Dance and choreography are undoubtedly among the most dynamically developing areas of artistic exploration today. It’s no wonder that they respond sensitively to changes within the performing arts, neuroscience, and new technologies.
In the 20th and 21st centuries, the gradual departure of dance creators from the primacy of vision has proven particularly consequential for the development of dance. Quoting Jeoren Fabious as cited by Regina Lissowska-Postaremczak: “As staged within western theatre dance, the art of the moving body, is made to be seen. The contradiction here lies in the fact that dance is created through the experiences of moving bodies, while primarily accessed visually by its spectators” (p. 11). By choosing these words as the motto for her publication, the author of ‘Kinesthetic Strategies in the Field of Dance’ also gives it a distinct framework. She dedicates her book, which is based on her doctoral dissertation, to various methods of activating senses other than sight, and primarily to embodied perception on the part of artists and spectators.
The publication is divided into three complementary parts, importantly, of similar length. The first part is strictly theoretical and presents various approaches to kinesthesia in the context of dance theory, philosophy, and psychology, from the 19th century (e.g., the sense of movement) to the present day (dance from a neurological and neurocognitive perspective). In the second part, the researcher describes selected somatic practices as examples of embodied research (e.g., Alexander Technique, Feldenkrais Method), devoting special attention to different improvisation methods drawing from them. The last part, titled the same as the entire publication, gathers the considerations, theories, and methods outlined in the previous two parts. The author skillfully weaves them into an analysis of selected performances and research projects, organized according to the kinesthetic strategies chosen by the artists (e.g., reduction of movement, limitation of perception/sensory deprivation, and others). And it is their discussion that proves to be the most promising for dance criticism and constitutes a great value in the context of the author’s research and the potential for its development by other theorists. However, the titular concept would not be understandable without its genesis, dating back to the 19th century, without the historical background, and without the meticulously outlined evolution of the approach to the dancing and sensing body. The transformations within dance and choreography concerning the perception process of performers and spectators is a long-term process. In the author’s view, the kinesthetic strategies mentioned are not assigned to specific styles in dance art or the explorations of selected artists. This stems from a change in the book’s concept during its writing – instead of discussing actions from a narrower, strictly defined range of artistic practices, Lissowska-Postaremczak decided to present them through the broadest possible spectrum, shown through the prism of the discussed strategies.
Various Approaches to Kinesthesia
The first part of the publication is divided into two chapters. In the first chapter, Lissowska-Postaremczak starts with the physiological recognition of the sense of movement in the 19th century, leading to the idea of “thinking in movement” – a phenomenological reinterpretation of dance by Maxine Sheets-Johnstone. Each concept is briefly discussed by the author, who also presents its connections with earlier research. This allows Lissowska-Postaremczak to show the transformations in an evolutionary perspective, making it easier to understand individual concepts. From psychological and neurological research, the author smoothly transitions to dance research, which often draws from these studies. Throughout the book, she follows a similar trajectory – moving between science and the theory and practice of dance (in the first two parts, still treated with minor references to artistic activities), which can be challenging for readers due to the specific terminology and the need to switch from abstraction to concreteness and vice versa. By introducing different perspectives, the author outlines a research field that is quite broad and fully starts to work only in the last part of the book. However, thanks to the first two parts, both the contemporary interest of artists in science and new technologies and the growing popularity of interdisciplinary, even transdisciplinary projects, become more understandable. This outlined perspective may create some impatience among readers, who may be waiting for the theoretical considerations to finally connect with dance practices – both in terms of training-workshop approaches (somatic techniques discussed in the second part of the book) and artistic ones (selected examples of specific realizations in the last part).
At the beginning, the author discusses the conceptual evolution in the fields of neurology and physiology: from 19th-century concepts of the sense of movement/muscular sense, allowing for deep perception of the body and its sensations, through kinesthesia, to 20th-century proprioception. The diversity of these approaches, as Lissowska-Postaremczak points out, was integrated only several decades later by environmental psychologist James J. Gibson, who in the 1960s “also initiated thinking about kinesthetic processes as integrating the actions of all human senses” (p. 24). Before that, however, other researchers proposed the concept of empathy (German: die Einfühlung). Along with kinesthesia, in non-dance research areas, it was temporarily supplanted by proprioception but became most useful for the developing dance theory. Thanks to it, in the 1930s, the eminent dance theorist John Martin explored the empathetic experience of dance – rooted in the emotional sphere and resulting from the combination of kinesthetic sympathy (i.e., feeling the muscular/movement activity of another body in motion) and metakinesis (a complex process of perceiving movement intention by viewers). Over time, the researcher synthesized both concepts, proposing another one – inner mimicry, which “encompassed the entire process of physical perception and emotional feeling of another body’s states, leading not to the creation of a copy of the experience by the viewer but to a genuine feeling” (p. 28). Martin focused here on the process of dance reception, having an empathetic-kinesthetic nature.
In both chapters of the first part of her book, Lissowska-Postaremczak alternates between examining theories focused on the reception of dance and movement by viewers and – to a lesser extent – their perception by the performers themselves, which can cause reader confusion, although it also reflects the history of research development. Sometimes these perspectives blur, while other times they confront interestingly, as in the case of phenomenological considerations by Sheets-Johnstone, who distinguishes thinking about movement from thinking in movement, occurring, for example, during dance improvisation. Another researcher, who can be placed in the stream of combining dance perception and reception, is James J. Gibson, representing ecological philosophy. He was the first to draw attention to the cooperation of all senses in the multi-channel process of kinesthesia. He also emphasized its significant role in building relationships between the subject and the environment, which is why he is often cited by dance improvisation creators and theorists, as Lissowska-Postaremczak notes later in her publication. In the context of dance reception, the anti-representational approach to perception, characteristic of the enactivist stream (Alva Noë, already mentioned Gibson), is particularly interesting according to the author. According to this approach, perception does not involve creating representations of perceived objects but rather their more direct reception.
A valuable aspect of the book is that the author ensures that potentially lost readers in theoretical considerations can, thanks to her guidance, connect various theories and their brief characterizations themselves. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to prevent some reader confusion. This is also due to the fact that although the author’s switching between earlier and later theories and scientific discoveries, chronologically, aims to help both her and the readers to assemble threads, comparisons, analogies, and differences that will work in the climax of the book, it sometimes creates an impression of inconsistency, or excessive fragmentation.
However, the analysis of enactivist thought compared to Sheets-Johnstone’s concept of thinking in movement stands out positively, allowing for the recognition of their common aspect – the cognitive potential of movement and dance. This perspective allows Lissowska-Postaremczak to outline the ground on which neuroscience could emerge. This area becomes the focus of the Polish researcher’s attention in the second chapter, where the central issue is the concept of mirror neurons and its later redefinitions. Their discovery in the 1990s led to another breakthrough in dance education and research on the creative process. It also re-anchored earlier considerations at the intersection of philosophy and psychology in a strictly scientific background, which a careful reader may notice at this stage of the reading, transitioning with some relief from philosophical considerations to more clearly scientific and recent ones, spanning the last thirty years.
The discovery of mirror neurons revealed that a specific group of neurons located in the prefrontal cortex is responsible for recognizing movement actions, their motor learning, and reading intentions. Initially, research was conducted on monkeys, but later also on humans, who were shown short fragments of ballet performances. Subsequent research teams significantly developed it, analyzing the perception process of entire performances (although still in laboratory conditions, without a full audience, etc.). Importantly, in dance research, not only the brain areas involving the mirror neuron system are analyzed but also much broader ones related to the work of the entire body. Here, a vast reservoir of imaging research is used – from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to electromyography (EMG), which examines muscle activity. Beatriz Calvo-Merino’s (2006) study involving dancers from the Royal Ballet in London, capoeira practitioners, and a control group showed that in the case of professional dancers, mirror neurons activated much more strongly when the observed movement was part of their motor skill repertoire. However, different conclusions emerged from a study conducted by Emily S. Cross (2011), which revealed a correlation between aesthetic evaluation and cortical brain activity. The latter was more intense when the observed movement significantly deviated from the motor capabilities of the watching participants. This, in turn, may translate into an attempt to create performances with elements that strongly affect viewers, programming their reception in a way. The author points out that neuroscience research has produced the concepts of neuroaesthetics and neuroculture, according to which knowledge about complex brain processes is adapted to design specific reception processes in art. This sounds dangerous. Scientific discoveries, as we know, always carry unknown risks; fortunately, as the author notes, similar explorations are not yet conducted on a large scale. Lissowska-Postaremczak also points out the problematic nature of implementing neurocognitive research into theater studies or broadly – the humanities, due to their significant reductionism, typical of natural sciences.
In this part of the publication, the author also briefly discusses the research of Polish scientists dealing with dance and neuroscience – Tomasz Ciesielski and Sandra Frydrysiak. Although both researchers in the cited publications undertake rather theoretical considerations on the perception of dance by audiences and performers, relating them to specific dance and choreographic works in a somewhat limited manner. However, their research seems essential to Lissowska-Postaremczak as a link between science and somatic and artistic practices, which she outlines in the following parts of the book.
In the book “Taneczny umysł. Teatr ruchu i tańca w perspektywie neurokognitywistycznej” (The Dancing Mind: The Theater of Movement and Dance from a Neurocognitive Perspective) (2014), Ciesielski conducts a “review of neuroscience research on movement” (p. 73), focusing on the process of the brain processing abstract data about movement into concrete ones, primarily related to its intention and execution. He recalls – for reminder, questioned in other currents closer to philosophy – the concept of mental representation of action/movement as something that always precedes its execution. Based on this, he proposes a distinction between dance of form and organic dance, subject to further divisions. In Frydrysiak’s publication “Taniec w sprzężeniu nauk i technologii. Nowe perspektywy w badaniach tańca” (“Dance in the connection of Science and Technology: New Perspectives in Dance Research”) (2017), the approach of dance as a cognitive laboratory comes to the fore. In my opinion, the division of dance research relating to perception proposed by her, reflecting the differences between natural and human sciences, can be particularly operationally useful: the “hard” researcher’s path concerns neurocognitive sciences focused on brain research, and the “soft” path – theories reaching more into the “embodied” current of perception research, with concepts such as embodied cognition and embodied mind. The latter also includes enactivism, treating subjectivity in a similarly processual model, which, according to Frydrysiak, is close to the explorations of creators in the field of postmodern dance and dance improvisation. The summary of research perspectives on the phenomenon of dance perception, made by Frydrysiak and cited by Lissowska-Postaremczak, becomes a good starting point for the next part of the book “Kinesthetic Strategies…”, focused on the practical use of kinesthesia.
Kinesthesia in Movement and Dance Practices
In the first chapter of the second part of her book, the author discusses selected somatic practices. She links their development not only to the intensification of research and theoretical considerations around kinesthesia but also to the spread of the concept of corporeality. Although the author does not analyze this concept in detail, it is understood in a broader perspective than just the body, as a psychophysical construction conditioned by social and cultural factors. Lissowska-Postaremczak argues that analyses within the humanities and natural sciences in the 20th century were accompanied by reflections on the development of “practices of the somatic paradigm” (p. 93). She points out that this indirectly influenced the aesthetic reception of dance, shifting the focus from the external, visually graspable formal aspects of this art to “the process of generating movement in the body” (p. 93) and its subjective-relational determinants.
Somatic practices, referred to interchangeably by the author as techniques, are linked to research in the field of movement therapy – rehabilitation and physiotherapy. Many of them indeed have such origins – they were developed after the creators’ injuries or serious health problems, necessitating a kind of re-education of the body and mind. However, this knowledge is something readers must seek out on their own because, regrettably, Lissowska-Postaremczak does not shed light on these issues. The author generally explains what the individual practices involve. The awareness of the body (or, put differently, cognition through the body) advocated by Frederick Matthias Alexander, Moshe Feldenkrais, Mabel Elsworth Todd, or Gerda Alexander, is linked to the form of thinking in movement conceptualized by Sheets-Johnstone and also to the theory of pre-expressivity (the strong presence of the performer, perceived even when they remain in apparent stillness), developed by theater anthropology and Eugenio Barba. However, the origins of somatic practices are traced back to the 19th-century gestural system of Delsarte, from which the pioneer of modern dance Isadora Duncan and later the Denishawn school founded by Ruth St. Denis and Ted Shawn drew. From the inspiration of Delsarte’s teachings, further systems of gymnastic and breathing exercises were created. Their influence can also be found in Dalcroze’s eurhythmics and subsequently in the methods used by Laban at Monte Veritá. At the end of the introduction to this chapter, the author acknowledges that the development of kinesthetic body awareness also occurred in the field of theater. However, her publication focuses on dance, so she cannot delve deeper into this topic. Additionally, she aims to distinguish between acting practices and somatic practices, hence deciding to omit the former from her discussion.
The main part of the chapter is dedicated to discussing selected somatic practices, namely the Alexander Technique, Ideokinesis, Skinner Releasing Technique, Eutonics, Feldenkrais Method, Laban Bartenieff Movement System (LBMS), and Body-Mind Centering©. It is not entirely clear what selection criteria the author used for these methods, but it can be inferred that it involves their prevalence and influence (Alexander Technique, Feldenkrais Method) on one hand, and their significance for dance creators and analysts in terms of training and the creative process (LBMS, BMC©) on the other. These last two aspects are explored in the second chapter of this part of the book, where Lissowska-Postaremczak examines dance improvisation. However, she does not explain how its creators draw on specific somatic practices but allows readers to independently analyze and connect the threads. In this view, improvisation becomes a more holistic and, in many aspects, pioneering approach to the body, often preceding many somatic practices or operating in parallel, and sometimes independently, using similar recognitions. This chapter largely draws from the analyses of Cynthia J. Novack, Steve Paxton (recently deceased founder of contact improvisation), and one of the Polish researchers in this area, Gaja Karolczak. At the beginning, Lissowska-Postaremczak indicates that dance improvisation is a very broad field, so there is no single comprehensive model. The framework of this chapter is provided by Novack’s statement that improvisation “means making choices from among many possibilities available at any given moment” (p. 115). The author of Kinesthetic Strategies… also notes that the most important distinction is related to its different goals – on one hand, it can be primarily focused on the performer’s perception and breaking movement patterns, often based on specific structural techniques, and on the other – treated more utilitarian, when it serves to obtain movement material or enrich choreography. However, Lissowska-Postaremczak points out that often both approaches intermingle, and the boundaries between them can be fluid. It must be admitted that this is one of the more interesting chapters of her book, where various theories of kinesthesia previously introduced to readers return. Modern dance and postmodern dance currents engage in dialogue here, and the cultural tension between them, as noted by Lilianna Bieszczad, can be placed on an axis between visual centrism (passive viewing) and pluralism (active bodily action in relation to the environment). Susan Leigh Foster, an American dance researcher, points out another aspect of this division, noting the transition from the “regime of physical discipline” (p. 124), characteristic of classical dance, modern dance, and the contemporary interest in gymnastics, to somatic practices, which later dance and bodywork trends draw from until today. In the conclusion of the chapter, phenomenological reflections by Sheets-Johnstone reappear, entering an interesting dialogue with Bieszczad’s research proposals, which draw on a similar philosophical tradition.
Kinesthetic Strategies in the Field of Dance
The final and, in my opinion, most interesting part of the publication introduces various methods of manipulating the viewers’ senses and activating other, non-visual levels of reception that shape their perceptual experiences. Lissowska-Postaremczak explains her original concept of kinesthetic strategies, encompassing “a certain group of artistic practices in the field of dance that aim to undermine visuality, but also the aesthetic and interpretative approach to its reception, placing the perceptual mechanisms themselves at the center of interest” (p. 131). As I explained at the beginning of this text, according to the author, these unique plays with perception cannot be attributed solely to specific dance and choreography trends or the explorations of particular creators. In line with this approach, Lissowska-Postaremczak outlines a broad panorama of specific strategies and recalls a wide variety of artistic practices and their creators from the past thirty years: sensitizing the viewer (Magdalena Ptasznik, Surfing), movement reduction (Meg Stuart, Splayed Mind Out, works of Myriam Gourfink), perception limitation/sensory deprivation (Boris Charmatz, Con forts fleuve), blocking vision (Boris Charmatz, La Chaise; Renata Piotrowska, works from the Unknown cycle), sensory preparation (Anna Nowicka, Raw Light; James Batchelor, Siobhan McKenna, We Move You, James Batchelor, HYPERSPACE), perceptual performance (William Forsythe, the performance Eidos:Telos, based on highly complex movement algorithms and choreographic installations). The author also explores the field she defines as interactive media/interactive strategies, including augmented dance, digital dance, dance-media performance, and cyberdance. All of these aim to engage sensory experiences and kinesthetic perception. The researcher links the spread of the interactivity paradigm to the introduction of personal mobile devices with interfaces. Since then, our contact with the world has been largely mediated by various technologies that demand our activity and attention. Dance artists creatively use this significant cultural change, greatly expanding the scope of their interests and reflections. The author analyzes such artistic strategies as the expansion of movement in virtual space and the sound sphere, sonic choreography/choreoauratic installations, interdisciplinary choreography/choreographic environment, telepresence (virtual mediation in the experience of the body), dance in immersive virtual reality. Here, too, the author introduces specific performances and installations, but her discussion is much more analytical, allowing for a better understanding of the difference between the instrumental use of new technologies and their fluid integration into a specific dance-choreographic project. According to Lissowska-Postaremczak, in such projects, dance should be at the forefront, not technology (if it is not transparent, something has gone wrong). This is not always achieved, and the discussed book can help better recognize this difference.
Regina Lissowska-Postaremczak has done impressive archival and research work, collecting and discussing various approaches to kinesthesia in the context of dance science and art over the past hundred or so years. Although the multitude of contexts may prove somewhat overwhelming and tedious for readers, her introduction is essential. Thus, the last part of the book, the most grounded in concrete examples, is read with an awareness of the transformations in the fields of natural and human sciences that preceded specific artistic explorations. I also believe that the concept of kinesthetic strategies proposed by the author concerning dance will be a very useful tool in its theory and critique. For researchers, the review of theories and concepts can be an important reference point. For critics, the last part of the book, discussing specific kinesthetic strategies in action, appears more promising. Without a doubt, the research initiated by Lissowska-Postaremczak opens up a perspective for further analyses. On the one hand, knowledge of the kinesthetic strategies outlined by the author allows for the interpretation of subsequent choreographic-dance works; on the other hand, it draws attention to the continuous development of new technologies, which will undoubtedly influence the further creative explorations of dance artists. One can also focus more on analyzing the artistic practices of selected creators, using similar research tools. Katarzyna Słoboda did an excellent job of this in her publication “Ucieleśniona uważność w wybranych praktykach tańca współczesnego” (“Embodied Mindfulness in Selected Contemporary Dance Practices”) which is a book version of her doctoral dissertation. Both works were created simultaneously and independently, but as readers, we have the privilege of reading them consecutively. This is a very enlightening and stimulating experience. It also reveals one of the most strongly present research perspectives in dance studies – an interest in corporeality, perception, and the various ways artists model them. I look forward to more.
In the photo: Regina Lissowska @Marta-Ankiersztejn
***
Book reference
Regina Lissowska-Postaremczak, Strategie kinestezyjne w przestrzeni tańca, Fundacja Perform, Narodowy Instytut Muzyki i Tańca, Warszawa 2023 – English title: Kinesthetic Strategies in the Field of Dance
Author of the review: Julia Hoczyk – Original title: Poszerzanie pola percepcji – English title: Expanding the field of perception.
Source article: Hoczyk, Julia, Poszerzanie pola percepcji, “Didaskalia. Gazeta Teatralna” 2024, nr 180, https://didaskalia.pl/pl/artykul/poszerzanie-pola-percepcji.