Embodying Theory

A version of this paper was presented at the Laban Centre Research Seminar Practical Research and Research inPractice on June 30^th 1998

Simon Waters, in the introduction to his doctoral thesis¹,argues that artistic work has a,

My own research, like Waters', operates on the premise that choreography is a valid means of researching into, and also of initiating, intuitions and analyses about concepts and the world.

I have entitled my paper Embodying Theory. My current research, which focuses on issues of ontology as they pertain to the ëopení work, demonstrates not only the way in which theory influences practice, but also the way in which choreography can both embody and have a direct effect on theorising. My research comprises a double-edged enquiry into philosophical issues of identity and individuation in relation to open dance works, integrating practical and philosophical thinking. The latter serves both as a means of clarifying the conceptual content of my choreographic research, and as an instigator of new directions in my choreographic practice. At the same time the particular nature of my choreographic practice has dictated,the route that the philosophical thinking has taken.

The portfolio of dancework I will discuss in this paper includes one theatre work and two interactive installation works. All are open works, couched in quite different genres. One is a live theatre work, the remaining two are interactive digital works. One, Intimate Memories addresses the interpretative dialogue between director and work, another Halo in Performance² the (interactive) dialogue between performer and work, another Passing Phases ³the (interactive)dialogue between viewer and work.

Intimate Memories (1994) is a dance work, designed to be presenterd in a small scale theatre. Various choregraphic parameters are open to change from production to production. To date four very different productions of the work have been presented. Two of these I directed, the third was directed by an independent dance director, Kate Thorngren and the fourth by Will Thorburn

The first interactive digital work I made, Passing Phases, (1996-8) is a multi-screen installation work designed to be placed in a gallery rather than a theatre space. It focuses on the interactive architecture of the ëspace-in-betweení⁴ of the installation The movement materials shown on the screen were choreographed in such a way as to allow participant-spectators a multitude of different possibilities from which they could generate their own version of the work. These include the fragmentation of the gestures, the repetition of very short sections from longer gestures, retrograding the progression of the gestures, and so on. The gestures are also 'sent' around the screens in response to the spectators' movement in the space, moving from one screen to another in a variety of rhythmic patterns. The participant-spectator activates the motion of the images by walking on pressure sensitive pads placed under the carpet. The computer analyses the pressure in terms of distance and number and responds in relation to these through a purpose built programme in Java Script.

The second interactive work, Halo in Performance (1998), is activated by performers⁵. The performers generate the motion of the digitised cast members (which are projected onto screens in the installation space) and the sound through improvisation. Halo in Performance had its genesis in a research laboratory which culminated in a showing of the tentative results of the research we had undertaken into the simultaneous operation of three different interactive systems. One operated sound, one operated images, one structured the choreographic form. Both music and images operated on completely different sets of interactive strategies. The activation of the music requires detailed movement behaviours from the performers, the air patterns, speed and spatial directions of the performers' limbs triggered sampled sounds and compositional treatments of those sounds in real time. The speed of a movement for example, raises or lower the pitch, or increases the rhythmic pattern of the phrase and so on. The movement of the performers towards and away from the screen also triggers certain sounds.

The movement of the performers towards and away from the screen (and from left to right and vice versa) are the sole determinants of the motion of the digitised figures. These were either in a state of 'flying' or were standing, walking towards and away from the performers, or squatting. The digitised figures, however, interacted with each other as well as with the perfomrers, generating a further layer of complexity n the dialgoue between figures and performers.

In order to control the sound and visual images to some degree, and to generate a dance element which was not merely a trigger but which had its own integrity, I developed an interactive system for the performers. This comprises the kinetic structuring devices and operational rules of a structured improvisation. The performers operate the three interactive systems simultaneously, enganing in a concurrent dialogue with music, digitised figures and each other.

This first stage of the research, was concerned with the development of a set of structures which would service the two interactive systems with which the performers were dealing, and develop a improvised dance piece which was coherent in its own right. This was presented as 3over9 (work-in-progress)⁶.

The piece was subsequently devleoped as an independent performance of the autonomous interactive immersive installation Halo. Halo is an immersive installation, designed primarily for interactivity between viewers and work. It comprises two immense screens placed opposite each other, upon which are projected two identical, but independently interactive sets of digitised figures. In contrast to 3over9 the sounds are linked directly to the figures and are not independently interactive. As the perfomrers moves in the space between the screens the two sets of figures respond in opposing ways, because the independent computers which operate each set of figures read the spatial co-ordinates of the performers (which constitute the signals which trigger the interactive programme) from their own opposite spatial position. The result is that the perfomerís trajectory in the space generates different sets of movements from each group of digitised figures. As there are three performers, there are three independent sets of signals, each of which affects the behaviours of the figures. The interactive interface, through its relative simplicity, allows the potentnially highly complex dialogue between the various groups of perfomers to remain intricate yet coherent

The research which led to the creation of these three works constitutes a genuine dialogue between theory and practice. Neither mode of research has dominated the research process, rather the two modes have continually influenced each other's concerns and progress. This has happened to such an extent that, as a result of the theoretical issues I was addressing my dance ëthinkingí and the kind of works I make underwent a radical change. Concomitantly my practice demanded that I make a substantial epistemological shift in the context of my philosophical thinking.

The commonality between the three works cited above lies in the fact that their material forms are protean, and that certain aspects of the conceptualisation underpinning their material instantiations has been passed from the hands of the originating author to the hands of director, performer, and/or audience. They each raise certain issues, indeed I would go so far as to argue that they embody, or thematise⁷, the philosophical problematics which were responsible for their emergence. These problematics are various but cluster around issues concerning the ontological nature of the open dance work. (My works thematise other things, but these are not the subject of this paper.)

For much of the twentieth century there has been a lessening of importance of the overt subject matter of artworks and an increase of importance in the object itself as an intentional object. To put this another way, there has been an increasing focus on the way in which the cultural object articulates the thinking which went into its making. The content of such works includes, even privileges, this thought, rendering the process of creating a work not merely the means of achieving an end, but an important component of that end. It is, if you like, inextricably part of what is 'going on' in the work, what one might call the 'work' of the work⁸, or the 'thinking in the work'.

But what do I mean by 'thinking in the work'? Thinking in the work is contrasted to thinking about the work (either before or after its creation). Thinking about the work is articulated in the form of propositions which describe, explain, or otherwise articulate ideas about the work. Thinking in the work, whether it takes the form of question or answer, is articulated in and through the act of making or ordering movements, marks, sounds, etc. This kind of thinking can be art specific (to do with the way the materials of the artform, and or its underlying assumptions, behave, or can be made to behave) or more philosophical, and is, I would claim, in and of itself a research process. However, rather than being couched in assertions or propositions, the artistic debate (and I use this word deliberately) is couched in nonverbal action.

Thinking in the work is an aspect of the rational debate, and is as rational as thinking about the work. It is, however, a specific kind of rational thinking, more aligned to practical knowing than to propositional knowledge. The choreographer when making a work does not think "What does this configuration of movements make me want to do?" and then provide a verbal answer which serves as an instruction to him or her for a certain kind of action. Rather, s/he observes that configuration and in response to that acts upon the work, does something to the emerging work (for example, adds or changes a movement, a placement or orientation in the space, a stillness). This causes the configuration, the relations between the parts, to change, initiating a new structure which in turn generates new 'thoughts' (new ideas, new concepts, new specifics with regard to the goal the artist is pursuing⁹), which are immediately transposed into action.

The work-in-progress, upon which the artist acts until s/he releases the work into the public domain, is an ever-changing network of possible relations between elements. This is where its nature as a work-in-progress lies. Any decision made by the artist as s/he acts upon the work causes a shift in the balance of the relations in that network, and consequently generates a new structure, a new step in the artistic 'argument'. The artist perceives possible pathways of development in the changing structures and makes artistic decisions in relation to them. (This constitutes the dialogue between work and artist.) The appropriateness of that decision in the context of the work is guided by the thinking which is emerging in and through the work-in-progress. (A decision to follow one pathway rather than another may take the piece in a direction which is at variance with the original authorial intention, or even recent intentions¹⁰.) This decision may be taken intuitively, following a hunch for which no conscious 'reason' can be accessed, or be the result of a conscious analysis of the emerging structures as they stand at that time. This process sees the artist engaging in a continuous interplay between the poietic and esthesic processes¹¹ between action and analysis when making a work¹².

All the activity in which an artist engages constitutes the debate which is constantly taking place as they make the work. It is worthy of the description 'debate' even though it may not be articulated in words. It is notable that several of the features of rational thought obtain in the description I have given of the artistic process. The artist's work is intentional, goal-directed (even thought the specific nature of the goal may not be formulated). Relevant aspects of the results of the artistic thinking taking place in the work are identified by the artist and analysed. Artistic decisions and actions are made on the basis of that analysis.

The analysis an artist undertakes when examining his or her work in progress is as rigorous as that undertaken by a philosopher. This notwithstanding, a central feature of what many conceive of as non-rational or pre-rational thought - the hunch, the intuition - is also present in the description I have given of the artistic process. But the artistic hunch is not non-, nor even pre-rational. It is firmly based on antecedent knowledge. This knowledge is, however, tacit knowledge, not the propositional knowledge which is the meat of the thought processes of the philosopher or theorist. Tacit knowledge is knowledge which has become assimilated to such a degree that it is part of a complex network of understanding, the roots and progression of which are embedded in the neural and proprioceptive networks of the individual concerned. It has, in Andrew Harrison's terms, become "worked into the living texture of the mind"¹³.

For mature artmakers the tacit knowledge relevant to their work is that which has been built up over many years of experience in the medium. It is also related to their tacit understanding of the theme of the work in hand, whether that theme is of a conceptual or a more tangible nature. It is through the employment of his or her art-specific tacit knowledge in relation to the theme of the work that an artist senses what is a 'right' decision to make when in the process of creating a work. The decisions the artist makes in fashioning a work are guided by the emerging work itself.

All this is part of what I call the thinking in the work¹⁴. The traces of this process are embodied in the product. The aficionado of an artist's work or of a genre of work, the knowledgeable spectator, is able to recognise the marks of the conceptual process in which the artist engaged, and to identify the kind of thinking which is going on in the work. In this way they gain access to the ëworkí of the work¹⁵.

My current work exploits these notions. However, it takes them one step further. Inasmuch as the ontological status of the open work is necessarily one of 'becoming', in my pieces the process of articulating the work in its material form/s (as tangible artefact) is not completed when the artefact is released into the public domain. The thinking in the work continues after I, as the originating artist, have released it (in this my works embody post-structuralist theories developed by late twentieth century thinkers such as Barthes and musicologists such as Nattiez.) The poietic process, the working on the work, is thus still in process. All of my recent work is offered to the public as an on-going activity. The poietic process is carried into and becomes integral to the product. Product and process are literally interdependent.

The product in the case of the works I am currently making is not an object or an event, the immanent, material form but a framework for action¹⁶, the use of which will result in a realisation of the work's 'work'. As open works my pieces have no author-determined point of closure, no definitive, even ideal, form. They are not presented as artefact (although the instantiations are, of course, artefactual) inasmuch as the material forms the works take during their careers¹⁷ are always in flux, are never stable. My work as artist lies not in the realisations themselves, but in the structures laid out for the work's realisation. The 'work' of the works lies in the conceptualising possibilities they offer the viewer or producer as they construct their instantiations. These conceptualising possibilities, the work's work, are not only self-referential (what is this work?) but also more general, (what is a work?)

Under such circumstances Nattiez's poietic and esthesic dimensions are clearly impossible to separate, for the esthesic dimension is also, literally, the poietic dimension. (In this the work embodies the structure of the artistic process.) The director, performer or spectatorís behaviour is itself a stage in the process of creating the work, in the poietic process. This process is, however, also part of the esthesic process, for it is in and through the reception of the 'work-in-process'¹⁸ that the viewer is able to participate in the poietic process, and 'work' the work.

However, the poietic process of my work is not solely choreographic. Much of it lies in the philosophical thinking in which I engaged as I grappled with the issues of identity, individuation and authorship that the works I was creating threw up. What did it mean to author a work? How far could the work shift from the original material form and remain the same work? How much control could the author retain and still create a deliberately protean work? These questions both informed and guided the development of my practice and are embodied, articulated, in the works¹⁹.

Not only my theoretical discussions but also my artistic work challenge the epistemological and ontological base in which much of dance theory concerning identity has been grounded. Both have found it wanting. Notions of sameness based on an ontology of substance, and an epistemology dominated by objectivism, have bedevilled dance research in this area for several decades. The search for the essential (necessary) features of dance works (as a collective noun) has been prevalent in dance theory for several decades. It has not been successful, in part because that 'essence' has been sought in material features rather than organising principles. Theorists have been obliged to modify, or offer exceptions to, the generalised claims for the necessary conditions of dance works which have been proposed (e.g. movement style²⁰); instructions for performance²¹, ) not because the claims were intrinsically wrong (indeed each may be appropriate for certain types of work), but because the ontological position which underlay them was not generalisable across all genres of twentieth century theatre dance practice. It has become increasingly apparent that, rather than an ontology of substance, which encourages the search for material conditions of identity, an ontology of flux²², which may locate conditions of identity in a less material realm, needed to be brought into play, both in theory and in practice. It is this quest for an appropriate ontology for danceworks that forms the foundation of my works, and it is my research into it that they embody as works.

Intimate Memories, a stage work created in 1994, was produced in an entirely different version in 1996, and again twice in 1998, by Kate Thorngren and Will Thorburn respectively. I had no hand in the 1998 productions, allowing the directors completely free reign as to how they presented the work, and thus allowing the work its 'afterlife'²³. The parameters of the work which I originally determined were open to change were - the eukinetic properties²⁴, the musical score, the costuming, the gender of the casting, the order in which the duets were presented, the transitions between the duets, the behaviour, activity and placement of the third figure in the duets. In fact the four extant versions of Intimate Memories have only one thing in common, the broad choreutic²⁵ parameters of the movement material I choreographed. All of the other features were subjected to, sometimes radical, change. The expressive surface, and thus semiotic content, of the work altered significantly from production to production.

The philosophical question I was asking through this particular work focuses on the ontological issues upon which theories of identity are based rather than on the material conditions which allow us to numerically identify various instantiations of a work as such. The main question posed by the four versions of Intimate Memories is - In what sense were the three productions instantiations of the same 'work'? That is, what is the nature of their samenesses²⁶? This last question is a major part of the 'work' of this work, is part of the thinking in the work, and is central to the philosophical investigation which drove its making . Indeed, I would suggest that a (provisional) work-specific answer to the question is embodied in the three instantiations of the work²⁷.

During its career not only did the material form of Intimate Memories change, the authorial conception of the central individuating characteristics of the work itself also changed²⁸. My initial thoughts for the work were that the title, the duets from which the work was constructed and its construction as a dance work for three dancers would be the stable features of the work However, Thorngren altered this authorial contraint by making one of the duets a trio, without changing the choreutic shaping of the movement material. The trio itself (the first three versions for Intimate Memorieis were for three live dancers) became a duet for two live dancers and a projected video image. With each new vearsion of the work new possibilities for modifications in the surface charactersitics of the work became evident, even whilst That is through the continuing thinking in the work, the thinking about the work changed, as well as its semiotic content.

The question for me as an artist theorising aobut my own work was, to what theoretical foundations can one appeal in a work which is as much in flux as Intimate Memories? The only epistemology which seemed fitting to me was one which accommodated variance, not one which posited an objective invariant truth which acknowledged no positionality. The epistemology that dominated Western thought for two millennia posited an objective world for which there is only one 'true' description. This epistemology has substantially affected our conclusions regarding the ontological status of artworks, including dances, and the status of interpretations of works. The de-stabilising of this epistemological position began to take place with the writings of Foucault, Derrida and Barthes in the 1960s²⁹. Since that time their questioning, and particularly in Derrida's case³⁰, sceptical stance has become commonplace.

Foucault, Derrida and Barthes posited the world as a text, that is as an interpretable object³¹. They also questioned whether the mere fact that there has been a very long standing belief that there is an objective world against which we can measure our perceptions and understandings necessarily legitimated it as an inalienable truth. They argued that the nature of that interpretation of 'reality' was based on a privileged episteme and that reason, through which such interpretations are reached, far from being rigorously objective, is normative, an artefact of a constructed world.

The notion that there is no objective truth, but that truth is mediated through a variety of factors, including cultural and historical factors, has since been taken up by analytic philosophers and accommodated into their philosophical positions. For some philosophers, notably Margolis (1995), the notion of epistemological variance has been introduced as a regulating concept in their theories. An epistemology that accommodates variance as an essential mode of being for all phenomena is founded on the notion that objectivity is

'Reality', being constructed by human beings, consequently differs from time to time and from culture to culture. Although the world and the 'things' within it exist, that world forming the grist from which perception and conceptions of reality are constructed, what we call reality is nothing more than an interpretation of the ontic world³³. Each period's or culture's construction of 'reality' is constructed on an organising principle which has relevance to the dominant episteme of a culture or time, but no inalienable claim to be an a priori truth. This is the conceptual prism through which ontic phenomena are read, made sense of, given meaning. The world is thus a text, in Barthes' and Derrida's terms.

Dance works are microcosmic versions of the world (indeed we talk of the 'world' of a work) and are equally prone to reconceptualisation across time. Intimate Memories is an (admittedly extreme) embodiment of this position. The identity of this dance work lies not only in certain broad ontic characteristics (its construction as a group of duets performed by three people, certain choreutic characteristics of the movement material) but also in its particular nature as a transformable structure (its ontological status). That is, the 'work' of the work, which I consider to be a major individuating characteristic, does not lie in its expressive surface, that which can be identified in the material traces and described, but in the concepts which guide it. In short, the individuating characteristics of the work lie in its organising principles, rather than in its organised form. One of the organising principles of this work is that it is open to continual modification, within protean boundaries, by the creators of subsequent performances. As such it is a challenge to our dominant concept of workhood, and thus to its own ontological status as a work.

The other two works in my portfolio extend this debate. Both are collaborative works, the concepts and ideas which drive them being developed out of an interest in the concepts underlying notions of authorship, of ownership, of change as essential features of the 'work'. The formation of the instantiations of the works are relinquished here not to a director with its connotations of delegated single authorial control, but in the case of 3over9 to performers and, in the case of Passing Phases ,to the spectators themselves. Both of these works embody the Barthian, Foucauldian, Derridian questioning of the status of the author and the reader and of work itself. Both Halo in Performance and Passing Phases are interactive works in which a genuinely physical interaction takes place between the viewer and/or performer of the work (more accurately, the participant in the work) and the work itself. The spectators and/or performers have it within their power to effect a change in the material form of the work as they view it and engage with it. Both pieces are simultaneously texts and works.

My claim is that the works I create are authored works. They have my marks, and those of my collaborators, upon them. They embody certain authorial intentions, and thoughts. Those thoughts are often in the form of questions. However, the works also offer spectators a distinctive physical environment (a 'world') in and through which they are able to engage with the more abstract possibilities the work affords. Because they are open to intervention by participant spectators, and/or performers, these 'works' are also actively texts. They demand work from the spectator to become instantiated at any one time.

As much of my theoretical research has been concerned with examining the concept of the work, my works, which interrogate this concept, embody my theoretical stance. They are consequently a central aspect of my theoretical debate, not merely a demonstration of it. In short my works embody theory

⁴ This is a term formulated by Margaret Morse to describe the non-visible structure of installation works.

⁷ ëThematise' is the term used by Richard Wollheim to describe the presence of the thinking in the work in the structure of the work.(Wollheim 1987) Goodman (1976) would use the term 'exemplify'.

⁹ See Wollheim (1987) pp 21- 25 for an account of thematisation, a specific type of thinking in the work.

¹⁰ Most artists have experienced a moment when an apparently impulsive decision leads to a complete re-configuration of the work, a transformation of the work one thought one was making into a new work one had no idea one was making. This is an example of thinking in the work, which comes out of the working process and not out of a process of thinking about the work.

¹¹Nattiez (1990), drawing on the work of Gilson and Molino, has identified three dimensions of the art work The poietic process is everything that goes into the process of creation, the neutral trace is the material instantiation of the work, the artefact, the esthesic process constitutes the reception of the work by the viewer or listener (or artist). (pp 10 - 17)

¹² In this they are unwittingly following Action Research Methodologies. Action Research, or grounded theory, is a research methodology used extensively in the social sciences. In it the researcher engages in a continuous dialogue between observation, action and analysis. Action produces data, which is observed and analysed taking account of the context. The results of the analysis initiate further action, which produces a slightly different context, which in turn affects the action taken. Normally a very broad research question is asked in the initial stages of an action research project. The final, detailed research question only becomes apparent when the dialogue between researcher and the subjects of the research has been established. In the case of artistic research the work itself and the artistic process is the subject of the research. The artist is the researcher, and is led by the work, just as social scientists engaged in Action Research is led by the dialogue which takes place between themselves and the subjects and context of their research project. (see Moustakis (1990) Glaser (1992))

¹⁴ The thinking in a work varies in quality from work to work, from artist to artist, just as it does from writer to writer, from essay to essay. It may not always be clear, coherent thinking. It may exhibit confusions and lack of experience. However, this thinking is still embodied in the work.

¹⁵ Andrew Benjamin (1994) discusses the notion of the 'work' of the work at length. The 'work' of the work is that which continues after the artist has laid down their tools. In the open work, this work is overtly part of the artist's product, the semi-formed artefact.

¹⁷ A term used by Joseph Margolis (1995) to describe the on-going development of the work which takes place after its 'completion' by the artist.

¹⁸ The notion of the work-in-process has been formulated to distinguish a completed open work from the work-in-progress, which is seen as being a work which is not yet complete, not yet one to which the author will put his or her name. The work-in-process is one with regard to which the author considers his or her work to be completed, but one which is now open to intervention at either a conceptual (interpretative) level or at a material level. It is a particularly useful term to use for open works which are necessarily in process at a material level.

¹⁹ Each work is not even partially revealed by a single instantiation, not even several instantiations, although each instantiation could be mistaken for a work in its own right - that is it instantiates a profile of the 'work'. The 'work' itself, however, lies in its conceptual, not its material realm. In this my work has much in common with conceptual art, although its surface characteristics may not lead one to make that comparison.

²² For a more detailed discussion of these two ontological positions see my paper "The Open Work and its Identity" in Preservation Politics, due for publication by Dance Books in 1998

²³ A term used by Jonathan Miller (1986) to describe the status of the work when a production is created which has no input from anyone involved in the original production

²⁴ Dynamic nuances of the movement, that is its use of energy as articulated in the speed and strength of the movement

²⁵ Choreutic is a term coined by Laban to encompass what one might call the spatial shaping of the movement

²⁶ I was not interested in ascertaining what the essence of the work was, but in interrogating what I understood to be the nature of the work. By nature I do not mean essence, but the ontological status of the work, which I consider to be linked to its character as a work in a continual state of change.

²⁷ Provisional because there are many more possible approaches to generating instantiations of the work; work specific because the nature of the identity of this work is specific to this work

²⁸ In Intimate Memories, even the parameters which were deemed (on completion of the first production) to be unalterable, and thus necessary conditions of identity, by the author at the first stage of the 'career' of the work were not fixed, but were extended as each new production was conceived. Initially I was open to radical change in the eukinetic features of the work, in the temporal ordering of the duets, in the gender of the cast, in the transitions between the duets, in the music, in the costume and in the setting. Later, as a result of questions from the dance director I could envisage myself accepting shifts in the temporal relationships of the solo strands of material from which the duets were constructed.

³¹ Margolis's notion of artworks and other cultural phenomena as being 'culturally emergent entities' implicitly acknowledged this position. (Margolis, 1980)

Armelagos, Adina and Mary Sirridge. "The Identity Crisis in Dance." Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 37 (2 1978): pp. 129-140.

Barthes, Roland. "From Work to Text." (1971) In Image - Music - Text, 155 -164. London: Fontana/Collins, 1977.

Barthes, Roland. "The Death of the Author." (1966) In Image ó Music ó Text, . London: Fontana/Collins, 1977, pp 142 - 148.

Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge. Translated by Sheridan Smith, A M. World of Man, ed. R D Laing. London: Routledge, 1972.

Glaser, B G. Emergence v. Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. California: Sociology Press, 1992.

Goodman, Nelson. Languages of Art. 2nd ed., Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company Ltd, 1976.

Ingarden, Roman. The Ontology of the Work of Art. Translated by Raymond Meyer with John T Goldthwait. Athens: University of Ohio Press, 1989.

Margolis, Joseph. Interpretation, Radical but Not Unruly. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1995

Margolis, Joseph. Historied Thought, Constructed World: A Conceptual Primer for the Turn of the Millennium. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1995.

Morse, M. (1989) "Video Installation Art: The Body, The Image and the Space-in-between" In D. H. &. S. J. Fifer (eds), Illuminating Video New York: Aperture/BAVC.(1997) ,pp154 -167.

Moustakas, Clark. Heuristic Research. Newbury Park, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1990.

Nattiez, Jean-Jacques. Music & Discourse: Towards a Semiology of Music. Translated by Carolyn Abbate. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1990.

Norris, Christopher. Derrida. Fontana Modern Masters, ed. Kermode, Frank. London: Fontana, 1987.

Reason, Peter. "Three Approaches to Participative Enquiry." In Handbook of Qualitative Research, ed. Yvonna S Lincoln Norman K Denzin. Newbury Park, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1994.

Waters, Simon. "Electroacoustic Music: Composition beyond the Acousmatic." PhD., University of East Anglia, 1996.

Wollheim, Richard. "Are the Criteria of Identity that Hold for a Work of Art in the Different Arts Aesthetically Relevant?" Ratio 20 (1978): 29-51.