The Implications of Technology in Dance: A Dancer’s Perspective of Moving in Media-Rich Environments

  • Kerry Francksen


In this chapter, Francksen examines technology’s role as a key creative agent within digital dance performance and discusses the impact this is having on the dancer’s experience of making movement. Importantly, this chapter makes a case for the positive impact technology can have on the ways in which dancers both create and experience movement, particularly when it is integrated within the studio setting. Through an analysis of the author’s own practice, Francksen explores how technology can change the ways in which dancers produce, engage with, and ultimately create movement. In so doing, this chapter promotes the experiential awareness of the dancer as key to appreciating the affordances of technology in dance specific to our digital age.


  1. Auslander, Philip. 2008. Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized Culture. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, Helen. 2007. Ersatz Dancing: Negotiating the Live and Mediated in Digital Performance Practice. International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media 3 (2–3): 151–165. Scholar
  3. Benford, Steve, and Gabriella Giannachi. 2011. Performing Mixed Reality. London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Birringer, Johannes. 2003. Dance and Interactivity. Dance Research Journal 35 (2): 89–111.Google Scholar
  5. Broadhurst, Susan. 2007. Digital Practices: Aesthetic and Neuroesthetic Approaches to Performance and Technology. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ———. 2011. Intelligence, Interaction, Reaction, and Performance. In Performance and Technology: Practices of Virtual Embodiment and Interactivity, ed. Susan Broadhurst and Josephine Machon, 141–152. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Causey, Matthew. 2015. General Introduction. In the After-event of the Virtual. In The Performing Subject in the Space of Technology: Through the Virtual, Towards the Real, ed. Matthew Causey, Emma Meehan, and Neill O’Dwyer, 1–8. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Combi, Mariella. 2016. Cultures and Technology: An Analysis of Some of the Changes in Progress—Digital, Global and Local Culture. In Cultural Heritage in a Changing World, ed. Karol Jan Borowiecki, Neil Forbes, and Antonella Fresa. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. DeLahunta, Scott. 2005. Isadora ‘Almost Out of Beta’: Tracing the Development of a New Software Tool for Performing Artists. International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media 1 (1): 31–46. Scholar
  10. ———. 2006. Co-descriptions and Colaborative Composition. Opening presentation at Choreographic Computations (a NIME06/IRCAM workshop), Paris, 4 June.Google Scholar
  11. Dixon, Steve. 2007. Digital Performance: A History of New Media in Theatre, Dance, Performance Art, and Installation. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Francksen, Kerry. 2011. Rehearsal Documentation. Leicester: De Montfort University (Documentation in Possession of Author).Google Scholar
  13. ———. 2014. Modulation_one. Kerry Francksen and Simon Atkinson, Leicester: De Montfort University.Google Scholar
  14. Grosz, Elizabeth. 1994. Volatile Bodies: Towards a Corporeal Feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kalay, Yehuda E. 2008. Introduction. Preserving Cultural Heritage Through Digital Media. In New Heritage, New Media and Cultural Heritage, ed. Yehunda E. Kalay, Thomas Kvan, and Janice Affleck, 1–11. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Langer, Susanne. 1951. The Dynamic Image: Some Philosophical Reflections on Dance. In The Dance Has Many Faces, ed. Walter Sorell. New York: World Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Mackendrick, Karmen. 2004. Embodying Transgression. In Of the Presence of the Body: Essays on Dance and Performance Theory, ed. Andre Lepecki, 140–156. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Manning, Erin. 2009. Relationscapes: Movement, Art, Philosophy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Massumi, Brian. 2002. Parables of the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Melrose, Susan. 2011. Bodies Without Bodies. In Performance and Technology. Practices of Virtual Embodiment and Interactivity, ed. Susan Broadhurst and Josephine Machon, 1–17. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Merleau-Ponty. 1968. The Visible and the Invisible. Evanston: North Western University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Nibbelink, Liesbeth Groot, and Sigrid Merx. 2010. Presence and Perception: Analysing Intermediality in Performance. In Mapping Intermediality in Performance, ed. Sarah Bay-Cheng, Chiel Kattenbelt, Andy Lavender, and Robin Nelson. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Phelan, Peggy. 1993. Unmarked: The Politics of Performance. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Portanova, Stamatia. 2013. Moving Without a Body: Digital Philosophy and Choreographic Thoughts. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Reynolds, Dee. 2012. Kinesthetic Empathy and the Dance’s Body: From Emotion to Affect. In Kinesthetic Empathy in Creative and Cultural Practices, ed. Dee Reynolds and Matthew Reason, 123–136. Bristol: Intellect.Google Scholar
  26. Stern, Nathaniel. 2013. Interactive Art and Embodiment: The Implicit Body as Performance. Canterbury: Gylphi Lim.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kerry Francksen
    • 1
  1. 1.Independent Artist, Researcher, and EducatorLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations