Search

“Dance choreography” and “films of thoughts”, or on the reasons for the absence of a universally recognised dance notation // ΠΡΑΞΗMΑ. Journal of Visual Semiotics. 2026. Issue 2 (48). P. 212-235

Musical notation has enjoyed universal recognition for centuries, whereas dance notation has remained comparatively underdeveloped and conceptually challenging. As a kinetic and embodied art form, dance requires a system of notation capable of reflecting its visual, affective, and technical dimensions while at the same time meeting the normative demands of stage practice. The first serious attempt to systematize a language of dance—bringing together steps, positions, and gestures—was undertaken in 1700, when the French choreographer Raoul-Auger Feuillet published his treatise Chorégraphie ou l’art de décrire la danse. This article focuses on Feuillet’s project, its impact on later systems of dance notation, and the persistent absence of a single, universally accepted standard for recording dance. In order to explore these questions, Feuillet’s treatise is examined through the framework of Charles Sanders Peirce’s diagrammatic logical theory, in particular his existential graphs, which he famously described as “moving pictures of thought.” The analysis concentrates on those stylistic features of notation that serve to represent movement, addressing the normative dimension of signs rather than elaborating the logical theory itself. Issues concerning the deeper nature, genesis, and limits of signs thus lie outside the scope of this study. The juxtaposition of Feuillet’s and Peirce’s approaches yields several important insights into how signs can represent movement and the mechanisms by which they operate. It shows that Feuillet’s original system may indeed be regarded as a genuine form of notation, insofar as it attempts to capture normative structures within dance. At the same time, the comparison brings to light a number of obstacles that prevented Feuillet’s project from becoming a universal standard. First, the syntax of Peirce’s diagrams permits only univocal readings, whereas Feuillet’s signs are open to variation in interpretation. Second, Feuillet’s notation lacks a clearly articulated dominant principle that would govern its use, which leads to ambiguity, unlike Peirce’s explicitly formulated rules of interpretation. Third, Peirce succeeds in cleanly distinguishing between signs that represent thought and the rules governing their manipulation, while Feuillet’s system fuses symbols for steps, poses, and figures with the procedural instructions for performing them. In the appendix to the article, we present the first Russian translation of Christian Wolff’s review of Feuillet’s treatise. This seventeenth-century review was the first to recognize and assess the significance of Feuillet’s work.

Keywords: notation, dance, existential graphs, Peirce, Feuillet, dynamics, diagrammatic logic