Reembodying the Archive: Reflections from the London Conference in Critical Thought

Last week, I had the privilege of presenting at the London Conference in Critical Thought at Birkbeck University as part of the "Shared Air: Interweaving Embodied Practice and Critical Theory" panel. My paper, "Reembodying the Archive: Creative Critical Practice in Feminist Archival Recovery," explored a question that drives much of my research: How do we recover the lost voices and material knowledge of women in theatre history?

The answer, I argued, lies not just in traditional archival research, but in getting our hands dirty—literally. Through experimental history and practice-as-research methodologies, we can bridge the gaps left by centuries of gendered hierarchies in artistic production.

Costume history presents a particularly poignant example of this archival vulnerability. Whilst we might find sketches, photographs, or written descriptions of historical garments, the essential qualities that made these costumes come alive—their weight, the way they moved, their tactile experience—often disappear forever. How can we truly understand a designer's vision when we can only see it flattened into two dimensions?

This is where experimental history becomes revolutionary. By physically reconstructing lost or fragmentary productions, we restore embodied knowledge that would otherwise remain inaccessible. The act of making forces us to interrogate every design decision, bringing us closer to the original creative process.

My case study focused on Julia Trevelyan Oman's costume designs for The Boston Ballet's 1981 Swan Lake. Through the process of reconstruction—cutting patterns, selecting fabrics, solving construction challenges—I found myself asking the same questions Oman would have faced. Why this seam placement? How does this closure work in performance? What does this fabric choice reveal about her artistic vision? The act of making brought me into dialogue with Oman's design practice and connected me to the collaborative process of costume makers, seamstresses, and performers who first brought these designs to life.

This work sits at the intersection of feminist scholarship and material culture studies, drawing on the groundbreaking critiques of scholars like Griselda Pollock and Rozsika Parker, whilst employing the practical methodologies developed by researchers such as Hilary Davidson, Toni Bate, Serena Dyer, and Sarah Bendall.

The conference reminded me why this work matters. Without such revival practices, the contributions of designers, the labor of costume makers, and the embodied knowledge of performers risk being overlooked—relegated to footnotes in a history that has always privileged certain voices over others.

As I continue this research, I'm committed to ensuring that the material knowledge of women in theatre doesn't just survive in archives, but lives and breathes again through the process of making. Because sometimes, to truly understand a designer's vision, we need to question every stitch, every seam, every choice—just as they did.