MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783415496 · doi:10.1353/dtc.2017.0031

The Oxford Handbook of Dance and Theater ed. by Nadine George-Graves

2017· article· en· W2783415496 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ariel Nereson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of dramatic theory and criticism · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDiversity and Impact of Dance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDanceGeorge (robot)Performative utteranceScholarshipPerforming artsDisciplineThe artsArt historyArtHistoryVisual artsSociologyAestheticsLawSocial sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Oxford Handbook of Dance and Theater ed. by Nadine George-Graves Ariel Nereson The Oxford Handbook of Dance and Theater. Edited by Nadine George-Graves. Oxford UP, 2015. Cloth $175.00. 1021 pages. Focused, sustained attention to how distinctions between dance and theatre clarify or obfuscate disciplinary boundaries is overdue, as these disciplines adjust to interdisciplinary research trajectories and initiatives across the higher education landscape, particularly in the United States. Artistic practices have long been "postdramatic"; so too do our scholarship and teaching reflect and generate an intermixing of critical approaches and aesthetics across performance genres. Yet unproductive silos continue to isolate scholars and artists considered, as Nadine George-Graves terms them in her introduction to the substantial and excellent Oxford Handbook of Dance and Theater, "too dance for theater, too theater for dance" (1). George-Graves provocatively proposes that thinking and doing across dance and theatre may in fact be disciplinary rather than interdisciplinary, if we are to conceptualize, as this collection does, the discipline of embodied performing arts in terms of "performative embodiment as a negotiation of power dynamics" (5). Although the entire collection is well worth exploring and has much to offer to scholars, teachers, and practitioners alike, space limitations preclude reference to many of the forty-four contributors by name. Instead, I reference especially compelling chapters from a range of scholarly concerns. George-Graves has divided this behemoth into ten sections: "In Theory/In Practice," "Genus (Parts I and II)," "Historiographical Presence and Absence," "Place, Space, and Landscape," "Affect, Somatics, and Cognition," "Unruly Bodies," "Biopolitics," "National Scales and Mass Movements," and "Infection." One of the collection's strengths is its deliberately global and temporal scope; chapters range from classical Rome to the contemporary moment, and address a remarkably global set of sites. Its organization by thematic concern welcomes a capacious range of scholarly expertise, while [End Page 140] avoiding disciplinary divides. For example, "Biopolitics" includes research on Chinese opera (Daphne Lei), Nicaraguan dance drama (E.J. Westlake), Afro-Puerto Rican bomba (Jade Y. Power-Sotomayor), and the Lindy Hop in Harlem nightclubs (William Given). But in a collection this large, there are many more resonances, groupings, and tensions available for the reader and, due to its largely rigorous, engrossing contents, picking your way through at random will also not disappoint. One of George-Graves's most timely correctives is her claim that though "the genre buzz around contemporary performance may lead one to believe that this is a historic moment of convergence," in actuality "dance and theater have met in many important ways historically and globally…there are aesthetics that not only resist the separation between dance and theater but also never accepted it" (3). Erika T. Lin examines one such historical moment, Morris dancing within the 1621 drama The Witch of Edmonton, via its contemporary understanding of dance and theatre as interanimating in "festive performance" (336). V.K. Preston's analysis of the "first" ballet, Balthazar de Beaujoyeulx's 1582 Balet comique de la Royne, is a detailed, compelling example of how we might approach the archive, having discarded disciplinary distinctions, offering the energizing question, "[w]hat do we make of unfamiliar notions of performance and performativity in the historical past—ones whose conceptions of doing defamiliarize media in the present?" (57). Unfamiliar notions of performance in the past can become so as a result of forgetting, erasure, or both. Odai Johnson's analysis of fourth century Roman mimes (whose art blends dance and theatre) deals with a rising Christianity's forceful erasure of the pagan memories housed in mimes' "bodysites" (325), whereas Thomas Postlewait's historiographical exploration of the dwarf masque performer Jeffrey Hudson places responsibility for Hudson's erasure squarely on theatre historians. Postlewait persuasively claims that Hudson's dwarfism has allowed scholars to "tur[n] away from him because we can see and identify him without difficulty," thus "confin[ing] Hudson within the 'embodied' categories of dwarf, freak, amateur, and child performer" (626-627). Contributions by Marlis Schweitzer ("Salomania"), Lisa Doolittle and Anne Flynn (indigenous Canadian dance in the colonial period), and Anita Gonzalez (nineteenth-century transatlantic maritime performance), among others, further elucidate the unfamiliarity of the past's performances, and...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of dramatic theory and criticismSame topicDiversity and Impact of DanceFrench-language works237,207