Ⅰ. Introduction

The crack [among artists] is not a straight line, but a meandering oblique one, not the same as the border line.1)

The above passage is from Hans Scheib, an artist who left East Germany and moved to West Berlin in 1976. His words suggest that the boundaries of art and culture are not the same as those of political and territorial boundaries, and that even if the latter disappears, the former cannot be expected to disappear automatically. Rather, the invisible cracks and boundaries that define the arts might be trickier to identify and require more caution to remove them. It also reminds us that we cannot expect the arts to have the same homogeneous nature for people within political boundaries.

The nation-state, which has become the dominant political unit since the 20th century, has had a strong influence on art and culture, serving as the basic foundation of arts education, policy, and support. Thus, it is necessary to be aware of national boundaries when trying to understand art and culture.2) However, as Benedict Anderson points out, national borders that many believe and assert to be persistent because it has been inherited from the past is a product of modernity and generates ongoing conflicts and negotiations today. What is interesting here is the role of art and culture. While art and culture work to aggregate the imagined community of a nation-state by instilling in its members a sense of cultural identity and belonging, immaterial art and culture actually have a spatial dimension that is not limited to the modern frame of state borders.3) This tension between firm national borders and cultural and artistic dynamics which refuse to be contained by such boundaries gives rise to conflict.

The division and unification, the theme of this volume, centers around this movement of borders. In this context, the dance history writing accompanies a very strange work that conceives something that is not limited to borders within the frame of borders, goes beyond the borders, and conceives it again in terms of a new borders. The case of Korea adds another layer of complexity because its division was due to ideological tensions. After its colonial experience, Korea underwent war and territorial bifurcation before its manifestation within the modern framework of the nation-state. After the Korean War, its art and culture developed through active intervention of the government. The country was also exposed to many outside influences, particularly that of the West. In fact, the state’s modernization was equated with Westernization, to the point that the concept and terminology of art and culture were transplanted from the outside-the West. Korean art and culture has been further shaped by outside influences via globalization, which has resulted in the rapid exchange and migration of art and culture, transcending territorial borders. The dance history writing goes through the process of selecting dancers, dance works, dance genres, and dance phenomena that should be remembered and passed on to future generations. In this process, it is necessary to consider how to understand and cope with the conflicts among various interest groups. In addition, it will require much effort to figure out how to categorize history that does not occur in accordance with the institutional framework.

Therefore, this paper intends to deal with the issues of dance and borders in order to investigate the effect of the shift of political and ideological boundaries on art and culture. First, I examine the meaning of the concepts and terms of deterritorialization and reterritorialization and their implications from the perspective of art and culture. Next, I review the case of Germany, which experienced division and reunification, and consider the points to be referred to when forecasting the case of Korean dance history. Here, I look back on the history of East German art that faded due to the predominance of the West after reunification. I suggest that it is important to ask questions about the foundation on which I stand in order not to otherize myself and others. A balanced perspective shall be sought to embrace the complexity of personal history that an official narrative may miss. I finally propose to have a broad view that goes beyond not only the borders of division but also the borders of unification.

Ⅱ. Moving Borders and Dance History

1. Concepts of Deterritorialization and Reterritorialization and Culture, Arts, and Dance

1) Discourses on Deterritorialization and Reterritorialization

In Capitalisme et Schizophrénie (1972-1980), Gilles Deleuze and Felix Gattari first propose the terms “deterritorialization” and “reterritorialization.” Deleuze and Gattari discuss the nature of capitalism in terms of deterritorialization, leaving one’s previous territory, and reterritorialization, making one’s own territory elsewhere.4) An important point in their discussion is to point out the globalization of capital, which is not limited to national borders.

Meanwhile, Arjun Appadurai, an anthropologist who has focused on cultural studies, suggests the existence of a transnational cultural flow, namely, deterritorialization in terms of social culture.5) Apadurai's research, which started from a reflection on his own experiences and identity, refers to deterritorialization by pointing out how cultural dynamics that are not tied to the category of a nation-state form new identities and change everyday life. He mainly discusses transnational flows from the point of view of popular culture, but gives implications to the discussion in this paper in that it deals with the phenomenon that culture is not limited to borders.

In addition, Gil Manuel Hernàndez Martí discusses the deterritorialization of cultural heritage in the age of global modernity. According to him, what was identified as national and regional cultural heritage in early modernity is undergoing deterritorialization as it transitions to world cultural heritage. He in particular argues that the concept of cultural heritage itself belongs to one of the three main expressions of deterritorialization: a hybrid.6) Hernandez Marti's discussion helps us to understand the cultural heritage that is an important part of the narrative of the dance history in a post-territorial way.

The discussions of these major scholars who have dealt with deterritorialization so far have talked about economic and cultural flows and connectivity beyond the existence of borders rather than the movement of borders, which are political and administrative boundaries. This study, however, considers the actual movements of borders having impacts on art and culture as a issue of deterritorialization/reterritorialization.

2) Dance and Moving Borders

There are many prior studies on dance and choreography that take place around political borders; the case of unified Germany, which will be covered later in this article, would be the closest example to the case study of Korea. In Nicholas Rowe's “Movement Politics: Dance Criticism in the Occupied Palestinian Territories,” he discusses how the Israeli-Palestinian border disputes have contributed to the evaluation of and writings on dance.7) Quoting Edward Said's "Who writes? For whom is writing performed?”, Rowe allows the readers to contemplate the forces inherent in dance writings. In particular, he suggests that the concepts of Western-style art, dance, and aesthetic excellence can be a kind of oppression or violence when applied without critical reflection.

Meanwhile, Selena Rakočević's “Dancing in the Danube Gorge: Geography, Dance, and Interethnic Perspectives” investigates dances performed in villages in the Danube Valley in order to observe how the dances have been affected by the Romania-Serbia border. The official discourse regarding the region emphasizes the cultural differences between Romanians and Serbians and asserts that local dance practices are based on this diversity. However, Rakočević points out how these dances influence each other to the point that the influx overwhelms the distinct identities in the actual dances.8) Rakocevic's research provides the process of separation and connection that the region has historically experienced, highlighting the complexity of the dance phenomenon that political boundaries and official narratives might sterilize.

In addition, Janet O'Shea's “Temple to Battlefield: Bharata Natyam in the Sri Lankan Civil War” discusses the function of the Bharata Natiyam, which had been reconstructed in the 20th century as a symbol of India's national identity, for the Tamils who struggled for independence in Sri Lanka.9) While regarded as a national and traditional dance, Bharata Natiyam had served two conflicting roles, both as a source of Hindu cultural identity and a symbol of respectful feminine identity in the Buddhist culture.

These studies suggest that the description of dance and dance history writing are very complex and subtle work, and that simply listing famous figures and works is not enough. Dance and dance writing, while being influenced by borders and border-related disputes, are not limited to them, but they can generate diverse and sometimes contradictory meanings as they transverse borders. The dance history writing is a work that must capture the phenomenon of dancing that moves with and separately from borders.

When looking at the concepts of deterritorialization and reterritorialization from the perspective of dance history as it relates to borders, it is necessary to consider how to reconcile international and domestic stories. Today, when locality and national boundaries must be recognized in a global and transnational context, dance history needs to deal flexibly with both the local and the global. While realistically recognizing the existence and influence of the nation-state, it is necessary to have a balanced perspective recognizing that culture, arts, and dance are not confined within local or national boundaries. However, it cannot be overlooked that the dance world is a “subsidized market” that relies heavily on national support.10) For this reason, it is greatly influenced by the state policy, and it even plays a role in the nation's propaganda. In addition, it should not be forgotten that the transnational trend may be applied somewhat uniquely in the case of Korea due to the history of fratricide caused by the capitalist-communist ideological confrontation, followed by the Cold War and anti-communist education in South Korea, and North Korea's closed social system.

2. Implications of German Case of Reunification

In this section, I look at the case of Germany, which has experienced a similar division to that of Korea, and consider it in the light of the Korean situation. This section depicts the dance of history created by intertwining homogeneity and heterogeneity, competition and reconciliation, public and private narratives, and international connectivity and domestic solidarity.

1) Waning History

Apart from the brief sense of triumph after the collapse of the Berlin Wall and German reunification, the period after was defined by a series of conflicts. While Germany's reunification signaled the merging of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) and the German Federation (West Germany),11) this process can more accurately be described as the absorption of the East by the West. This political and administrative reality is also evident in the state’s attitude toward the arts. As the West German artistic concept and evaluation criteria soon became the norm, the East German viewpoint almost disappeared.

The case of “Bilderstreit” (Image Battle) illustrates this situation most clearly. Karl-Siegbert Rehberg says that while dealing with the German image battle after reunification, the key question of whether ‘art’ itself was possible in East Germany arose. Georg Baselitz, an artist who fled from former East Germany to West Germany before the collapse of the wall, made the following extreme remarks:

[T]here had been no artists at all: No painters. None of them ever painted a picture...simply assholes(Aschenlöcher).12)

According to Rehberg, this interpretation can be said to show the difference between the concepts of arts and artistic creation between East and West Germany. Since the Western art concept was based on continuous innovation and creation, the East German method was not subsumed under the concept of arts because of the state’s control and interference. As the Western way of understanding the arts became the universal norm, the old East German arts was on the path of decline. Most of the works from the East German era disappeared from the museum's permanent exhibition list, and the works that were considered representative works in the past were publicly degraded.

What about dance? East German dance scholar Jens Giersdorf writes that there has been “the lack of historicalization of East German dance.”13) According to him, not only have records of official dance culture been poorly kept, but records of the informal dance culture, such as amateur dance circles, folk dance groups, and military dance groups, have been scattered in various private collections or in old West German archives, or just disappeared. Under these circumstances, when the dancers who lived at that time get old and die, the whole country's dance production will disappear, says Giersdorf.

Giersdorf's concerns do not appear to be excessive. It has been 30 years since Germany was reunified, but the history of German dance has been focused around West Germany. East German ballet and tanztheater, the forms of dance commonly performed in West Germany, are discussed more than dance forms specific to socialist societies such as mass choreography, which Giersdorf considers as a powerful common component of East German national identity and a means of confirming it.14) East German dance is not only missing from historical records, but also from the repertoire that is currently being performed. In addition, the memories of the citizens' bodies at that time are covered with the physical codes of unified Germany.15) According to Giersdorf, it is necessary to analyze the relationship between all choreographic efforts in order to understand the choreographic practices of the time and the meaning of the dance vocabulary. He suggests that one needs to recognize the totalitarian effects of global imperialism and the political problems associated with Western hegemony. From the perspective of this study, it will be necessary to discreetly observe the meaning of dance practices, dance records, and dance memories that are suffering from disappearance, misunderstanding, and oppression after the unification described by Giersdorf in order to fairly remember the history of the division period.

2) Resisting Otherization by Reflecting on Oneself

After reunification, it seemed obvious that there should be a change. However, the power relationship would inevitably act in the direction of the change. It is a tricky thing to look at the period before unification with the eyes of after-unification. I wonder if it would be a desirable direction for Western political and economic dominance to direct that eyes. To state that the art and culture of old East Germany were stagnant due to the compulsory rule of the state16) might point to the trend of cultural policy under the direction of the East German state and the party; however the statement also might blind the fact that even in that era, "not only works based on socialist realism, but also works of art in various directions were made.”17)

In addition, the statement that "the pre-Nazi cultural heritage that remained in old East Germany, especially in the tradition and heritage of the cultural city, was inherited and developed"18) gives a false impression that East Germany did not undergo its own changes and developments during the period of division. This refusal to acknowledge independent developments resembles the way social evolutionists described the third world. The idea that “only the inflow of South Korean art and culture into North Korea will help restore the homogeneity of the divided North and South Korea”19) also seems to favor infiltration or patronizing charity, not reconciliation. Rather than convening information about arts and culture itself, these statements reveal the biases of scholars, who try to prove what is more “proper.”20)

Reberg points out that such an attitude is what the two Germanys have in common after the division.

Both Germany, which were at the forefront of each camp under the Cold War confrontation structure after the division, oversimplified their artistic ideals and paid great attention to maximizing the difference between them normatively. In the process, they both criticized or even condemned the basic principles of the art understanding of the hostile countries, thereby securing the superiority of their own arts over the other, and also trying to justify their “advanced character.”21)

These observations suggest that the artistic activity of divided Germany and Korea were conscious of the political fight for ideological and hegemonic authority. Even though East German art was subject to state intervention and management, it would be a misunderstanding to think that West German artists enjoyed complete freedom. According to Reberg, indiscriminate criticism of East Germany’s ‘state artist’ is problematic in that “it was not taking into account the close relationship between the artist and the state peculiar to capitalism that the work of artists in West Germany is done in a form that is inseparable from the art market and public funds.”22) I suggest that when art intertwined with the state ideologies, the artistic competition that emerges between two sides is more fierce in Korea than in Germany. This is because Germany is well known for its decentralization of art policy, which strove to distance itself from Nazis’ political propaganda through art.23) Rather, Korea, whose central government has a tendency to play a central role in shaping art and culture, requires a better and more nuanced understanding of the close relationship between art and the state.

In the case of Germany, this attitude of competing for legitimacy emerged in a series of exhibitions after reunification, which indicated gaps among the various perspectives. Reberg points out that the media in the West German region were also resentful of the unfair treatment of East German works in these exhibitions.24) In this debate, I suggest, it is important to remember that there was no such thing as a perfect split between ‘ourside’ and ‘yourside.’

Similarly in Korea, art scholars voice that looking back at ourselves rather than otherizing North Korea is a prerequisite step for unification. For example, Lee Ihnbum argues that from the perspective of art, we must calmly identify the mechanisms and ways of thinking that dominate our daily lives.

If you want to overturn the division and go toward unification, there are quite a few things to question again. Prior to otherization of North Korea, prior to wonder what North Korea is, different in what ways, and why it is difficult to understand, we need to review what is the modernity that has created the current division, what are the fundamental elements of Japanese colonial remnants or coloniality, how the totalitarianism and militarism, which were forced by the Japanese imperialism, are internalized and remembered by us, and what are the mechanism that constitutes and operates the present of the North and the South, etc. Without critical examining of various institutions such as museums, art galleries, cultural heritage offices, and schools, and of the terminologies like ‘arts,’ ‘Korean painting,’ and ‘Joseon painting’ that still constrain our daily life, it is difficult to escape from the trap of cultural colonialism when one discusses ‘nation,’ ‘subjectivity’ or ‘identity.’25)

If this is to be applied to dance, it can be said that critical reflection should be given to terms such as ‘dance’ and ‘Korean dance’ and the mechanism and institutions of performances, schools, cultural foundations, associations, and policies of support which constitute the modus operandi of the dance world. In addition, one must question whether dance in a capitalist society, which advocates freedom, innovation, and openness, is actually free. In this regard, Ramsay Burt explains that dance emphasizing artistic freedom is subsumed into “the vocation of capitalism to commoditize desire, especially the desire for freedom.”26) Considering these points, dance history which anticipates unification needs to undergo self-reflection and adopt a benevolent attitude rather than otherizing the opponent.

3) Remembering with a Balanced Perspective

When observing the case of German reunification, one would agree that it is a necessary task to resolve hostilities and to build an understanding of both sides to achieve national reconciliation and harmony. However, it is difficult to come up with a concrete plan of how to deal with so many differences and points of interest. Kim Philo insists that there is no need to stick to the so-called traditional art before division in order to secure homogeneity.27) Rather, the heterogeneity of traditional art which emerged by being interpreted and developed differently by both countries during the division period can be conspicuous. In this respect, he stated, “we shall not exclusively regard North Korean art, which has a completely different genre and content, but efforts to understand the difference as diversity are necessary.” Kim Philo follows to discuss a plan to exchange with modern pop culture rather than traditional art.

Then, what are some ways to cope with the inclusion of diversity? Yhee Jean points out that it is not to be solved by simply expanding or extending the quantitative size of the memory space.28) If we move this to an art scene, it can be said that simply increasing the area of the exhibition hall, holding joint exhibitions or joint performances, and increasing the number of pages of dance books are insufficient. If so, this will be a matter of the planning or curation method.

Yhee Jean in a review of the memorial hall─an emergency camp in West Germany which accommodated East German defectors─illustrates the possibility of embracing diversity by investigating the memory preservation method of this space from the perspective of a monument or a history museum. In particular, what she positively points out is that the memorial was not a government-led project, but was founded in a voluntary way by “the citizens who were the subjects of the past memories.” This, Yhee Jean commented, avoided making just one dominating formal statement of history. As an example reflecting this, there are displayed interviews that illustrates not only the feeling of relief and hope when the East German defectors arrived in West Germany, but also “the unfamiliarity of the interrogation process that had to go through at the time and the embarrassment when they faced a misunderstanding of the situation in East Germany.”29) In addition, these interviews reveal a personal dimension of defection that was often excluded from government and media reports: reunion with family, relatives, or loved ones.

Another noteworthy point in Yhee Jean’s discussion of the camp is about ‘body memory.’ She notes that cultural memories were engraved on the bodies of the people who lived there as ‘border people’ after East German defectors fled across the border. The daily living space of the defectors on the second floor of the memorial hall shows furniture such as beds and wardrobes, and the memory of the inmates is made into text and placed in parallel on the wall so that they can be understood together. Yhee Jean observes this as a concept of visual exhibition from the perspective of the history museum, but it is also possible to see the possibility that dance and movement, the representative medium of “body memory,” can serve as a space of memory as a cultural institution.

4) Beyond the Borders of Division, Beyond the Borders of Unification

One of the major narratives surrounding division and unification is the nation (minjok). Art and culture functions as symbolic systems that represent a nation by the restoration of a national identity, national coexistence, and national pride. However, as discussed earlier, the intangible practice of art and culture is not limited to geographic boundaries and need not be limited by biological boundaries. This is because deterritorialization/reterritorialization of art and culture occurs without being bound by borders.

For this reason, it is necessary to keep in mind dance history over the borders not only in the state of division but also in the state of unification. Even before the division of Korea, the trend of globalization had already begun, and nations were forming a coalition and alliance among nations according to ideology at the time of division. In addition, today’s global hyperconnectivity has become stronger, so it would be rather artificial to restrict dance history within borders. I suggest the necessity to look at the way the domestic meaning and function of dance intersect with its international meaning and function.

In this respect, Giersdorf's discussion of the German expression dance diaspora is particularly noteworthy. He argues that the practice of dance in East Germany can be read as a diaspora of socialist ideology as well as the practice of national-state identit y.30) In particular, an examination of a Communist Chilean choreographer Patricio Bunster illustrates the transnational impact of East German dance. Giersdorf first focuses on overseas performances by the Kurt Jooss dance company and the dancers’ activities in Chile to explain the international migration of Ausdruckstanz, German dance of expression. Owing to this migration Bunster could perform in Santiago, Chile, under the influence of Jooss. Later, after performing and building a career in Europe and England, Burnster returned to Chile to develop expressive dance, but after establishing a relationship with socialism and accepting dance as part of the class struggle, he moved to East Germany after the Chilean coup in 1973. There, Burnst was able to develop and teach more analytical and political interpretations than the existing branch of expressive dance in East Germany. Returning to Chile in 1985 despite his success and honor in East Germany, he worked with the social influence of dance and cooperated with the Commission for Missing and Killed Chileans.

A Pesar de Todo (1975), based on Burnst’s own experience with the Chilean coup in 1973, is an example of the migration of dance and the dynamics of the meaning making process. When Burnst created this dance in East Germany, “East German officials welcomed this work as a proof of a socialist ideology that emphasized the need for unity between East Germany and Chile’s working class across borders.”31) However, when it was presented in Chile in 2006, new meanings arose: a kind of historical record that rewrites the events that the coup regime was trying to erase from Chile’s national history. In other words, it can be said that along with the international migration of dance, each country has created its own national meaning. Reflecting on Burnst’s life and career, Giersdorf calls for an alternative way of understanding dance and globalization. Reviewing Giersdorf’s book, Yvonne Hardt commented, “It has become clear that a dance history cannot be written as a national history.”32) This concrete example told by Giersdorf reveals the point at which a national dance history dynamically interacts with transnational cultural flows.

In addition, many studies on the transnational activities of dancers illuminate the process of classifying and categorizing dance and dance history. For example, Lena Hammergren investigates choreographers based in Sweden who have diverse connections with India and points out the problem of classification. She mainly discusses that it is difficult to classify choreographers with transnational connections into simplified markers, because individual artists claim their own aesthetics or identity while incorporating diverse mixtures of cultural influences. She argues that “the problem does not lie in ‘things’ being incompatible, but in the assumed common locus for classification.”33) The question of whether these Swedish-Indian choreographers should be classified racially, ethnically, or nationally are the problems arising from attempts to carry out the practice of distinguishing between the homogeneous and the heterogeneous. According to Hammergren, such an attempt is saturated with power.

Their discussions suggest the need to have a broader perspective when understanding dance history in Korea, without separating the global relationship and the diaspora phenomenon from domestic history. While it is inevitable that the formal narrative of dance history goes through the process of selection and exclusion, it must be accompanied by a sensitivity to the significance of the memories and practices that are eliminated therefrom. Reflection on the process and method, as much as on the content of the dance history, is required.

Ⅲ. Conclusion

How should dance history be described in the era of deterritorialization and reterritorialization? This study examines the movement of art and culture, accompanied by the actual movement of borders, as the topic of deterritorialization/reterritorialization, and examines the issues of dance history and borders.

First, from the viewpoint of art and culture, the meaning of deterritorialization and reterritorialization reveal the dynamic characteristics of culture that are not bound by the category of nation-state. Also, the recognition of the past as a heritage at the present time is deterritorial itself. When looking at the concepts of deterritorialization and reterritorialization from the perspective of the dance history related to the border, I suggest that dance history writing needs to flexibly deal with the local and the global. The existence and influence of the nation-state should be understood realistically; however the dance and dance writing, which are affected by borders and border-related disputes, are not limited to them.

Examples of art and dance surrounding division and reunification in Germany illuminate the politics of remembering and commemorating the past. What will remain and what will disappear, what are our similarities and what are the differences, what will be celebrated publicly and what will remain in private space, what label will be attached and how it will be classified are all political decisions. Since the answers to these questions will be influenced by the basic assumptions that surround our daily lives and make up ‘common sense,’ it will be far less of a genuine understanding and reconciliation without examining those basic assumptions.