{"id":852,"date":"2017-08-06T16:45:58","date_gmt":"2017-08-06T20:45:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itp.nyu.edu\/~jvc301\/wordpress\/?p=127"},"modified":"2017-08-06T16:45:58","modified_gmt":"2017-08-06T20:45:58","slug":"composing-for-interactive-dance-improvisation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itp.nyu.edu\/adjacent\/issue-2\/composing-for-interactive-dance-improvisation\/","title":{"rendered":"To Improvise with a Machine: Composing for Interactive Dance"},"content":{"rendered":"

Apophenia is the tendency to see relationships where there are none. Klaus Conrad first described it in a 1958 work on schizophrenia as “unmotivated seeing of connections accompanied by a specific feeling of abnormal meaningfulness.”<\/span>1<\/a><\/p>\n

Really, <\/span>all of us are apopheniacs<\/span><\/a>. Unrelated events that take place in the same place at the same time become related by virtue of proximity. Coincidence becomes collusion. Correlation becomes causality.<\/span><\/p>\n

Apophenia is what allowed the <\/span>choreographer Merce Cunningham<\/span><\/a> and his collaborators (composer John Cage, visual artist Robert Rauschenberg, and others) to create independently of one another, yet still allow them to come together to occupy \u2018the same time and space\u2019 as a single work. Though the art was created separately, we as an audience perceive them as connected.<\/span><\/p>\n

Which raises the question, why hook up performers to sensors to control sound and visuals if the relationships between the performers and other media already exist in our minds? <\/span><\/p>\n

Interactive work must necessarily evolve beyond the novelty of composers, performers, and the audience bearing witness to <\/span>cause and effect enabled by newfangled sensors<\/span><\/a>. <\/span>Interactivity offers up new surface area for exploring the psychology of human choice. As creators of interactive work, we should seize it as a means of upending how choices are made, who gets to make them, and for what purpose.<\/span><\/p>\n

Is Interactive Composition a Contradiction in Terms?<\/span><\/h1>\n

To compose something is to craft it with care. A half-a-step to the left, a half-a-beat late makes all the difference to the detail-oriented composer. On the extreme end, artists such as<\/span> Robert Wilson<\/span>\u00a0direct performers on stage with the same level of precision that architects exercise over their drawings (see video below).<\/span>1<\/a><\/p>\n

https:\/\/youtu.be\/Ty76wEPL-M4?t=1290<\/a><\/p>\n

Interactivity on the other hand, necessarily means a transfer of decision-making power from composer to performers, or, in other words, from designer to users. Performers make the decisions in a performance that shape the overarching composition of the piece\u2014<\/span>if<\/span><\/i> the composer of the interaction allows them this freedom.<\/span><\/p>\n

Depending on how the composer creates the interactive system, however, she risks missing the opportunity to transfer power. This happens when user input only affects the output in a limited or superficial way so that no matter what the performer chooses to do, the character of the performance stays the same. <\/span><\/p>\n

For example, if the height of the performer\u2019s head affects light levels, some questions a composer might ask include: To what extent does the head affect the lighting? What\u2019s done in complete darkness so that it is felt and heard but not seen? What\u2019s done in blinding light? What\u2019s done in twilight so it is only dimly perceived? By interrogating the system in this way, the composer can ensure that it allows enough room for the performer to play around, respond, and ultimately shape the composition.<\/span><\/p>\n

The user also misses the opportunity if she never ventures beyond simply \u2018seeing what happens\u2019 when the system is provoked<\/a>. <\/span>Instead, \u2018seeing what happens\u2019 should provide input to the user that prompts a response, rather than functioning as the ultimate output of the system. It is only the first step toward understanding how the system behaves under a wide range of circumstances. <\/span><\/p>\n

Performers can only achieve full understanding through a methodical exploration that stretches the system well beyond its breaking point.<\/span> Only when the users <\/span>grok<\/span><\/a> the system can they begin to \u2018play\u2019 with it through conscientious decision-making. It\u2019s not the sort of casual play that engages through immediate gratification. It\u2019s the highly-skilled kind that you can do with an instrument, the kind that is capable of producing carefully crafted expressive output.<\/span><\/p>\n

Workshopping Interactivity<\/h1>\n

To begin exploring the choices and relationships afforded by interactive technologies, I recently led a two-day workshop series at Danspace in St. Mark\u2019s Church. I worked to compose sound through choreographic decision-making mediated by technology with a group of 28 dancers, sound artists, and those with no stake in what we were doing other than curiosity. <\/span><\/p>\n

On one level we were playing with an interactive system that took in movement as input (cause) and generated sound as output (effect). <\/span><\/p>\n

On another level, though, we were exploring a platform that enables individuals to come together as a group to compose something\u2014in other words, make choices\u2014that is simultaneously a dance and a piece of music.<\/span><\/p>\n

Overall, we were attempting to turn dancers into composers and composers into both dancers and choreographers, all while trying to master the art of improvisation and the temperamental instrument, which was the interactive system I had created using the Kinect cameras. <\/span><\/p>\n

The goal of our workshop was to explore a model of interactivity that was psychological rather than technological, playful rather than based on one-sided reactions.<\/span><\/p>\n