LMC 8000 - Proseminar Research Paper Expression, Collaboration, and Physicality: Reconceptualizing Traditional Performance Principles Anna Weisling December 11, 2015 Word Count: 8,000 
1. Introduction There are certain tenets of performance that seem to persist even as the world shifts around them: expressive movement (Chapple and Davis, 1988), collaboration (Noland, 2009), and physicality (Bahn et al., 2001), to name a few. Historically these objectives have been accomplished through the nature of the medium itself: the dancer’s corporeal movements enable expression, the musician’s physical instrument serves to embody the intentions and engagement of the player. The physicality of the performance itself, as an analog endeavor, provides the immersion and interaction desired by performer and audience. As computational affordances increase and computers are increasingly folded into performance practices, there comes a struggle between the traditional understanding of these principles and new priorities of cross-disciplinary collaboration and shifted/expanded conceptualizations of performances themselves. Developments in haptic technology in particular have afforded new configurations of traditional principles within practices, and enacted them on higher cross-practice levels. These new abilities and challenges call for critical discourse surrounding what expression and collaboration mean in today’s performance, and the ways in which performers can conceptualize their role in an increasingly digital dynamic. In order to begin this dialogue it is necessary to first consider what “expression,” “collaboration,” and “physicality” on the stage have meant leading up to the current situation. Then the focus can then be shifted to the technologically mediated sub-practices of two particular disciplines, music and dance, where an investigation into the ways in which the digital has permeated and transformed performances can take place. Ultimately this paper seeks to provide a critique of the historical definitions of expression, collaboration, and physicality as they relate to certain modern electronic performance practices. This will be accomplished through the examination of historical terminological and methodological approaches to performance studies, and culminate in close readings of two contemporary works, which each demonstrate the need for the reconsideration and reconceptualization of the terms as they relate to today’s technologically-aided music and dance performance practices.
2. Traditional Definitions of Performance 2.1 Introduction Because the term can technically represent both an act or discipline and a measurement of efficiency or success, performance has been analyzed and defined in disciplines ranging from dance to finance, humancomputer interaction to engineering, and everything in-between. As a tradition, whether within the formally academic humanities or more experimental art movements, performance has embodied political, cultural, and artistic climates, often as a vehicle for revolution, and has been studied accordingly. Admittedly, there are a plethora of viewpoints regarding what performance is and how it is realized, from the abstract to the formulaic, but within the scope of this paper I will be looking very briefly at three broad categories of historical approaches to performance studies: cultural, corporeal, and cognitive. I will focus on these diverse categories as they have occurred mainly in academic and research capacities, as and their roots, deep in the fields of cognitive science, psychology, ethnography, and anthropology, shape the humanities-based performance studies field that we engage with today.
2.2 Cultural The historical study of performance is rich and complex, extending back to (and beyond) the symbolic and interpretive ethnographic and anthropological movements which dominated the mid-20th century. In 2
the broadest of terms, performance has been examined as a framework with which to analyze or understand the ways in which human beings interact with the world around them and embody the cultural and societal norms they are entrenched in. The early formal studies of gesture and movement in the 1900s were built upon anthropological and ethnographic foundations, concerned with cultural and social implications (Noland, 2009). French ethnologist Marcel Mauss, as an example, was studying movement at a time saturated by Geertzian anthropological methods. How the indigenous peoples of foreign lands (the “others”) expressed and held themselves physically was fertile ground for extrapolating larger comparisons between “us” and “them.” Mauss’s text, Les Techniques du corps (Techniques of the Body) approached human movement partially as a kind of societal performance which reflected larger themes of tradition, ritual, and expression. As he stated in Techniques, “There is no technique and no transmission in the absence of tradition. This above all is what distinguishes man from the animals: the transmission of his technique and very probably their oral transmission” (Mauss, 1973). Director Richard Schechner, who has been cited by many as one of the most influential contributors to the study of performance in academic settings, presents the processes of “being, doing, showing doing, and explaining showing doing” as categories of performance (Schechner, 2013). This is obviously painting with extremely broad strokes, however it is indicative of the belief that performance is not necessarily tied to a single practice or physical state, it occurs in every social situation and permeates all of existence. The act of living itself, as requiring an agent to engage with formal (experiential) or informal (instinctual) training, is a performance. Any attempts to hone the definition down to a more formulaic or procedural measurement can be dismissed within this schema—performance techniques and principles can be applied to any and everything (business, golf, cooking, sex), including life itself. These social, cultural views differ from other, more introspective approaches to the concepts of performance and performing. Though arguably focused more on culture than performance as an art, the work done by Mauss and Geertz, interpreting the body as vehicle for meaning, ritual, communication, and expression touches on what is the backbone of the corporeal approach; the physical body manifests an outward fulfillment of an internal agency. 2.3 Corporeal It should not be surprising that performance has long been studied with a focus on the physical body. This shift from the “thick description” ethnographic approach to the individualized, expressive way of performing found a natural footing in theatre and drama. The very staples of Western choreography, classical Indian dance, the foundations of balletic heritage, and multiple systems of dance notation including Labanotation, have foundational body positions, many of which are shared across cultures.
Fundamental Body Positions of Classical Ballet, Indian Classical Dance, Japanese Kabuki Theatre, and Labanotation
3
Eliot Chapple and Martha Davis, in their 1988 article Expressive Movement and Performance: Toward a Unifying Theory, state in no uncertain terms that, “all manner of performance involves distinctive actions and draws its character from body movement patterns” (Chapple, Davis 1988). For them, an advertisement is not a performance, regardless of what Schechner might say. Because it is not tied in its primary form to the physical human body, embodied specifically through somatic and locomotive energies, it is not a performance. Not only must the act be embodied, but serve a specific creative and expressive purpose. Chapple and Davis summarize what is a widely accepted theory of performance and creative dynamics in many fields, including music and dance: that expressive movements are tension-negotiations. Formally, tonal music has been structured around harmonic progressions for centuries, and the movement from note to note builds into a gesture, navigating discord and open-endedness, ultimately arriving at a resolution. Similarly, within dance the body fluctuates between muscular tension and release both in its individual movements, and in larger thematic arcs. Whether producing a held pitch on a violin or an arabesque, even the sheer act of stillness is not the body at rest, but the delicate balance of tensions throughout the muscles of the body, distributed in a way as to produce equilibrium—hardly an easy, relaxing endeavor. Chapple and Davis go on to a thorough exploration of the “rhythms” of not only tension and relaxation but also activity-inactivity, breathing, heart rates, and other cyclical patterns which, they propose, overlap with each other at varying levels of synchronicity. “What we seek in another person, most fundamentally, is someone whose rhythms are complementary with our own, with whose beat (frequency) we are in tune, with whose needs to possess the floor we are reasonably comfortable.” (Chapple and Davis, 1988, p.66) The crossover between mind and body is difficult to ignore, but natural, as closely connected as the two are. Literary approaches, tied closely and naturally to the dramatic arts, focused in particular on elocution (the recitation of text) as a major source of both social currency and performative entertainment. The work of Wallace Bacon in particular contributing heavily to this corpus. Bacon, who is seen by many as one of the founders of the field, described a particular phenomenological aspect of performance, the “otherness,” something he thought to be a unique human capacity on the stage (Madison and Hamera, 2005). For Bacon and many others, although culture remains important, the performer’s own internal experience is what carries the most meaning and potential.
2.4 Cognitive In contrast to the culturally-focused performance methodologies are more empirical studies in cognitive science, which examine the mind first in the mind-body relationship. This approach has been as controversial as it has influential, for reasons which, to an outsider today, might seem unclear. In the late 1990s articles and books being written on performance and theatre studies reflect a clear movement toward cognition which only gained steam through the 90s and into the 2000s. By 2006 the first book dedicated to the subject, Performance and Cognition: Theatre Studies and the Cognitive Turn, edited by Bruce McConchie and F. Elizabeth Hart, was published, and journals were dedicating entire issues to cognitive approaches to performance (Blair and Lutterbie, 2011). The application of more formulaic strategies to the understanding of what is generally considered a creative practice has been controversial, however, the arguments for the appropriateness of such tactics is compelling: These sciences can support and enrich our appreciation of a whole range of existing performance and theatre theories. Research in neural simulation systems provides evidence of the organic basis for the power of imitation, first argued by Plato and Aristotle. Research in the neural bases of imagination describes a material link between imagination and doing, in ways that both extend
4
and subvert the ideas behind Diderot’s model ideal and Stanislavsky’s argument for the power of the “magic if.” Cognitive linguistics, particularly in terms of blending and compression, takes the meaning of the term “close reading” of dramatic texts to a profound level that allows us to see how texts come from and work through our bodies. Dynamic Systems Theory allows for a model of embodiment that resists the mind/body duality and insists on the interdependency of the individual and the world, while providing insights into the tension between the creative impulse and resistance to change. The science provides insight into the various aspects of ourselves— intellect, emotion, body—as part of a complex process we call a person, and how we as organisms are inextricably intertwined with each other and our environments. (Blair and Lutterbie, 2011) Given this clearly symbiotic relationship between the sciences and the arts, one might as why, then, would the incorporation of such methodologies, or the application of a more scientific approach to performance studies, be so contentious. The answer to that question seems to be much more predictable than one might like to assume. The negotiations which occur when two epistemologically divergent disciplines begin to cross-pollinate have never been easy. This can be observed in several fields today beyond performance, including Human-Computer Interaction, Digital Media, Design, and Music, and reflected in the numerous articles published on the ways in which appropriating methodologies or techniques is either beneficial, detrimental, or in need of serious reexamination. In fact, within the HCI communities right now rages a debate producing articles such as Jeffrey Bardzell’s Interaction Criticism and Aesthetics, William Gaver’s What Should We Expect From Research Through Design, and Paul Dourish’s Reading and Interpreting Ethnography. Written by leading researchers and practitioners in the fields of HCI, Design, Computer Science, and Interaction, these are just three articles published at the same Computer-Human Interaction conference within the span of 6 years, which argue for the more thoughtful and robust application of theoretical application of artistic principles to scientific work, the rejection of theoretical or scientific outcome objectives to the process of the design process, and the open embrace and welcoming of methodological transformations and innovations in cross-disciplinary work, respectively. It is no different, seemingly, in Performance Studies; perhaps summed up best by Bruce McConachie, who reflects that, “Humanistic scholars have long drawn on a-scientific theories from philosophy and other disciplines to prompt their investigations and bolster their arguments. As long as the ideas of past master theorists provided insights and terminologies that did not counter scientific understanding, this arrangement made a certain sense. What happens, though, when theories deriving from good science come into conflict with critical theories that have no basis in scientific evidence or logic? Which theories should we trust?” (McConachie, 2007). When disciplines begin to merge—something which I would argue is occurring at compoundingly greater rates due to technological developments—clear divisions which have been deeply respected and (perhaps dangerously) unquestioned, the status quo must be reconsidered. Such a process is rarely comfortable, for any party involved. Nevertheless, the mind and body have been studied, together and apart, for as long as research has been conducted. Even in the midst of ethnographically and somatically focused waves, discoveries in cognitive science were being acknowledged as they applied to performance. Martha Davis, though clearly wellversed in the study of physical gesture, contributed important writings in the late 80s on the psychological and biological aspects of the human mind on stage (perhaps not entirely surprising, given her experience as a clinical psychologist). The cyclical and vacillating patterns of tension and release described by her and Eliot Davis are further detailed in neurological capacities:
5
Physiological processes such as the mechanisms of the CMPG1 operate at all levels, even though they are subsumed under more complex patterns as one moves up the [performance] tree, where they combine and integrate with other patterns in complex ways…The action-inaction rhythms out of which one's temperament is built are not mere social conventions. They are the direct (externally evident) product of the rhythms that the central nervous system controls, energized and shaped during maturation through the CMPGs mentioned earlier. Cyclical pulses of activity and inactivity, together with heart rates, breathing rates, and the myriad periodicities which bodily functions reflect, comprise the biological rhythms of the individual. Long called "spontaneous activity rhythms," these basic rhythms have been shown to be endogenous. They appear at birth, and being all-encompassing, however complex, they are the basis of the "preferred rhythms" at which each of us tries to interact.” (Chapple and Davis, 1988) Even at the most rudimentary levels science, and particularly studies of neural and brain activity, is supporting the claims that have come from decades before. Studies of the human brain’s mirror neuron system (MNS) demonstrate that viewing another person’s actions cause the empathetic firing of our own corresponding brain cells (Stamenov and Gallese, 2002)—an empirical, physiological display of empathy. Not only does a neurological approach to performance studies illuminate the ways in which the mind imitates or empathized, but also communicates and understands concepts beyond the literal or communicative. In her article Interplay: The Method and Potential of a Cognitive Scientific Approach to Theatre, Amy Cook argues that the creatively-geared process of imagining and the utilitarian objective of understanding are not simply intertwined, but the same thing. She argues that performance studies are “a shared neural substrate linking imagination and understanding, doing and feeling, fact and fiction, actor and character, me and you” (Cook, 2007). The approaches to the study and examination of performance, as varied as they are, do more to build one another up than disprove each other. Though they may isolate and value different elements of what it means to exist on the stage (physicality, embodiment, neurological understanding, cultural representation, the list goes on), the reality is that performance is clearly an amalgamation of the mind, the body, and the context.
3. Traditional Definitions of Expression and Collaboration For many, including Carrie Noland (professor in both Anthropology and Comparative Literature at the University of California, Irvine), the power of performance lies in the ability to, through expressive movement, alter, reinforce, or reject culturally-imparted behaviors. This reflects not only a sense of agency, as an individual exerts the power to subvert or conform to societal expectations (and make statements about a wealth of issues regarding politics, society, gender norms, beauty, emotion, and so on), but also embody collective behaviors and beliefs, as a way to connect with the other. It realizes or “lives” an abstract ideal or idea corporeally, realizing a physical space in which to commune together. This definition has clear connections to both the cultural and corporeal schools of historical thought, and marries them in a kind of feedback loop:
1Central
Movement Pattern Generator: The “intraspinal locomotor circuitry” within the spinal cord, generated by neural impulses and controlled by the Central Nervous System 6
“Gesturing is a motor phenomenon and therefore part of the natural world; at the same time, a gesture is a unit of significant, visible shape, a quantity of employable force, and therefore part of the cultural world. It is by gesturing that bodies become inscribed with meanings in cultural environments, but it is also by gesturing that these inscribed meanings achieve embodiment and inflection.” (Noland, 2009) Noland’s writings on embodiment and gesture provide a unique point of view concerning interoceptive agency—a reflexive way of experiencing one’s self. This concept effectively describes the aforementioned neural mirroring in a more performative context, as a way to participate in and experience empathy. For her, the interoceptive nature of expressive gesture extends both inward and outward. It establishes for the performer a sense of the individual body as discrete and subjective, as well as an embodiment of the larger imagination, conveying an openness and reception to the feelings or experiences another subject might have. I am in agreement when she posits that this reflects a measurement of empathetic capacity, and makes a performative gesture unique as connecting a performer to his/herself as well as to the audience. Within this line of thought is an important concept: that “meaning” or “success” derived from a performance may perhaps be a measure not only of technical proficiency or conceptual complexity, but also of how much or little we feel we are ourselves represented in the performer, how deeply believe the other could understand our own internal experiences. This feedback loop of meaning, understanding, and expression from inside to out, physical to conceptual, self to other, represents the specialized functionality of gesture within performance, and the unique power of expression. Expression, then, enables the self-reflective understanding of the gesture itself, as a realization and understanding of our own agency. As Noland puts it, “it is ultimately kinesthetic experience, the somatic attention accorded to the lived sensation of movement, that allows the subject to become an agent in the making of herself.” It is also, though, the way in which a performer physically articulates a metaphysical, creative goal—in essence it is the process through which one can embody personal artistic affordances. Expression also affords (though not necessarily enacts) an additional, non-utilitarian objective. To understand what an objective might be, it is helpful here to call upon Marc Leman and Rolf Gødoy’s framework for the more formal categorization of gesture, particularly within performance. They define three gestural classes: communication, control, and metaphor (Gødoy and Leman, 2010). Gesture
Control
Communication
Metaphor
Objective
Movement as input, particularly into a computer system
Vehicles of meaning in social interaction, particularly as tied to verbal utterances
Project physical movements or other perceptions as cultural concepts
Field of Reference
HCI, Computer Music
Linguistics, Behavioral Psychology, Anthropology
Cognitive Science, Psychology, Musicology
Meaning
Movement secondary to function
Meaning of the movement
Meaning created by movement
What is the difference between pressing down a piano key in order to tune the piano, and pressing it down in order to produce music? Though there may be little variation in appearance (there are plenty of stoic pianists who are almost robotic in their motionless precision whilst playing), the objective of one is solely
7
to produce a pitch, the objective of the other is to produce music. The piano tuner is exercising control gestures to produce a measurable, quantifiable stream of data—the gesture used to press the key down is irrelevant, so long as the desired sound is produced. The musician’s gestures are metaphorical, as the physical movements reflect his/her techniques and sense agency in order to produce a creative output. In matters of performative expression what we are really interested in is non-verbal communications which are not dependent on linguistic accompaniments, but which convey something about the performance itself2. These expressive performative gestures fall within the metaphor category, qualified as “project[ing] physical movement into cultural perception” (Gødoy and Leman, 2010). The objective afforded is geared toward a metaphoric meaning, including elements of timing, form, and other pragmatic matters (this particular dynamic is defined by Cadoz and Wanderly as “semiotic gesture,” distinguished from more formal literary and linguistic disciplines (Cadoz and Wanderly, 2000)), or emotions, aesthetic values, and other metaphysical principles. It is here that the definitions of expression and collaboration often become co-facilitated, reciprocal elements of a performance. The very qualities that define the objective of an expressive gesture form the foundations of a collaborative relationship. While it is easy enough to use a standard definition—“to work with another person or group in order to achieve or do something” (Merriam-Webster, 2015), within a performance there are other factors which complicate such a seemingly simple equation. Beyond the uniquely abbreviated time-frame and dynamic and continually shifting roles of collaborators, the fact that “collaboration” means vastly different things before, during, and after a performance calls for a specification of precisely which dynamic we are qualifying. It should be clarified that Godoy and Leman’s control and communication gestures are not entirely excluded from a collaborative relationship within a performance, but that an exchange existing of those alone would not, by this definition, be considered a performance. Collaboration, then, is very closely tied to expression and metaphor gestures. Chapple and Davis support this qualification in their exploration of movement and communication: “By their nature, [dynamic elements of movement] bring about specific modifications in the interaction patterns of others. Evaluation of their effectiveness as performance depends on the degree to which change in others is brought about and sustained. This gestalt level includes what is commonly considered the "technique" of the performer; more correctly, it evidences the special individuality of the artist. As such, it is applicable to all sorts of performances…” (Chapple and Davis, 1988) There is something simultaneously complex and succinct about the reciprocal natures of expression and collaboration expressed here; as an expressive gesture transduces an internal perception into outward space and time, it embodies something of the performer as an individual connected to the larger world, and it feeds back into the interoceptive state of the performer as (s)he understands his/herself. The action both conveys a level of receptiveness and empathy to the world, while simultaneously interrupting or influencing the interactions and patterns of others.
2
I must acknowledge that there are times in which performers speak to each other, however, I argue that this is, in the overwhelming majority of cases, indicative of a failure to communicate appropriately through non-verbal signifiers. 8
4. Physicality “Manipulative or instrumental gestures will, when governed by a technical (and not simply operational) also double as exploratory, knowledge-seeking gestures…in the process, she improves her access to tactile knowledge, orienting her body in such a way as to gain a proprioceptive, haptic, evaluative grip on the object and/or the tool… In this way, gestures become evaluative, bringing back knowledge not only about the object but also about the worker’s body, that is, about what gestures have to do, how muscles have to work, in order to produce better contact…Haptic, visual, proprioceptive, kinesthetic, and conceivably auditory or even gustatory sensitivities join forces here to furnish the worker with the knowledge required to change the way she must move in order achieve an objective.” (Noland, 2009) “Musical gestures are musical acts, and our perception and understanding of gestures involves understanding the physicality involved in their production.” (Cox, 2006) The above quotes both reflect an important observation about physical objects: their use, and the shared understanding between two performers regarding the physical demands involved in articulating something with/through them, form a cornerstone in both effective expression and collaborative understanding. The habitual utilization of any instrument establishes, for ourselves and others, a corpus of physical interactions that provide a constantly updating stream of communicative and expressive information between participants. The physical gestures we observe and use when manipulating objects are either normal (in which case we can respond to, ignore, or interrupt them) or they deviate from agreed-upon conventions (in which case something is wrong, unexpected, or accidental, and we can respond accordingly). Both expression and collaboration are concretely facilitated by and through physical performance objects. This is an established concept within traditional practices (in reference to the dancer’s body, the musician’s instrument, which are both present by default), and is currently the overwhelming focus of experimental practices. As new technology is folded into established practices, it is natural that a phase of reconfiguration, experimentation, and disconnect initially emerges; digital tools, lacking physical interfaces for interaction, sever the traditionally established conventions through which we create expressive work. It is clear that physicality, both of the performer and the tools they use, have been crucial to the conceptualization and realization of performances. We can distill the many the ways in which physicality has manifested in this paper’s exploration of performance, collaboration, and expression to: • Representing larger cultural, political, and societal contexts and themes • Enabling corporeal, outward embodiment of internal agency • Facilitating collaboration between performers through metaphor and other gestures It is easy, especially within corporeally-focussed practices such as dance, to equate “physicality” with the body and the body alone. However, even within dance and theatre the body is represented through extensions—traditionally including items such as fabrics and props, but more recently adding lighting, video, and other digital tools to that list. It has been argued by some that this incorporation of technology as prop has been destructive to the expressive capabilities of the performer, as opposed to more traditional physical stage objects. Stanton Garner argues that, historically, stage objects belonged to the actor, and as the property of that particular agent they functioned by “extending and physicalizing the body’s operation
9
on its material environment, [situating] the body more firmly within it” (Garner, 1994). While this may or may not be true, it can not be ignored that practitioners across many practices are actively composing for and utilizing the most invisible of technologies and calling them instruments, collaborators, agents, and bodies (Corness and Schiphorst, 2013; Cyole et al., 2015; Schloss, 2002). It is important, therefore, to discuss the physicality afforded by the instruments on stage, as well as the body. It is common to refer to the body as an instrument, particularly within the discipline of dance. And why not? The body is a physical object which, when manipulated by a conscious agent, produces an expression or gesture. That such an output is embodied data rather than sonic or otherwise does not disqualify it as an instrument; after all, a microscope, a bomb, and a refugee can all be “instruments” of something. It’s less common to consider the instrument as a body, but the metaphor is strong, particularly within the context of music. As Chappel and Davis recognize, “Music and dance are often treated as quite distinct universes of performance. By convention and training we ignore the elaborate “dance” patterns musicians go through…the instrumentalists are also dancers, the violent movements they act out are backed by an equivalent intensity in the sounds they produce” (Chapple and Davis, 2015). Though Chapple and Davis are referring to the human instrumentalist and not the instrument itself and we can not apply the same theories derived from the human central nervous system, or conscious articulations of component parts, to a guitar, it is a possibility worth musing upon. The guitar, as they reference, becomes more than a static tool through which a musician transduces intent into sound. It carries with it certain physical affordances and constraints that respond to stimuli in semi-autonomous ways. The definition and purpose of an instrument on stage has, naturally, shifted over time. Where once performances might incorporate a cup or a lamp they now might utilize complex lighting schemes, digital 3-D projection mapping, or motion sensors. Some practitioners and researchers maintain that there is something lost when the physical object is replaced with the less visible, digital one, while others argue new technology only opens new doors to creative expression and entertainment. What is clear, amidst it all, is that when presented with technological advancements, we will find a way to update, extend, or fabricate the instruments we use, on the stage and off.
5. New Performance Practices As the computer is increasingly folded into performance practice, the very definition of “performance” itself has shifted to include it. It is not my intention to say that a performance today is different from a performance ten or even a hundred years ago; I only aim to address specific sub-practices which are growing in both popularity and legitimacy, and which meet the following specific criteria: • Maintain a strong connection to the traditional practices of dance and/or music, either through administrative or institutional associations (specific departments or organizations), or the experience of practitioners themselves (careers in dance, composition, or music performance) • Are realized entirely or in part within recognized academic circles (educational institutions, academies, troupes, or theatres) • Incorporate one or more instance of technology as a necessary compositional, performative, or structural element of the work (live video projections, sensing technology, networked improvisation, motion detection, etc.)
10
Ideally this style of performance could be termed something like “new digital performance” or “electroacoustic performance,” however, both terms are problematic. At the least the former potentially includes performances with no human agent at all, while the later heavily implies a musical output. Even a term such as “electro-physical” is misrepresentative, as it is closely tied to biological studies and physical therapy. The terms digital, new, electronic, live—they all carry with them issues of interpretation, appropriation, and timeliness. In an attempt to remain as practice-neutral as possible while still identifying a specific set of practices from within complicatingly broad and overlapping fields, the performances which meet the designated criteria will hereby be identified within this paper as “tradigital”3 performances. The sections that follow will demonstrate, through the examination of two tra-digital pieces, the new conceptualizations of traditional terminology. These works are: • Dentro: a composed work in which the expression of a musician is conceptualized and embodied in a new way • Netrooms: The Long Feedback: a networked performance in which collaboration is achieved to the same standard of long-standing traditional definitions through drastically novel digital means Before doing these close readings I will give a brief overview of current technological approaches to tradigital practices, clarifying the specific ways in which digital tools are currently being considered. I will also highlight the implications these technologies have had on the capabilities of performers working across disciplines, particularly in terms of the multimodal processes and cognitive bandwidth divisions involved.
6. Implementation of Technology in the Tra-Digital “As electronic instrument builders of the 20th century struggled to devise effective interfaces for their unique instruments, choreographers such as Merce Cunningham offered the surprising option of extending the concept of gestural control to the world of dance. The Cage/Cunningham experiments of the 1960s using Theremin technology to sense body motion are only one example of this experiment that still continues today.” (Rovan et al., 2001) Technology in tra-digital performances range from novel musical interfaces to infrared camera technology, and seemingly anything in-between. Very broadly, though, technology can be seen as inhabiting one of two categories: those that sense, and those that augment. Though there is overlap between not only categories, but also implementation, the general function of each is distinct. Sensing technology transduces physical energy into electricity, and are commonly used in tra-digital performance to measure kinetic, light, sound, electrical, and biometric energy (Bongers, 2000). Generally speaking, these sensors are used to capture the energy involved in human performance and affect additional change, including driving auxiliary sensory systems, sharing data across performers, and revealing extra-sensory information.
3
I want to make it very clear that I do not wish to promote the adoption of this term beyond the scope of this paper. 11
Augmenting technology generally serves to take something ordinary and give it extraordinary capabilities. By “ordinary” here I mean expected or natural, such as seeing a musician holding a cello or a dancer wearing ballet slippers. Augmentative technology is distinct in that it recognizes and exploits traditional instruments and objects as a way to enable and/or encourage new capabilities. This application is particularly useful in taking advantage of a performer’s individual talent (years of disciplined training and technique refinement) and incorporating digital creative powers into a familiar, usable package for them. Both technologies require a vehicle of some kind, via an interface or an instrument. There is ongoing debate regarding the differences between an interface and an instrument, further complicated by the nebulous and often overlapping nature of the terms where creative tools for expression are concerned. At the most cursory level the historical contexts of each term lend us some method of distinction: performing with an instrument brings to mind traditional sound-producing objects, such as a cello or a trumpet. Within dance the physical body is commonly considered the instrument, as it produces, through physical actuation (movement of the body), a creative output (embodied expression) (Chapple and Davis, 1988). Performing with an interface will likely connote a concept more attuned with the field of HCI, in which an interface facilitates a user-system interaction (Dix et al., 2004). Dancing with an interface is a phrase not yet adopted by the wider dance community, however, those who are familiar with technologicallyaided performance practice generally understand that a digital component is implicated (Popat, 2008). More specifically, within creative practices such as dance and music, an instrument is usually a mechanically-actuated object that produces a direct sensory (aural, visual, kinesthetic) output, while within HCI an interface generally facilitates information input and output as data between a user and system (Schneiderman and Plaisant, 1998), which is not historically tailored to creative performance practice (Blair-Early and Zender, 2008). The semi-indiscriminate use of these two terms is understandable, as incorporating digital technology into standard artistic practices muddles the definitions of both. Even in a situation involving traditional arts and digital intervention, standard corporeal actions utilized to produce sound or movement rarely disappear, and the desired output from the digital system is, generally speaking, creatively geared. As if it wasn’t complicated enough, there are further attempts to classify creative sub-practices as liminal, or something else entirely. Augmented musical instruments (also called hyperinstruments, hybrid instruments, or extended instruments) are traditional acoustic instruments that employ the use of sensors technology to layer or embed computing capabilities within the existing objects, maintaining a clear musician-instrument dynamic even as the instrument functions dually as an interface (Miranda and Wanderly, 2006). On the other hand, laptop orchestras often (though certainly not always) embrace a very literal use of interface as instrument, accepting constrained point-and-click GUI interfaces as their sole means of generating a creative output (Fiebrink et al., 2007). And then there are those who make the argument that interfaces are instruments if they simply represent musical ideas or capabilities, shrugging off the concerns of historical design intentions (Magnusson, 2005). Clearly, these terms are written in shades of grey at best.
6.1 Effects on Multimodality and Cognitive Bandwidth In any practice, but particularly within multi- or cross-disciplinary ones, as is the case here, the cognitive overhead of the performer rises or falls in relation to how much observation, analysis, and translation is required at any given moment. Within music, for instance, the performance is “perceived not only through sound but additionally with the help of both visual cues and sensations of motion, effort, and dynamics” (Visi et al., 2014). Not only is the musician attending to his/her own sensory experience and 12
producing physical motions in accordance with training and experience, but visually evaluating the gestures and movements of other performers, and aurally interpreting the sounds his/her instrument and the instrument(s) of others are making. So, there is input, analysis, and output happening on haptic, visual, and aural levels, at least. Similar processes can be identified in dance, where the sense of touch and proprioception are, arguably, even more influential, even as the individuals keep time with musical cues and visually attend to the movements and positioning of anywhere between 1 and a few dozen other dancers. As Noland elaborates: “[Dancers] must keep time without musical cues; sense the presence of the other dancers on stage; know blindly, proprioceptively, what these other dancers are doing; and adjust the timing and scope of their movements accordingly, thereby “expressing” the “human situation” at hand.” (Noland, 2010) As distinct disciplines are combined in new media works, the modes of meaningful communication and expression grow exponentially. Consider a simple performance for musician and dancer:
The dancer conveys information through their physical movement, and the musician conveys information through auditory events. The dancer interprets aural (primary) and visual (secondary) information from musician, and the musician interprets visual (primary) and aural (secondary) information from dancer. Now consider a performance for musician, dancer, and computer, in which the the movement of the dancer is analyzed by a computer’s camera and displayed to both performers as a way to make musical/ movement decisions in response to detailed levels of directional and acceleration changes. Simultaneously, the computer is performing a complex mathematical analysis of the musician’s pitch and amplitude over time, allowing both parties to respond to deeper levels of musical information.
13
The increased number of input and output channels is not necessarily unmanageable—the overlap of channels is. Beyond the visual movements of the dancer, the musician must now observe the dancer’s movement data from the computer, as well as consider the data being conveyed to the dancer regarding musical choices being made. The dancer must similarly divide visual attention between musician and computer screen, and continually judge how the physical movements being used as a vehicle for expression are now also functioning as input controls for the musician. Lastly consider a performance for musician, dancer, and sensors, in which accelerometer and force detecting sensors are attached to the dancer, piezo microphones are attached to the musician’s instrument, and the resulting data is translated within an autonomous computer system to produce an accompanying digital manipulation of acoustic sound and projected visual imagery based on movement from the dancer:
While there is still more information to attend to, in this scenario each performer is receiving multiple streams of information on the aural, rather than visual, channels. What is important about this distinction is that humans are perceptually capable of attending to multiple channels of audio simultaneously (consider any musical group—their constituent roles play to a larger symphonic sound, and though it requires training and practice to be cognizant both your individual input and collective sound it is very much a part of the musical process), while we are only physically able to visually assess one source at a time. While each participant in this scenario is certainly challenged to balance additional considerations, the physical and cognitive demands are largely mitigated by the technology itself. It should be clear by now that as performance practices incorporate technology into new work, especially work that involves collaboration across disciplines, things can get very complicated very quickly. However, as the practice takes root and more consideration is given to the practical and artistic capabilities of each party, new, more disciplined approaches are being applied. Ultimately the increasing use of sensing technology in cross-disciplinary practices has produced two important shifts in regards to the processes of input, analysis, and output: 1.
2.
Because sensors measure any perceptual phenomenon (aural, visual, haptic, motion, or other) they afford an offloading of cognitive analysis and translation from human agents to computer systems, while simultaneously enabling increasing layers and levels of complexity within collaborating systems. The increased cognitive overhead this enables for performers allows for more effective attendance to multimodal streams of information: if the technology can work invisibly to enable more complex performance objectives, the performers can expend more energy on developing their own expressive and collaborative agency (Visi, 2014). 14
7. Close Readings 7.1 Expression: Dentro Miguel Ortiz: (http://miguel-ortiz.com/dentro/) Dentro is a work composed by composer Miguel Ortiz, written for brainwaves and heartbeat. The sounds produced within this piece are controlled through the measurement of electrical activity of the brain (so called “brain waves”) through electroencephalography (EEG) and the performer’s own heartbeats, through electrocardiography (EKG). The performer is required to navigate through several intense emotional states in order to produce specific brain states—states of calm and agitation both. The software designed for this work interprets the data from the biosensors and translates them into sound events. This performance begins with Ortiz on a darkened stage, sitting with eyes closed, hands on his knees, motionless. A low, distorted drone emanates from the room’s speakers, and quickly dissolves into a sonic bed of what sounds like muffled white noise. Slowly, waves of static and narrowly-pitched swells ebb and flow, in a disconcerting yet intimate bath of noise. Periodically it seems that a heartbeat surfaces through the chaotic ambience, a momentary tempo punctuating the nebulous flow of the composition. On his chest sporadically appear moving white images, at first undistinguishable, amorphous shapes which reveal themselves to be photographic scans a chest cavity. The esophagus, the lungs, the heart, the viscera of the human body flicker in and out of existence, seeming to craw not just on but inside his dark silhouette.
Still images from Dentro
4 minutes into the piece, Ortiz is still mostly motionless, the sonic landscape shifts. The pitched swells become clusters of shimmering notes that layer on top of one another, shifting between dissonance and consonance. The lower drones seem to take on a mechanical, driving quality, churning underneath the entire composition, driving it forward. There is an urgency, and change in pacing and timbre, and Ortiz’s breathing can be seen now, his chest and shoulders moving up and out, laboring. The surfacing of percussive beats is faster, less steady. The volume intensifies, the frequencies produced by the sound system resonate within the hands, feet, and chest of every individual in the room. The metal grating of the floor shakes. The rafters creak overhead. At 7 minutes the pacing slows, the sounds begin to blur. The layerings become more delicate, less distorted. The heartbeats seem to manifest in almost inhumanly slow, measured beats. Sonic layers begin to fall away, the texture smooths and fades. It dissipates into silence, and Ortiz releases the tension from his body in one swift movement, his entire silhouette falling slack as he exhales. It’s a jarring moment which releases the audience from the performance immersion and betrays the exhaustion Ortiz has caused himself. 15
Experiencing Dentro as an audience member is enrapturing. The subtle visual representation of the internal workings of the human body, coupled with the sonic manifestations of the heart and mind, couple to great effect—it is impossible not to feel your own heart beating faster, notice you breathing quickening. Despite there being virtually no physical movement, no control gesture, no expression on the part of the performer, the access to the internal state of Ortiz is more than sufficient to represent not only his agency and intention, but also to cause us to empathize both emotionally and physically. The technology in this piece enables a different kind of expression, one conveyed invisibly, and demands from the viewer an acknowledgement of a metaphysical embodiment of a traditionally corporeal performance principle.
7.2 Collaboration: Netrooms: The Long Feedback Pedro Rebelo, Rob King (http://www.somasa.qub.ac.uk/~prebelo/netrooms/) Netrooms: The Long Feedback is a networked performance piece. Several musicians, in multiple geographic locations perform together, connected via the Internet. Performances of this kind are not particularly new, however Netrooms applies visualization technology in a unique way, allowing for an entirely novel collaborative experience. Networked connections, particularly those involving the transmission of real-time audio or video, are required to contend with the issue of latency and lag. Naturally, the introduction of even a minute signal delay between performers, or the 2-second dropout of audio signal can derail a performance as individuals attempt to compensate for incomplete information, predict lag times, and keep the creative and utilitarian lines of communication open. Netrooms tackles this problem in a creative and clever way, through a visualization system. Participants, from their respective geographic locations, are all presented with a synchronized, constantly-updating map of information, whereby they can not only see their own contribution to the overarching performance, but also the contributions of others. Most importantly, this information reflects the time delays involved, allowing the musicians to anticipate the arrival times of auditory events, see the changes in pacing, and contribute in a well-informed way to the larger composition.
Visualization system for Netrooms
16
The resulting performance is strikingly more cohesive, relaxed, and musically satisfying for both audience member and performer. This digital map, representing time, space, and creative divisions of labor, presents a new embodiment of collaboration. The communication between performers is not only stripped of its physical embodiment, but also of its place in time. The “real-time” is less important to each contributor than is the “performance time” shared by everyone involved. Stripped of time and space, this presentation of musical collaboration on stage simply could not exist before the technology. While still maintaining the autonomy and reactive capabilities of each performer involved, collaboration in Netrooms takes place across digital channels, visualized in a metaphysical space, shared by all.
7.3 Physicality Dentro and Netrooms both approach the physicality of both the body of the performer and the instruments used to collaborate and express. Ortiz’s motionless, statuesque presence on stage should be incongruent with what we know performance to be, what we are familiar seeing the artist’s body do. His instrument, though invisible, should, by all measures, be less expressive and, quite frankly, less satisfying to experience. However, that is not the case. The biological signals that are measured and transduced engages the audience on somatic and emotional levels as effectively as any more traditionally presented performance; they do express, they are physically felt. Netrooms, likewise, with its performers divided over space and time, should feel detached and unnatural, but it doesn’t. Instead, it’s enrapturing, exciting even, to watch the creative streams of each musician converge and shape the composition. The collaboration is present in the choices each agent makes in real time, the physical presence is felt through their attention to the elements dividing them.
8. Conclusion Technology, as a performance tool, can provide access to a better understanding of ourselves, increased control over expressive capabilities, and heightened effectiveness in evoking the desired response from another subject. It grants access to increased performative capabilities, allows us to know ourselves better and better effect/affect a response from a participant. This redefines the mark by which we traditionally conceive of both expression and collaboration. Tra-digital performances are not becoming less expressive, or less collaborative. They are not less physical, they have not abandoned creative instruments, and yet they also are somehow extending and reshaping those very terms. It has been my aim, through this paper, to both recognize the legitimacy of the historical and terminological developments which have shaped our understanding of performance studies and also present a opportunity to reconsider what we understand it as today. I believe that approaching these new performance spheres with opened minds and engaging critically with the ongoing discourse will serve to benefit all participants in this new practice, and encourage new ways of both understanding and creation.
17
Sources Bahn, C., Hahn, T., & Trueman, D. (2001). Physicality and Feedback: A Focus on the Body in the Performance of Electronic Music. Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference, (2), 44– 51. http://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05627-6 Barker, P., & Schaik, P. Van. (n.d.). Electronic Performance Support. Bardzell, J. (2009). Interaction criticism and aesthetics. Proceedings of the 27th SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2357–2366. http://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1519063 Bergstrom, I., & Lotto, R. B. (2009). Harnessing the Enactive Knowledge of Musicians to Allow the Real-Time Performance of Correlated Music and Computer Graphics. Leonardo, 42(1), 92–93. http:// doi.org/10.1162/leon. 2009.42.1.92 Blair, R., & Lutterbie, J. (2011). Introduction:" Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism's" Special Section on Cognitive Studies, Theatre, and Performance. Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism, 25(2). Blair-Early, A., & Zender, M. (2008). User Interface Design Principles for Interaction Design. Design Issues, 24(3), 85–107. http://doi.org/10.1162/desi.2008.24.3.85 Bongers, B. (2000). Physical Interfaces in the Electronic Arts Interaction Theory and Interfacing Techniques for Real-time Performance. Trends in Gestural Control of Music, 2000(January), 41–70. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download? doi=10.1.1.90.4997&rep=rep1&type=pdf Cadoz, C. and Wanderley, M. M. (2000). Gesture-Music. In M.M. Wanderley and M. Battier (eds.), Trends in Gestural Control of Music[CD ROM]. Paris: IRCAM, 71–93 Chapple, E. D., & Davis, M. (1988). Expressive Movement and Performance: Toward a Unifying Theory. TDR (1988-), 32(4), 53–79. Chapple, E. D., Davis, M., & Chapple, E. D. (2015). Performance Toward a Unifying Theory Davis, 32(4), 53–79. Cook, A. (2007). Interplay: The method and potential of a cognitive scientific approach to Theatre1. Theatre Journal, 59(4), 579-594. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.prx.library.gatech.edu/ docview/216057503?accountid=11107 Corness, G., & Schiphorst, T. (2013). Performing with a System ʼ s Intention : Embodied Cues in Performer-System Interaction, 156–164. Coyle, D., Moore, J. W., Berthaut, F., Coyle, D., & Moore, J. (2015). Liveness Through the Lens of Agency and Causality Liveness Through the Lens of Agency and Causality, (MAY), 382–386. Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G. D., and Beale, R. Human-computer interaction. Prentice hall, 2004. [84] Dourish, P. (2006). Implications for design. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’06, 541. http://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124855 18
Dudas, R. (2010). “Comprovisation”: The Various Facets of Composed Improvisation within Interactive Performance Systems, 20, 29–31. Fiebrink, R., Wang, G., & Cook, P. (2007). Don’t forget the laptop: using native input capabilities for expressive musical control. Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME-07), 4. http:// doi.org/http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1279740.1279771 Garner, Stanton B. (1994). Bodied Spaces: Phenomenology and Performance in Contemporary Drama. Cornell University Press. Stamenov, M. & Gallese, V. (2002). Mirror Neurons and the Evolution of Brain and Language (Amsterdam: John Benjamins) Foster, S.L. (2011) Choreographing Empathy: Kinesthesia in Performance, London: Routledge Gaver, W. (2012). What Should We Expect From Research Through Design? CHI, 937–946. http:// doi.org/10.1145/2208516.2208538 Godøy, R. I., & Leman, M. (2010). Musical Gestures: Sound, Movement, and Meaning. Routledge. Gurevich, M., & Treviño, J. (2007). Expression and its discontents. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression - NIME ’07, 106. http://doi.org/ 10.1145/1279740.1279759 Hook, J., Green, D., Mccarthy, J., Taylor, S., Wright, P., & Olivier, P. (2011). A VJ centered exploration of expressive interaction. Response, 1265–1274. http://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979130 Kimura, M. (2014). Performance Practice in Computer Music. Computer Music Journal, 19(1), 64–75. http://doi.org/10.2307/3681300 Miranda, E. R. and Wanderley, M. M. New Digital Musical Instruments: Control And Interaction Beyond the Keyboard (Computer Music and Digital Audio Series). A-R Editions, Inc., 2006. ISBN 089579585X. URL http://portal.acm.org/citation. cfm?id=1201683. [69, 84, 85] Madison, D. S., & Hamera, J. (2005). The SAGE handbook of performance studies. Sage Publications. Magnusson, T. (2005). ixi software : The Interface as Instrument. Interfaces, 212–215. Retrieved from http://www.nime.org/2005/proc/nime2005_212.pdf Mauss, M. (1973). The Techniques of the Body. Economy and Society 2(1): 70-88. McConachie, B. (2007). Falsifiable theories for theatre and performance studies. Theatre Journal, 59(4), 553-577. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.prx.library.gatech.edu/docview/216064450? accountid=11107 Noland, C. (2009). Agency and Embodiment: Performing Gestures/Producing Culture. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
19
Noland, C. (2010). The Human Situation on Stage: Merce Cunningham, Theodor Adorno, and the Category of Expression. Dance Research Journal, 42(1), 46–60. Popat, S and Palmer, S (2008) Embodied interfaces: dancing with digital sprites. Digital Creativity, 19 (2). 125 - 137 Povall, R. M.. (1993). "The Last Garden": Explorations in Interactive Performance Methods. Leonardo Music Journal, 3, 25–28. http://doi.org/ 10.2307/1513265 Rink, J., Spiro, N., & Gold, N. (2011). Motive, Gesture and the Analysis of Performance. New Perspectives on Music and Gesture, (13), 267–292. Rovan, J. B., Wechsler, R., & Weiß, F. (2001). Seine hohle Form: Artistic Collaboration in an Interactive Dance and Music Performance Environment. Crossings: eJournal of Art and Technology (Trinity College Dublin), Vol. 1(September). Retrieved from http://crossings.tcd.ie/issues/1.2/ Schechner, R., & Brady, S. (2013). Performance Studies: An Introduction. Routledge. Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/criticism/v043/43.2crane.html Schloss, W. A. (2002). Using Contemporary Technology in Live Performance : The Dilemma of the Performer *. Journal of New Music Research, 31(February 2015), 293–242. http://doi.org/10.1076/jnmr. 32.3.239.16866 Shneiderman, B., & Plaisant, C. (1998). Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective HumanComputer Interaction (4th ed.). New York: Pearson. http://doi.org/10.1016/0166-3615(93)90066-A Truckenbrod, J. (2015). Creativity : Integrated Boundaries of Transcending the Literature and Music Visual, 2(1), 89–95. Visi, F., Schramm, R., & Miranda, E. (2014). Gesture in performance with traditional musical instruments and electronics - Use of embodied music cognition and multimodal motion capture to design gestural mapping strategies. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Movement and Computing, 100–105. http://doi.org/10.1145/2617995.2618013 Zumthor, P., Gumbrecht, H. U., & Pfeiffer, K. L. (1994). Body and Performance.
20