{"id":297,"date":"2019-10-01T19:29:21","date_gmt":"2019-10-01T19:29:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/?p=297"},"modified":"2022-10-15T19:29:36","modified_gmt":"2022-10-15T19:29:36","slug":"octobre-2019-ecologies-of-media-of-mind-toward-a-dialectics-of-embodiment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/octobre-2019-ecologies-of-media-of-mind-toward-a-dialectics-of-embodiment\/","title":{"rendered":"Octobre 2019 &#8211; Ecologies of Media of Mind: Toward a Dialectics of Embodiment"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Despite being heavily indebted to electronic mediation, the dramatic situation created in contemporary multi-media theatre productions is still performed \u201clive\u201d on stage.\u00a0 If we take into account its relatively stable requirements of an audience and a set duration, we could argue that the theatrical medium represents a heuristic platform to study associative thinking.\u00a0 The stage functions as an interface, facilitating co-presence across physical, technical, and referential boundaries.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p>Contemporary critical discourses tend to consider the \u201clive\u201d body in performance as a cultural and biological biotope \u2013 a construction site for the assemblage of identity and consisting of multiple layers of what Wolf-Dieter Ernst has termed \u201canthropological ballast\u201d (2012). From this perspective theatre can play an additional role, as pivotal platform of signification, arising from the invitation it extends from performer to spectator to connect via conscious participation in a \u201clive\u201d event.\u00a0 If accepted, the cognitive communion that ensues will remind all participants of its disruptive constructedness, throughout the event\u2019s duration (see also Rayner, 2002). As recently demonstrated by N. Katherine Hayles, the kind of embodied cognition activated by \u201clive\u201d performers in an intermedial setting \u201cprovides the basis for dynamic interactions with the tools it helps to bring into being\u201d (2012).\u00a0 This paper will refer to dramaturge\/director John Jesurun\u2019s so-called \u201cpieces in spaces\u201d (1987) \u2013 i.e. stage plays where the live, the fictionalized, and the mediatized become blurred in an orgy of analogies across media and genres \u2013 to highlight what anthropologist Bradd Shore calls our mind\u2019s \u201cecological inclination\u201d to fuse a boundless range of unrelated impulses while blurring boundaries of all kinds (1996).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed aligncenter is-type-video is-provider-vimeo wp-block-embed-vimeo wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"CHANG IN A VOID MOON-TRAILER (2014)\" src=\"https:\/\/player.vimeo.com\/video\/87951481?h=c30c8d9647&amp;dnt=1&amp;app_id=122963\" width=\"500\" height=\"281\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"autoplay; fullscreen; picture-in-picture\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe>\n<\/div><figcaption>John Jesurun<br>Chang In A Void Moon<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Weary of endlessly scavenging for funding, would-be independent filmmaker John Jesurun decided one day in the early 1980s to make films without using a camera and \u201cLet the audience be the camera\u201d instead. (Goldberg, 1989, p. 74-76)Pragmatic\u00a0<em>par excellence<\/em>, this new approach effectively launched the career of one of multimedia theater\u2019s most inventive innovators, while generating a body of work characteristically concerned with reconciling the apparently irreconcilable. With his main theme of exploring the rampant technologization of contemporary culture and its effects on consciousness and communication alike, Jesurun\u2019s artistic practice challenges one-dimensional interpretations while simultaneously underscoring the processes that constitute our perception. One is struck first by the artist\u2019s incessant interplay with media of all kinds, and next by his texts\u2019 pervasive multilingualism. And yet, as Hans-Thies Lehmann once observed, scenography and dramaturgy can only meaningfully meet via the performer\u2019s\u00a0<em>body.<\/em> (Lehmann, 2001, p. 423)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>If we borrow Duke Ellington\u2019s favorite phrase, describing his music as \u201cbeyond categories,\u201d (Cerveris, 2003, p. 15)\u00a0John Jesurun\u2019s theater aesthetic could be situated along a paradigm encompassing transgression, fluidity, and blending, moving \u201cbeyond\u201d conceptions of \u201ccategories\u201d and toward what anthropologists Gregory Bateson and Bradd Shore have called an intrinsically\u00a0<em>ecological<\/em>\u00a0inclination. (Bateson, 1996)\u00a0Operating along a logic of connecting dispersed content, Jesurun\u2019s emphasis on the performer\u2019s\u00a0<em>presence<\/em>\u00a0in the here-and-now as a semiological nexus generates a sense of mediatized imbrication of all of the performative event\u2019s constituents. Or, as his long-time\u00a0<em>compagnon de route<\/em>\u00a0Bonnie Marranca has argued in her\u00a0<em>Ecologies of Theater<\/em>\u00a0(1996), an organicist conception of contemporary theater that \u201cinquire[s] into the relationship of mind and spirit\u201d via the aegis of the performers\u2019 biological \u2018liveness.\u2019\u201d (Marranca, 1996)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In what follows, I will pick up the ecological lead, presenting John Jesurun\u2019s inter-medial and inter-relational theater aesthetic as an impetus to what Bateson calls \u201can ecology of mind\u201d (Bateson, 1996, p. 1)\u00a0\u2013 i.e. an alternative way of thinking and creating that eschews distinctions in favor of convergence and all the emancipatory potential this implies. As early as 1986 one of the characters in Jesurun\u2019s \u201cMedia Trilogy\u201d warned spectators that we all \u201chave to realize that [we are] chained\u00a0<em>into<\/em>\u00a0that machine\u201d (Jesurun, 2009, p. 64)\u00a0(emphasis added), imbricated into what Jesurun calls \u201can ongoing process of detours, pitfalls, and discoveries in interpretation and perception [of] a mediated world.\u201d (Mapp, 2012, p. 122)\u00a0Five years later, in\u00a0<em>Blue Heat<\/em>\u00a0(1991), he physically separated players from spectators by leaving the stage empty and relocating the action to the venues\u2019 back rooms, as displayed by various screens in \u201creal time,\u201d thereby forcing his audience to confront theater\u2019s fundamental role as signifying\u00a0<em>interface<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>If performance no longer takes place in the here and now, \u201clive\u201d before an audience, can it still be considered \u201ctheater\u201d? This question immediately begs another one, related to the\u00a0<em>mediation<\/em>\u00a0of \u201clive\u201d content \u2013 a question even harder to answer. We must cue Jesurun\u2019s presumed ecological aesthetic: his is not an approach aiming for answers, but rather for shifting perspectives and re-evaluating possibilities for both artistic creation and for critical thinking from\u00a0<em>within<\/em>\u00a0\u201cthe machine.\u201d As the character Smith from\u00a0<em>Deep Sleep<\/em>explains, \u201cThose are the machines and you are coming\u00a0<em>out<\/em>\u00a0of the machines\u201d (Jesurun, 2009, p. 67)\u00a0(emphasis added). Thus there is no outside to our mediated world \u2013 a Jesurunian appropriation, if you like, of Derrida\u2019s famous quip that \u201cIl n\u2019y a pas de hors-texte.\u201d (Derrida, 1967, p. 158)\u00a0 Jesurun ascribes no value judgment to this, being fully aware of the pointlessness of speaking about \u201cpure\u201d or \u201cessential\u201d unmediated meaning. Technology is part and parcel of our cultural landscape today, and, as confirmed by media theorists Neil Postman and Charles Weingartner in\u00a0<em>Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology<\/em>\u00a0(1993), \u201ctechnological\u00a0<em>change<\/em>\u201d is nothing if not \u201cecological.\u201d (Postman and Weingartner, 1993, p. 18)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Considering the \u201cecological\u201d dimension of technological innovation brings us to Jesurun\u2019s privileged artistic platform: the theater, once described by Peter M. Boenisch as \u201ca semiotic\u00a0<em>practice<\/em>, which incorporates, spatializes and disseminates in sensorial terms (thus:\u00a0<em>performs<\/em>) the contents and cognitive strategies of other media by creating multiple channels, and a multi-media semiotic and sensorial environment.\u201d (Boenisch, 2006, p. 113)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Key to this argument is the almost organic&nbsp;<em>multiplication<\/em>&nbsp;of signifiers and signifying systems that takes place via their interplay in real time. If we also take into account its relatively stable (but not unproblematic) basic requirements of an audience and a set duration, we could argue that theater is a&nbsp;<em>heuristic<\/em>&nbsp;platform for studying the associations and reciprocities it generates, being an&nbsp;<em>interface<\/em>&nbsp;that facilitates co-presence and reflexivity across physical, technical, and referential boundaries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In a Jesurun multiple media production, the continuous interplay of \u201clive\u201d theatrical presence\u00a0<em>incarnates<\/em>\u00a0an \u201coverdetermined\u201d hybrid permanently in flux. Twenty-five years ago, Patrice Pavis argued that the live actor creates a sense of clarity, an ontological foothold of sorts, within the semiotic complexity of multi-media theater productions. (Pavis, 1991, p. 22)\u00a0A decade later, Philip Auslander placed the performer\u2019s live body on a par with technological media in contemporary theater\u2019s process of \u201cmediatization,\u201d whereby old and new media operate in the mediatic system that is the production. (Auslander, 2000, p. 8)\u00a0For live \u201cpresence\u201d on a multi-media theater stage remains inextricably interwoven with the\u00a0<em>relation<\/em>\u00a0between \u201clive\u201d and \u201cmediated,\u201d and thus also with what performance scholars Gabriella Giannachi and Nick Kaye have called \u201cprocesses that expose and utilize the gaps, caesura, and absences\u00a0<em>inherent<\/em>\u00a0to acts of representation\u201d (Giannachi, 2011, p. 26)\u00a0(emphasis added). Their use of \u201cinherent\u201d echoes Jesurun\u2019s ecologically-inspired artistic practice in which the live actor\u2019s performance is embedded in layered and responsive soundscapes, architectonic designs, as well as mediated sets that underscore the actual\u00a0<em>passages<\/em>\u00a0between live, mediated, and recorded channels of address. There are no simplified answers to a complex reality, but a stimulated sense of\u00a0<em>intimacy<\/em>\u00a0with the environment in which we are immersed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>As Baz Kershaw similarly reminds us in his\u00a0<em>Theater Ecology<\/em>\u00a0(2007), the term \u201cecology\u201d references<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>the interrelationships of all the organic and non-organic factors of ecosystems, ranging from the smallest and\/or simplest to the greatest and \/ or most complex. It is also defined as the interrelationships between organisms and their environments, especially when that is understood to imply interdependence between organisms and environments. (Kershaw, 2007, p. 15)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In White Water (1986), the second instalment of his \u201cMedia Trilogy\u201d after Deep Sleep (1986), Jesurun sought to connect cutting-edge technology with the fear that the same technology today is destroying our sense of spirituality. By instilling an \u201cecological\u201d sense of interdependence between film, video, and live actors, he sought to foreground the perspective that technology, in fact, reflects human outreach toward spirituality\u2013a certain longing for the intangible expressed through the tension between humans and machinery \u2013 a tension grounded in the ever-present potential of manipulation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>I include [physicality] as a natural element. Because film and video can be manipulated and manipulate at the same time I have to treat them with some respect. Film and video have their own physical presence beyond the visual images they may represent. There is a tension there between a live and mediated performer but this is also natural. I want that tension to also exist in a real way in the presentation. When live and mediated images communicate verbally a third reality comes into place as a result. (Svich, 2003, p. 45-46)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Third Reality<\/em>\u00a0was made more palpable still in Jesurun\u2019s 1990 production\u00a0<em>Everything That Rises Must Converge<\/em>, where both actors and audience were divided into two groups and separated by a wall nine feet high and forty feet long, which occasionally rotated on its central axis while characters communicated their ostensibly nonsensical multilingual dialogues across the divide through live videos and wireless microphones. When no direct physical connection can be established, we\u00a0<em>entrust<\/em>\u00a0technology with making meaningful our attempts at meaning-making. (Walkenhorst, 2005, p. 84)\u00a0However, the reason that in certain circumstances we may decide (consciously or unconsciously) to \u201ctrust\u201d technology in a performative setting is attributable to its\u00a0<em>embodied<\/em>\u00a0presence on stage. After all, embodied modes of reception and perception do not require verification via logical analysis. The theater presents tangible, living bodies on stage to the living bodies in the audience; performers\u2019 and audiences\u2019 embodied receptiveness is thereby stimulated to facilitate\u00a0<em>affective<\/em>interpretation. Yet when we take into account the stage\u2019s hypermedial capacity to integrate an endless number of technologies, the embodied dimension stretches toward \u201cecological\u201d coalitions of mind, body, and technology. It is a perspective that prompted Philip Auslander to conclude that in the theater there simply can be \u201cno clear-cut ontological distinctions between live forms and mediatized ones.\u201d (Auslander, 1999, p. 7)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Today critical discourses tend to consider the \u201clive\u201d body in performance as a cultural and biological\u00a0<em>biotope<\/em>\u2013 a kind of construction site for the assemblage of identity, consisting of multiple layers of what Wolf-Dieter Ernst has called \u201canthropological ballast.\u201d (Ernst, 2012, p. 15)\u00a0Via the continuous interplay of multiple media on stage, theatrical presence today has become a sort of semiological hybrid permanently in flux. John Jesurun\u2019s multi-media bombardment of our senses seems, paradoxically, primarily\u00a0<em>actor<\/em>-oriented, especially given his rejection of improvisation and his constant admonitions to \u201cdeliver words faster and flatter, faster and flatter.\u201d (Russell, 1996, p. 410) \u00a0Indeed, by turning his actors into \u201cde-psychologised talking heads,\u201d (Lehmann, 2001, p 208)\u00a0he forces his spectators to fill in the blanks. With the actor\u2019s body as interface between the spectator and the cybernetic machine that is the multi-media stage, the very notion of embodiment becomes unstable. Once again, to Jesurun this is something intrinsically positive:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>As a director, I find that the performers are willing to go as far as the language and technology will take them. And as a writer, I am willing to go as far as the performers and technology will take the language. Regardless of the creative outcome, this is a true sharing of intentions and possibilities. (Mapp, 2012, p. 122)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Following Jesurun\u2019s \u201cecological\u201d aesthetic, embodied presence on a multi-media stage represents a type of \u201cmeaning potential\u201d that can only be accessed via the energy exuded from affecting sender and receiver simultaneously. By means of filmic jump-cuts in the narrative progression, the pulsating pace of a video-clip aesthetic, \u201csuper real\u201d \/ un-theatrical conversation tones, soap-opera cliff-hangers, or the generalized presence of pop-cultural references, a Jesurun piece creates a feeling of familiarity in a thoroughly unsettling environment. The extensive reliance on cutting-edge technology, for one, clashes with a recurring focus on biological decay and linguistic elusiveness. His, then, is a self-professed logic of \u201cengag[ing] rather than seduc[ing]\u201d (Bush, 1985, p. 48) audiences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Human perception is a process of constantly decentering and re-centering referential frameworks in response to the stream of new impulses we encounter. The theater can play a heuristic role as a self-reflexive platform of signification via the invitation it extends from performer to spectator to connect through conscious participation in a \u201clive\u201d event. If accepted, the cognitive communion that ensues will remind all participants, for the duration of the event, of its disruptive constructedness. (Rayner, 2002, p. 548) In Jesurun\u2019s relatively recent internet-inspired Firefall (2006 \/ 2010), old-school metatheatrical devices like self-reference and metalepsis abound, but coupled with reflexive statements on the potential evoked by design, and on the essentialism exuded by philosophy, (Jesurun, 2009, p. 178) all aside from a scenography that dramatizes the merging of media into one, uncannily concordant whole. Or, as the character F. (billed as \u201ctry[ing] to find a common ground between the introduction of chaos and the status quo\u201d (Jesurun, 2009, p. 167)) put it, the characters in Jesurun\u2019s production, are all constantly being \u201cre-morphed, re-transmuted into positive, useful objects.\u201d (Jesurun, 2009, p. 194) Earlier in his career, Jesurun used recognizable television- style dramaturgy in Red House (1984) and his \u201cliving film serial\u201d Chang in a Void Moon (1982 \u2013 ongoing), to help engage his audiences into otherwise unfamiliar theater experiments. In his adaptation Faust \/ How I Rose (1996) we find another token of this artist\u2019s constant play with recognition and estrangement, mixing catch phrases from well-known advertising slogans, snippets of poetry, and pop song lyrics with aporetic debates on the nature of the universe, all within a set made up of oversized canvases continually projecting lush and dazzling imagescapes. The sequential fluidity of the images contrasts sharply with the abruptness of both the dialogue and the scene switches. They are all examples of an ecological inclination to engage rather than seduce:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A lot of things bother some people with my work. \u201cYou can\u2019t have this conversation, it means so much and it only lasts two seconds.\u201d But slowly, as you get into the movement of the whole, it\u2019s like watching a plant grow. When you listen to the conversation and the actors are standing there, fine, but once you start switching and add all kinds of conflicting angles, lights \u2013 it even focuses more on the words. It sets up conflicting things and makes the audience think, also, about what is actually happening on stage. (Rentdorff, 1985, p. 8)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The fact that Jesurun addresses scenography as a catalyst for meta-reflexive thinking aligns him with Philip Auslander\u2019s insight that \u201cthe experience of liveness is not limited to performer-audience interactions but refers to a sense of always being connected to other people, of continuous technologically mediated temporal co-presence with others known and unknown.\u201d (Auslander, 2012, p. 6) \u201cMeaning,\u201d it transpires, is not the result of uncovered content, but of a technologically mediated relational engagement prompted by the \u201cco-presence\u201d of human bodies. The tension between technology\u2019s power of affect and the physical presence of actors on stage generates a sense of reflexivity that is \u201cecologically\u201d dialectical. (Sarkis, 1997, p. 29)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>According to Gregory Bateson, this \u201cecologically\u201d dialectical reflexivity links philosophy, technology and bodily presence via the energy exuded from their interplay. (Bateson, 1996, p. 11) It is viscerally experienced as the \u201ctemporary\u201d (Giannachi, 2011, p. 236) product of an embodied cognitive negotiation between conflicting signals and impulses. John Jesurun was once \u201cshocked\u201d when his work was described as \u201cinterdisciplinary\u201d: \u201cI don\u2019t really see the boundaries between one [medium] and the other. It seems natural to me that they should work together. They seem to be part of one another. Creatively they are all interconnected.\u201d (Svich, 2003, p. 46)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Key tenets from embodied cognition postulate that consciousness is produced by the body-mind interface, fuelled by our actions and perceptions, but also by nature, culture, and environmental interactions, rather than by some top-down strategy whereby the mind is directing the body. (Hirose, 2002, p. 289-299) As recently demonstrated by N. Katherine Hayles in her book How We Think: Digital Media and Contemporary Technogenesis (2012), the kind of embodied cognition activated by \u201clive\u201d performers in an inter-medial setting \u201cprovides the basis for dynamic interactions with the tools it helps bring into being\u201d (Hayles, 2012, p. 87) (emphasis added). For Chris Salter, such reasoning confirms Jesurun\u2019s claim that distinctions are delusions, since the \u201csupposedly modern tension between the humanistic body and the dehumanized machine that has so occupied us [is], in reality, a fiction.\u201d (Salter, 2010, p. 276) As I hope this brief introduction to Jesurun\u2019s \u201cecological\u201d aesthetic has shown, man and machine are in a continuous state of becoming, and their interplay on an intermedial theater stage establishes the latter (technology) as a generative platform for a new \u201cecology of mind.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"has-medium-font-size wp-block-heading\">Bibliographie<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-primary-color has-text-color has-small-font-size\">\u2013 Auslander, Philip, \u00abDigital Liveness: A Historico-Philosophical Perspective\u00bb,\u00a0<em>PAJ<\/em>, vol.\u00a034, n<sup>o<\/sup>\u00a03, 2012, p.\u00a03-11.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-primary-color has-text-color has-small-font-size\">\u2013 Auslander, Philip, \u00abLiveness, Mediatization, and Intermedial Performance\u00bb,\u00a0<em>Degr\u00e9s<\/em>, n<sup>o<\/sup>\u00a0101, 2000, p.\u00a01-12.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-primary-color has-text-color has-small-font-size\">\u2013 Auslander, Philip, <em>Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized Culture<\/em>, New York, Routledge, 1999.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-primary-color has-text-color has-small-font-size\">\u2013 Bateson, Gregory,\u00a0<em>Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology<\/em>, Nothvale, Jason Aronson, 1987.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-primary-color has-text-color has-small-font-size\">\u2013 Boenisch, Peter M., \u00abAesthetic Art to Aisthetic Act: Theater, Media, Intermedial Performance\u00bb dans Chapple, Freda et Chiel Kattenbelt,\u00a0<em>Intermediality in Theater and Performance<\/em>, Amsterdam, Rodopi, 2006, p.\u00a0103-116.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-primary-color has-text-color has-small-font-size\">\u2013 Bush, Catherine, \u00abViews From the Top: John Jesurun\u2019s Cinematic Theater\u00bb,\u00a0<em>Theater Crafts<\/em>, vol.\u00a07, n<sup>o<\/sup>\u00a019, 1985, p. 46-49, p.\u00a070-71.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-primary-color has-text-color has-small-font-size\">\u2013 Cerveris, Michael, \u00abIntersection, Crossover and Convergence: Fluidity in Contemporary Arts (A Perspective From the US)\u00bb dans Svich, Caridad,\u00a0<em>Trans-Global Readings: Crossing Theatrical Boundaries<\/em>, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2003, p.\u00a015-25.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-primary-color has-text-color has-small-font-size\">\u2013 Derrida, Jacques,\u00a0<em>De la grammatologie<\/em>, Paris, Minuit, 1967.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-primary-color has-text-color has-small-font-size\">\u2013 Ernst, Wolf-Dieter,\u00a0<em>Der affective Schauspieler: Die Energetik des postdramatischen Theaters<\/em>, Berlin, Theater der Zeit, 2012.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-primary-color has-text-color has-small-font-size\">\u2013 Giannachi, Gabriella et Nick Kaye,\u00a0<em>Performing Presence: Between the Live and the Simulated<\/em>, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2011.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-primary-color has-text-color has-small-font-size\">\u2013 Goldberg, RoseLee, \u00abYou Are A Camera\u00bb,\u00a0<em>Artforum International<\/em>, janvier 1989, p.\u00a074-76.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-primary-color has-text-color has-small-font-size\">\u2013 Hayles, N. Katherine,\u00a0<em>How We Think: Digital Media and Contemporary Technogenesis<\/em>, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2012.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-primary-color has-text-color has-small-font-size\">\u2013 Hirose, Nagoya, \u00abAn Ecological Approach to Embodiment and Cognition\u00bb,\u00a0<em>Cognitive Systems Research<\/em>, vol.\u00a03, n<sup>o<\/sup>\u00a03, 2002, p.\u00a0289-299.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-primary-color has-text-color has-small-font-size\">\u2013 Jesurun, John, \u00abDeep Sleep\u00bb (1986),<em>\u00a0A Media Trilogy: Deep Sleep, White Water, Black Maria<\/em>, New York, NoPassport Press, 2009, p.\u00a09-106.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-primary-color has-text-color has-small-font-size\">\u2013 Jesurun, John, \u00abFirefall\u00bb (2009),\u00a0<em>Shatterhand Massacree and Other Media Texts<\/em>, New York, PAJ Publications, 2009, p.\u00a0165-212.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-primary-color has-text-color has-small-font-size\">\u2013 Kershaw, Baz,\u00a0<em>Theater Ecology: Environments and Performance Events<\/em>, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-primary-color has-text-color has-small-font-size\">\u2013 Lehmann, Hans-Thies,\u00a0<em>Postdramatisches Theater<\/em>, Frankfurt am Main, Verlag der Autoren, 2001.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-primary-color has-text-color has-small-font-size\">\u2013 Mapp, Juliette\u00a0<em>et. al.,\u00a0<\/em>\u00abWriting and Performance\u00bb,\u00a0<em>PAJ<\/em>, vol.\u00a034, n<sup>o<\/sup>\u00a01, 2012, p.\u00a0119-140.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-primary-color has-text-color has-small-font-size\">\u2013 Marranca, Bonnie,\u00a0<em>Ecologies of Theater<\/em>, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-primary-color has-text-color has-small-font-size\">\u2013 Pavis, Patrice, \u00abTheater and the Media: Specificity and Interference\u00bb dans Helbo, Andr\u00e9, J. Dines Johansen, Patrice Pavis, et Anne Ubersfeld,\u00a0<em>Approaching Theater<\/em>, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1991, p.\u00a021-47.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-primary-color has-text-color has-small-font-size\">\u2013 Postman, Neil et Charles Weingartner,\u00a0<em>Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology<\/em>, New York, Vintage, 1993.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-primary-color has-text-color has-small-font-size\">\u2013 Rayner, Alice, \u00abRude Mechanicals and the Spectres of Marx\u00bb,\u00a0<em>Theater Journal<\/em>, vol.\u00a054, n<sup>o<\/sup>\u00a04, 2002, p.\u00a0535-554.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-primary-color has-text-color has-small-font-size\">\u2013 Rentdorff, Martin, \u00abI\u2019ll Make Film Without Filming It\u00bb,\u00a0<em>Theater: Ex<\/em>, vol.\u00a01, n<sup>o<\/sup>\u00a02, 1985, p.\u00a08.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-primary-color has-text-color has-small-font-size\">\u2013 Russell, Donn,\u00a0<em>Avant-Guardian, 1965-1990: A Theater Foundation Director\u2019s 25 Years Off-Broadway<\/em>, Pittsburgh, Dorrance, 1996.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-primary-color has-text-color has-small-font-size\">\u2013 Salter, Chris,\u00a0<em>Entangled: Technology and the Transformation of Performance<\/em>, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-primary-color has-text-color has-small-font-size\">\u2013 Sarkis, Mona,\u00a0<em>Blick, Stimme und (k)ein K\u00f6rper: Der Einsatz elektronischer Medien im Theater und in interaktiven Installationen<\/em>, Stuttgart, M &amp; P, 1997.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-primary-color has-text-color has-small-font-size\">\u2013 Shore, Bradd,\u00a0<em>Culture in Mind: Cognition, Culture, and the Problem of Meaning<\/em>,\u00a0Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1996.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-primary-color has-text-color has-small-font-size\">\u2013 Svich, Caridad, \u00abA Natural Force: John Jesurun in Conversation with Caridad Svich\u00bb dans Svich, Caridad,<em>Trans-Global Readings: Crossing Theatrical Boundaries<\/em>, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2003, p.\u00a042-46.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-primary-color has-text-color has-small-font-size\">\u2013 Walkenhorst, Birgit,\u00a0<em>Intermedialit\u00e4t und Wahrnehmung: Untersuchungen zur Regiearbeit von John Jesurun und Robert Lepage,\u00a0<\/em>Marburg, Tectum, 2005.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Despite being heavily indebted to electronic mediation, the dramatic situation created in contemporary multi-media theatre productions is still performed \u201clive\u201d on stage.\u00a0 If we take into account its relatively stable requirements of an audience and a set duration, we could argue that the theatrical medium represents a heuristic platform to study associative thinking.\u00a0 The stage &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/octobre-2019-ecologies-of-media-of-mind-toward-a-dialectics-of-embodiment\/\">Continued<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[28],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/297"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=297"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/297\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":299,"href":"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/297\/revisions\/299"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=297"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=297"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=297"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}