Ana Sánchez-Colberg page

For information and visuals on Ana's work with Theatre enCorps and other projects follow links at the bottom of this page. 




18 January 2011
7:30 a.m. Second cup of coffee, gathering my thoughts before the first session: 
Nothing to do with languages, nothing to do with sight…. a recurrent working premise. 

To start ‘from the body’ (departure and destination, Lefebvre again and again and again). This instinct to find a creative and pedagogical methodology that operates from notions of ‘whole’ and ‘integrated' without falling into mystical hocus-pocus traps. Understanding of subjects as singularities within a constellation of pluralities (implicated and complicated I once said)... outspokenly and blatantly rejecting the pervading discourse that renders me a stranger to myself, an – other never to be known (as a lack, not as a dynamic fluctuating ‘being’). Basta, time to know, to commit to the search, to accept my inter-independency in the world.  It is exhausting to be brave.  To find words not bound to Western male nihilistic, death ridden myths, of voids and destruction, of collateral damages and unreachable others, of the lone suffering, egocentric genius wolf.  Needy creatures.  Shoot them. This desire (not need- but  desire, then again the line separating need and desire is at times indissoluble)  to touch and be touched metaphorically and actually, physically, emotionally, intellectually as well by the way...

So how does one begin with touch...?  I re read the English manuscript of the Patras essay (will it ever be disseminated, talk about power freaks at the University holding back knowledge as opposed to ensuring its flow, by the time the Greek version gets published who cares about what was said in 2009, but the philologists have to show their power of language over the dancers) as well as the writings on the Dream Project and revisit all the thoughts that support my evolving method of practice.  Key issues resurface as relevant to this here, now.
Language exists outside of the body, only touch engages the whole body (On Touching, Derrida on Nancy)
Whereas language and sight frame, capture, freeze, only touch must remain active to remain ‘touch-ing’, it is a constant active intentionality-feedback loop, ever changing, ever propositional.   
This intentionality –importantly- distinguishes touch from mere ‘contact’, this  will be significant to differentiate my praxis from forms of movement and choreography in Contact Improvisation 
Touch cannot become possession, as to posses is to capture and to capture and freeze requires touch to stop. 
Therefore touch could lead us away from a politics of power and subject formation on the basis of ‘ownership’ and commodities exchanges. 
 Touch presupposes a constant exchange between touch and being touched, I just think Merleau Ponty was wrong in calling it a schism (ahh again all that talk about lack and voids), it is a rather an  erotic dynamic (Susan Sontag comes to mind), within without, the skin of touch container of what is ‘in’ and boundary of what lies ‘out’. 
Touch gives quality (by means of texture) to the lived situated-ness (Van Mannen and Ratcliffe). 
In touch every second is situation specific, a constant dealing with alternatives, there is no time to distance oneself from the ‘event’ (Me, Implicated and Complicated writings). 
From touch to ‘tact’:  sensitivity to ‘doing the right thing’ (Van Mannen):  could this suggest a different kind of judgement within choreographic /creative/performance processes? 
How can the ‘silent’ tacit knowledge of touch transfer to propositional discourse allowing us to experience and think from the experience, not impose a ‘reading’ of the experience?.  How can this transfer be such that the discourse remains attached, touching the subject that generated the ‘knowledge’?  This would necessitate that artists commit to finding a (rigorous) voice of touch again Nancy and Cavarero may be helpful here. ...and why I have asked all to keep notebooks handy at the margins of the stage...
These thoughts support to aims of the sessions. The first, the focus of the first session, to explore new modes of engaging with ‘the body in motion’ by considering motion in and motion through touch (as an actuality not a metaphor).  How would this come to bear upon known conventions of choreographic processes stemming from this (memory, repetition, presence, form, shape, dramaturgy, focus, awareness, centring, concentration, performance to high level skills)?   The second, the planned focus of day two:  how can the immediacy of touch as a choreographic system not be lost within the receptive distance of the public performance?  How can choreographic touch become a sustainable aesthetic of the stage?  Does the scale of the stage and its ‘expository’ quality inevitably lead to this endeavour being doomed from the start?  Can touch be subsumed within what Arendt (see the An(n)a Annotated essay, link below) considers intentional action though which human become ‘exposed’ beings, or does touch ‘die’ in the process of exposition?

No transport strike today.

12.00 midday. The first session. Bodies Touching.  
All here. It seems Giorgos will not make it after all, all women (again).  I begin by asking them all to lie back and become aware first of contact of the body on the ground.  To notice how the various weights and proportions of the body create areas of difference, not all points of contact ‘feel’ the same as the sensation of weight differs.  Therefore, I ask them to focus on the body as a landscape of three dimensional contours, able to shape the ground underneath – which we probably are doing albeit it in an almost infinitesimal and unperceivable degree, I am sure that the floor underneath is no longer flat  (we cant see it, but a structural engineer I am sure would be able to tell).  Body as a cohesive landscape/contour, not a structural set of parts.  Body whole first, dimensional (true) but whole, before it is partitioned.  I ask them to try and expand how much sense information they are able to simultaneously focus upon.  Major body parts, like hips and shoulders, head will want to dominate, allow focus to embrace the lighter areas, of fingers, back of the heels, tip of the fingers.... (tacit knowledge can be gradually acquired, it is a skill that can ‘grow, see Haptic Senses in Creative Processes link below).  
Corpus, anatomy. One must not consider the anatomy of dissection, the dialectical dismembering of organs and functions, but rather the anatomy of configurations, of shapes – one should call them states of the body, ways of being in the world, demeanours, respirations, gaits, pelts, curling, masses...Bodies are fist masses, masses offered without anything to articulate, without anything to add to them (Jean Luc Nancy, Corpus, in The Birth to Presence, 1993, p. 197)
...Body would then first be the experience of its own weight (of its matter, its mass, its pulps, its grains, its gaping, its mole, its molecule, its turf, its turgidity, its fibre, its juice, its invagination, its volume...But here the experience would be the weighing itself, without being weighted or measured by anything (Ibid, p. 200)
An aside: My continuing work evolving Labananalysis (effort and choreutics) as a ‘ grounding’ methodology seems to be affirmed by Nancy.

We move on to a shift of focus from the perception of ‘contact’ to ‘touch’.  Touch requires the expenditure of energy, touch has ‘tension’ in as much as ‘pressing’ onto skin  (a shift of weight) needs to happen. Therefore it becomes intentional ‘motion’, although it may not have a ‘movement structure'. This is an important distinction (motion in space without immediately being hi-jacked by the writerly). Furthermore, at its point of origin, space takes precedent, there is no flow of movement in time, there is a sending an receiving of energy in ‘place’;  touch as motional situated-ness,  the whole body being in a particular state/of place.  

However the task has evolving stages. I ask them to use touch to shift the contours of the ‘total’ landscape, noticing emergent form as sense experience.  The process should take them to sitting.  I notice a shift in focus, the material is beautiful movement, but there are no ‘steps’, interestingly contrary to my expectations, it is quite dynamic in time,  it does not go into the suspended ‘tai chi’ mode that happens so much when dancers improvise.  The shifts and changes of touch, creating shifts and changes of body mass, create weight phrasing, effort rhythm. Most have their eyes closed; I notice variety of movement, much more interesting than if I have asked them to ‘create’ movement.  My eye is drawn to microcosms within the bodies, tension in fingers, necks, back surfaces, inner areas normally hidden by the ‘dance codes’. Movement is not coming from a place of habit (the problem with the way in which most choreographic tasks are set,  we end up merely reconstituting the known, as opposed to finding the new), but from ‘search’, the task is being researched. They are ‘engaged’ in a continuous flow, no sign of the frustration, I don’t like what I am doing, cant think of what to do, is this good dancing and ‘judgement’ that you see when dancers are given a task to improvise and ‘create’ movement.

When they all come to sitting I ask them to open their eyes, and without closing their eyes, retreat in their mind’s eye, walk backwards into the corridor of perception, retreat, notice what happens to the sense of the body as the result of the change of attention to space (the real definitions of Laban’s indirect space within the effort continuum, it s does not mean a bendy shape, but whether one is energetically here, or not).Then I ask them to slowly ‘come back’, to direct the focus to a mid-range focal point, then to the periphery, but whilst doing all this not letting go of the sense of here/now...how can I perceive the outside without losing myself in background.  How does my view of outside remains connected to my tactile experience of my body in space. We may be refining issues of foreground/background perception here, and we may actually be entering into a counter proposal to Sartre’s object-subject duality.   I clap and say SNAP!  very loudly, on purpose, they all jump, the tension is lost, bodies soften, everyone smiles....

Without talking about it I ask them to try and go through the journey again. I don’t want them to remember elements, but rather, like going back to a journey that you have made once, to revisit trying to establish the sense-experience-memory, a process of re-establishing the moment of experience, not trying to remember discreet movements, recognise the form through touch, not vision.  I ask them to include in their journey the ‘walk through the corridor’, what happens when you have to ‘let go’, the break of the moment of bliss (and idea present in John-Paul's page, see his first entry).
...touching is the thought of the limit.  To touch is to be at the limit, touching is being at the limit – and this is indeed being itself, absolute being.  If there is something rather than nothing, it is because there is this limit made body, these bodies made limit, and exposed by their limits.  Absolutely.  (Ibid, p. 206).
From my viewer perspective I am surprised by the degree of recognisable similarities between what had happened before and what is happening now, yet it has not lost the freshness of the concentration that was so mesmerizing (almost seductive) of the viewing of the first exploration.   My ‘journey’ as an outside viewer is equally marked by knowing and not knowing, my viewing of the act of touch remains active, no better still, is being forced/compelled/proposed to remain active by the bodies in front of me (a way forward with the audience, how do we keep them engaged?).   After two of three re-visits, I ask them to sit still and through the pervading sense of the touch experience see themselves from outside, see the ‘solo’ moment within the mind’s eye.  How can sense-touch create visual ‘knowing’?
...a portrait touches.  What touches is something that is borne to surface from out of an intimacy...but that it pulls and draws (this is the semantic and etymological sense of the word) in that it extracts something, an intimacy, a force... image is this pressure, this animation and emotion.  It is therefore not a representation:  it is an imprint of this intimacy of its passion (of its motion, its agitation, its tension, its passivity).  It is the movement of the imprint, the stroke that marks the surface, the hollowing out and pressing up of this surface, of its substance....the image touches me, and, thus touched and drawn by it and into it, I get involved, not to say mixed up in it...(Jean Luc Nancy, The Ground of the Image,  2005, p. 4, 7).
My viewing does not make objects out of them, it does not 'alienate them' from me (sorry Sartre, you got it wrong, he probably never moved, judging by the pictures I have seen), I am implicated, as Nancy says 'mixed up in it' (what Benjamin used to say, an art work should bring me to it, not bring the art work to me, very badly paraphrased).  After this task  I shift modes, and I revisit the starting task of the duet ‘We Implicated and Complicated’ as a way to continue to unpick the complexity of touch.  Touch within me is actually quite straight forward, but touch as an issue of my co-existance with and for another (Nancy again) is a totally different matter.   Two bodies facing each other, remaining vertical, this is not about contact improvisation but about trying to touch each others whole body and see motion that happens as a consequence. In the same way that touching ground as a single body lead to movement (as changes in degrees of touch will generate weight changes that will lead to motion), touching another body will not lead to a stop, on the contrary, to insist in touching generates fluctuations across the two bodies that will create motion (again quite dynamically varied).  There is more potential to ‘fail’ (fall) as the bodies have two sets of conditions, one internal (my body touching – of which I am in ‘control’ in term of my intention to touch) and one external imposed by the other whose touch may change my intention from to touch to being touched, and if you add verticality (as opposed to horizontality -too obvious)  you have created a dynamic 'system'.  I have to remind them,  it is not to move but to touch.  If a limb or a body part is momentarily not touching, it is acknowledging that it has left touch but immediately seeks to re-establish to touch.   After awhile I ask them to end by ‘letting go of touch’ which means letting go of the other, and to experience that change of state (Milos and I used to call it the fall from paradise, we never wanted to stop, people assumed we where a couple, that shows how alienated we have become to touch beyond sexuality).
The body enjoys being touched.  It enjoys being squeezed, weighed, thought by other bodies, and being what squeezes, weighs and thinks other bodies...  Touching one another with their mutual weights, bodies do not become undone, nor do they dissolve into other bodies, nor do they fuse with a spirit – this is what makes them properly speaking bodies.  This joy is senseless...This body no longer has any members if members are the functional parts of the whole.  Here each part is a whole, and there is never any whole.  Nothing ever becomes the sum or the system of the corpus.  A lip, a finger, a breast, a strand of hair are the temporary and agitated whole of a joy that is each time temporary, in a hurry to enjoy again and elsewhere.  This elsewhere is all over the body, in the body of all the parts, and in all other bodies.... (Nancy, 1993, p. 203).
I ask them to go to their notebooks to write, to find a language.  After all this, we finally sit down to speak.

Thoughts, comments, ideas emerged:

‘Memory’ or rather remembering was not difficult at all.  Considering how much is forgotten in conventional choreographic improvisation we may be on to something interesting here.  My proposal is that the ‘intensity’ of the experience does actually imprint into memory quicker than when we are trying to remember ‘steps’ as a ‘vocabulary strung together’.  Repetition towards intensification, not repetition towards 'erasure'the common discourse of Warhol and Forsythe. I don’t have the reference now but tis a well documented scientific principle that memory is linked to quality not quantity of repetition (I expand on this on the English version of the Patras paper).  Yet we insist on dull repetition as the guiding method to ‘remember’ and work on creating dance (as well as teaching technique).  Because motion had a qualitative difference from the outset its distinctiveness made it ‘memorable’, every micro moment this and not another, 'experientially explicit' (think of Proust's Au Recherche du Temps Perdue).  Perhaps we need to create choreographic tasks which demand specificity of motional experience from the outset, as opposed to the conventional lets make a undistinguishable ‘frame’ and then we add on the quality as if decorating a cake.  To remember an undistinguished frame is almost impossible, so we use videos which makes us work from outside and the movement experience lacks ‘fullness’.

Significantly the ‘judgement’ that prevents creative exploration does not enter into the rehearsal period as there is no right or wrong when what you are engaged with is a process of exploration not one of re-production (by which there is an idea(l) which makes what takes place either right or wrong).

There was a lot of discussion about ‘focus’,‘concentration’, ‘awareness’ and how these seemed to be connected to a sense of presence. There was a particularly interesting debate about being able to focus ‘outside’ and still retain a sense of ‘here’ (Evgenia), as well as its counterpoint, to be able to have a very strong internal focus without disappearing from the outside world (Vitoria). Again, it is a skill that can be developed, but tasks need to be created that acknowledge this within what we re asking dancers ‘to do’.

Some commented how through ‘touch’ they began to have a vision of the material as if ‘seen from outside’.  I introduced Gibson’s notion of auricular and haptic perception and how touch leads to cognition of form even if there is no sight. Touch informed vision, we are getting there.

Interestingly we discussed that the task asks them to ‘close’ options, to remain loyal to the sense experience, to deepen what had already been discovered and not simply continue to improvise  ad infinitum. ‘Digging into the task, not merely stating a task’ is for me an important aspect of my choreographic work, to approach choreographic process by one of carful selection of very definite elements, see how the selection of these elements sets up conditions, see what these conditions/elements interacting suggest, exhaust their potential and them ...swoosh... there is a critical jump in probabilities of ‘the new’, ‘creativity’ begins.  So much choreography stops at merely ‘stating’ a task/theme.  Tasks should lead to levels/strata of explorations, to dimensional investigation, one task setting up the conditions for the emergence of the next task. Arguably there are at least three layers in any task:  selection of the elements of the task, getting to know what the elements suggest  ‘as they are known’, exploration of what is beyond the known.  This moves us away from making choreography by stringing ‘stated’ ideas unified by a ‘common theme’.  We need to teach young choreographers the idea of ‘elaboration’. But this takes time.

This leads to quite an extended discussion of how to set tasks, how to find tasks in relation to any given ‘theme’.  I elucidate though reference to two very different processes Futur/Perfekt (1998-2002, see essay Futur/Perfekt, or dance abut everything and the kitchen sink, in Dance and the Performative, 2002, can be retrieved as manuscript from www.theatreencorps.com), where ‘memory and the city’ was a theme, and the way in which many tasks revealed different consequences of following/ elaborating upon the theme. I also spoke about Family Portraits (1993-1996), which began from the microcosm of a single gesture (the broken lullaby), and then the theme evolved from the exploration of what was contained within ‘the form’. We agreed that this will be a running question to consider throughout the whole Lab as it was central to the on-going development of the individual projects.

Towards the end we began to discuss issues of how emerging ‘forms’ become tangible, what is made manifest, how it suggests, what may be possible a ‘work’. Anthii in particular said she already has an ‘image’ for something to develop.  The work for Thursday is set.  We will work on ‘tangibility’, how do we through the choreographic work ‘touch each other’, and what implications does this have to the audience-work dyad?  I proposed that I would attempt to elucidate this driving idea of my work of choreography as a ‘forming of experience’, not the experience of form... and how in this I purposely want to move away from the reductive straight-jacket of linguistics, writing of space and readings of dances (basically against the manner in which dance scholarship from Fraleigh to Susan Foster to Lepecki, to Adshead,  Preston-Dunlop and a few more have created a non-sensical discourse of dance).

A good session.

In the changing room Mannouela comments that she was thinking, was engaged by the way I was trying to move away from dualistic dichotomies in a manner which is akin to Ancient Greek thought.  I laughed, maybe this is why I had to end up here after all.  Singularities and pluralities, universals and particulars, atomic and cosmic. One and the same...

A good day.


20 January 2011
 5.00pm  Ambelokipi, usual cafe

I left the flat at 11.05, five minutes later than normal.  Just missed a trolley on Patision.  No worries there will soon be a  next one. Patision is suddenly very empty of any visible means of public transport. Oh no!!!!...so I  text Kiriakos, Olga and Eva (all of whom are also heading towards the studio) : “is there a strike..?”  Kiriakos answers back “not according to the website...” OK, so it is just a matter of waiting for a bit longer...It is now 11.25, a new text comes in. It is Kiriakos: “now there seems to be a strike, from 11.00 until 3.30pm today...” Damn, I should have ran to that last trolley. It is now too late to start walking, I don't want to be late, but I have zero cash in my purse, and the bank is a walk away. So much for trying to plan the day. I walk to the bank, get money, and hail a cab (quite easily, which is rare...). Arrive at Sigrou-Fix at 11.45, not late, but less seven euros that I don't really have to spare.

'Choreographing the city' is not something easily done in Athens. Improvisation does not quite aptly apply either, we improvise, but we seem to be in very little control of the variables that would give us a sense of 'structured improvisation'. We seem to be more in a state of randomness.  In time some sense will come out of all this but we are still too immersed, lacking the necessary distance that Cavarero suggests in Narrative and Selfhood (2002) is necessary to perceive that there is a pattern, a form, a narration, a destiny (in the philosophical sense of the word, not religious) what allows us to say “this is me, here, now”, and to recognise it in the others. Who I am to myself and what I am to others. Time to see -perhaps a better word is time to live- what we are to each other.  

By the time I get to the studio the peaceful inner calm which I had when at home sipping my coffee has been wiped out. I am miles per hour, adrenalin has taken over. Kiriakos arrives on his bike (should I even contemplate cycling?  I used to in London...). I let out one of my well known rants (they are funny but still a rant!). Kiriakos lets me talk, and then he laughs, says something funny and suddenly I am calm again....pressure hissing away like when you slowly take the lid off the pressure cooker...Choose your collaborators well (!). I keep thinking about the Franco quote and my challenge to him persists...when is dance not political, in the real sense of the work, polis, me and the city, me and world, a world in and with others? 

12.00pm..  Second session, (In)tangibility.  I wrote that as a challenge to someone once.  How do we make the intangible tangible.

We all make it, minus Vitoria, who calls later to say she was out of Athens and because of the strike did not make it back in until the afternoon.  (We will meet for a coffee to catch up before the sessions with John Paul begin). I explain that the session will have two focusses. The first to deal with the issues/questions that came out of Tuesday, in particular how to make 'concrete' the choreographic material from the improvisations on 'contours'. What 'judgement' do we apply to 'transform' the material from 'sense experience' to communicable/tangible form?. We are pursuing possibilities that may emerge from the material, not imposing the material to a pre-known theme. The material may remain un-fixed, what becomes clarified is the 'system' that leads to the reiteration of tangible material. This is more complex, as you need to consider the detail of what the material contains (what is 'is', and that is found through its 'performance') and from that, what it 'suggests'. For the second part of the session we will deal with the question of 'setting tasks', 'setting a process'. I want to ensure that by asking them to create a task that evolves from my tasks, they begin to make decisions about shaping their own process, not merely continue to explore choreography through mine. We want to consider the statement that I made in Anna Annotated: A Critical Journey (2004) about choreography being an act held between performers:  how can that define a practical choreographic treatment (which also affects how you enter into 'performance'). I ask them not to fall into the habit of 'sequencing', but to keep the transformation into the tangible as a 'lived' process (I acknowledge the awkwardness of that statement, particularly given the inheritance left by Fraleigh's use of the term).  

There is not much more to add as I don't necessarily want to describe in words the resulting material.  What's the point? But some interesting results came up. We begin to acknowledge that there is a common 'language' emerging, as Michael Klien says in his essay, dancers do talk, the talk creates language worlds...

3.15  we have finished, Kiriakos and I go for another 'planning coffee', as we walk down to our usual cafe in Sigrou-Fix trolleys are running.

* * *
About Ana Sánchez-Colberg

Ana Sanchez-Colberg, choreographer and dancer, artistic director of Theatre enCorps with whom she has been producing innovative dancetheatre since its début performances in 1989. The company has gained an international reputation for producing dancetheatre that is novel and distinct. Sanchez-Colberg and Theatre enCorps have been the recipients of numerous awards including a Fellowship from the Swedish Council, various National Endowment for the Arts Awards, Bonnie Bird Choreography Award (UK) and Performing Rights Society/British Council Award. The debut choreographic work"Alice, Alice, Alice are you a child or a teetotter" premiered at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival before touring the UK. Critics described the work as "imaginative and bold...trenchantly performed" (Time Out, London). This was followed by the "spirited solo" Fragments Discourse on Love(1991-1992). The work for five male dancers En Viva Voz (1996-1996) was performed at The Place Theatre in London and received a Bonie Bird Choreography Award in 1997. On that year she created"Now we are no longer who we were then..." a dance theatre piece with new media loosely based on Jean Cocteu's Jeune Homme et la Mort. She directed, choreographed and performed in Futur/Perfekt (1998-2002) an international collaborative project exploring the relationship between cities and history. The project began in Berlin in 1998 and was performed in the USA, Latin America and Europe with support from London Arts Board and the British Council. In 2004 with support from the Austrian Cultural Forum and the Theatre Museum Vienna, she choreographed Mahler's Fifths (2004-2006) . The piece was awarded a Creative Collaboration Award from PRS for its innovative use of live music in performance. This was followed by Killing Charity with director Niall Rea in 2004. In 2005-2006 she created Holds No Memory a collaboration with Swedish choreographer Efva Lilja with support from Arts Council England, The Place Choreodrome, and the Jerwood pace. In 2007 under the auspices of an artistic residency at the University Dance and Circus Stockholm she produced We, Implicated and Complicated which toured internationally until 2008. In September 2010 she collaborated with composer Kiriakos Spirou in the research project 45,46, 47 The Unbearable, which was performed at Kinitiras Studio and Residency Centre, Athens. The work is currently under a second stage of development.

Ms Sanchez-Colberg has worked with many international companies including four commissioned works for Ballet Concierto de Puerto Rico (PR), Ballets des Staattheater Cottbus (De), Andanza (PR) and Foreign Bodies (UK).

She is a regular teacher in many international settings including Tanzwochen Wien, International Festival of Theatre in Bogota Colombia, Festival Barranquilla Nueva Danza, Helsinki Theatre Academy, and White Oaks Project. She was course leader of the BA (Hons) Dance Theatre at LABAN (1993-1998) and course leader of the MA Dance Theatre at Laban (2002-2005). She directed the MA Performance Practices and Research at Central School of Speech and Drama, London from 2005-2008 and was course leader of the PhD degrees from 2006-2008. She is currently Professor of Choreography and Composition at the University of Dance and Circus, Stockholm and works as a freelance choreographer and dancer.

Links

To view video of Mahler's fifths, duet , click here
To view video of We Implicated and Complicated, duet click here

for other visuals visit the company's visual archive at:  www.theatreencorps.blogspot.com or  click here

Resources


A. Sánchez-Colberg, Narrating the Un-narratable: We Implicated and Complicated: towards a semiotics of touch? Dance and Narrativity One Day Conference, University of Patras, Greece 27th May 2009, (download from this website)






 A. Sánchez-Colberg, An(n)a Annotated: a Critical Journey; in L.Rouhiainen et al (ed.) The same difference? Ethical and Political Perspectives on Dance, Theatre Academy, Helsinki, 2004. (on Rapidshare)








Gibson, James. J (1968). The Senses Considered As Perceptual Systems. Allen & Unwin.