Critics described Pina Bausch's work as “absolutely contemporary” and as being “important dance heritage,” which is precisely the opposite of contemporary, namely, historical. This contradictoriness—though productive in its own right—is symptomatic of the perspective of dance journalism brought to bear on Pina Bausch's later works in particular. But even reviews of her earlier works are a far cry from perceiving the artist in a consistent manner, some even going so far as to criticize her for being “outdated.” Apparently, Bausch's art continuously poses a challenge for dance critics because it defies easy categorization in aesthetic terms, thereby undermining the implicit postulates and classificatory criteria underlying dance reviews. There is—at least in the German-speaking area—broad consensus regarding the functions of today's dance reviews as a text genre: as a translation of dance into language, dance reviews describe, analyze, and judge. With a focus on reviews of pieces by Pina Bausch, this essay proposes to investigate how dance is translated (“trans-posed”) by considering the questions: what do reviews do when they put things into words? How are their own seemingly firm categorizations and postulates thereby destabilized or at least opened to debate?

This essay asks the question whether and in what respect the work of German choreographer Pina Bausch can be considered to be contemporary. Building on Peter Osborne's definition of the contemporary as “a disjunctive unity of present times,” I aim to extract the conceptual concerns of Bausch's work that thus far have received little critical attention. In so doing, I first consider the temporal relations articulated in Bausch's work, particularly her relation to the past that comes to define the present, exposing its claims to unity as a fiction. Second, I focus on the medial aspects of Bausch's work, including her 1988/89 film, The Plaint of the Empress. By making the media aspect of Bausch's work the center of my attention, I argue that it is precisely the work's media saturation that allows for its contemporary distribution, display, and formatting. It is here that Bausch's contemporaneity as a principle of work and a working principle can be found.

This article interrogates the multivalent understandings of the term “contemporary dance” in concert, commercial, and world dance contexts. I argue that placing multiple uses of the term “contemporary” alongside one another can provide insight into the ways that “high art” dance, popular dance, and non-Western dance are increasingly wrapped up with each other and, at the same time, the ways that their separations reveal our artistic, cultural, and political prejudices, as well as the forces of the market.

This paper discusses the concept of contemporaneity as it is used in archaeology. In particular, two general usages are examined. The first concerns the idea of contemporaneity in the context of archaeological dating and chronology, the second relates to the characterization of the archaeological record as a contemporary phenomenon. In both cases, related concepts are explored, namely synchronism and anachronism respectively. The paper offers a critique of these conventional usages of the idea of contemporaneity and argues for an alternative, linking this with the concept of consociation, a term coined by the phenomenologist Alfred Schutz in the early 20th century.

When interpreted, sometimes treaties have to go through a trial by fire and are found either to be ‘living instruments’ evolving alongside the relevant changes both in law and in facts or to have a ‘fixed’ meaning. The aim of the present article is to examine how intertemporal considerations find their way into the interpretative process and what the effects are on the treaties being interpreted. Do these changes in law and fact actually change the treaty itself, or do they merely trigger a latent quality already existing in the treaty itself? Does time change the treaty, or does it merely ‘unfold’ it? This question will be examined through the lens of the main philosophical theories on identity, persistence, time and change (endurantism, perdurantism and exdurantism), and by focusing on the ‘direct’ (principle of contemporaneity and evolutive interpretation) and ‘indirect’ (Article 31(3)(c) and the intertemporal application of the rules of interpretation) points of entry of intertemporal considerations in the interpretative process. Through this examination the elements that weigh upon the judicial interpretative process and tip the scales either in favour of an evolutive interpretation or in favour of the principle of contemporaneity, will be identified, as well as the limits of any such interpretation. In this manner, an answer will be arrived at as to whether, from an interpretative perspective, treaties endure, perdure or exdure.

Recent scholarship has suggested that frequent receipt of news, especially in new media such as newspapers, altered conceptions of time in the early modern period. In particular, a new and modern “present” was born. This occupied a half-known and semifluid point between the fixity of the past and the unpredictability of the future. It created an imagined contemporaneous moment that linked geographically dispersed events. It was progressive, appearing to move the world ever forward into a novel state. However, close examination of English newspapers in the period 1695–1713, the first era of sustained news periodicals, calls these suggestions into question. Certainly the press of this era provided a constant and corrective update of information from all over Europe. This might have encouraged a sense of a fluid, contemporaneous, and progressive present. However, newspapers also tended to catalog information like a chronicle, which had the potential to fix contents as established history rather than fluid news. Delays in communication from distant places and journalistic practices of holding back stories for later publication ensured that information of different ages was presented on the same page. This destroyed any clear sense of a contemporaneous moment. The requirement to print the next issue even when there was no new information drew explicit attention to the lack of progressive development in some stories. This article posits a highly fractured presentation of time in later Stuart newspapers. It suggests that this is perhaps best analyzed by concepts drawn from “postmodern” theory rather than a hunt for emerging features of “modernity.”