Digital performance repository

David Dowhaniuk

What a body can do. This is essentially the definition of embodiment. Ben Spatz defines embodiment research as understanding what a body can do (Spatz, “Embodied Research: A Methodology”). In traditional theatre studies, theories of embodiment tend to focus on what the bodies of performers can do or the co-presence of the audiences’ bodies in relation of the performer (Bay-Cheng; Pietrzak-Franger et al.). In digital theatre and performance, audience bodies can control performers bodies, performers’ bodies can adorn motion capture suits, audience bodies can wear VR/AR devices. Spatz’s further defines embodiment as the bodies first affordance (Spatz, “Embodiment as First Affordance: Tinkering, Tuning, Tracking”).

We must consider that we all live in our bodies differently. Many bodies can do things that other bodies cannot. Arseli Dokumaci asks us to consider how different bodies can do things in their definition of ‘vital affordances’ (Dokumaci). Starting from a drama research lens Dokumaci clearly demonstrates how different bodies must perform the use of devices in new ways. How can bodies perform the use of a technology developed without them in mind? What is the lived embodied experience of continual affordance creation? (Dokumaci) The research question on embodiment changes from ‘what CAN bodies do?’ to ‘what are bodies ABLE to do?’ How is this body able to use this comb? (Dokumaci)

The digital field of research and creation in this area is called inclusive design. “Inclusive design is design that considers the full range of human diversity with respect to ability, language, culture, gender, age and other forms of human difference” (Inclusive Design Research Centre). Where it is expected that audiences’ bodies ‘can’ do a lot of things, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are ‘able’ to do them. Or more explicitly able to do things as assumed and expected. Excluding different types of bodies may be necessary in digital performance but inclusive design invites the question of ‘why?’ Is the technology specific to your piece necessary, such as VR helmet or reading instructions from a piece of paper? Is there a way you can subvert the technology to offer an alternative experience? In inclusive design no one is Disabled, but poor design excludes different embodied experiences from the creation and testing process (Inclusive Design Research Centre).

If we are asking the questions of what bodies are able to do, then we must consider that they are able to embody prejudice, bigotry, and implicit bias. Society limits what bodies are able to do. A body can use a $20 bill but in the case of George Floyd his body was unable to use cash. Brianna Taylor’s body can sleep but she was not able to sleep. Racial prejudice must be considered when we are asking what bodies are able to do. The greater art world and systems regularly ask Black and Brown bodies to prove that they can and are able to ‘do’ art (Wooden). This makes documentation of Black and Brown performers even more important and their bodies’ ability to move in a system designed against them. When designing digital performance, you must consider what society will allow certain bodies do while not allowing other bodies to do the same.

The history of the camera and digital technology innovation are full of examples of explicitly ignoring Black and Brown bodies. When chemically designing the process for capturing and exposing film the bodies were explicitly white. “Light skin became the chemical baseline for film technology, fulfilling the needs of its target dominant market” (Lewis). The centring of how the digital camera captures bodies has continued in this tradition. This includes how the bodies are displayed on screens, that unless digitally colour correcting out the bias of the camera these bodies are still incorrectly displayed (Lewis).

Have you had the facial recognition of your phone ignore the bodies of you and/or your friends? This digital exclusion is where racial bias in camera technology meets racial bias in artificial intelligence technology. This is why people with Black, Brown, and darker skin tones are more likely to be hit by self-driving cars (Kim). When defining embodiment, it is important to understand what a body is able to do and how technology is able to capture the body in the act of doing. Is there a way your digital performance can push technology away from racism, ablism, sexism, and other isms and phobias?

The bodies of the audience in digital performances may be viewing them in a number of ways. Your digital performance may be viewed in a home theatre with a projector or in a moving bus on a mobile phone screen on mute with subtitles or in a public VR arcade. Moving away from co-presence and the theatrical stage means you may be giving up your control of your audiences’ bodies with more affordances for communicating with those bodies in new and interesting ways.

Consider Silvia Mercuriali’s Swimming at Home, an audio theatre artwork created during COVID-19 lockdown for swimmers who could not access a pool. The audience books a performance time and is told to have a bathtub ready at that time (Mercuriali). The binaural audio piece invites the audience to play in the tub. However, my embodied experience was hindered by wearing headphones as suggested, ones I couldn’t afford to replace, in the tub while submerging my face. Access and privilege to technology create their own problems in digital performance while escaping ones from traditional theatre.

Works Cited

Bay-Cheng, Sarah. “Digital Performance and Its Discontents (or, Problems of Presence in Pandemic Performance).” Theatre Research International, vol. 48, no. 1, Mar. 2023, pp. 9–23, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0307883322000372.

Dokumaci, Arseli. “Vital Affordances, Occupying Niches: An Ecological Approach to Disability and Performance.” Research in Drama Education, vol. 22, no. 3, July 2017, pp. 393–412, https://doi.org/10.1080/13569783.2017.1326808.

Inclusive Design Research Centre. Philosophy. https://idrc.ocadu.ca/about/philosophy/. Accessed 16 Apr. 2023.

Kim, Theodore. “Self-Driving-Car Algorithms May Have a Racism Problem.” LA Times, 7 Oct. 2021, https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-10-07/op-ed-ai-flaws-could-make-your-next-car-racist.

Lewis, Sarah. “The Racial Bias Built Into Photography .” The New York Times, 31 May 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/lens/sarah-lewis-racial-bias-photography.html.

Mercuriali, Silvia. “Swimming Home.” Silviamercuriali.Com, Oct. 2020, https://www.silviamercuriali.com/newproduction.

Pietrzak-Franger, Monika, et al. “Editorial: Presence and Precarity in (Post-)Pandemic Theatre and Performance.” Theatre Research International, vol. 48, no. 1, Cambridge University Press, 1 Mar. 2023, pp. 2–8, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0307883322000360.

Spatz, Ben. “Embodied Research: A Methodology.” Liminalities: A Journal of Performance Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, 2017, http://liminalities.net/13-2/embodied.pdf.

—. “Embodiment as First Affordance: Tinkering, Tuning, Tracking.” Performance Philosophy, vol. 2, no. 2, Jan. 2017, pp. 257–71, https://doi.org/10.21476/pp.2017.2261.

Wooden, Isaiah Matthew. “Shadows, Acts, and Radical Presence.” Theater, vol. 44, no. 3, 2014, pp. 66–73, https://doi.org/10.1215/01610775-2714598.