Keywords
cyborgs
robots
avatars
holograms
uncanny valley
audience reception
digital performance
Abstract
DOI: https://doi.org/10.26333/sts.xxxviii2.10
?To dance is human? (Hanna, 1979), but dancers on stage may be cyborgs, robots, avatars, or holograms. The boundaries between these creatures and their creators are sometimes blurred (voluntarily or not). The phenomenon is not new, but advances in technology (including AI, deep fake) broadens their use, strengthens this confusion and deepens the ?uncanny valley? (Mori, 1970). If (modern, post-modern and contemporary) dance is challenging traditional spectatorship schemes in performing arts (often based on finding narrative interpretations), these ?unidentified dancing beings? emphasize dance specificities, forcing the spectators to question their relationship with dancing movements and their authors and the semiotic processes through which these movements acquire meaning. This paper analyses the example of ROBOT (a piece choreographed by Blanca Li) and underlines how this shift is editing spectator?s routine when attending performing arts in general and dance in particular, from both a semiotic and signification-oriented perspective.
References
1. Bradford, D. E. (1980). The Concept of Existence. A Study of Nonexistent Particulars. Lanham: University Press of America.
2. Broadhurst, S. (2007). Digital Practices: Aesthetic and Neuroesthetic Approaches to Performance and Technology. Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
3. Copeland, R., Cohen, M. (1983). What Is Dance? Oxford: OUP.
4. Everaert-Desmedt, N. (1990). Le processus interprétatif: Introduction ? la sémiotique de C. S. Peirce [The Interpretive Process: Introduction to the Semiotics of C. S. Peirce]. Li?ge: Éditions Pierre Mardaga.
5. Hanna, J. L. (1979). To Dance Is Human: A Theory of Nonverbal Communication. Austin: University of Texas Press.
6. Jones, S. (1999). Do Rabbits Dance? A Problem Concerning the Identification of Dance. In G. McFee (Ed.), Dance, Education and Philosophy (pp. 85?99). Oxford: Meyer & Meyer Sport.
7. Kahn, Ch. H. (1973). On the Theory of the Verb ?To Be?. In M. K. Munitz (Ed.), Logic and Ontology (pp. 1?20). New York: University Press.
8. Li, B. (n.d.). Retrieved July 15, 2025, from https://www.blancali.com/spectacle/robot/ [entry no longer active].
9. Noisette, P. (2010). La danse contemporaine mode d?emploi [Contemporary Dance: A User?s Guide]. Flammarion.
10. Paré, Z. (2012). Le Bouddha dans le robot: Rencontre avec le professeur Masahiro Mori [The Buddha in the Robot: An Encounter With Professor Masahiro Mori]. Gradhiva, 15, 162?181.
11. Picon-Vallin, B. (2001). Hybridation spatiale, registres de présence [Spatial Hybridization and Registers of Presence]. In B. Picon-Vallin (Ed.), Les écrans sur la sc?ne: Tentations et résistances de la sc?ne face aux images (pp. 9?35). Paris: Éd. L?Âge d?Homme.
12. Roland, P. (2005). Danse et imaginaire: Étude socio-anthropologique de l?univers chorégraphique contemporain [Dance and Imagination: A Socio-Anthropological Study of the Contemporary Choreographic Universe]. Éditions modulaires européennes (EME).
13. Russell, B. (1910). Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 11(1), 108?128.
14. Sirois-Trahan, J.-P. (2008). Le cinéma et les automates: Inquiétante étrangeté, distraction et arts machiniques [Cinema and Automata: The Uncanny, Distraction and Machinic Arts]. Cinémas, 18(2?3), 195.
15. Softbankrobotics. (n.d.). Retrieved October 15, 2018, from: https://www.softbankrobotics.com/emea/fr/robots/nao [entry no longer active].
16. Verdier, N., Nevoux, G. (2022). Culture 3.0 : utilisation du robot NAO en ITEP [Culture 3.0: Use of the NAO Robot in ITEP]. De la culture dans l?A.I.Re !: 25?mes journées d?étude, de recherche et de formation de l?A.I.Re, 417?428.