Conclusion

Abstract

Throughout this book, I have demonstrated how embodied performances have given ‘voice’ to psychological, biological and cultural layers that map the many aspects of our existence and experiences as lived bodies. I am not suggesting that by giving my ‘subjects’ a ‘voice’ I have unmediated direct knowledge of their experiences, but that I have offered a perspectival account of their experiences. Thus, in my dialogue with textual excerpts, theory and my own (felt and embodied) experiences, I have hoped to show how interrogation is possible without an interpretive or ‘directorial’ stance. This dialogical approach also reflects how I interact with individuals in my DMP and choreographic practice. Consequently, I have re-presented text and film alongside each other and resisted the traditional academic practice of interpretive analysis. By doing so, I locate this work within new developments in the performing arts which form a bridge between academia and professional practice (Allegue et al. 2009; Bannerman et al. 2006). Moreover, in the context of the academy, the notion of producing work for an audience in addition to an academic peer group allows previously discussed intentions to be fulfilled, since the presentation of the work through an artifact allows it to come full circle: from public perceptions through individual processes and mirrored back into the public domain.