CEDAR Project

Literature Review
Joseph Dunne 2010

Literature Review
Archives, Documentation and Performance
Performance cannot be saved, recorded, documented, or otherwise participate in the circulation of
representations, once it does so, it becomes something other than performance (Phelan 1993:146).
[I]nformation and communications technologies-from ink and parchment to camera, tape recorders, email, and the internet-bring with them the capacity to capture external information or evidence in
order to save a memory (Millar 2006:111)

These two statements both concern the capturing process involved in the collection of
records, and it is intriguing that both Phelan and Millar use the word save to describe this
process. This word implies that without this process the event and the memory of said event
would be lost and forgotten. When concerning live performance academics and practitioners
are divided in their opinions regarding the documenting process; if Phelan is correct that once
it has been captured it becomes something else then the event itself has transformed into a
representation of the original, the risk being that audiences get a warped perspective of the
performance which can lead to a performance being rewritten, causing artists to lose control
over their work and have it misrepresented. If we consider Millars assertion that
communication technologies and storage devices exist to save a memory as opposed to the
actual event then performance documentation acquires an added complexity, because the
obvious question arises as to whose memory is being saved, and does filming a performance
not impose an omnipotent, single voice on an interpretative event?
That in giving way to documents (and analysis) artists are losing hold of their work-that the voices of
academia posit readings over which artists have no control, readings which claim a single authority
and readings which disturb viewers from the work itself (Etchells 1999:71).

Although Etchells makes a valid point regarding the artists voice he does assume that
writings on theatre can be controlled and should always originate from the performancemaker. Such an approach limits the people who can engage and discuss the performance
analytically which Rye considers a pragmatic concern if artists wish to reach a wider
audience and have a life beyond its original live manifestation (Rye 2003: 116) Etchells
1 | Page

CEDAR Project
Literature Review
Joseph Dunne 2010

also assumes that the artists memory does not change and erode over time even if these
memories are frequently accessed and viewed, a process that Millar states can introduce
interpretations and variations that skew the original (2006:110). Archival theory
acknowledges the importance of the record but does not claim it as an omnipotent and
unquestioning storehouse of knowledge but a repository of information that because it is
material that retains its original format is forever open to interpretation and re-interpretation,
which reflect[s] the spirit of their times and [is] theninterpreted anew by succeeding
generations (Cook 1997:26). However, it is this notion of re-interpretation over time that
Phelan identifies as a divergence from theatres identity and purpose: Performance honours
the idea that a limited number of people in a specific time/space frame can have an
experience of value which leaves no visible trace afterward (Phelan 1993:147). Here we can
see a dichotomy between the advantages of documenting a performance for future
generations the opportunity to see a documented performance for analysis which allows for
theoretical frameworks to be constructed around it and the opposing view that such a process
is inherently opposed to theatres practice. Phelans use of the word saved is very telling of
the desire to rescue theatre from its own ontology, a desire to capture, store and document a
process that, as Phelan describes it, becomes itself of disappearance (Phelan 1993:146). In
other words, performance defines itself through its ephemeral nature, and to experience it a
priori is to see a representation of it, but theatre is itself a representation, as opposed to
recreation, of reality (see Brook 1968:39). What, then, is being saved, and how do the
multiple types of archival material alter the understanding of the original?
Theatres transience provides it with an identity that separates it from other arts disciplines; a
performance is identified through live actions in space and time before a live audience. In an

2 | Page

CEDAR Project
Literature Review
Joseph Dunne 2010

era which Tim Etchells defines as a media-scape and the space we inhabit an electronically
mediated one (Etchells in Kaye 1996: 236) we are becoming increasingly familiar with live
transmission of events, with the word live being applied to mediated conversations through
e-mails, text messages and blogs, with the actual presence of individuals no longer a
prerequisite for a shared understanding of a live happening. The electronic mediation of these
communications give these events a sense of permanence that is independent of the act itself;
a computer or phone can retain information almost indefinitely that in some small way saves
it from temporality, but temporality is intricately linked to our understanding of the live, the
temporality of an audience watching an event that they can never return to (see Dixon 2007).
This process of returning can be linked with the process we go through when we want to
remember an event; we return to an event through the remembering process, which can then
arouse in us the sensations and feelings of the original. These memories are a collection of
engrams, the stored fragments of an episode, which when we remember are collated
together to become a memory. The archive can aid this process by collecting these fragments
in a central and accessible location which can be returned to again and again. Our memories,
and the records that remain of past events, are both only fragments of a vanished whole
(Millar 2006:114). The fragments that Millar discusses can give those who did not experience
the original event an insight into it in an attempt to understand and interpret it retrospectively.
However, if we consider Phelans statement that the act of recording and documenting a
performance transforms it into something else it is important to acknowledge that the
understanding of the original performance will alter for those that perceive it after the live
event because the form will greatly determine that understanding.

3 | Page

CEDAR Project
Literature Review
Joseph Dunne 2010

In his essay Archive or Memory? The Detritus of Live Performance (2003) Matthew Reason
proposes that any theatre archive is an attempt to save the performance from ephemerality,
so the original performance can be reviewed, and ultimately remembered.
It is possible to see the archiveas our proper memory of performance, one that is superior to actual
memory in terms of its accessibility, its durability, its scope, and its promise of objectivity and
stability. In contrast, audience memory becomes devalued as subjective, inaccessible and disappearing

(Reason 2003:86).
This explanation by Reason implies that the subjective experience of the audience is inferior
to documented evidence as it contains materials and documents that are produced by the
event itself. It is these sources that can be referred to and allow for a performance to be
analytically discussed using a shared language and vocabulary that is informed by archival
evidence (see below). Such evidence contributes to a collective and shared understanding of
the performances ontology and makes what Reason describes as the proper memory i.e. the
version whose validity resides within the evidence that proves its existence (see Connerton
1989:23). However, this does raise questions as to the purpose of a theatre archive and
weather documentation that centres on the action of the event is a sufficient representation of
a performance and its use to contemporary practitioners and researchers beyond a historical
record.
The purposes of performance documentation are varied and debatable, as are the ways in
which material is categorised. Diana Taylors The Archive and the Repertoire (2005) divides
the content of a theatre archive into the categories of the archive and the repertoire; the
archive consists of material objects which are a bi-product of the production (programmes,
production notes, script etc) whilst the repertoire are those immaterial traces of the
performance found in actors bodies or audiences memories. These categories are not to be
understood as mutually exclusive but serve to understand the different approaches to
4 | Page

CEDAR Project
Literature Review
Joseph Dunne 2010

representing a past performance. It is theatres ephemeral nature that brings the greatest
complexity to this argument, with such influential practitioners such as Peter Brook and
Eugenio Barba valuing the subjective experience of the audience over verifiable materials
and documents, as it they who retain the impressions, images, atmosphere, sounds and smells
of the performance as it happened, and once it occurred, it is then gone, leaving only residual
traces of its existence in the mind of the spectator and not in the material world (See Reason
2003:85). Archival evidence also does not address the vital interchange between performers
and audience; they [the audience]change everything on the stage by their energy
(Lepage in Dixon 2007:131) Lepage is not suggesting that the outward actions and
occurrences onstage are drastically altered when performed before a group of people, but
rather both the performers and audiences are mutually receptive to the others sensibilities due
to their shared awareness of both being observed and observing simultaneously.
Theatres transience gives it an identity that distinguishes it from the visual medias of film,
television and photography which is inherently preserved through the process of its making,
and exists to provide a definitive, that is to say an unchangeable, record. This allows for
audiences to view identical works again and again at any time in their lives and be able to
discuss it with others. In contrast, any attempt to discuss a live performance a posteriori to
those who didnt witness it is inherently a subjective account as the source of the discussion
is now empirically unverifiable. The lack of objectivity in such accounts presents problems
for the researcher, where the original experience [that] exists in the audiences memory
becomes devalued as subjective, inaccessible, unauthoratative, and unempirical (Reason
2003:85). If theatre is the art that becomes itself of disappearance (Phelan 1993) then the

5 | Page

CEDAR Project
Literature Review
Joseph Dunne 2010

obvious question arises as to what is being recorded, and what can this tell one about the now
unrepeatable performance?
Theatre occurs in the present (or empirical) moment of space and time and can only be fully
understood and perceived thus (see Abbott 2009:7). What use, then, is documenting theatre
other than providing evidence of its existence (see Argelander 1974)? Traditionally,
photographs of productions were used as publicity material to promote them. These
photographs were usually posed with actors looking directly at the camera, meaning that
they arenot valid indications of what the performance or acting style was like (Moore in
Argelander 1974:51). In contemporary practice this has gradually changed to focus not just
on the final performance i.e. what the audience would see, but also the process which gave
rise to it. In addition the role of the photographer/documenter has been reconsidered not as an
outsider observing the process but serving as an integral part of the rehearsals who must have
an intimate and detailed knowledge of the dramaturgical/thematic/creative considerations at
play (Schmitt 1976:376).
If a photograph of an actor moving is capturing the moment as it happens, then that capturing
process provides a window onto past moments that can never be recreated, and users interact
with these recordsto reinterpret the past (Abbott 2009: Page 1). Abbotts use of the word
reinterpret is highly significant in understanding that the purpose behind performance
documentation goes beyond a visual record. Rather, it allows the viewer an insight into the
ongoing process of the performative moment, the momentary personal interactions of actor,
role, and audience, which the script does not express but which the photographer can capture
(Schmitt 1976: 377). In the 20th and 21st centuries there has been a rapid rise in theatre theory
in an effort to construct methodologies for study and creative deployment (see Milling and
6 | Page

CEDAR Project
Literature Review
Joseph Dunne 2010

Ley 2001: Page vi), but in contrast to written accounts, photographs are more immediately
identifiable as relating to the original practice that they are referring to, photographs
capture these particular and unstable elements more surely than do words written afterwards,
the mind in repose intervening (Schmitt 1976:378). Photographs can enhance these theories
of performance by representing the action(s) of the event through the visual medium, and as
Schmitt says is indicative of how theatre identifies itself through the language of silence
(377). Dixon discusses the ontology of photography in relation to theatre as a reference to
the real which allows us to re-experience the past, a past that the camera can capture and
preserve for posterity for people to return to (Dixon 2007:120). But a photograph cannot
break free of the bounds of its content i.e. the subject is unchangeable and indefatigably
there; the image is a captured version of the past and, unlike a theatre performance, is
reproducible. The reproducible quality of a photograph would seem to contradict theatres
ontology as an event for [a] moment in time that cannot be fully understood retrospectively
(Brook in quoted in Reason 2003:85) as that moment exists for that moment for that
audience. Photography arguably does the same through a process of selecting, capturing and
storing a moment from reality, but theatre is as Brook says an event that is comprised of a
series of moments interwoven together to form a complex performance structure that is not
static but constantly mobile. Even if a photographer attempts to photograph every moment,
the viewer cannot experience the transitional journey of one moment to the next. However,
such an aim is an attempt to re-create the original event as it happened, rather than
documenting the sense experience of the audience through a representation of the original, a
reference to the real.

7 | Page

CEDAR Project
Literature Review
Joseph Dunne 2010

In her series of essays On Photography (1977), Susan Sontag states that when a person takes
a photograph they are placing themselves in relation to the world that assumes knowledge.
Both the photographer and the photograph become an author of actions and events. Such
images are able to usurp reality because first of all a photograph in not only an imagean
interpretation of the real; it is also a trace, something directly stencilled of the real (154).
Using Sontags definition a photograph both interprets and captures a fragment of reality
through its form. Photography allows for actions to be condensed into a fixed image that is
ordered and unchanging, creating the illusion that reality is something that can be captured,
stored and controlled. The medium grants the photographer the privilege of selecting slices
of reality and recording them for posterity. Experiencing reality through images, as
photography allows, is a re-experience of the real i.e. the viewer can re-experience a moment
of the past. Reality is ever-moving, ever-changing and forever alterable and we only
understand our world in relation to where we stand in the present, so looking at photographs
places us in a position where we can consider, imagine and interpret what is photographed
without seeing the actions and/or event in its entirety; rather a fragment or to use Sontags
term a stencil of the real. However, because our perception is in constant flux our relationship
to the past changes, and so the photograph, as a representative of this past, changes also.
Roland Barthes describes photography as an intermediary to the dead and so has comparisons
to theatre, a figuration of the motionless and made-up face[s] beneath we see the dead i.e.
the non-living, non continuing presence of peoples, places and events captured in a
photograph that allows us to penetrate a past occurrence (1993:31-32). When considering live
performance in this context there are comparisons between these practices, as the final
performance is a product of past rehearsals, a document of the processes leading to it-a
body that bares traces of its past (Etchells 1999:72). Photography speaks to theatres
8 | Page

CEDAR Project
Literature Review
Joseph Dunne 2010

dichotomy between the past and present, and is a highly accurate representation of the
fleeting moment of performance because it allows for re-interpretation. By focusing on
specific moments of a performance no sense of completeness is offered, which is more akin
to the nature of a performance i.e. theatre is in a constant state of becoming. Arguably, photodocumentation of performance only becomes useful with supporting metadata; otherwise
these images have no wider-referent. Although such arguments may have validity when the
photo is treated as historical document, it does preclude any other form of interaction with it
beyond a purely intellectual approach. If a photograph of actors moving can be understood to
convey those immaterial traces of a performance then it would seem prudent for researchers
to engage with the process of its making, where these immaterial traces are made palpable
through an embodied understanding. Here, we can see a necessity to broaden the definition of
the performing arts archive out of the narrow confines of the archive to include these
immaterial traces (see Abbott 2009).In this sense the mediatised theatre performance is a
distortion of the original as it is a re-organisation of signs (see Bay-Cheng 2007: 39).
Filmed theatre is, arguably, a more useful record, as it records the event is in its entirety, and
the entire production is being presented with all elements of the stage combining to make
meaning. In his essay Filming Theatre: The Audiovisual Documentation as a Substitute for
Performance (2007), Goldman postulates that the archiving process is inherent to the theatremaking process, stating that archiving begins with the first inception of a creative idea as
material is collected, so archival material can be seen not only as remains of a ephemeral
performance but also an organic component of it (Goldman 2007:5). In the absence of the
live performance the recording of it becomes the primary referent of all the artefacts that
remain after the event. Goldman goes on to argue that in this context the function of the

9 | Page

CEDAR Project
Literature Review
Joseph Dunne 2010

archive is to testify of [the performances] ephemeral existence in the factual world

(Goldman 2007:1). The purpose of this is not to provide mere proof but to testify to its
presence and influence within current theatrical practices, whilst allowing new ones to
develop. However, when considering both of these forms and indeed any type of
documentation it is vital to acknowledge the transformation that the original event undergoes.

Objects in an archive can then be understood not as relics of the past but as unfolding in the
present due to the discourses, practices and methodologies they generate; their existence
acknowledges the living process of theatre as they were borne directly out of a live process
and performance. When collected together these documents allow for a methodology to
develop around them which can be studied, analysed, critiqued and eventually developed into
an alternative practice which in turn can be documentedand so on. Furthermore, a greater
question arises as to what traces a performance leaves, if these traces can provide some
insight into how an audience receive and understand a performance perceptually, and how
theatre ephemera can connect us to the ontological content of performance.

In Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression (1996) Derrida discusses that the question of the
archive is;
[a] question of the future, the question of the future itself, the question of a response, of a promise and
of a responsibility for tomorrow. The archive: if we want to know what that will have meant, we will
only know in time to come. Perhaps. Not tomorrow but in time to come, later on or perhaps never

(Derrida 1996:36).
The above comment has similarities to Eugenio Barbas essay, Eftermaele: That which will
be said afterwards (1992) Barba uses the Norwegian word eftermaele (honour and
reputation) to describe the relationship between work undertaken in the present i.e.

10 | P a g e

CEDAR Project
Literature Review
Joseph Dunne 2010

performance and the influence this work will exude in the future, a future that transcends our
present actions as that is when they will be judged of any value; what really matters is
what will be said afterwards when we who worked at the task are gone (1992:77). The task
that Barba refers to is theatre-making, but both Derrida and Barba emphasise the importance
of understanding the present as forming the future, which in turn constantly refers back to the
past to understand how the present was constructed. Therefore in order to discuss the
relationship between the archive and theatre it is necessary to understand the causality
between an audiences experiential perception of theatres liveness in contrast to studying
live performance through documentation and analysis. These materials exist a posteriori of
the event, which to return to the Etchells quote assumes an authoritative voice that is
assumed to speak the truth.
A consensus of what constitutes a theatrical performance remains highly elusive, as a
collective understanding of this practice has been influenced by multiple factors, one of the
primary factors being peoples memories of performances. Theatre is a word that has many
connotations attached to it. In the obvious, material sense we think of the theatre building
with the foyer, box office, red curtain, auditorium etc. Beyond this there is the event that
takes place in the theatre, a reality being created onstage by actors movements, voices and
interactions with other performers and audience. However, the understanding of the purpose
behind this reality is informed by the concept of tradition; traditional actors, who
continue to play in a traditional way, drawing their inspiration not from real sources but from
imaginary ones, such as the memory of a sound that in turn was a memory of a predecessors
way (Brook 1968:14,emphasis added). When Brook uses the word imaginary to describe
the sources that performers draw their inspiration from, he is referring to a master-narrative

11 | P a g e

CEDAR Project
Literature Review
Joseph Dunne 2010

of theatrical history that has created these associations (see Connerton 1989). The word
imaginary is used to describe these sources to highlight that for a performance to have a
meaning it must be ever-conscious of its unfolding presence in space and time, and any
imitation of a past practice only exists to facilitate a notion of what constitutes real theatre.
Imitation necessarily relies on prior events in order to manifest itself, but when considering
theatres ephemeral nature the obvious question arises as to how people know acting was
performed in such-and-such a way? Brook relates this to a sense of nobility: [audiences
want] a theatre that is nobler-thanlife, and [the theoretician] confuses a sort of intellectual
satisfaction with the true experience for which he craves (ibid 1968:13, emphasis added). By
noble Brook means something purer, larger and greater than the experience of an individual,
an experience which speaks to the wider themes of the world, rather than a performance an
audience think constitutes legitimate theatre.
In A Dictionary of Theatre Anthropology (1991) Eugenio Barba divides human memory into
two categories: empirical and written. The first concerns information which is acquired orally
by means of particular terminology, certain physical and vocal rhythms, and the professional
biography of the individualat the moment of passing experience onto someone else, whilst
written memory is contained in all the various, visible and verifiable relics, in an attempt to
reconstruct, penetrate and connect fragments of the past (Barba 1991:44). Barba could just as
easily be describing the process of performance i.e. the passing on of experience is
transmitted in the performative moment to the audience whilst the relics are the materials
(e.g. the script) which exist independently of that moment. Therefore, when we discuss a
performance we are utilising both. Consider this hypothetical example: If one were to go to
the Globe and see a production of Romeo and Juliet and relate the experience to one who

12 | P a g e

CEDAR Project
Literature Review
Joseph Dunne 2010

hasnt seen it we would be using our empirical memories. We might attempt to describe how
a sonnet was spoken or how an actor adopted a certain walk. This would be based on
experiential understanding, and although the description of the performance, combined with
an individuals interpretation, provides insight into the work it is still a highly subjective
account. However, the theatre may have sold programmes as souvenirs to take home, which
is a document that testifies to the performances existence. The live event then has some
partial existence in the material world, independent of an audiences memories. It is also
unchangeable, unlike memories which are in a constant process of transformation. However,
Barba argues that it is because memories are constantly shifting and altering that makes it the
most useful account as it is the closest representation of live performance next to the event
itself, saying that theatre defines itself through the work of living memory, which is not
museum but metamorphosis (Barba 1992) Both Barba and Michael Kustow emphasise the
interpretive nature of theatres semiotics. Kustow states that [m]etaphor [is] the essence of
theatre language, [it] enables us to see around the edges of a given reality, for it does not hide
the make-believe of its pictures (Kustow 1999:204), while Barba discusses theatrical signs
as not existing in and of themselves; rather, they have the potential to become meaningful for
the spectator if they contain the possibility of interpretation. They cannot have a fixed
meaning because an audiences reactions are unforeseeable and the performance will develop
over time, so the signs are in a constant state of flux and development, despite the fact that
outwardly the performance is the same but the relationship between the doer and the done
is always changing. He goes on to discuss the importance of memory for the spectator,
describing memory in theatre as a way of seeing (Barba 1991:144). For the relationship
between the performer and the action to have the sense of occurring in the present moment
for the first time it must be perceived as it happens as any recording of it immediately

13 | P a g e

CEDAR Project
Literature Review
Joseph Dunne 2010

becomes a record of a past event that cannot go beyond what has been captured on film.
Theatre is a dual process of active awareness of actions occurring in the present moment for a
gathering of people that share the space that is articulated through metaphoric, that is to say
representational, signs expressed in gesture, voice, lighting and stage properties. The notion
of truth in performance then becomes highly problematic; if theatrical signs are designed to
be constantly re-interpreted then this truth is highly elusive and, logically, not repeatable or
recordable, for it is a truth that can only be received in the moment of performance. However,
it is not just the actors who convey meaning, but the relationship between all stage properties
which convey the truth of the performance.

When considering a theatre archive it is tempting to place those objects contained within in
the category of written memory i.e. those relics (to use Barbas term) that connect people to
those past events. However, any theatre ephemera are a product of the live performance and
are intimately linked to the events that surrounded it, and so can provide an insight for those
who have not seen the performance to gain an insight into the live happenings of both the
process and product (Goldmsmith 2007). Such an insight is not only useful for a theatre
historian per se but for contemporary practitioners who wish to further their work in the
present (and, presumably, the future) by studying the past. It is documents such as the theatre
programme that make the present understandable, as the anthropologist Paul Connerton
explains; [w]e experience our present world in a context which is causally connected with
past events and objects which we are not experiencing when we experience the present
(1989:2, emphasis added). Here Connerton explains how knowledge and experience of the
past makes understanding of the present meaningful and possible, as without these objects

14 | P a g e

CEDAR Project
Literature Review
Joseph Dunne 2010

and events our present exists in a vacuum with no frame of reference. A performance
archive can provide this frame of reference when studying a live performance after the event.

Perhaps to a far greater degree than the other arts, theatre is primarily concerned with the
present, and those figures involved in its production produce ephemeral works (Barba
1992). Derrida describes the archive as the law, the authority by which people gather
information, which informs our collective memory of events because they provide images of
them and thus a narrative is established. This definition acquires added complexity when
considering theatres ontology, as in the context of live performance the event which
Derrida describes occurs both in the past and is continued in the present in preparation for the
future.

15 | P a g e

CEDAR Project
Literature Review
Joseph Dunne 2010

Bibliography
Abbott, D. Jones, S. and Ross, S (2009) Re-defining the Performing Arts Archive in
Archivarial Science. Vol.8, No.3 pp 165-171
Argelander, (1974) Photo-Documentation (and interview with Patrick Moore). The Drama
Review, Vol. 18, issue 3 pp 51-58
Barba, E. and Savarese, N. ([1991] 2006) A Dictionary of Theatre Anthropology. Routledge:
Oxon
________ and Delconte, S. (1992) Eftermaele: That Which Will be Said Afterwards. The
Drama Review, Vol. 36, No.2 pp 77-80
Barthes, R. (1980) Camera Lucida, translated from the French by Hill and Wang. Vintage:
London
Bay-Cheng,S. (2007) Theatre Squared: Theatre History in the Age of Media in Theatre
Topics. John Hopkins University Press pp 37-50
Brook, P. (1968)The Empty Space. Penguin
Cook, T. (1997) What is Past is Prologue: A History of Archival Ideas Since 1898, and the
Future Paradigm Shift in Archivaria Vol.43 pp 17-63
Connerton, P. (1989) How Societies Remember, Cambridge University Press
Derrida, J. (1996) Archive Fever. The University of Chicago Press
Dixon, S. (2007) Digital Performance: A History of New Media in Theatre, Dance,
Performance Art, and Installation, MIT Press
Etchells,T. (1999) Certain Fragments:
Entertainment, Routledge: London

Contemporary

Performance

and

Forced

Goldsmith, Nestor F. Bravo, (2007) Filming Theatre: The Audiovisual Documentation as a

Substitute for Performance, Unpublished Thesis
Kaye, N. (1996) Tim Etchells and Richard Lowdon (Forced Entertainment Theatre CoOperative) in Art into Theatre: Performance Interviews and Documents. Harwood Academic
Publishers
Kustow, M. (2001) Theatre@risk, London:Methuen
Millar, L. (2006) Touchstones: Considering the Relationship Between Memory and
Archives in Archivaria Vol. 61, pp 105-126
Reason, M. (2003) Archive or Memory? The Detritus of Live Performance, New Theatre
Quarterly, vol. 29, February, pp 82-89

16 | P a g e

CEDAR Project
Literature Review
Joseph Dunne 2010

Rye, C. (2003) Incorporating Practice: A Multi-Viewpoint Approach To Performance

Documentation in Journals of Media Practice. Vol.3 pp 115-123
Schmitt, N. (1976) Recording the theatre in Photographs, Educational Theatre Journal,
Vol.28, No.3 pp 376-388
Sontag,S. (1977) On Photography. Penguin: London
Phelan, P. (1993) Unmarked: The Politics of Performance, Routledge: New York
Millar, L. (2006) Touchstones: Considering the Relationship Between Memory and
Archives in Archivaria Vol. 61 pp 105-126
Milling, J. and Ley, G. (2001) Modern Theories of Performance: From Stanislavski to Boal.
Palgrave: Basingstoke
Schmitt, N. (1976) Recording the theatre in Photographs, Educational Theatre Journal,
Vol.28, No.3 pp 376-388
Taylor, D. ([2003]2005) The Archive and the Repertoire: Performing Cultural Memory in the
Americas. Duke University Press

17 | P a g e