Improvisational Choreography As A Design PDF
Improvisational Choreography As A Design PDF
Improvisational Choreography As A Design PDF
Choreography as a
design language for
Spatial Interaction
CHRYSSA VARNA
This thesis suggests an approach to designing spatial interaction by
merging two parallel gradients of choreography and kinetic architecture.
It draws observations about how the two disciplines can become
complementary towards one another and exchange ideas. Contemporary
choreographers and their processes are discussed (focusing on the area of
structured improvisation). An architectural research project is presented
as a series of built installations. These installations interrogate a range of
spatial conditions from purely mechanical automata to interactive systems,
using the technology of industrial robotics, computer vision and adaptive
computation.
ie
nt
Regarding improvisation techniques, each dancer
architecture. It seeks connections between the two
needs to “invent” his own space as a function of the
disciplines and investigates whether the two can be
other performers’ improvisation, using continuous
bridged.
feedback in relation to the environment (this can
interaction/
improvisation be in the form of the choreographer, dancers,
Choreographic processes in dance can be
or the audience)[Sparacino et al., 2000]. Such
perceived as a gradient from planned methods
awareness is similar to interactivity as defined
to improvised ones. Polar approaches to personal interpretation
by Gordon Pask (where the system learns to act
choreography such as restricted scenario-based
from its own behaviors and the human interaction)
performances (such as ballet) or freeform inspired Figure 1: Illustration of the spectrum from
[Pask, 1971].
improvised routines can be located on such a automaton/planned to interaction/improvisation
gradient spectrum; but it is argued that neither
FIG.2
the evolution in those systems in parallel to the follow step by step a linear arrangement of dancing [iii] Notation system
evolution of the choreographic processes. rules, following a completely strategic movement,
which was arranged historically by a choreographer. The obvious need to indicate dance rhythms
It is a theatrical work in which a choreographer has
2. Choreography in accurately led to the development of systems
expressed his ideas in dancing with corresponding based on music notation. In 1891 many of Petipa’s
dance environment (music, costumes, scenery and original creations began to be recorded in the
lighting). [Grand, 1982] method of dance notation created by Vladimir
As Smith [2000] claims, the composition of a Stepanov for the Imperial Ballet of St. Petersburg,
dance (i.e. choreography) is different from the According to Marius Petipa, one of the most in his Alphabet of Movements of the Human Body.
pleasure of moving with skilled accuracy (i.e. influential choreographers in ballet, choreography is
dancing). This difference is usually expressed with a purely academic way of creating dance (in terms It is a simple system, similar to a musical score
accelerated motion, rhythmic body gestures and of structure and composition), with no clear stamp encoding dance movements of the whole body
coordinated bodily movement in space and time of dancers’ individuality. In his creations he delivers in anatomical terms. It deconstructs every dance
by a choreographer. Choreographic practice can a specific impersonal pattern of a story or scenario step into the most elementary movements a single
be considered as the sophisticated composition of -which usually is historically pre-conceived- as part of the body can produce, encoding each
full-body movement. a dance narrative representation of an already movement into a “note” [Hutchinson, 1989].
known story, myth, or tale (e.g. Don Quixote,
The thesis introduces an observation about Sleeping Beauty, The Nutcracker, Swan Lake etc.). The idea of adapting music notes to meet the
choreography which is divided in three categories, The choreographer has the power to make all the needs in describing movement has continued
depending on the rule of the choreographer, the decisions, leaving no opportunity for the dancer or to remain popular, but careful analysis reveals
dancer and the interpretation of the audience: the audience to exercise personal interpretation. that music notes lack the required flexibility to
The performance consists of a particular beginning record variations in movement timing. They are
*planned not sufficiently flexible in design to take care of
and end, concerning not only the dancing steps but
also the narrative content that the choreography the many timing and spatial needs in the field of
*semi-planned and
is describing. It is a linear structure that follows a movement notation [Hutchinson, 1989].
*unplanned choreography (improvisation). These specific narrative and a strategy of movements that
are examined in the following sections. intend to convey specific information.
2.02. Semi-Planned moment, but are the result of their work in a studio In order to depict all these terms (body, space,
Choreography and have spread among the dance community. time, dynamics) Laban uses symbols that are
They are now a common method of composition placed on a vertical staff consists of three lines. The
“Contemporary dance techniques in choreography, created and used by Merce staff is read from the bottom to top; the vertical
which a dancer’s movement is triggered Cunningham, Trisha Brown, Doris Humphrey, dimension represents time passing by and the
by a choreographer or another dancer, Martha Graham, Jose Limon and others. horizontal dimension represents the symmetry
leaving small or no opportunity to of the body. (See figure 5). Basic symbols depict
exercise personal interpretation” [ii] Terminology the direction of movement in angle increments
of 45 degrees. More complex combinations of
A list of the most important contemporary those symbols allow the division of directions more
[i] Definition choreographic devices is cited as an example of precisely. (See figure 6)
how a planned structure can be enriched by semi-
In the early 1950’s, contemporary dance began
planned moves and can create variations that give 2.03. Unplanned
to break the mold of planned choreography as an
the dancers small opportunities to react to the
experimental reflection upon the limits of dance. Choreography /
choreographer’s instruction in a more personal way.
Contemporary choreography is the practice of
Unison: group movement performed by the
Improvisation
composing new movements, not only working whole team at the same time;
Reversals: performing of the movements of a
with bodily restrictions (such as every part being motif or sequence in reverse order
(but not in a backwards direction);
connected, elbows bending only one way etc.) but Retrogade: performing backwards, as if rewinding
a video.
[i] Definition
also with possibilities in a choreography (i.e. create Canon: repeated movement down a line of
people one after the other;
variations of spatial relations between the dancers Contrast: creating oppositions for emphasis; Improvisation in performance is the practice
oppositions may be of various kinds:
within a routine) [Hansen, 2011] gestural, rhythmic, directional etc. of reacting to a set of scores or stimulus and
Fragmentation: only a part of the movement
sequence/motif is manipulated. A performing (act, dance, sing, play a musical
movement is broken down into smaller
Contemporary choreographers develop their Mirror:
units;
inverting the movement phrase,
instrument etc) as a combination of intuitive and
creative processes in a way that goes beyond a set executing it as if ‘looking in a mirror’.
A forward step becomes a backward
cognitive reaction. Improvisation is not a closed
of pre-determined rules, but still without leaving a step; movement sideward remains in
a lateral plane
circuit. It is a dictation of human behavior but it
completely personal point of view for the audience includes the participation of the human mind. A
or the performer. They usually begin with some performer engages a set of rules but his interaction
[iii] Notation system
creative impulses or ideas, and then physically with them includes cognitive permission.
explore these in the studio with their dancers The most commonly used notation system in
[Schiphorst 1993]. Why is improvisation a significant method for
contemporary dance is Labanotation. It was
performance and architecture? As Foucault
formed by one of the pioneers of contemporary
A whole new glossary has been developed in has suggested, the structural characteristics
dance, Rudolf Von Laban; therefore this system
order to communicate and transfer these ideas. of improvisational expression reside in the act
had to be flexible enough to respond to the
A representative example of this vocabulary is the of formation and not in a preexisting model.
experimental character of contemporary dance
term “Choreographic Devices”; choreographic Among its important features are reversibility,
[Stathopoulou, 2011]. Laban’s system defines
tools enabling different compositions, shapes discontinuity, specificity, and exteriority with
movement description in clearly measurable terms,
and forms within the framework of a group respect to existing models. Improvisation choices
including the number of dancers, the parts of the
[Ellfeldt,1998]. They contain the idea that a are not led by predeterming evaluative procedures
body used, the space occupied by the body and
movement is triggered by the choreographer or By experimenting with improvisational art
the space around it, as well as the parameter of
another dancer, as a reaction or continuity to the practices, artists discover “fresh and significant
time, the dynamics of movement and others spatial
previous movement. These “devices” were not relationships” that “in some measure remake
qualities. [Hutchinson,1991].
created by a single choreographer at an instant our world” and make “a genuine contribution to
Figure 3. Rudolf Von Laban explaining how his
notation system works
FIG.3
FIG.4
knowledge” and perception of movement and [iv] William Forsythe [v] Wayne McGregor
space. [Goodman, 1968]
One of the contemporary choreographers using Another contemporary choreographer who uses
[ii] Improvisation in Dance improvisation techniques is William Forsythe. improvisation techniques is Wayne McGregor,
Forsythe’s works have often promoted dance known for testing choreography and collaborations
According to Merce Cunningham, improvisation choreography and dance performance as resources across dance, film, music, visual art, technology
in dance is not equivalent to free form. It is instead for the study of human perception and science. Using improvisation tasks as a
a refined skill, which allows a performer to choose fundamental technique of his creative process, he
among his repertoire of movements what best “Improvisation gives his dancers “scores” or “problems” to solve as
suits the current development of the dance, in Technologies” a way of generating movement sequences. These
coordination with the other performers. He has tasks involve a degree of complex mental work, for
developed a choreography based on structured In over 100 video segments, Forsythe explains example visualizing shapes in space. This is enough
improvisation: each dancer needs to “invent” the key principles of his vocabulary offering a to stimulate a focused conversation about how
his or her own space as a function of the other perspective on his approach to improvisation. mind, space and body interact.
performers’ improvisation [Sparacino et al., 2000].
Forsythe analyses basic classical dance movements Weekend Lab at Barbican
In improvisational dance the performer must into geometrical shapes and forms such as
Centre (2013)
generate a constant flow of ideas and models, and points, planes, volumes, lines. Using those shapes
constantly surprise himself or herself, as well as the he composes choreographies by rotating, During this research a two-day seminar
audience. An immediate feedback between the extruding, folding, unfolding. He creates his own organized by Wayne McGregor and his dance
performers can completely change the direction of vocabulary, called “U-lines” . These may consist company Random dance at Barbican Centre was
choreography. of short phrases to interpret (e.g. I’m not talking attended by the author. Continuing his effort
to you, You meet yourself, Cheers you up, To to expand creative thinking in choreography
Improvisational structures permit the dancer spite you), mathematical terms (e.g. divides, using improvisation techniques, McGregor led
elements of freedom and creativity in making delineates, functions, planes), verbs and adjectives the participants in a series of creative tasks that
moves and sequences of movement. The dancer (e.g. deviate, follow, reject, implode, partial), exposed the processes used by him in the creation
can employ any number of compositional and computational operations (e.g. distortion of his recent work FAR. Always following the
strategies and creative responses to pursue an operations, recursive algorithms) [Spier 2005]. He basic rule of decomposition of the human body
outcome where the result is not fully known evolves classical ballet terms into new fragmented, and creation of un-natural, fragmented forms and
[Ribeiro and Fonsenca,2001]. Improvisation is distorted set of rules for improvisation methods. movements, McGregor provided his dancers with a
much more demanding than following a prescribed [Spier, 2005] series of tasks in order for them to create their own
set of instructions. The improviser must create the
“solos”.
artistic product as he or she performs it and they In order to teach his principles and ideas Forsythe
are simultaneously their own choreographers and developed his own notating system called
their partners’ spectators in the relation with the ‘Improvisation Technologies’. With his body as the
partners and the space interface for drawing lines, curves and volumes in
space, he explains his process through recorded
As a dance structure that provides originality and educational video segments. This vocabulary then
interactivity, many influential choreographers have used by dancers as a language of communication
been interested in the techniques of improvisation on stage, as a set of scores that trigger next move
and have developed their own creative processes. of every dancer.
FIG.5
FIG.7
FIG.8
FIG.9
A fluid wave motion installation was designed to In the second case, the audience experienced
Design Projects/Combination
depict in the abstract physical and environmental the depiction of Norwegian lighting either inside
of a machine and a dancing a limited cubical space or outside a corridor. The
conditions of a site where the northern lights
theory appear regularly. Inspiration was derived from the mechanism performs always in the same way within
dramatic natural lighting conditions found in the the same framework of rules. The experience of
4.01. automaton / planned Norwegian landscapes. the observer is affected by the viewpoint spot he
choreography chooses.
A kinetic mechanism was attached to the top of
As an analogy to planned choreography, two case the structure, lifting a chain of wooden timbers These projects showed that automaton behavior
studies were developed in order to describe a pre- (with hanging lights on their end) up and down is preconceived and predictable. However,
conceived automaton behavior as a set of decisions in a wave-like motion. An array of off-centered dependant on the individual perception of an
(concerning design, mechanics and movement) cams was attached to a shaft, which turned by observer, a predictable behavior might be perceived
that led to a kinetic installation with strategic a motor, pushing up and down the timbers. It with the elements of complexity. A new vocabulary
movement. is a pre-choreographed set of arrangements of automaton behaviors might be a plan of strategic
concerning the set up, the rules of movement and actions to accomplish a specific kinetic goal with
[i] Mechanical Performance the mechanism. no opportunity for interaction. Nevertheless, the
audience have a small opportunity of changing the
A performative automaton was designed to [iii]Outcomes viewpoint of experiencing the “performance”.
transcend a plain circular, reciprocal motion to a
weightless kinetic waveform. This is not dissimilar to Automata are defined as machines or mechanisms
the changeability of a dancer from a walking person that can operate by themselves. From the
to a moving figure when performing on a stage. ancient greek automatons till the recent robots,
automaton behaviors can be defined as single
A kinetic mechanism was attached to the top of choreographed behaviors following a linear
the structure in order to create a wave-like motion arrangement from beginning to end [Glynn, 2012].
beneath. Thirty strings of the same length were The design projects described above were an
gathered in the center of a circle, while they were effort to approach automaton behaviors within a
distributed in a ring. This gathering point moved choreographic framework.
around the circumference of a circle and as a
result the distance of every string to every point The first project was tested in a space presenting
of the ring continually altered. Designed objects multiple levels, where an observer can have
were attached to each string and moved vertically, different views on the installation. This could be
creating a fluid sinusoidal wave motion. either above the mechanism looking downwards,
or on the lower levels looking up towards the
After construction, the automaton was tested “performing” wave-like surface. This represents
within a site that posed “theatrical” attributes (thus an attempt to investigate how the relationship
allowing multiple viewpoints). between audience/performer could change and be
adapted into performer/performer relationship (i.e.
how the observer can become a performer and vice
FIG.10
Figure 11. Render and exploded drawing of the
mechanism of Light Touch project.
FIG.11
Figure 12. Inspiration derived from the dramatic
natural lighting conditions found in the Norwegian
landscapes
FIG.12
FIG.13
4.02. Reactive Systems/Semi- not only for the “performer” but also for the is introduced to the performance with a real time
Planned Choreography observer. The observer starts to share the “stage” dialog between dancer and robots affecting the
with the performer and the hierarchy between synchronization and the speed of movement (using
audience and performer begins to blur. the technology of body tracking with a Kinect
[i] Choreographic Devices camera and computer vision).
This change of perception of the space from the
William Forsythe developed choreographic digital point of view of the observer can be analogous In terms of dynamics, different gestures and
objects to depict and notate his choreographic to the previous gradient of choreography. In shapes based on McGregor improvisation process
processes. As a first attempt for creating a similar planned choreography (e.g. ballet performances) cause various qualities of the movement (e.g. A
open source software, the design of a third case the audience watches the performance from geometrical form (L-shape) and a 3d gesture
study started with the simplest possible movement, a dark, seated spot in a theatre without having (twist)). The space occupied by the performers
one that can be performed by a robot: a one- the opportunity to be integrated into the stage is depicted by an end effector for the performer
degree-of-freedom movement in the shoulder. (figure 24). Moving on to contemporary art and and the robots respectively. Big fans performing
An arm is moved up and down according to a dance, the stage becomes a open, round space, an as spatial modulators are complementary to each
series of choreographic terms, trying to depict unseated, abstract room which can adapt according other. As they perform attached to the robots,
choreographic devices into a reactive system, to the performance. The audience is free to move they create unpredictable spatial qualities with the
triggered by a dancer. around the space or the performer and become dancer and the stage.
part of the performance (figure 25).
A Kinect camera combined with the design The installation is a proposal of a stage set. The
software of Grasshopper in Rhino and a timeline 4.04. Interactive Systems/ “performers” (i.e. dancer, robot arms) give and
were used to catch the human movement receive visual scores to and from each other. A
Unplanned Choreography
and make 3 cylinders (“performers”) turn score is an indication that one or more dancers can
(Improvisation)
accordingly. The result is a physical representation initiate a specified movement phrase. Effectively,
of the movement which changes according to as the improvisers perform they continuously
the software. The software creates 3 types of change their role as being simultaneously their own
[i]Final Design Project
choreographic devices: unison, canon and mirror. choreographers and their partners’ audience.
The cylinders triggered by the human body are Using ideas taken from William Forsythe’s
performing differently in every case, according to and Wayne McGregor’s work on structured [ii] Future Development
the device the software is using. improvisation, a combination of pre-
In order to expand the ideas of improvisation to the
choreographed and improvised performances will
wider spectrum of spatial interactivity in a public
[ii]Outcomes be designed as a gestural dialog between a dancer
space, the project is intended to be installed in
and two Universal Robot Arms. The result will be
A reactive system is characterised by multiple an exhibition space. The installation will explore
an emerging set of movements that conclude
choreographed behaviors following non-linear the different behaviours between performers and
to an unpredictable choreography for every
arrangements, triggered by stimuli [Glynn, 2012]. observers. The gestural dialog between machine
performance.
As an analogy to contemporary dance, dancers’ and human will be directly relatable to the degree
movements are triggered by stimuli (or else of expertise of movement the observer has.
Using Laban’s description of movement the project
scores) that a choreographer provides. They have is divided in 4 parts of movement research: body,
the opportunity to be differentiated from a linear time, space and dynamics. The human body and
choreography and be able to choose from a list of the way it moves is reciprocated in the movement
“devices” that a choreographer provides. A small of the robots as different parts of a dancer’s
opportunity of personal interpretation is provided anatomy will trigger differing movements. Time
Figure 14. William’s Forsythe Choreographic
Objects software - Open Source software using
long exposure photography, Grasshopper and
Arduino
FIG.14
Figure 15. Photos of the prototype of
“Choreographic Devices”
FIG.15
FIG.16
5. Conclusions As discussed in the introduction, the aim of choreograph and control heterogeneous materials
the shared objective was principally to seek that include movement. It might propose a further
Reviewing the three objectives set out in the connections between choreographic processes and synchronisation of a repertoire of functions/
introduction, some conclusions can be drawn. kinetic design. Upon investigation, it can be argued movements/responses in an environment which
that kinetic design can embody complexity derived is in conversation with its occupants. A training
1. The choreographic objective: from improvisation techniques. The vehicle for this system in a space used by people might be
embodiment is a design vocabulary built as added choreographed by the aid of an expanded version
An observation about the gradient of choreography
layers of increased complexity, based on structured of the bespoken vocabulary. Improvisation might
has been discussed. Choreography is characterised
improvisation and Laban’s movement description. offer complexity in interactivity as a form of
as the organisation of the heterogeneous materials
elements that could not be found in a systematic
of movement, bodies, language, narratives, images, This vocabulary contains 4 parts of Laban’s preconceived process. This research contributes
light, space, and objects [Siegmund, 2012]. movement research (body, time, space, dynamics). some way towards generating renewed and
Within this context, the participation and personal These elements were chosen as a novel way to significant relationships between the space and its
interpretation of the performer and the audience describe choreographed movement in relation habitats.
needs to be considered. In restricted, pre-planned to robotics. The research has highlighted that
performances (such as ballet) these elements after several experiments, the translation of
follow linear arrangements of rules with diminishing choreographic terms into terms understandable in
opportunities for the audience, the performer the field of robotics is vast.
or even the space to adapt. Contemporary
performances based on improvisational techniques As opposed to literal robotic mimicry, a
afford ample participation in the decisions of decomposition of the human anatomy was used,
the choreographic routine. This applies to the with different parts of the body being adopted by
performers, the audience and the space; all the robots at any time. Using the process of Wayne
of which are able to adapt, perform and thus McGregor to create un-natural, fragmented
participate. In both cases, elements of freedom and forms and movements, time and dynamics were
restriction blur the limits of these gradients. added to the investigation of movement. Space
and its changes during the choreography has
2. The design objective: been depicted in the form of two large spatial
modulators. Finally, the gestural dialog has been
In the constructed kinetic installations, automaton
implemented with the use of computer vision and
systems were observed to be following a linear
adaptive computation technology.
arrangement of rules but are able to add a small
element of unpredictability in the behavior of the
Further Research
audience. Conversely, interactive design offers
emergent, unpredictable behaviors by following This thesis is part of research on how a designer can
a set of rules. The difference between the two is achieve spatial interactivity between performers,
that while the automaton systems exhibit a linear observers, technology and a space; using the
arrangement, the latter exhibits rules which are proposed vocabulary to set up a scenery for a
constantly evolving according to the audience, performance or an exhibition space.
the designer or the space. This clearly parallels the
hypothesized blurred choreographic gradient. Looking at the wider spectrum of architecture,
this vocabulary can adapt and expand in order to
3. The shared objective:
Figure 17. First experiments with UR10s. Dancer
and Robot performing an L-shape path.
FIG.17
Figure 18. Space is in constant transformation,
modulated by roboticly driven fans, puppetered by
robotic armatures.
FIG.18
FIG.19
Figure 20. As the choreography develops it creates
unpredictable spatial qualities between the dancer
and space. The improvising participants (dancer
and robots) continuously switch roles between
choreographer and performer
FIG.20
References New York: Routledge Spier, S (2005): Dancing and drawing,
choreography and architecture, The Journal of
Brooks, R (1985), A robust layered control system Hutchinson, A (1989). Choreographics: A Architecture, 10 (4), 349-364
for a mobile robot, Thesis, Massachusetts Institute comparison of dance notation systems from
of Technology the 15th centrury to the present. Amsterdam: Spier, S (2010). William Forsythe and the Practice
Gordon and Breach Publishers of Choreography. Routledge
Ellfeldt, L. (1998) A Primer for
Choreographers . Waveland Press Hutchinson, A. (1991).Labanotation: the system Stathopoulou, D (2011). From Dance Movement
of analyzing and recording movement. Great to Architectural Form, Thesis, University of Bath,
Carter, L.C. (2000). Improvisation in Dance, The Britain: Routledge Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering
Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 58 (2),
181-190 McGregor, W. deLahunta, S. Barnard, P. Seminars, Lectures,
(upcoming 2009). Augmenting Choreography:
Performances, Videos
Copeland, R (2004). Cunningham: The using insights from Cognitive Science, In J.
Modernizing of Modern Dance, New York and Butterworth & L. Wildschut (Eds.), Routledge Seminar: McGregor, W. Weekend Dance
London: The MIT Press, p. 180-182 Reader in Contemporary Choreography. London: Workshop with Random Dance Company, Rain
Routledge Room, Barbican Centre, February 2013
Cunningham, M.(1980), “From Notation to
Video” The Dancer and the Dance, Marion Pask, G (1971). A Comment, A Case History & A Videos: Forsythe, William. Improvisation
Boyers Inc., pp. 188-189 Plan, in Reichardt J (ed.), Cybernetics, Art & Ideas, Technologies: A Tool for the Analytical Dance Eye
London: Studio Vista (CD-ROM). Ostfildern, DE: Hatje Cantz Verlag,
Gavrilou, E (2003). Inscribing structures of dance
June 2000
into architecture, National Technical University of Ribeiro, M & Fonseca, A (2011). The empathy
Athens, Greece and the structuring sharing modes of movement Symposium: Mulvey, M. What does performance
sequences in the improvisation of contemporary have to do with architecture? How can a building
Glynn, R (2012). Research Cluster 3, Motive dance, Research in Dance Education, 12 (2), 71-85 perform, and how can we perform a building. Tate
Mythologies brief, http://www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/
Britain, London, February 2013
architecture/programmes/postgraduate/units- Schiphorst, T (1993). A case study of Merce
and-showcases/march-architectural-design/ Cunningham’s use of the Lifeforms Computer Performance: Mortal Engine, Chunky Move,
cluster3/2012-2013. Last accessed 26th April choreographic system in the making of Trackers. Southbank Center, London, October 2012
2013. Thesis (Ph.D.), Simon Fraser University
Performance: Infra, Wayne McGregor, Royal
Grand, G (1982). Technical Manual and Dictionary Siegmund,G. (2012). What is choreography?. Opera House, London, November 2012
of Classical Ballet. Dover Publications Available: http://www.corpusweb.net/tongue-7.
html. Last accessed 17th May 2013. Performance: FAR, Wayne McGregor, Royal
Goodman, N (1968). Languages of art. An Opera House, London, November 2012
approach to a theory of symbols. The Bobbs- Smith - Autard, J. (2010). Dance Composition: A
Merrill Company,Inc. practical guide to creative success in dance making, Performance: Don Quixote, Mikhailovsky Ballet,
London: Metheun Drama English National Opera, March 2013
Hansen L.A. (2011). Full-body movement as
material for interaction design, Digital Creativity, Sparacino, F. Wren, C. Davenport,G. Pentland, A. Performance: The architects, Shunt at the Biscuit
22(4), 247-262 (2000) Augmented Performance in Dance and Factory, London, January 2013
Theater, MIT Media Lab
Hill, J (2001). Architecture: The subject is matter, Performance: Savanna, A Possible Landscape,
Amit Drori, Barbican Centre, London, January February 2013
2013
Figure 5. http://justinmorrison.net/video/william-
Performance: Rhinoceros, Theatre de la Ville, forsythe-improvisation-technologies/
Barbican Centre, London, January 2013
Figure 6. Varna, C. (2013)
Symposium: “Choreographing the..” Organised
and hosted by Takako Hasegawa, Speakers: Olafur Figure 7. Nolan, S., Weekend Lab in Barbican,
Eliasson, Gilles Jobin, Marie-Claude Paulin & February 2013
Emma E Howes, La Ribot, Sidi Larbi Cherkaoui,
Figure 8. Nolan, S., Weekend Lab in Barbican,
Siobhan Davies, at Architectural Associasion, April
February 2013
2013
Figure 4. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/
topic/150794/dance-notation/252588/
Twentieth-century-developments Retrieved on