) artefacts. Furthermore, I discuss the work by Ralf Remshardt who includes the perspective of the spectator, which submits a posthuman subjectivity into the theatre or particular performance space.
17 In chapter 5, I analyse the interaction between the dancer Greco and the digital technology in the performance One Man without a Cause by Emio Greco and Pieter C. Scholten from ICK using the posthuman notions deduced from Braidotti’s and Hayles’ accounts of the posthuman subject and how the posthuman notions are integrated in a performance context, which is further analysed based on the work of Merleau-Ponty concerning embodiment relations and Remshardt’s proposition of the spectator’s posthuman subjectivity during attending performances in the posthuman predicament. Chapter 6 provides the conclusions and recommendations of this research.
18
CHAPTER 2
EXPLORING THE PERFORMANCE CONTEXTS
2.1 Introduction
In this chapter I explore two contexts: a dance context and a philosophical context. In the dance context, I focus on the development of (digital) technologies in dance. First, I outline an explanation of the notion ‘digital dance performance’, which is followed by a short historical perspective and a further explanation of the notion ‘interactive art’. The second context is a philosophical context according to posthumanism. I provide a more general insight in the notion ‘posthumanism’ along with a brief explanation of the work of Braidotti and Hayles about the posthuman subject, which is in more depth outlined in chapter 3.
2.2 A dance context
According to Steve Dixon Digital Performance. A New History of New Media in Theater,
Dance, Performance Art, And Installation (2007), ‘digital performance’ can be defined as: ‘[…]
all performance works where computer technologies play a key role rather than a subsidiary one in content, techniques, aesthetics, or delivery forms. This includes live theater, dance, and performance art that incorporates projections that have been digitally created or manipulated; robotic and virtual reality performances; installations and theatrical works that use computer sensing/activating equipment or telematic techniques; and performative works and activities that are accessed through the computer screen, including cybertheater events, MUDs9, MOOs10,
9 MUD stands for ‘multi-user domain’. It is a virtual reality system in which several users are connected at one time. https://www.techopedia.com/definition/24990/multi-user-domain-object-oriented-moo
10 MOO stands for ‘multi object oriented’. It is one of the most popular versions of MUD development and can be used to develop educational and other collaborative systems (software). These multi-user systems are programmable and can be accessed over a network. https://www.techopedia.com/definition/24990/multi-user-domain-object-oriented-moo
19 and virtual worlds, computer games, CD-ROMs, and performative net.art works.’11
Furthermore, Dixon observes: ‘During the last decade of the twentieth century, computer technologies played a dynamic and increasingly important role in live theater, dance, and performance; and new dramatic forms and performance genres emerged in interactive installations and on the Internet’.12 This presents a very broad definition and covers a wide
range of genres and styles throughout different art fields. For this research, I will narrow it down and put the focus on, most of all, dance performances. And focussing on dance performances, I am entering the field of digital dance, which is also a big interdisciplinary field. In aiming to define the notion of ‘digital dance’, I am confronted with a broad field. However, to mark some aspects of a ‘digital dance performance’, I will refer to choreographer and scholar Sarah Rubidge who did an attempt in defining ‘digital dance’ in her article Defining Digital Dance. She immediately admits that answering the question ‘what is digital dance’ is as difficult as defining ‘contemporary dance’.13 ‘[…] digital dance covers a multitude of genres and styles,’14
as Rubidge states. The main question Rubidge formulates is: ‘[…] what makes [a] work digital
dance rather than digital art?’15 As a possible answer, Rubidge formulates some requirements
or conditions which are needed in order to define a work as a ‘digital dance performance’: I would suggest that digital dance must involve the conspicuous use of choreographic concepts as an organising principle, rather than as a means of realising a more general artistic vision. In this way, ‘a “choreographic sensibility” can dominate a work which bears more resemblance to an installation than a dance work, or a work which does not even feature images or representations of the human or anthropomorphic body.’16 Although both Dixon and Rubidge
give broad definitions, they share that the integrated technology/media has to be an organising or creative principle. From now on, when I am speaking of a ‘digital dance performance’ I refer to a dance performance in which digital technologies are used for a chorographical, dramaturgical or contextual purpose. In contrast to Rubdidge’s approach of digital dance in which the body can stay unnoticed or be dismissed, my aim is to bring the perspective of the body of the dancer into the framework of research. To specify this further, with the notion of ‘digital technologies’ I refer to technologies that on the basis of bits, the combinations of 0’s
11 Dixon, Steve. Digital Performance. A History of New Media in Theater, Dance, Performance Art, and
Installation. Massachusetts, Londen, Engelang: The MIT Press, 2007. p.3
12 Ibid., p.1
13 Rubidge, Sarah. ‘Defining Digital Dance’. Dance Theatre Journal. Vol, 14. No. 4, 1998. pp.41-45, p.41 14 Ibid.
15 Ibid. 16 Ibid., p.42
20 and 1’s, can transport and store data, such as the computer – which functions as one of the most important tools in digital dance performances – and in our daily lives.
2.2.1 A historical perspective
In order to explore from a historical perspective the dance context, especially regarding the relation between dance and technology, we need to go back in time to the twentieth century: the century in which explorations with digital technologies in the avant-garde dance started to gain its influence. In this century we can find the roots of works in the field of digital dance and digital performances. Dance scholar Kerstin Evert provides in Dance and Technology at the
Turn of the Last and Present Centuries (2002) a helpful and compact overview of the main
developments regarding the use of technology in dance practices in the twentieth century. However, as Evert comments, ‘dance, as a theatrical art form, has likewise consistently incorporated the newest technologies during the course of its development, making use of their aesthetic and technological potential to suit its own ends in terms of dramaturgy, content and form’17. What Evert, among others, articulates is that theatrical practices, from the very
beginning, always have integrated technology. For example, the use of a simple light in order to light the play so that the audience could watch it in a darkened auditorium. Or the first techniques to change scenery in order to show different locations of the play. In that sense, there has always been a dialogue between the artwork and techniques/technologies. So it is important to keep in mind that the twentieth century, which is profoundly marked as the century in which art, theatre and dance and technology influenced each other radically on an artistic level, is not a turning point. Of course the avant-garde art has induced certain radical changes in how to make and perceive art, but it is important to keep in mind, that in theatrical practices the artwork and the developments of the latest technologies have always been strongly intertwined. Evert sets out two important periods in the twentieth century concerning the use of the newest media technologies. At the first half of the century, film as a medium stood in the footlight. Different techniques of film, such as collage- and editing techniques, were explored in dance. It should be noted that the features of film were then used on a more artistic level, more as a chorographical tool. Instead of, as it was used before, as a tool to record the dance in order to capture the dance, the dancer, and so on. Besides, dance was also an interesting art form for filmmakers. ‘Even before the turn of the century, dance was a popular motif for the first
17 Evert, Kerstin. Dance and Technology at the Turn of the Last and Present Centuries’s in Dakla, Soke, Leeker, Martina eds. Dance and Technology. Moving towards Media Productions. Berlin: Alexander Verlag, 2002. p.30
21 filmmakers, since it embodies the dynamic principle of movement, which is also the basis for the “moving pictures” of film,’18 as Evert explains. Alongside the explorations with the features
of film in dance, the approach to the body changed.19 Concepts of the body as a machine
emerged. ‘[In this concept] it seeks to subject the human being and his body to the idiosyncrasies of mechanical movement and, thereby to overtax audience perception by means of shocks to the human senses, reflecting life in the big city in the increasingly mechanised society of the early 20th century. Staccato-like, mechanical movements patterns show the
dictatorial power of technology over the human body. The body apparently has to function according to the logic and laws of motion of the machines,’20 as Evert describes. Furthermore,
the attitude of the spectator had to change as well. Instead of having a passive attitude, the audience members needed to be activated. To wake up the spectator, choreographers (for example) used montage- and editing techniques of film to confront the spectator with rapidly changing images, which could induce a shock effect.21
In moving on to the second half of the twentieth century, explorations with the features of film continued, but at the same time new technologies appeared on the market and had found their way to the field of dance. In the 1990s the use of digital technologies in dance took off. Choreographers and dance ensembles started to work with these technologies, by which the computer was used as a model and a tool.22 As a result, interactive systems appeared on stage.23
With the integration of these new digital technologies on different levels, the approach to the body changed dramatically. With the rise of interactive systems, the body of the dancer became an interface24. Evert distinguishes two important categories in interactive systems. In the first
category, the dancer has sensors on his body through which s/he has direct physical contact with the technology. In the second category there is no direct physical contact, but the body of
18 Evert, Kerstin. Dance and Technology at the Turn of the Last and Present Centuries’s in Dakla, Soke, Leeker, Martina eds. Dance and Technology. Moving towards Media Productions. Berlin: Alexander Verlag, 2002. p.36 19 Ibid., p.32
20 Ibid., p.38 21 Ibid., p.34 22 Ibid., p.40 23 Ibid.
24 According to the Cambridge Dictionaries Online ‘interface’ is definied as: ‘a connection between two pieces of electronic equipment, or between a persona and a computers’ and as ‘a situation, way, or place where two things come together and affect each other’. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/interface
22 the dancer still functions as an interface for systems with cameras, motion sensors or (infared) light.25 In both categories the ‘whole body is employed as [an] interface’26.27
The integration of digital technologies in a performance space caused a great impact on the body of the dancer and on the way of choreographing. As Johannes Birringer, a choreographer/filmmaker and scholar, explains in his article Dance and Media Technologies regarding the impact on the body: ‘The new convergences between dance and technology reflect back on the nature of dance, its physical-sensory relationship to space and the world, its immediate, phenomenological embodiedness, its lived experience in one place’28. Both Evert
and Birringer explain that interactive systems incorporate the whole body. These systems or applications are even understood in terms of an ‘expansion of the kinesphere into the surrounding space’29. As Birringer outlines, among other important aspects that will change
with the use of interactive system, are ‘the notion of real-time flow changes’30 because
movement ‘crosses between real space, projected space (video/animation), or other virtual contexts (Virtual Reality, remote sites)’31 or ‘space is dematerialized’32 because ‘movement is
captured, commuted, transferred, and reconfigured/rematerialized elsewhere’33. An important
feature of interactive environments is, as Evert explains, that it gives the dancer control over his/her environment. ‘[…] interactive applications do not remove the human body from the stage, they do put control over the performance into the hands of the dancer or performer, whose responsibility increases considerably,’34 as Evert notes.
25 Evert, Kerstin. Dance and Technology at the Turn of the Last and Present Centuries’s in Dakla, Soke, Leeker, Martina eds. Dance and Technology. Moving towards Media Productions. Berlin: Alexander Verlag, 2002. p.40 26 Ibid.
27 The two categories of interactive systems Evert discusses, encompass of course not all the different forms of interactive systems. She makes a difference between interactive systems whereby there is physical contact with electronical equipment needed and between interactive systems that reacts on physical input, but whereby no direct physical contact is necessary. For example, in the first category in order to move your cursor on the computer you have to touch or click a controller, but when you could move your cursor within an interactive system of the second order, you would simply swipe your hand in the air to move your cursor. In the last case, you won’t be in physical contact with a device, but cameras, for example, could track your movement and translate that to the computer and move the cursor in the right direction according to your hand movements. 28 Birringer, Johannes. ‘Dance and Media Technologies’. Intelligent Stages: Digital Art and Performance. PAJ: A Journal of Performance and Art. Vol. 24, No. 1, (2002): pp.84-93, p.85
29 Evert, Kerstin. Dance and Technology at the Turn of the Last and Present Centuries’s in Dakla, Soke, Leeker, Martina eds. Dance and Technology. Moving towards Media Productions. Berlin: Alexander Verlag, 2002. p.44 30 Birringer, Johannes. ‘Dance and Media Technologies’. Intelligent Stages: Digital Art and Performance. PAJ: A Journal of Performance and Art. Vol. 24, No. 1, (2002): pp.84-93, p.87
31 Ibid. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid.
34 Evert, Kerstin. Dance and Technology at the Turn of the Last and Present Centuries’s in Dakla, Soke, Leeker, Martina eds. Dance and Technology. Moving towards Media Productions. Berlin: Alexander Verlag, 2002. p.48
23 When in the 1990s the digital computer became a real tool for exploring new ways of creating art, specifically with interactive systems and environments, it generated, in more general terms, a body of interactive art works. But what is an interactive artwork? Although there is not enough space to give a detailed overview of all the implications and to include the many interactive artworks that have been created, I will outline some aspects of interactive art, because this kind of art plays an important role in the dance context of digital dance performances.
2.3 What is interactive art?
In order to create an interactive artwork, two things are necessarily involved: a creator who creates the parameters for the interactive system and a participant who interacts with the system by giving the system input to which the system reacts with output. Maybe this sounds abstract and cryptically, but David Z. Saltz clarifies this by giving three clear aspects that have to occur for an artwork to be interactive. ‘(1) A sensing or input device [that] translates certain aspects of a person’s behaviour, [this involves any physical interaction], into digital form that a computer can translate, (2) the computer outputs data that are systematically related to the input (i.e., the input affects the output), (3) the output data are translated back into real-world phenomena that people can perceive.’35 What goes hand in hand with the emergence of
interactive environments and interactive art works is the concept of ‘interactivity’. To understand this term, according to Margaret Morse, we have to go back to the 1960s and 1970s where we can see ‘interactivity as [a] cultural novum’36.37 In that period of time, ‘artists invited
spectators to become participants in art events, from happenings to closed-circuit and recorded video installations’38, as Morse describes in The Poetics of Interactivty. Also Söke Dinkla
indicates in From Participation to Interaction. Toward the Origins of Interactive Art that interactive art has its roots in the 1960s and 1970s. ‘The redefinition of the audience in Happenings and participatory art forms has led some authors to seek the traditions of interactive art there,’39 as Dinkla explains. Opening up artworks to the audience by inviting them to become
a participant, can be seen as the set up for interactive art. But more importantly, as Dinkla explains, ‘[…] interactive art does not have any direct forerunners in the traditional art genres.
35 Saltz, David. ‘The Art of Interaction: Interactivity, Performativity, and Computers.’ The Journal of Aesthetics
and Art Criticism. Vol 55, Issue 2, (Spring) 1997: pp.117-127, pp.118
36 Morse, Margaret. ‘The Poetics of Interactivity.’ Women, Art and Technology. Ed. J. Malloy. Cambridge, MA, USA: The MIT Press, 2003: pp.16-33, p.17
37 Ibid. 38 Ibid.
39 Dinkla, Söke. ‘From Participation to Interaction. Toward the Origins of Interactive Art.’ Clicking In. Hot Links
24 Its precursors are rather those forms [such as Happenings] that already follow the enlarged notion of art in the twentieth century and are directed against the established art system’40.
Moreover, it has also a cultural and sociological background. While in the beginning of the twentieth century, art makers were focussed on giving art back to the people, to connect art and life again, in the second half of the twentieth century this approach shifted to a more technological orientated focus whereby art was connected to technology. Morse adequately notes that the term ‘interactivity’ lost a bit of its value in the sense that it was an useful term before to label certain genres of art, but now it could be better understood in terms of ‘a mode of engagement between ourselves and machines – usually but not necessarily involving communicating with a computer – that finds expression over a wide range of forms and techniques’41. Morse takes it even a step further in distinguishing the term ‘interactivity’ from
‘intersubjectivity’.42 She relates the term ‘intersubjectivity’ to this topic because she observes
that computers are able to give feedback, to communicate with us, like other humans can – of course not in the same complex way. ‘This responsiveness allows it [the computer] (and the virtual entities it displays) to pose or function as subjects […],’43 as Morse describes. This is an
interesting remark, because Morse adds human aspects to the computer and approaches it as a subject. In this way, she understands ‘interactivity’ that occurs between a human participant and a computer more in terms of ‘intersubjectivity’. In translating this to interactive art, Morse explains that also in interactive artworks there is ‘intersubjectivity’ at play, because the participant is able to go into dialogue with the artwork – or actually the system. And this aspect of having a dialogue is a feature of human action, as Morse observes. ‘Intuitively, we reserve this capacity for human-to-human interaction.’44 Also Johannes Birringer acknowledges the
communicative aspect of interactive environments. As Birringer notes: ‘I do not think of human performers in the interfaces as separate from an intelligent environment but treat the entire interface environment as communicative process’45.
However, let’s keep it simple and not go into a complex body of literature about the notion of ‘interactivity’ and the implications of interactive environments. Instead, I will now return to
40 Dinkla, Söke. ‘From Participation to Interaction. Toward the Origins of Interactive Art.’ Clicking In. Hot Links
to a Digital Culture. Ed. Hershman Leeson, Lynn. Seatle: Bay Press, 1996: pp.279-290, pp.288
41 Morse, Margaret. ‘The Poetics of Interactivity.’ Women, Art and Technology. Ed. J. Malloy. Cambridge, MA, USA: The MIT Press, 2003: pp.16-33, p.17
42 Ibid., p.20 43 Ibid. 44 Ibid., p.21
25 Sarah Rubdidge who explores in her article Action, reaction and interaction the notions of interactivity in, for example, dance. Rubidge works with a comparable definition of interactive art as Saltz does, namely: ‘An interactive artwork is a work which responds directly to the behaviours of the viewers, or listeners, or “users”, and is momentarily transformed as a result of that process’46. Furthermore, Rubidge makes a clear distinction between interactive art and
non-interactive art. One of the differences is that interactive artworks are open ended in their possibilities of changing according to how the participant interacts with it, while the outcome of non-interactive artworks is fixed. Even though this is arguable, because to a certain extend an interactive artwork is also fixed, due to the fact that certain parameters in the interactive system have to be designed in order for the system to ‘know’ how to respond to the input it receives from the participant. Therefore, we need a sharper demarcation between interactive- and non-interactive art. This lies in another important implication of interactive art: that an interactive artwork gives a certain power to the participant, because the participant can decide how to change the artwork materially – but again to a certain extend. This makes a participant a co-creator of the artwork. According to this feature, an interactive artwork distinguishes itself from a non-interactive artwork, because ‘the non-interactive work does not respond to the viewer’s activity in kind. That is, the material form of the work does not change as a result of the viewer’s interaction. Rather the work submits itself to the viewer’s imaginative play, without relinquishing its material integrity,’47 as Rubdige states.
To conclude, based on Rubdige’s definitions the case performance One Man without a Cause will be placed in the category of non-interactive artwork, but to grasp the performance in its whole together with its intensions these categories derogate the performance. Although, it is clear that the performance is not totally interactive, because the spectator has no ability to change the performance. But what kind of interactivity do we face then? Perhaps a term like ‘intersubjectivity’ is more appropriate? Either way, I would suggest that we must look beyond the theatrical boundaries in order to find a suitable concept that grasps this specific form of ‘interactivity’ that haunts One Man without a Cause. Therefore, studying the philosophical discourses outside the theatre context – and which are undoubtable intertwined rather then separated – provide other insights which can be interesting to put in dialogue with the theatrical
46 Rubidge, Sarah. ‘Action, Reaction and Interaction.’ Dance Theatre Journal. Vol 17, no 2, (2001): pp.37-42, pp.39
26 context. Therefore, I will now introduce the philosophical context focussing on a posthumanism.
2.4 A philosophical context
What is posthumanism? It’s a similar question as: what is digital dance? It’s a very broad discourse discussed in many different fields of research, from philosophy to cultural studies. And as a result, different trends within the posthuman framework have emerged, such as cultural posthumanism, philosophical posthuamism and critical posthumanism, including schools of thoughts such as anti-humanism, transhumanism, new materialism, metahumanism. In fact, I could write a master thesis about the concept posthumanism itself. In order to provide an useful account of posthumanism, I will endeavour on basis of Francesca Ferrando’s essay
Posthumanism, Transhumanism, Antihumanism, Metahumanism, and New Materialism and
Andy Miah’s essay Posthumanism: A Critical History to propose a notion of posthumanism that is useful in the context of this research. The term posthumanism ‘[became] a key term to cope with an urgency for the integral redefinition of the notion of the human, following the onto-epistemological as well as scientific and bio-technological developments of the twentieth centuries’48, as Ferrando introduces. ‘”Posthumanism” has become an umbrella term to include
(philosophical, cultural, and critical) posthumanism, transhumanism (in its variants as extropianism, liberal and democratic transhumanism, among other currents), new materialism (a specific feminist development within the posthumanist frame), and the heterogenous landscapes of antihumanism, posthumanities, and metahumanism.’49 Ferrando outlines the
differences and similarities between the two more extensive movements: posthumanism and transhumanism, whereby she suggests that ‘posthumanism, in its radical onto-existential re-signification of the notion of the human, may offer a more comprehensive approach’50. Both
posthumanism and transhumanism inquires the condition of the human being. Transhumanists work from a perspective of evolution of the human species drawing on the technological and scientifically developments, which we need to embrace fully to strive for a better version of the human being, to bring the human species further in its evolution. Or as Francesca notes:
48 Ferrando, Francesca. ‘Posthumanism, Transhumanism, Antihumanism, Metahumanism, and New
Materialisms. Differences and Relations.’ Existenx. An International Journal in Philosophy, Religion, Politics,
and the Arts. Vol. 8, No. 2, Fall 2013: pp. p.26
49 Ibid. 50 Ibid., p.27
27 reaching for a “Humanity Plus”.51 Transhumanists aim to transcend humanism by technological
means, and thereby make human enhancement and progression their core argument. Posthumanism reflects as well on the technological and scientific developments, but don’t make these their main focus. Instead of extending the notions of humanism, posthumanism reacts against it. As the term ‘post’ already reveals, they reject the notions of humanism such as the central position of Man, the superiority of human beings in comparison to non-humans and other social minorities and they do fight the idea of a rational, autonomous human being that is in control. ‘In the West, the human has been historically posed in a hierarchical scale to the non-human realm,’52 as Ferrando explains. In the posthumanistic view, this has to change. The
central position of Man in this hierarchy is no longer adequate – and some activists are arguing that we have to dismiss this Man completely – we have to approach the non-human and social minorities equally. Considering the ‘non-human’, the technological perspective arrives, because posthumanists approach the ‘other’ also in terms of technological tools, systems and applications. And most importantly, we must not fear this technological ‘other’. Another significant aspect of the posthumanistic thought is the approach of the human and the non-human in terms of relations and networks. ‘[…] The non-human is not approached as an autonomous agent [like in humanism], but is located within an extensive system of relations. Humans are perceived as material nodes of becoming; such becomings operate as technologies of existence. The way the humans inhabit this planet, what they eat, how they behave, what relations they entertain, creates the network of who and what they are: it is not a disembodied network, but (also) a material one, whose agency exceeds the political, social, and biological human realms […],’53 as Ferrando concludes.
While Ferrando provides a helpful overview of the different terms, with the focus on the differences and similarities between posthumanism and transhumanism, Miah outlines a comprehensive overview of the history of posthumanism and focuses thereby on the differences between cultural posthumanism and philosophical posthumanism. Although these accounts are intertwined, it is also fruitful to disentangle them in order to get a better understanding of both terms, as Miah claims. Miah determines one of the difference between cultural posthumanists and philosophical posthumanists as follows: ‘[…] cultural [posthuman] theorists are concerned
51 Ferrando, Francesca. ‘Posthumanism, Transhumanism, Antihumanism, Metahumanism, and New
Materialisms. Differences and Relations.’ Existenx. An International Journal in Philosophy, Religion, Politics,
and the Arts. Vol. 8, No. 2, Fall 2013: pp. p.32
52 Ibid., p.28 53 Ibid., p.32
28 about narratives of Otherness and their capacity to be politically divisive. Following this view, the appeal of the posthuman is in the destabilising the humanist values […]. In contrast, philosophers of posthumanism often seem to share this view, but are engaged in a broader project that aims, nevertheless, to continue the Enlightment ideal of aspiring to bring about progress through the employment of technology […].’54 Both Ferrando and Miah assert, that
within the posthumanist framework, technology has received a different approach and function then in a transhumanist’s understanding. Where, Ferrnado describes our encounter with technology in terms of relations, Miah does speak of ‘ideology’: ‘posthumanists have treated technology as an ideology, a particular kind of instrumental attitude that shapes the world55.
Thereby, Miah points out a crucial aspect regarding the history of posthumanism: that we ‘should not conflate the history of technology with the history of posthumanism, because only part of the posthumanist ideal seems connected to artefacts and our use of them’56.
A significant characteristic of cultural posthumanism is, according to Miah, that ‘cultural posthumanists have observed and developed theories of change and have positioned technology in relation to this change’57. This ‘change’ does not only manifests in our relationship with
technology, but more importantly, our notions of human subjectivity and embodiment have changed as well. More generally speaking, posthumanism is concerned with a paradigm shift in which ‘change’ on all different levels of human life and experience forms the main focus. Miah gives Katherine N. Hayles as an example of ‘one of the most celebrated cultural posthumanists’58. One of her famous works is How we became posthuman: virtual bodies in
cybernetics, literature, and informatics (1999). From a cybernetic perspective Hayles outlines
another approach to the posthuman account in which the narrative of cybernetics fulfils a key role. She emphasizes the role of narrative, because it plays a crucial role in articulating ‘the posthuman as a technical-cultural concept’59. As Hayles explains in an interview about her
book, a narrative gives – coming forth out of literary studies – a crucial insight in the underlying assumptions of scientific research. In literary studies it is more convenient to integrate the cultural context, in which scientific research is conducted. Considering both perspectives, the
54 Miah, Andy. ‘Posthumanism: A Critical History.’ Medical Enhancements and Posthumanity. Eds. Gordijn, Bert, Ruth Chadwick. New York: Routledge, 2007: pp.71-94, pp.20
55 Ibid., p.16 56 Ibid. 57 Ibid., p.10 58 Ibid., p.7
59 Hayles, Katherine. How we became posthuman: virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. p.22
29 scientific and the literary, provides a deeper insight in both fields of research – but most of all in the underlying layers of scientific research about technological developments, for example, which rarely shine through the surface of the scientific product.60 ‘For Hayles, posthumanism
is characterised by a (desired) loss of subjectivity that is based on bodies losing their boundaries,’61 as Miah explains about her work. We have lost the boundaries of our bodies,
because our bodies are transformed into information. We became part of a (extending) cybernetic system in which information flows between (technological) artefacts and us, our bodies. In this sense, the body lost its materiality. Yet, Hayles aims to put ‘the flesh’ back into perspective. Although information gains a higher position in cybernetic thought than materiality – but, as Wiener and Hayles both state, information needs materiality in order to be become perceivable – Hayles reminds us that we are also embedded in a material world. In the end, Hayles describes the posthuman subject in terms of an amalgam, a ‘material-informational entity’62. Nowadays, it could feel that the cybernetic strain conveys a more outdated perspective
regarding posthumanism. But Hayles explains that cybernetics is still a relevant subject. We still talk about it, moreover, the cybernetic notions are integrated in many different fields of research, also in cultural studies. ‘[…], the implications of large-scale complex systems characterized by communication- and information flows with multiple feedback loops giving rise to emergent properties have proved to be extremely powerful,’63 as Hayles states.
Another approach to posthumanism is advocated by philosopher Rosi Braidotti, which gives also a more recent perspective on the notions of posthumanism. Braidotti describes in The
Posthuman (2013) a change in human subjectivity and embodiment. She states we have to
approach the posthuman as a link in complex interrelated networks. In this very extensive work, Braidotti analyses what it means to be human in our current, highly technologically sophisticated societies within a globalised world in which capitalism dictates our way of living. Based on a strong interest in anti-humanism, as a matrix for posthuman thought, Braidotti puts emphasis on the shift in human subjectivity whereby we should approach the posthuman subject as one that is relational, embedded, embodied and vitalist. The notion of complex networks and
60 Piper, Arthur. How We Became Posthuman: Ten Years On An Interview with Katherine N. Hayles. 7 oktober, 2009
61 Miah, Andy. ‘Posthumanism: A Critical History.’ Medical Enhancements and Posthumanity. Eds. Gordijn, Bert, Ruth Chadwick. New York: Routledge, 2007: pp.71-94, pp.7
62 Hayles, Katherine. How we became posthuman: virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. p.3
63 Piper, Arthur. How We Became Posthuman: Ten Years On An Interview with Katherine N. Hayles. 7 oktober, 2009: p.6
30 relations between humans and non-humans (the other) assumes a significant place in her work - a feature of posthumanism to which Ferrando also referred.
2.5 Conclusions
This approach, in which the posthuman subject is analysed in terms of embodied, embedded and relational, is interesting to apply to the performance One Man without a Cause. First of all, because it provides an adequate or understandable description of how we could interpret our connection to technology nowadays. I think the notion of the cyborg is still relevant, but it does not relate so much to our experiences in our encounter with technology. It is not that we are walking around with a metal arm with different technological applications; this characteristic of half human half machine did not work out so literarily – notwithstanding the fact that some people have implants, such as a pacemaker, to support certain physical functions. I believe that our way of interacting with technologies lies more in Braidotti’s account. In the sense that we are certainly embedded in a highly technological environment which consists of complex networks in which we function as physical links. And within these networks, we are constantly interacting with other humans, and most of all, we are embodying non-human agents: technological artefacts. According to Hayles’ posthuman account, it raises the question, though, if we should approach this network as a cybernetic system? Are we part of a greater cybernetic system in which data flows through us to other technological artefacts and humans and is subject to feedback loops? Assuming this consideration is true, a kind of melancholic feeling falls over me. Are we just a material link by hosting information that comes in and immediately goes out? Is our body just a tool? Like we need an iPhone as a material tool to send out messages. Both Hayles and Wiener acknowledge that we need artefacts to perceive information. But does this mean, that our bodies are not more than physical artefacts that process information? Do we have to interpret very literarily Hayles account of the posthuman subject as a ‘material-information entity’64? Like Hayles articulates her worries about posthuman
subjects that use their bodies as merely tools, I agree that this is a fearful thought. It brings us very closely to the debate about the role of biotechnologies and thereby provides an argument to go on with experimenting without considering the moral implications. Why should we be concerned when our bodies are not more than a tool which you can manipulate (easily). Of
64 Hayles, Katherine. How we became posthuman: virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. p.3
31 course I am exaggerating now, but I can imagine that this could give a free path to those who want to develop this approach to the body further into arguments that will go beyond our morals. While leaving this complicated question to rest and go back to the performance One Man
without a Cause, we could approach Greco as one of us in our daily environments in which we
are also surrounded by technology, but in which we do not always have a direct physical connection with it. Many of the technology driven systems in our society and daily activities operate beyond our consciousness, or at least we do not give it much attention, it is ‘normal’. There are of course tools that require physical contact, for example, to send a message with our iPhone we need to type a message – although we could also use our voice to record and send a message. What I want to make clear is that our current state of being in relation to technology can not only be interpreted in terms of the notion of the cyborg – though, important to include to obtain a more complete overview of the philosophies on the interaction between human beings and (digital) technology – because we have no permanent sensors attached to our bodies through which we can control different systems and tools in our surroundings, for example. It can be better understood in terms of the human subject being embedded in a technological environment and embodied in complex networks in which we are vitalist and relational to both human and non-human agents. To get a better understanding of this posthuman subject in Braidotti’s terms and in Hayles’ account, and to understand this change in subjectivity and embodiment, I will outline in the following chapter Braidotti’s and Hayless posthumanistic perspective in more depth.
32
CHAPTER 3
EXPLORING POSTHUMAN NOTIONS
3.1 Introduction
In this chapter I outline Braidotti’s and Hayles approaches to the posthuman subject. What does it mean to be posthuman? Both written from different perspectives, Braidotti analyses the posthuman subject from a background of anti-humanism and Hayles from a cybernetic perspective, and with a time gap of fourteen years between the two works, it provides interesting similarities and differences in how the human subject can be approached in a posthuman time period. To exemplify Hayles’ perspective further, regarding the notion of the cyborg, I provide an example of the work of performance artist Stelarc, who uses technology and mechanical mechanisms to enhance his body. He sees these enhancements as an improvement of the human being rather than as pollution. In his work, he uses his own body as a medium to addresses the concept of the cyborg. Discussing the work of Stelarc provides a step from the posthuman notions described by Hayles, and also Braidotti to a performance context.
3.2
Braidotti’s account of the posthuman subject
Within the framework of current technologically mediated societies driven by advanced capitalism and global economy, Rosi Braidotti poses in her book The Posthuman (2013) the question what we should acknowledge as the basic references for the human species now we have entered the posthuman state of being. As Braidotti stresses, understanding the implications of the posthuman can be approached from different perspectives. Braidotti outlines the development of the posthuman subject starting from the humanistic account of Man as the measure of all things and develops her argument further by explaining how anti-humanism questioned this central position of Man. It should be mentioned that Braidotti has a strong
