Women’s subjectivity in the mirror of non-classical stage dance of 20th and 21st centuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article considers how the concept of woman’s subjectivity brought into focus in feminist critics \nof the 20th century was evoked in non-classical dance of the 20th and 21st centuries. The authors’ \ngoal is to prove that artistic experiences of modern dance, followed by contemporary dance, became \nthe productive form of woman’s writing, the most fruitful “location” where woman’s subjectivity \nwas manifested, from the feminist theorists’ point of view. The authors saw their principal task as \nexamining the history of the interest that outstanding choreographers of the 20th century developed \nin seeking woman’s subjectivity “buried” in the body. The methodological frameworks integrated \nhistorical and typological, philosophical, culturological, deconstructive, and gender analyses. The \narticle distinguishes several major trends, they are: the Delsarte’s American studies of expressive \nbody acting of the suffragist epoch (Loïe Fuller, Isadora Duncan, Mod Allan), German expressionist \ndance, American modern dance and the Russian rhythmic and plastic dance of the first half of the \n20th century (Marie Wiegmann, Martha Graham); the European Dance Theatre movement of the \n1970s, that was the period of the second wave of feminism (Pina Bausch). It is stated that at the \nclose of the 20th century and the early 21st century the brightest examples of the discussed theme are \nthe artistic works deconstructing the concept of “woman’s subjectivity”. The analysis of the world \nfamous performance “Co(te)lette” made by Anna van den Broek, a Dutch choreographer, presents a \nclear illustration of this observation. Then, using the example of creative works by Marie Chouinard \n(Canada), Mats Ek (Sweden), Matthew Bourne (Great Britain), the authors show how the plastic \ndiscourse of contemporary dance is gradually transferred from the area of feminist rhetoric to the \nfield studying various gender perversions. In conclusion, as the authors stance, the example of Ivo \nDimchev performances demonstrates that in contemporary dance the theme of woman’s subjectivity \nblurs and the attention focuses on the man with “strange’ (queer) gender identity, with floating \nunstable uncertain feeling of belonging to being. Refs 19.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".