Toward a Visceral Data Analysis

Recent work in the digital humanities has called for greater inclusion of the body and embodiment as part of a critical orientation to data.1 We feel hailed by panel titles such as “embodied data” and the political projects they represent. But we are sometimes thrown when, on closer examination, embodiment functions as a “boundary object” (Losh and Wernimont, xiii), with this language indexing different questions and problems for the digital humanities than they do for performance scholarship. In some ways, DH’s bodies miss the opportunity to engage embodiment at the farthest ends of the spectrum: on one side, as thick physicality and the particularities of visceral experience, and on the other, as equally thick transformative worldmaking beyond the individual. DH’s bodies get stuck in a kind of narrow in-between where the body-as-subject (with all of its important metaphorical labor) and embodiment (as vaguely referential of materiality) predominate. However, performance scholarship models how to retain the thickness of embodiment and the productive tensions of physicality in relation to experience, history, and representation, even as bodies also do the important work of standing in for subjects.

Because embodiment is intertwined with subjecthood, attention to positioned bodies provides a foundation for cultural critique. In Data Feminism, Catherine D’Ignazio and Lauren Klein tie the necessary case for equity in data science to bodies; across examples from maternal death rates to femicides, uncounted bodies stand for uncounted people, and material information about life and death calls attention to the lack of visibility around women, people of color, and other marginalized communities. In addition to missing data, there are also ethical questions around the mining of bodily data doubles, as in the case of the teenager whose pregnancy was identified by Target’s algorithms—a problem that D’Ignazio and Klein compare to other forms of technological exploitation in which resources, in this case bodies, are extracted and refined (45). Such intersectional feminist approaches to bodies counter the dehumanization that so often accompanies the transformation of bodies into data and therefore offer avenues to think more closely about people themselves.

However, recruiting bodies for this imperative also risks fixing their ontology in a particular way. From the 1980s to 2000s, despite “the body” (often singular) being a central concern of the humanities, there was always a tension as cultural theory bypassed bodily materiality and sensation, eliding embodiment in favor of subjectivity. Brian Massumi observed that scholars instead parsed the “ideological apparatuses” that “rendered [bodies] legible according to a dominant signifying scheme into which human subjects in the making were ‘interpellated’” (1–2). However, disentangling material flesh from histories of sociocultural signification props up the false universality of the white liberal humanist subject, as Alexander Weheliye has elaborated in his account of racializing assemblages following Hortense Spillers. Similar to Spillers’s distinction between body and flesh, performance scholars in the late 1990s posited that it was possible and necessary to recognize that embodiment occupies “the fraught space between subject and object” (Schneider, Explicit Body, 18). More recent work at the intersections of gender, race, and performance further argues for the roles of power, enactment, and pleasure in scrambling “the dichotomy between objectified bodies or embodied subjects” (McMillan, 9). Such scholarship sets up the critical value of oscillating between these extremes to maintain their connection, ensuring that pure physicality does not fall into the apolitical while also preventing worldmaking and subject formation from excluding the historically situated and palpable mess of lived embodiment and experience.

While there is also a broad range of digital scholarship that has approached cultural questions by engaging more with physical bodies than with subjecthood, such research tends to likewise limit understandings of physicality. For example, over the past few decades, bodily reaction, including gaze-tracking and galvanic skin response, has become another means to analyze audience reception and processing of language, literature, film, and visual art. While such projects center physical experience, they often reduce engaged spectatorship to autonomic response. In addition, as capacities for computational image analysis have increased, the recent “visual turn” means that bodies are physically more visible (see Tilton)—from cultural analytics projects that identify change over time in the presentation of fashion models across 2,700 issues of Vogue covers (King and Leonard) to the application of facial recognition systems to nineteenth-century portrait art (Rudolph et al.). In these instances, engagement with bodily surfaces, shapes, features, or other quantifiable attributes ultimately filters embodiment through physical properties that can be computationally apprehended.2

By contrast, “visceral data analysis” evidences bodily experience and elaborates embodied knowledge. The language of the “visceral” is most familiar in DH from Kelly Dobson’s use of “data visceralization” to describe visualization strategies that resist the priority of vision in favor of “designing and building apparatuses that render data and information palpable and experiential and real.” Whereas Dobson focuses on multisensory representation that aims toward a better understanding of existing data (see D’Ignazio and Klein, 84–85), our own project, Dunham’s Data: Katherine Dunham and Digital Methods for Dance Historical Inquiry, begins with the assumption that visceral experiences underpin and haunt such data and explores the many ways scholars can build and analyze datasets that are already visceral to begin with. Following Schneider’s “visceral cultural analysis” (Explicit Body, 17), we describe this approach to drawing such experiences out of the archives as a visceral data analysis for dance histories, one that models ways to retain the materiality of embodiment in a manner that is also relevant to interdisciplinary digital scholarship. Although our theorization of bodies comes first from the fields of dance and performance, the examples we give in this chapter intentionally cast a wider net. In what follows, we outline a series of propositions for the complexity and thickness of bodies that might be part of visceral analyses and highlight examples of digital humanities projects in which those become distinctly palpable. We argue that bodies are experiential, arrange knowledge, are repositories of memory, are in process, and produce relationality.

Bodies Are Experiential

The idea of a body as constituted by that which is felt and experienced is well established in fields ranging from phenomenology to somatics. The specificity of lived physicality matters. It is critical to attend to the material properties of embodied experiences in a manner that recognizes how they also provide points of access through which bodies open onto sense and meaning beyond themselves. For example, performance and disability studies scholar Petra Kuppers points out how stories of illness get refined through repetition, broadening the gap between these narrativized disclosures and the experiences that lie underneath. At the same time that she cautions against false dichotomies between verbal and nonverbal domains (“Even deeply felt inner experiences do not escape the generic”), she argues that the material connection of somatic attention to such experience might be transformative (146). Connecting corporeal enframing to scholarly method, Priya Srinivasan has developed the intersectional, auto-ethnographic perspective of the “unruly spectator” who both critically and kinesthetically engages with Indian dance onstage and in the archive. Both she and Hannah Kosstrin describe an experience common among dance scholars—using our own histories of physical practice to imagine what historical bodies may have experienced in their movement. Making strange shapes in the archive, we try to understand not only what dance may have looked like in the past but also what it might have felt like, as well the significance that such sensory experiences index.

A series of projects in spatial history show how digital methods expand our capacity to imagine the embodied experiences of others. Anne Kelly Knowles led a project mapping troop movements documented at the Battle of Gettysburg, including using terrain to identify what was within the commanders’ lines of sight as the battle progressed. Leveraging this “viewshed analysis,” Knowles reassesses decisions made by Union and Confederate forces in terms of the soldiers’ possible perspectives. Whereas Knowles focuses on vision, Christy Hyman works toward a broader sensory approach in combining life narratives with geographic information systems (GIS) in order to consider experiences of fugitivity among self-emancipated individuals near the Great Dismal Swamp. In this research, various conditions of friction—from distances and duration of travel to the caloric expenditures necessary for such exertion, as well as the reach of enslavers—become means to think through the ways in which individuals “reappropriate their environments into conduits of escape” (Hyman; see also Hyman’s contribution to Chapter 9 in this book). A speculative approach to the fullness of lived experience further reconsiders the nature of spatial representation itself. In Margaret Pearce’s work with the diaries of historical voyageurs, human experience defines the scale of travel, including the number of songs sung per day’s paddle, as well as the available sunlight, as a means to account for a journey as “not a linear sensation but . . . as a series of places created by daily experience” (25). These projects show how foregrounding bodies as experiential in spatial history resists a view from nowhere and, in so doing, actively reconsiders past events through the specificity of the bodies that were present.

Bodies Arrange Knowledge

Pierre Bourdieu’s habitus, Marcel Mauss’s techniques, Michel Foucault’s disciplinary regimes, and Judith Butler’s social scripts all show how bodies manifest knowledge as culturally arranged and materialize the effects of ideology. Dance and performance scholars focus in particular on how movement makes a body, and in being thus fabricated through repeated practices, bodies materialize corporeal epistemes within a given social configuration, ultimately contributing to worldmaking. As Judith Hamera has described in her analysis of movement communities, bodily techniques exhibit “templates for sociality, by rendering bodies readable, and by organizing the relationships in which these readings can occur” (19). Although “embodied knowledge” may seem paradoxical from the perspective of some Western intellectual traditions, bodies actively arrange and produce knowledge—which, as Hamera suggests, is both individual and communal. Such arrangements are already materialized in and through embodiment and include interior psycho-emotional landscapes, sensory perceptions and feelings, and ancestral and cultural inheritances, to name just a few. These are not always recognized as legitimate knowledge within an academic context until they are extracted from their medium of instantiation/substantiation and made visible apart from the body. Jessica Rajko, who works between dance and human-computer interaction (HCI), comments: “Techno-culture covets and even eroticizes my knowledge while simultaneously delegitimizing it” (181). Yet, so much more is possible once DH’s “embodiment” begins from the fullness of bodies as sites of knowledge.

Two digital projects in the field of performance grapple with the challenge of rendering embodied arrangements of knowledge sensible. The artist-led digital research project Motion Bank produces digital scores to make visible the terms through which movement practitioners understand their own physical practice. In dance, scores act as a set of instructions that guide performers’ real-time decision-making processes within structured improvisation, and Motion Bank makes legible some of this somatic intelligence and craftsmanship for viewers outside the creative process (see Blades and Delahunta). For example, in “Using the Sky,” the Motion Bank team analyzed choreographer Deborah Hay’s work “No Time to Fly” as interpreted by three performers. Because Hay’s score-based improvisational process opens up space for significant differences among iterations of the work, each dancer’s performance was recorded seven times using motion tracking. Annotation and data analysis of the twenty-five sections connected the performers’ multiple interpretations, including the “movement character” of their variable spatial pathways, how much time the performers spent on each section of the score, and how and where their interpretations overlapped. More of a scientific yet culturally situated approach to analyzing movement is employed in “A Biomechanic Analysis of Javanese Character Types.” Miguel Escobar Varela and Luis Carlos Hernández Barraza compare and contrast the characters in the Sendratari Javanese dance-drama form through a single performer’s execution of the bodily movements associated with each role. Character types are especially important to understand, they note, because rigorous training enables performance as “structured improvisation” rather than set choreography (Varela and Barraza, “Digital Dance,” 164). Bringing a biometric lens to the study of dance, they make visible differences among character types that otherwise require trained sensitivities from audiences to discern, such as subtle differences in limb placement, which may be rooted in a performer’s muscular tension or mood. These examples point to how DH can productively work with communities of practice to understand the specific ways that bodies arrange knowledge and, by making explicit that which is frequently implicit, expand the frame of engagement for embodied epistemologies.

Bodies Are Repositories of Memory

Despite a persistent false dichotomy that opposes the capture of digital storage media to the evanescence of corporeality, technology can amplify archival uncertainty (Chun; Thylstrup et al.) and bodies serve as fluid yet enduring repositories of memory. This latter idea is foundational across a range of fields, from trauma theory, in which psychic wounds are retained physically, sometimes even across generations, to theories of diaspora, in which practices circulate across time, space, and bodies while exceeding any singular moment of travel or migration. The fields of dance and performance studies have spent tremendous energy over the past twenty years articulating how ephemeral events and corporeal practices are stored and transmitted through bodies. From Joseph Roach’s “surrogation” to Diana Taylor’s “repertoire” and Carrie Noland and Sally Ann Ness’s “migrations of gesture,” we understand that individual repositories are always entangled with collective and transgenerational memories. Physical movements and their affective properties transform the bodies through whom they pass. In so doing, this material “remains differently” through performance than it does through the physical texts and objects in a traditional archive (Schneider, Performing Remains, 105). Attending to such processes requires accounting for the many living archives through whom these performance traces circulate and how such material is transformed along the way. At the same time as there are myriad digital possibilities for making visible bodily memory practices, important questions arise about the ethics of movement’s travel beyond its intended communities by means of digital media, as in Thomas DeFrantz’s argument regarding African diasporic dance circulating through YouTube and video games.

One DH example that draws out memory from the specificity of embodied experience is the Holocaust Geographies Collaborative’s visualization “Terrain of Encoded Memories,” which locates six survivor testimonies along an abstracted line that indexes the route of forced death marches out of Auschwitz. The cumulative density of scattered letters of the alphabet taken from these testimonies reveals both memories and silences along this brutal experiential trajectory of “mobility, immobility, and other experiences of forced movement” (Gigliotti, Masurovsky, and Steiner, 216, fig. 7.8, and 217). Whereas that work weaves together multiple contemporaneous accounts to reconstruct a lived geography of collective memory, other projects explore embodied transmission as sequential over time. Using network analysis plus cartographic visualization, Ibsen Stage shows how sixteen key artists involved with international productions of A Doll’s House form “an unbroken connection of artists” over 120 years (Bollen and Holledge, 231). In our own work on Dunham’s Data, we build a flow diagram to imagine potential lines of transmission through a dynamic movement community of almost 200 dancers, drummers, and singers over fourteen years (Bench and Elswit, “Visceral Data,” 42). We collect incidences of shared time and space to hold open the possibility of exchanges that may have been enacted in them, and we consider the longer trajectories of memory, as performers encountered knowledge that preceded them and passed on knowledge that carried forward from that moment onward. All three of these examples operate beyond the scale of the individual and anecdote to trace the ways in which multiple bodies collectively retain and circulate memory.

Bodies Are in Process

Bodies are processes; their constitutions and capacities change daily at both a cellular and social level, as anyone with a regular physical practice knows. In this sense, philosopher and dancer Erin Manning contends that “the body” is a misleading shorthand for a process of becoming and therefore needs to be understood as a “short-lived event” (16, 18) that cannot be seen across space and time but rather “is infinitely variable, not subject but verb” (29). The social aspects of this corporeal emergence appear in Miriam Posner’s example of a data model for race, which takes into account how categories of race are experienced and therefore the need to “start understanding markers like gender and race not as givens but as constructions that are actively created from time to time and place to place.” Dance scholar and social theorist Randy Martin brings together both the processual nature of physicality and the sociality of embodiment in his analysis of protest movements and what he calls the “social kinesthetic,” or a set of movement possibilities available within a specific sociohistorical situation. Asking what it would mean for researchers and their subjects to be in motion together, he suggests that scholars might “take motion not stasis as our posture of evaluation” (Martin, 30).

In DH more generally, the non-fixity of bodies-as-subjects gets far more attention than other aspects of bodies in process. However, critical data studies literature on self-tracking offers a model for thinking about the ways that “lively data” (Lupton) collection and interfaces can heighten sensory awareness and make bodily processes more visible. Scholars have also made arguments for the creative ways in which self-tracking technologies might maintain connections between the experiential body and the data collected on it, in a manner that underscores change as constant. Arguing for self-trackers as “pioneers in the art of living with and through data,” Natasha Schüll describes the relational patterns of small, measured actions over time as producing “time series selves” (35, 32). The physicality of change—along with its polyrhythmic discontinuities—also guides the argument of Marisa Parham’s time-based web piece “.break .dance,” a choreo-essay that reworks the forms of the choreo-poem and scholarly essay to “think about how theorizing Black diasporic digital experiences offer new entry points into conceptualizing language, space, and blackness” (#choreo). It follows in some traditions of electronic literature and net.art, whereby users’ movements across the screen shape what is seen and interrupt habitual modes of browsing the web, and also it inherits logics from Black dance practices, where audience participation is crucial to the emergence of the work (#plentitude). Parham’s “hands-on” methodology engages the question of materiality through the break or glitch as itself instantiated in a digital form that invites “a kind of slow movement that forces readers to feel time and, by extension, witness their own bodies in thought” (#processing).

Bodies Produce Relationality

These examples cumulatively show how bodies blur at the edges, always coming into being and remaining in relation to others. Such relationality is spatial and intergenerational; it is grounded in the visceral experiences of sweat and shared air, but it is also manifested as mutual constitution at a distance, including as embodied knowledges. Understanding bodies as relational is very different from the assumptions about bodies that characterize much of data science, in which bodies—reduced to demographic data, biodata, and so on—are only ever seen in assembly when aggregated by large corporations and governments. By contrast, as dance and performance studies scholars, we are reminded of Ramón Rivera-Servera’s argument regarding community in queer Latino dance clubs, where sociality is negotiated “in the improvisational bodily articulations of the dancers, their theories in practice” (135). While Rivera-Servera engages with bodies in close proximity to one another, Jessica Marie Johnson attends to the ways that such relations manifest over time. Exploring the role of contemporary communities in the context of slavery’s archives, she argues that “truly embodied and data-rich histories” require “a methodology and praxis that centers the descendants of the enslaved, grapples with the uncomfortable, messy, and unquantifiable, and in doing so, refuses disposability” (71). In these spaces, lived connections are critical to resisting the drive toward abstraction or datafication.

The different dimensions of embodied experience into which we have separated this chapter are therefore always interconnected. It is not simply a matter of bringing dance and performance studies theory to DH, or DH methods to dance and performance questions—although those are our own starting provocations in coming to visceral data analysis. Rather, DH methods and data analysis can open up approaches to complex questions of embodiment at different scales. To do so, bodies in DH must be rethought, to occupy much more than the narrow in-between positions of the subject or of vague materiality. Bodies are experiential, practices of embodiment arrange knowledge, bodies stand as repositories of memory, they must be recognized as in process, and physicality produces relationality. A visceral approach refuses the disembodying tendencies of data to make such varied registers of experience palpable; what might its future be in the digital humanities?

Notes

This chapter is equally coauthored by Kate Elswit and Harmony Bench, as part of Dunham’s Data; the name order here is alphabetical. Dunham’s Data: Katherine Dunham and Digital Methods for Dance Historical Inquiry is supported by a project grant from the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC, AH/R012989/1, 2018–2022), https://www.dunhamsdata.org/

1. Scholars advocating for feminist approaches to DH include embodiment in their critical frameworks. For example, among D’Ignazio and Klein’s principles of data feminism is to elevate emotion and embodiment, “valu[ing] multiple forms of knowledge, including the knowledge that comes from people as living, feeling bodies in the world” (18) and Losh and Wernimont propose that a feminist framework for doing DH encompasses the “material, embodied, affective, labor-intensive, and situated character of engagements with computation” (xiii).

   Return to note reference.

2. This same logic extends to research at the margins of humanistic inquiry that makes possible new data production through and about bodies, from motion-capture in physical computing to medical imaging and analyses thereof.

   Return to note reference.

Bibliography

1. Bench, Harmony, and Kate Elswit. “Visceral Data for Dance Histories: Katherine Dunham’s People, Places, and Pieces.” TDR: The Drama Review 66, no. 1 (2022): 37–61. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1054204321000708.

2. Blades, Hetty, and Scott Delahunta. “Digital Aptitude: Finding the Right Questions for Dance Studies.” In Routledge Handbook on Research Methods in Digital Humanities, edited by Kristen Schuster and Stuart Dunn. London: Routledge, 2020.

3. Bollen, Johnathan, and Julie Holledge, “Cartographic Revelations in the World of Theatre Studies.” The Cartographic Journal 48, no. 4 (2011): 226–36.

4. Bourdieu, Pierre. The Logic of Practice. Translated by Richard Nice. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1990.

5. Browne, Simone. Dark Matters: On the Surveillance of Blackness. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2015.

6. Butler, Judith. “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory.” Theatre Journal 40, no. 4 (1988): 519–31.

7. Chun, Wendy. “The Enduring Ephemeral, or the Future Is a Memory.” Critical Inquiry 35, no. 1 (2008): 148–71.

8. DeFrantz, Thomas F. “Unchecked Popularity: Neoliberal Circulations of Black Social Dance.” In Neoliberalism and Global Theatres: Performance Permutations, edited by Lara D. Nielsen and Patricia Ybarra, 128–140. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

9. D’Ignazio, Catherine, and Lauren F. Klein. Data Feminism. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2020.

10. Dobson, Kelly. “Data Visceralization: Nine Faculty-Led Research Projects Funded by Graduate Studies.” Rhode Island School of Design, October 9, 2012, http://academicaffairs.risd.edu/2012/10/nine-faculty-led-research-projects-funded-by-graduate-studies/.

11. Drucker, Johanna. “Humanities Approaches to Graphical Display,” DHQ: Digital Humanities Quarterly 5, no. 1 (2011), http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/5/1/000091/000091.html.

12. Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage Books, 1977.

13. Gigliotti, Simone, Marc J. Masurovsky, and Erik B. Steiner. “From the Camp to the Road: Representing Evacuations from Auschwitz, January 1945.” In Geographies of the Holocaust, edited by Anne Kelly Knowles, Tim Cole, and Alberto Giordano, 193–225. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2014.

14. Hamera, Judith. Dancing Communities: Performance, Difference, and Connection in the Global City. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.

15. Hyman, Christy L. “The Oak of Jerusalem: Flight, Refuge, and Reconnaissance in the Great Dismal Swamp Region.” Address at Digital Research in Early America Workshop, William and Mary Quarterly, University of California-Irvine, October 11, 2018.

16. Johnson, Jessica Marie. “Markup Bodies.” Social Text 36, no. 4 (2018): 57–79, https://doi.org/10.1215/01642472-7145658.

17. King, Lindsay, and Peter Leonard. “Robots Reading Vogue Project.” Yale DHLab. Accessed January 31, 2020, http://dh.library.yale.edu/projects/vogue/coveraverages/.

18. Knowles, Anne Kelly. “A Cutting-Edge Second Look at the Battle of Gettysburg.” Smithsonian Magazine. June 27, 2013, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/A-Cutting-Edge-Second-Look-at-the-Battle-of-Gettysburg-1-180947921/.

19. Kosstrin, Hannah. “Kinesthetic Seeing: A Model for Practice-in-Research.” In Futures of Dance Studies, edited by Susan Manning, Janice Ross, and Rebecca Schneider, 19–35. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2020.

20. Kuppers, Petra. Disability Culture and Community Performance: Find a Strange and Twisted Shape. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.

21. Lupton, Deborah. “Foreword: Lively Devices, Lively Data and Lively Leisure Studies.” Leisure Studies 35 (2016): 709–11.

22. Manning, Erin. Always More than One: Individuation’s Dance. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2013.

23. Martin, Randy. “Between Intervention and Utopia: Dance Politics.” In Emerging Bodies: The Performance of Worldmaking in Dance and Choreography, edited by Gabriele Klein and Sandra Noeth, 29–45. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, 2011.

24. Massumi, Brian. Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2002.

25. Mauss, Marcel. “Techniques of the Body (1935).” In Techniques, Technology and Civilization, edited by Nathan Schlanger, 77–95. New York: Durkheim Press, 2006.

26. McMillan, Uri. Embodied Avatars: Genealogies of Black Feminist Art and Performance. New York: NYU Press, 2015.

27. Noland, Carrie, and Sally Ann Ness, eds. Migrations of Gesture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008.

28. Parham, Marisa. “.break .dance.” Small Axe Archipelagos 3 (2020). Accessed January 31, 2020, http://smallaxe.net/sxarchipelagos/issue03/parham/parham.html.

29. Pearce, Margaret. “Framing the Days: Place and Narrative in Cartography.” Cartography and Geographic Information Science 35, no. 1 (2008): 17–32.

30. Posner, Miriam. “What’s Next: The Radical, Unrealized Potential of Digital Humanities.” In Debates in the Digital Humanities 2016, edited by Matthew K. Gold and Lauren F. Klein. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2016, https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/read/untitled/section/a22aca14-0eb0-4cc6-a622-6fee9428a357#ch03.

31. Rajko, Jessica. “‘Bodying’ Digital Humanities: Considering Our Bodies in Practice.” In Doing More Digital Humanities: Open Approaches to Creation, Growth, and Development, edited by Constance Crompton, Richard J. Lane, and Ray Siemens, 171–83. New York: Routledge, 2019.

32. Rivera-Servera, Ramón. Performing Queer Latinidad: Dance, Sexuality, Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2012.

33. Roach, Joseph. Cities of the Dead: Circum-Atlantic Performance. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996.

34. Rudolph, Conrad, Amit Roy-Chowdhury, Ramya Srinivasan, and Jeanette Kohl. “FACES: Faces, Art, and Computerized Evaluation Systems—A Feasibility Study of the Application of Face Recognition Technology to Works of Portrait Art.” Artibus et Historiae 75 (2017): 265–91.

35. Schneider, Rebecca. The Explicit Body in Performance. London: Routledge, 1997.

36. Schneider, Rebecca. Performing Remains: Art and War in Times of Theatrical Reenactment. New York: Routledge, 2011.

37. Schüll, Natasha Dow. “Self in the Loop: Bits, Patterns, and Pathways in the Quantified Self.” In A Networked Self and Human Augmentics, Artificial Intelligence, Sentience, edited by Zizi Papacharissi, 25–38. New York: Routledge, 2019.

38. Spillers, Hortense J. “Mama’s Baby, Papa’s Maybe: An American Grammar Book.” Diacritics 17, no. 2 (1987): 64–81.

39. Srinivasan, Priya. Sweating Saris: Indian Dance as Transnational Labor. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2011.

40. Taylor, Diana. The Archive and the Repertoire: Performing Cultural Memory in the Americas. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2003.

41. Thylstrup, Nanna Bonde, Daniela Agostinho, Annie Ring, Catherine D’Ignazio, and Kristin Veel. Uncertain Archives: Critical Keywords for Big Data. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2020.

42. Tilton, Lauren. “The Visual Turn in DH.” Keynote Address at Digital Humanities and the Visual World Symposium, October 12, 2019, http://laurentilton.com/files/Keynote_Tilton_October2019.pdf.

43. “Using the Sky.” Choreographed by Deborah Hay. Performed by Jeanine Durning, Juliette Mapp and Ros Warby. Motion Bank. Accessed January 31, 2020, http://scores.motionbank.org/dh/#/set/sets.

44. Varela, Miguel Escobar, and Luis Carlos Harnández Barraza. “A Biomechanic Analysis of Javanese Character Types.” Accessed January 31, 2020, https://villaorlado.github.io/dance/html/index.html.

45. Varela, Miguel Escobar, and Luis Carlos Hernández Barraza. “Digital Dance Scholarship: Biomechanics and Culturally Situated Dance Analysis.” Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 35, no. 1 (2020): 160–75, https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqy083.

46. Weheliye, Alexander G. Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2014.

47. Wernimont, Jacqueline. Numbered Lives: Life and Death in Quantum Media. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2018.

48. Wernimont, Jacqueline, and Elizabeth Losh. “Introduction.” In Bodies of Information: Intersectional Feminism and the Digital Humanities, edited by Elizabeth Losh and Jacqueline Wernimont, ix–xxv. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2018.