Differentiating (an)notation practices: an artist-scholar’s observation

[su_spoiler title="Abstract" open="yes" style="default" icon="plus" anchor="" class=""]

Video annotation is an emergent practice and is not (yet) a common method in dance studies or research. Subsequently, there are limited accounts that detail the practice of using annotation in dance. The accounts of video annotation that are available serve diverse and particular purposes (see, for example, the documents in this special issue) but a common
understanding of what annotation is does not theoretically cohere. Furthermore, the tendency to use the terms annotation and notation synonymously conflates these practices and risks overlooking the significant contributions of each. This article presents four different approaches to annotation and highlights the varied but distinctive nature of this
mark-up method from an artist-scholar’s perspective. In discussing my experience, reflections, and observations of working with annotation to augment a notation score and video documents, I offer an understanding of annotation, what it offers in analysing and transmitting ideas about dance, and the importance or implications of annotation. Crucially,
drawing lightly from Bernard Stiegler’s philosophy of technology, I position annotations as technical memories created in dialogue with existing mnemotechnical forms, or technical objects. Such characterisation illuminates how annotation helps to overcome limitations of documentary forms and highlight information otherwise missing or previously unnoticed. To further emphasise annotation as a method of amplification I make comparisons between
my experience of annotation and of Labanotation to highlight the similarities and differences between these distinctive methodological tools. While the examples of annotation primarily focus on dance the insight developed in this article is valuable for any field working with time-based media

[/su_spoiler]