Hostname: page-component-6dbcb7884d-fw45b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-13T23:31:55.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Principles of ownership and the transmission of knowledge in contemporary dance and Irish traditional music: Social norms and legal contexts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2022

James Leach Open the ORCID record for James Leach [Opens in a new window]
James Leach*
Affiliation:
Centre national de la recherche scientifique, Centre de Recherche et de Documentation sur l’Océanie, Aix Marseille Université, EHESS, Marseille, France
*
Email: james.leach@pacific-credo.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Drawing on the contributions to this special issue, this article offers a synthetic description of the principles of ownership, sharing, and reward that guide and stimulate the creative practices of contemporary dance. Irish traditional music is also considered. The article aims to contextualize creative practices within a series of concerns around the protection and perpetuation of valuable cultural and artistic practices. This contextualization establishes the relevance and interest of the contemporary dance for other domains and attends to the contemporary conditions of cultural production, including those of intellectual property law, commercialization, and community/commons formation. I show how this work offers an illuminating model of social process in which value created in common is linked – through reputation, attribution, recognition, and innovation – to people, without private property becoming the dominant mode of ownership.

Type
Article
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 29 , Special Issue 2: Special Issue: Contemporary Dance, Knowledge, and Models for Ownership , May 2022 , pp. 107 - 121
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the International Cultural Property Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aragon, Lorraine V., and Leach, J. 2008. “Arts and Owners: Intellectual Property Law and the Politics of Scale in Indonesian Arts.” American Ethnologist 35, no. 4: 607–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brown, M. F. 2005. “Heritage Trouble: Recent Work on the Protection of Intangible Cultural Property.” International Journal of Cultural Property 12: 40–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, M. F. 2014. “The Possibilities and Perils of Heritage Management.” In Cultural Heritage Ethics: Between Theory and Practice, edited by Sandis, Constantine, 171–79. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers.Google Scholar
Bench, H. 2016. “Dancing in Digital Archives: Circulation, Pedagogy, Performance.” Transmission in Motion: The Technologizing of Dance, edited by in Bleeker, M., 154– 67. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bench, H. 2020. Perpetual Motion: Dance, Digital Cultures, and the Common. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Burt, R. 2017. Ungoverning Dance: Contemporary European Theatre Dance and the Commons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Castells, Manuel. 2000. “Materials for an Exploratory Theory of the Network Society.” British Journal of Sociology 51, no. 1: 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chon, Margaret. 2012. “The Romantic Collective Author.” Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 14, no. 4: 829–49.Google Scholar
Colin, N., and Sachsenmaier, S., eds. 2016. Collaboration in Performance Practice: Premises, Workings and Failures. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H. 2010. Tacit and Explicit Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombe, R. 2003. “Fear, Hope, and Longing for the Future of Authorship and a Revitalized Public Domain in Global Regimes of Intellectual Property.” DePaul Law Review 53: 1171–91.Google Scholar
Cvejić, B. 2015. Choreographing Problems: Expressive Concepts in European Dance and Performance. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutfield, G., and Posey, D.. 1996. Beyond Intellectual Property: Toward Traditional Resource Rights for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre.Google Scholar
Faure, S. 2000. Apprendre par corps. Socio-anthropologie des techniques de danse. Paris: La Dispute.Google Scholar
Flessas, T. 2008. “The Repatriation Debate and the Discourse of the Commons.” Social & Legal Studies 17, no. 3: 387–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsythe, W. 1999. Improvisation Technologies: A Tool for the Analytical Dance Eye. Karlsruhe: Zentrum für Kunst und Medientechnologie.Google Scholar
Franko, Mark. 2004. “Given Movement: Dance and the Event.” In Of the Presence of the Body: Essays on Dance and Performance Theory, edited by Lepecki, Andre Å. L., 113–23. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Gil, J. 2009. “Paradoxical Body.” In Planes of Composition: Dance, Theory and the Global, edited by Lepecki, A. and Joy, J., 84–106. New York: Seagull.Google Scholar
Gofman, A. 1998. “A Vague but Suggestive Concept: The ‘Total Social Fact.’” In Marcel Mauss: A Centenary Tribute, edited by James, W. and Allen, N. J., 63–70. Oxford: Berghahn Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallam, E., and Ingold, T., eds. 2007. Creativity and Cultural Improvisation. ASA Monograph no. 43. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Ingold, T. 2013. Making. Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Michael. 1989. Paths towards a Clearing, Radical Empiricism and Ethnographic Enquiry. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Jaszi, Peter. 2015. “Legal Protection for Indonesian Traditional Arts in Transitions.” In Diversity in Intellectual Property, edited by Calboli, I. and Ragavan, S., 494–524. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeeves, T. 2016. “The Author of the Gift: The Practice of Authorship.” In Collaboration in Performance Practice, edited by Colin, N. and Sachsenmaier, S., 158–78. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kraut, A. 2016. Choreographing Copyright: Race, Gender and Intellectual Property Rights in American Dance. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laermans, Rudi. 2015. Moving Together: Theorizing and Making Contemporary Dance. Amsterdam: Atennae.Google Scholar
Leach, J. 2002. Drum and Voice. “Aesthetics and Social Process on the Rai Coast of Papua New Guinea.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 8: 713–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, J. 2012. “Step Inside: The Politics of (Making) Knowledge Objects.” In The Politics of Knowledge, edited by Beart, Patrick and Rubio, Fernando, 79–95. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Leach, J. 2014. “Choreographic Objects: Contemporary Dance, Digital Creations And Prototyping Social Visibility.” Journal of Cultural Economy 7, no. 4: 458–75. http://doi.org/10.1080/17530350.2013.858058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, J., and deLahunta, S.. 2017. “Dance Becoming Knowledge. Designing a Digital Body.” Leonardo 50, no. 5: 461–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, J., and Stern, M.. 2020. “The Value of Music in Melanesia.” In The Oxford Handbook of Economic Ethnomusicology, edited by Morcom, A. and Taylor, T. T., 1–22. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190859633.013.33.Google Scholar
Leach, James, and Stevens, Catherine J.. 2020. “Relational Creativity and Improvisation in Contemporary Dance.” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 45, no. 1: 95–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mamadipudi, A., Shäfer, D., and Bunning, M., eds. 2023. The Ownership of Knowledge. Boston, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Manning, E., and Massumi, B., 2013. “Just Like That: William Forsythe, Between Movement and Language.” In Touching and Being Touched: Kinesthesia and Empathy in Dance and Movement, edited by Brandstetter, G., Egert, G. and Zubarik, S., 35–62. Berlin: DeGruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauss, M. 1990. The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. Translated by Halls, W. D.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Noë, A. 2007. “Making Worlds Available.” in Knowledge in Motion: Perspectives of Artistic and Scientific Research in Dance, edited by Gehm, S., Husemann, P. and von Wilke, K., 121–27. Bielefeld: Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pakes, A. 2003. “Original Embodied Knowledge: The Epistemology of the New in Dance Practice As Research.” Research in Dance Education 4, no. 2: 127–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pakes, A. 2020. Choreography Invisible: The Disappearing Work of Dance. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polanyi, M. 1964. The Tacit Dimension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ravetto-Biagioli, K. 2020. “Whose Dance Is It Anyway?: Property, Copyright and the Commons.” Theory, Culture and Society 38, no. 1: 101–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snowber, C. 2012. “Dance As a Way of Knowing. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education.” 2012: 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.20017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperling, M. 2017. Material / Rearranged / to Be. London: Siobhan Davis Dance.Google Scholar
Stevens, C. J., and Leach, J.. 2015. “Bodystorming: Effects of Collaboration and Familiarity on Improvising Contemporary Dance.” Cognitive Processing International Quarterly of Cognitive Science 16: 403–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Weiner, J. F. 2001. Tree Leaf Talk: A Heideggerian Anthropology. London: Berg.Google Scholar