Risking Intimacy: Strategies of Vulnerability in Vertical City’s All Good Things and Trace

  • Bruce BartonEmail author
  • Pil Hansen


Vertical City (VC) is an interdisciplinary performance hub located in Calgary, Canada. In this essay Barton and Hansen use two recent VC performances—All Good Things and Trace—to explore the physical, emotional, and perceptual intimacy in micro performances that is generated through the interweaving of embodied, sensory-triggered personal memories (associated with specific sounds, odours, tastes, textures, etc.) and composed through rule-based principles during performance. With its most recent production, Trace (2014), VC is attempting to realise a fragile and intimate dramaturgy of embrace, one that is only possible in a context of mutual vulnerability of both the performers and the audience. In this essay Barton and Hansen offer a detailed articulation of these complex and evolving composition and performance processes.


Vertical City (VC) Dramaturgy Mutual Vulnerability Audience Members Absorption Performance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. “About VCP.” Vertical City.
  2. “All Good Things.” Vertical City.
  3. Alston, Adam. 2013. Politics in the Dark: Risk Perception, Affect and Emotion in Lundahl & Seitl’s Rotating in a Room of Images. In Affective Performance and Cognitive Science: Body, Brain and Being, ed. Nicola Shaughnessy, 217–228. London and New York: Bloomsbury Methuen Drama.Google Scholar
  4. Alston, Adam. 2016. Beyond Immersive Theatre. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Auslander, Philip. 1999/2008. Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized Culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Bailes, Sara Jane. 2011. Performance Theatre and the Poetics of Failure. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Barton, Bruce. 2008. Subjectivity <>Culture <>Communications <>Intermedia: A Meditation on the ‘Impure Interactions’ of Performance and the ‘In-between’ Space of Intimacy in a Wired World. Theatre Research in Canada 29 (1): 51–92.Google Scholar
  8. Barton, Bruce. 2009. Paradox as Process: Intermedial Anxiety and the Betrayals of Intimacy. Theatre Journal 61 (4): 575–601.Google Scholar
  9. Barton, Bruce. 2010. Intimacy. In Mapping Intermediality in Performance, eds. Sarah Bay-Cheng, Chiel Kattenbelt, Andy Lavender, and Robin Nelson. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Barton, Bruce. 2014. Performing the Paradox of Affect and Interpretation: Turbulence in Vertical City. Performance Research 19 (5): 59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Claid, Emilyn. 2016. Messy Bits. In Collaboration in Performance Practice: Premises, Workings and Failures, eds. Noyale Colin and Stefanie Sachsenmaier, 259–79. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Edelman, Gerald M.‚ and Giulio Tononi. 2002. Perception into Memory: The Remembered Present. In A Universe of Consciousness: How Matter Becomes Imagination, 102–10. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
  13. Freeman, John. 2007. New Performance/New Writing. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Freshwater, Helen. 2009. Theatre and Audience. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Hansen, Pil. 2015. The Dramaturgy of Performance Generating Systems. In Dance Dramaturgy: Modes of Agency, Awareness, and Engagement, eds. Pil Hansen and Darcey Callison, 124–142. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  16. Hansen, Pil with Christopher House. 2015. Scoring performance Generating Systems. In Performance Research 20 (6): 65–73.Google Scholar
  17. Hansen, Pil with Karen Kaeja and Ame Henderson. 2014. Self-organization and Transition in performance Generating Systems. In Performance Research 19 (5): 23–33.Google Scholar
  18. Katzenstein, Inéz. A Leap Backwards into the Future: Paul Ramirez Jonas / 2004. In Failure. Documents of Contemporary Art, ed. Lisa Le Feuvre, 184–189. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lupton, Deborah. 2013. Key Ideas: Risk, 2nd ed. Florence, GB: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Prager, Karen. 1995. The Psychology of Intimacy. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  21. Prager, Karen. 2014. The Dilemmas of Intimacy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Prager, Karen and Linda J. Roberts. 2004. Deep Intimate Connection: Self and Intimacy in Couple Relationships. In Handbook of Closeness and Intimacy, eds. Debra J. Mashek and Arthur Aron, 43–60. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  23. ProQuest ebrary. Accessed 20 August 2016.Google Scholar
  24. Machon, Josephine. 2013a. Immersive Theatres: Intimacy and Immediacy in Contemporary Performance. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Machon, Josephine. 2013. (Syn)aesthetics and Immersive Theatre: Embodied Beholding in Lundahl & Seitl’s Rotating in a Room of Images. In Affective Performance and Cognitive Science: Body, Brain and Being, ed. Nicola Shaughnessy, 199–216. London and New York: Bloomsbury Methuen Drama.Google Scholar
  26. Massumi, Brian (ed.). 1993. The Politics of Everyday Fear. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  27. Massumi, Brian. 2010. The Future Birth of the Affective Fact: The Political Ontology of Threat. In The Affect Theory Reader, eds. Melissa Gregg, and Gregory J. Seigworth, 52–70. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Nedelkopoulou, Eirini. 2015. The In-Common of Phenomenology. In Performance and Phenomenology: Traditions and Transformations, eds. Maaike Bleeker, Jon Foley Sherman, and Eirini Nedelkopoulou. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. O’Grady, Alice. 2011. Interactivity: Functions and Risks. In Performance Perspectives: A Critical Introduction, eds. Jonathan Pitches, and Sita Popat, 165–174. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  30. Radbourne, Jennifer, Hilary Glow, and Katya Johanson. 2013. Knowing and Measuring the Audience Experience. In The Audience Experience: A Critical Analysis of Audiences in the Performing Arts, eds. Jennifer Radbourne, Hilary Glow, and Katya Johanson, 1–14. Bristol: Intellect.Google Scholar
  31. Read, Alan. 2013. Theatre in the Expanded Field. London and New York: Bloomsbury Methuen Drama.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reddy, S. 1996. Claims to Expert Knowledge and the Subversion of Democracy: The Triumph of Risk over Uncertainty. Economy and Society 25 (2): 222–54.Google Scholar
  33. Schacter, D. L.‚ and D. R. Addis. 2007. The cognitive neuroscience of constructive memory: Remembering the past and imagining the future. In Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 362: 773–86.Google Scholar
  34. Stevens, C. J.‚ and S. McKechnie. 2005. Minds and motion: Dynamical systems in choreography, creativity, and dance. In Tanz im Kopf: Yearbook 15 of the German Dance Research Society 2004, eds. J. Birringer and J. Fenger, 241–52. Münster: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
  35. Thelen, Esther, and Linda B. Smith. 1994. A Dynamic Systems Approach to the Development of Cognition and Action. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Tribble, Evelyn. 2017. Distributed Cognition, Memory and Performance. In Performing the Remembered Present: The Cognition of Memory in Dance, Theatre and Music, eds. Pil Hansen and Bettina Blaesing. London and New York: Bloomsbury Methuen.Google Scholar
  37. White, Gareth. 2013. Audience Participation in Theatre: Aesthetics of the Invitation. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations