Improvisational

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.

It is suggested that structured improvisation in interaction can be deployed

and offer elements of emergence and unpredictability as a design
vocabulary. Such a vocabulary is based on a gestural dialog between an
installation and its environment (i.e. performer, audience, constructed
space). Development of this vocabulary might offer a novel approach
to structuring spatial interactivity, that concerns not only the literal
movement of a dynamic system, but also the behavior and personal
interpretation of a space and its habitats.
introduction
Despite being distinct subjects, dance and
architecture share a complementary relationship
regarding space and movement. These include
bodily movement from the perspective of
phenomenology and perception of space, the
perspective of the observer (how the audience
perceives space from different points of view), and
the perspective of a designer using the human body
as an interface in order to create forms and shapes.
Hill [2001] says that architecture can be found
everywhere, from the incisions of a surgeon to the
instructions of a choreographer or the movements
of a user. Many artists and architects have
investigated the relationship between a moving
body and architecture. Areas of research include
dance movement as a generator of parametric
architectural forms [Stathopoulou, 2011], design
of the spatial structure of built space in relation
to the spatial structure of embodied experience
[Gavrilou, 2003], or collaborations between
architects and choreographers for investigating the
areas of movement in space, choreography and
scenography (Diller & Scofidio 1996, Zaha Hadid
2000 and Jean Nouvel 2002 in collaboration with
the choreographer Frederic Flamand).
This thesis analyses specific elements of dance
and architecture: choreography and kinetic
restrictions - rules
architecture. It seeks connections between the two
disciplines and investigates whether the two can be
bridged.
Choreographic processes in dance can be
perceived as a gradient from planned methods
to improvised ones. Polar approaches to
choreography such as restricted scenario-based
performances (such as ballet) or freeform inspired
improvised routines can be located on such a
gradient spectrum; but it is argued that neither
forms reach the end of either side of the spectrum.
Improvisational techniques in choreography are
seen as an ‘open form’, meaning that they produce
unexpected behaviors and arrangements within
rule based and spatial constraints. During a planned
choreography, the performers subconsciously add
their own ‘uniqueness’ in small measures (i.e. build,
genre etc.) in spite of the fact that they all perform
the same linear arrangement of dancing steps.
Kinetic architecture can be framed by means of
a similar gradient from automaton to interactive
systems (whereby automaton and interactive
systems represent planned methods and
improvisational techniques respectively). In this
instance, automata can be described as a pre-
choreographed linear set of behaviors that contains
small degrees of freedom and unpredictability
(concerning the materials or observers behavior).
Interactive systems enable the emergence
of bespoke relationships between a space, a
“performer”, an observer and technology. Such
emergence is based on the existence of a certain
set of rules, the difference being that these rules
are constantly changing.
automaton/
planned choreography
gr
ad
ie
nt
interaction/
improvisation
personal interpretation
Figure 1: Illustration of the spectrum from
automaton/planned to interaction/improvisation
Connections can be drawn between the
two gradients and provide the vocabulary of
improvisation techniques as medium for design in
architecture. This thesis has three basic objectives:
1: The choreographic objective: to review and
categorise fundamental choreographic processes
as a gradient from planned methods to improvised
ones. The thesis analyses contemporary
choreographers and their processes, such as
Rudolf von Laban, William Forsythe and Wayne
McGregor.
2: The design objective: to present basic
kinetic design methods through a series of
built installations that interrogate the potential
spatial behaviours from mechanical automata to
interactive systems.
3: The shared objective: to seek parallels between
choreographic processes and kinetic design.
Performances based on improvisation techniques
can be perceived as a complex, abstract set of
movements, although they follow a set of adaptive
rules. Setting a vocabulary to explain and describe
this set of rules and the way they function might
be a more tangible basis to investigate whether
kinetic design can embody complexity derived from
improvisation techniques.
Regarding improvisation techniques, each dancer
needs to “invent” his own space as a function of the
other performers’ improvisation, using continuous
feedback in relation to the environment (this can
be in the form of the choreographer, dancers,
or the audience)[Sparacino et al., 2000]. Such
awareness is similar to interactivity as defined
by Gordon Pask (where the system learns to act
from its own behaviors and the human interaction)
[Pask, 1971].
FIG.2

Figure 2. Metapolis - Frederic Flamand, Zaha

Hadid
It is suggested that a vocabulary based on
structured improvisation can enable a gestural
dialog between an installation and a performer,
using layers of increasing moving complexity. This
is not dissimilar to Brooks’ control systems; where
a flexible robot is moving and high level layers
subsume the scores of the lower levels [Brooks,
1985].
As a tool for exploring, experiencing and describing
choreographed movement and as a bridging tool
between dance and architecture, the research
examines basic systems for notating dance
movement. Accordingly, it analyses the vocabulary
of every choreographic process and it investigates
the evolution in those systems in parallel to the
evolution of the choreographic processes.
2. Choreography in
dance
As Smith [2000] claims, the composition of a
dance (i.e. choreography) is different from the
pleasure of moving with skilled accuracy (i.e.
dancing). This difference is usually expressed with
accelerated motion, rhythmic body gestures and
coordinated bodily movement in space and time
by a choreographer. Choreographic practice can
be considered as the sophisticated composition of
full-body movement.
The thesis introduces an observation about
choreography which is divided in three categories,
depending on the rule of the choreographer, the
dancer and the interpretation of the audience:
*planned
*semi-planned and
*unplanned choreography (improvisation). These
are examined in the following sections.
2.01. Planned Choreography
“A choreographer imposes motion and
form in detail, leaving no opportunity
for the dancer to exercise personal
interpretation “
[Grand,1982]
[i] Definition
Planned choreography (which most commonly
refers to ballet performances) is a highly technical
form of dance with its own vocabulary. During a
planned choreography, the performers have to
follow step by step a linear arrangement of dancing
rules, following a completely strategic movement,
which was arranged historically by a choreographer.
It is a theatrical work in which a choreographer has
expressed his ideas in dancing with corresponding
environment (music, costumes, scenery and
lighting). [Grand, 1982]
According to Marius Petipa, one of the most
influential choreographers in ballet, choreography is
a purely academic way of creating dance (in terms
of structure and composition), with no clear stamp
of dancers’ individuality. In his creations he delivers
a specific impersonal pattern of a story or scenario
-which usually is historically pre-conceived- as
a dance narrative representation of an already
known story, myth, or tale (e.g. Don Quixote,
Sleeping Beauty, The Nutcracker, Swan Lake etc.).
The choreographer has the power to make all the
decisions, leaving no opportunity for the dancer or
the audience to exercise personal interpretation.
The performance consists of a particular beginning
and end, concerning not only the dancing steps but
also the narrative content that the choreography
is describing. It is a linear structure that follows a
specific narrative and a strategy of movements that
intend to convey specific information.
[ii] Terminology
The following basic terms are a short sample of
a wide glossary of balletic terms. They refer to
strategic motions or positions of several parts of
the body that create specific movements and
forms during a balletic choreography [Grand,1982].
Degage: To release the foot from a closed to
an open position;
Jete: To throw the weight of the body
from one foot on to the other;
Saute: To spring;
Ronds de Jambe à Terre: The movement of the leg in a
circular pattern touching the floor;
Attitude: The position on one leg with the
other lifted in back, the knee bent
at an angle of 90degrees;
Arabesque: The position of the body supported
on one leg, with the other leg
extended behind the body with the
knee straight;
[iii] Notation system
The obvious need to indicate dance rhythms
accurately led to the development of systems
based on music notation. In 1891 many of Petipa’s
original creations began to be recorded in the
method of dance notation created by Vladimir
Stepanov for the Imperial Ballet of St. Petersburg,
in his Alphabet of Movements of the Human Body.
It is a simple system, similar to a musical score
encoding dance movements of the whole body
in anatomical terms. It deconstructs every dance
step into the most elementary movements a single
part of the body can produce, encoding each
movement into a “note” [Hutchinson, 1989].
The idea of adapting music notes to meet the
needs in describing movement has continued
to remain popular, but careful analysis reveals
that music notes lack the required flexibility to
record variations in movement timing. They are
not sufficiently flexible in design to take care of
the many timing and spatial needs in the field of
movement notation [Hutchinson, 1989].
2.02. Semi-Planned
Choreography
“Contemporary dance techniques in
which a dancer’s movement is triggered
by a choreographer or another dancer,
leaving small or no opportunity to
exercise personal interpretation”
[i] Definition
In the early 1950’s, contemporary dance began
to break the mold of planned choreography as an
experimental reflection upon the limits of dance.
Contemporary choreography is the practice of
composing new movements, not only working
with bodily restrictions (such as every part being
connected, elbows bending only one way etc.) but
also with possibilities in a choreography (i.e. create
variations of spatial relations between the dancers
within a routine) [Hansen, 2011]
Contemporary choreographers develop their
creative processes in a way that goes beyond a set
of pre-determined rules, but still without leaving a
completely personal point of view for the audience
or the performer. They usually begin with some
creative impulses or ideas, and then physically
explore these in the studio with their dancers
[Schiphorst 1993].
A whole new glossary has been developed in
order to communicate and transfer these ideas.
A representative example of this vocabulary is the
term “Choreographic Devices”; choreographic
tools enabling different compositions, shapes
and forms within the framework of a group
[Ellfeldt,1998]. They contain the idea that a
movement is triggered by the choreographer or
another dancer, as a reaction or continuity to the
previous movement. These “devices” were not
created by a single choreographer at an instant
moment, but are the result of their work in a studio In order to depict all these terms (body, space,
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
choreography, created and used by Merce staff is read from the bottom to top; the vertical
Cunningham, Trisha Brown, Doris Humphrey, dimension represents time passing by and the
Martha Graham, Jose Limon and others. horizontal dimension represents the symmetry
of the body. (See figure 5). Basic symbols depict
[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
choreographic devices is cited as an example of precisely. (See figure 6)
how a planned structure can be enriched by semi-
planned moves and can create variations that give 2.03. Unplanned
the dancers small opportunities to react to the
Choreography /
choreographer’s instruction in a more personal way.
Unison: group movement performed by the
Improvisation
whole team at the same time;
Reversals: performing of the movements of a
motif or sequence in reverse order
(but not in a backwards direction);
Retrogade: performing backwards, as if rewinding
a video.
[i] Definition
Canon: repeated movement down a line of
people one after the other;
Contrast: creating oppositions for emphasis; Improvisation in performance is the practice
oppositions may be of various kinds:
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
Mirror:
units;
inverting the movement phrase,
instrument etc) as a combination of intuitive and
executing it as if ‘looking in a mirror’.
A forward step becomes a backward
cognitive reaction. Improvisation is not a closed
step; movement sideward remains in
a lateral plane
circuit. It is a dictation of human behavior but it
includes the participation of the human mind. A
performer engages a set of rules but his interaction
[iii] Notation system
with them includes cognitive permission.
The most commonly used notation system in
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
has suggested, the structural characteristics
dance, Rudolf Von Laban; therefore this system
of improvisational expression reside in the act
had to be flexible enough to respond to the
of formation and not in a preexisting model.
experimental character of contemporary dance
Among its important features are reversibility,
[Stathopoulou, 2011]. Laban’s system defines
discontinuity, specificity, and exteriority with
movement description in clearly measurable terms,
respect to existing models. Improvisation choices
including the number of dancers, the parts of the
are not led by predeterming evaluative procedures
body used, the space occupied by the body and
By experimenting with improvisational art
the space around it, as well as the parameter of
practices, artists discover “fresh and significant
time, the dynamics of movement and others spatial
relationships” that “in some measure remake
qualities. [Hutchinson,1991].
our world” and make “a genuine contribution to
 Figure 3. Rudolf Von Laban explaining how his
notation system works

Figure 4. The vertical dimension represents time

passing by and the horizontal dimension represents
the symmetry of the body

FIG.3

forward side backward

(right)

low middle high

step arm
body
leg gesture

FIG.4
knowledge” and perception of movement and
space. [Goodman, 1968]
[ii] Improvisation in Dance
According to Merce Cunningham, improvisation
in dance is not equivalent to free form. It is instead
a refined skill, which allows a performer to choose
among his repertoire of movements what best
suits the current development of the dance, in
coordination with the other performers. He has
developed a choreography based on structured
improvisation: each dancer needs to “invent”
his or her own space as a function of the other
performers’ improvisation [Sparacino et al., 2000].
In improvisational dance the performer must
generate a constant flow of ideas and models, and
constantly surprise himself or herself, as well as the
audience. An immediate feedback between the
performers can completely change the direction of
choreography.
Improvisational structures permit the dancer
elements of freedom and creativity in making
moves and sequences of movement. The dancer
can employ any number of compositional
strategies and creative responses to pursue an
outcome where the result is not fully known
[Ribeiro and Fonsenca,2001]. Improvisation is
much more demanding than following a prescribed
set of instructions. The improviser must create the
artistic product as he or she performs it and they
are simultaneously their own choreographers and
their partners’ spectators in the relation with the
partners and the space
As a dance structure that provides originality and
interactivity, many influential choreographers have
been interested in the techniques of improvisation
and have developed their own creative processes.
[iv] William Forsythe
One of the contemporary choreographers using
improvisation techniques is William Forsythe.
Forsythe’s works have often promoted dance
choreography and dance performance as resources
for the study of human perception
“Improvisation
Technologies”
In over 100 video segments, Forsythe explains
the key principles of his vocabulary offering a
perspective on his approach to improvisation.
Forsythe analyses basic classical dance movements
into geometrical shapes and forms such as
points, planes, volumes, lines. Using those shapes
he composes choreographies by rotating,
extruding, folding, unfolding. He creates his own
vocabulary, called “U-lines” . These may consist
of short phrases to interpret (e.g. I’m not talking
to you, You meet yourself, Cheers you up, To
spite you), mathematical terms (e.g. divides,
delineates, functions, planes), verbs and adjectives
(e.g. deviate, follow, reject, implode, partial),
and computational operations (e.g. distortion
operations, recursive algorithms) [Spier 2005]. He
evolves classical ballet terms into new fragmented,
distorted set of rules for improvisation methods.
[Spier, 2005]
In order to teach his principles and ideas Forsythe
developed his own notating system called
‘Improvisation Technologies’. With his body as the
interface for drawing lines, curves and volumes in
space, he explains his process through recorded
educational video segments. This vocabulary then
used by dancers as a language of communication
on stage, as a set of scores that trigger next move
of every dancer.
[v] Wayne McGregor
Another contemporary choreographer who uses
improvisation techniques is Wayne McGregor,
known for testing choreography and collaborations
across dance, film, music, visual art, technology
and science. Using improvisation tasks as a
fundamental technique of his creative process, he
gives his dancers “scores” or “problems” to solve as
a way of generating movement sequences. These
tasks involve a degree of complex mental work, for
example visualizing shapes in space. This is enough
to stimulate a focused conversation about how
mind, space and body interact.
Weekend Lab at Barbican
Centre (2013)
During this research a two-day seminar
organized by Wayne McGregor and his dance
company Random dance at Barbican Centre was
attended by the author. Continuing his effort
to expand creative thinking in choreography
using improvisation techniques, McGregor led
the participants in a series of creative tasks that
exposed the processes used by him in the creation
of his recent work FAR. Always following the
basic rule of decomposition of the human body
and creation of un-natural, fragmented forms and
movements, McGregor provided his dancers with a
series of tasks in order for them to create their own
“solos”.
FIG.5

Figure 5. Forsythe’s vocabulary of movement

10 certain moves of the choreography were picked,
and then choreographic devices (repetition, mirror,
canons, contrasts) and other spatial elements
(change speed, direction, levels) added to those
moves. As the process went on, imaginary 2d
objects were visualized (circle, rectangle, lines
etc.) which have attributes such as color, shape
,texture, sound (in contrary to Forsythe who
uses mostly geometrical terms) and mechanical
gestures (break, twist, collapse, taste, measure).
Every dancer memorized each other’s routines
(with the same rules but in a personal way), and
contact moments added into the choreography.
Through this feedback system with other dancers’
routines, the dancers adapted themselves
and combined individual routine into a new
collaborative routine. As layers of gestures were
added, interaction started to immerse not only
with the choreographer’s instructions but also with
other dancers.
Layers of different scores were built upon to
previous layers in order to let the performers
to operate a personal but increased complexity
movement. This is not dissimilar to Brooks control
systems where a flexible robot wanders around an
office. High level layers subsume the scores of the
lower levels; but lower levels continue to function
as higher levels are added.[Brooks, 1985]
Using the analogy of Brooks graphic analysis,
it can be argued that planned choreography is
described as functional steps illustrated by a series
of vertical slices. where movements come one
after another as a successive sequence; while
unplanned choreography can be illustrated by a
series of an horizontal slices, where every lower
level continue to function as higher complex levels
are added [Brooks, 1985]. This can function as
the explanatory vocabulary of rules that describe
the complexity of movements in structured
improvisation of Wayne McGregor. An attempt of
this horizontal staff of rules is going to be used for
the final experiment in the next chapter.
Figure 6: Analogy of Brooks’ control system of
added layers
3. Bridging Dance
Choreography and
Kinetic Design
Using Software as a bridge
between dance movement
and architecture
In every type of choreography from strict planned
ballet to the open forms of contemporary
improvisation, an array of rules, terms,
vocabularies, techniques and notation systems are
found. The evolution of choreographic techniques
is occurring in accordance to the terminology and
the tools (choreographic and representative) that
are being used by choreographers.
It needs to be noted that for the earlier methods
of choreography the choreographers use pre –
existed notation systems (e.g. labanotation). This
type of notation systems facilitates the entry,
storage and retrieval of dance notation scores.
They have basically been used to archive, preserve
or document notation scores of dance in order to
provide a record [Schiphorst 1993].
When increasing complexity emerges,
choreographers usually develop novel notation
systems that reflect their creative needs and
rules. These notation systems are designed for
composition and choreography. These latter
systems differ from the entry and interpretation of
dance notation as the compositional process and
its use affects the outcome of the dance. They are
designed to assist the choreographer in visualizing
and experimenting with movement during the
creative process [Schiphorst 1993].
This is the evolution of a simple notation system
into an interactive creative software that not
only notates and maps human movement but
also becomes an active participant in the creative
exchange between choreographer and dancer.
For the purposes of the design project that
accompanies the thesis a series of experiments
have been conducted in order to present
basic kinetic design systems as a gradient
from automaton to reactive and interactive/
improvisational systems as a an analogy to planned,
semi planned and unplanned choreography. Simple
notation systems has been created as an immediate
visualisation of the reaction between the physical
objects and a performer.
 Figures 7,8. Participation in Wayne McGregor’s
Weekend Lab

FIG.7

FIG.8
FIG.9

Figure 9. Create a shape (e.g. curve) and add a 3d

gesture to it (e.g. twist it)
4. Kinetic Design
Design Projects/Combination
of a machine and a dancing
theory
4.01. automaton / planned
choreography
As an analogy to planned choreography, two case
studies were developed in order to describe a pre-
conceived automaton behavior as a set of decisions
(concerning design, mechanics and movement)
that led to a kinetic installation with strategic
movement.
[i] Mechanical Performance
A performative automaton was designed to
transcend a plain circular, reciprocal motion to a
weightless kinetic waveform. This is not dissimilar to
the changeability of a dancer from a walking person
to a moving figure when performing on a stage.
A kinetic mechanism was attached to the top of
the structure in order to create a wave-like motion
beneath. Thirty strings of the same length were
gathered in the center of a circle, while they were
distributed in a ring. This gathering point moved
around the circumference of a circle and as a
result the distance of every string to every point
of the ring continually altered. Designed objects
were attached to each string and moved vertically,
creating a fluid sinusoidal wave motion.
After construction, the automaton was tested
within a site that posed “theatrical” attributes (thus
allowing multiple viewpoints).
[ii] Light Touch1 versa).
A fluid wave motion installation was designed to In the second case, the audience experienced
depict in the abstract physical and environmental the depiction of Norwegian lighting either inside
a limited cubical space or outside a corridor. The
conditions of a site where the northern lights
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
Norwegian landscapes. the observer is affected by the viewpoint spot he
chooses.
A kinetic mechanism was attached to the top of
the structure, lifting a chain of wooden timbers These projects showed that automaton behavior
(with hanging lights on their end) up and down is preconceived and predictable. However,
in a wave-like motion. An array of off-centered dependant on the individual perception of an
cams was attached to a shaft, which turned by observer, a predictable behavior might be perceived
a motor, pushing up and down the timbers. It with the elements of complexity. A new vocabulary
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
the mechanism. no opportunity for interaction. Nevertheless, the
audience have a small opportunity of changing the
[iii]Outcomes viewpoint of experiencing the “performance”.
Automata are defined as machines or mechanisms
that can operate by themselves. From the
ancient greek automatons till the recent robots,
automaton behaviors can be defined as single
choreographed behaviors following a linear
arrangement from beginning to end [Glynn, 2012].
The design projects described above were an
effort to approach automaton behaviors within a
choreographic framework.
The first project was tested in a space presenting
multiple levels, where an observer can have
different views on the installation. This could be
either above the mechanism looking downwards,
or on the lower levels looking up towards the
“performing” wave-like surface. This represents
an attempt to investigate how the relationship
between audience/performer could change and be
adapted into performer/performer relationship (i.e.
how the observer can become a performer and vice
1. In collaboration with Haptic Architects and Ruairi Glynn
 Figure 10. Photos of built installation

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

Figure 13. Different viewpoints for the user to

experience the movement of lights

FIG.12

FIG.13
4.02. Reactive Systems/Semi-
Planned Choreography
[i] Choreographic Devices
William Forsythe developed choreographic digital
objects to depict and notate his choreographic
processes. As a first attempt for creating a similar
open source software, the design of a third case
study started with the simplest possible movement,
one that can be performed by a robot: a one-
degree-of-freedom movement in the shoulder.
An arm is moved up and down according to a
series of choreographic terms, trying to depict
choreographic devices into a reactive system,
triggered by a dancer.
A Kinect camera combined with the design
software of Grasshopper in Rhino and a timeline
were used to catch the human movement
and make 3 cylinders (“performers”) turn
accordingly. The result is a physical representation
of the movement which changes according to
the software. The software creates 3 types of
choreographic devices: unison, canon and mirror.
The cylinders triggered by the human body are
performing differently in every case, according to
the device the software is using.
[ii]Outcomes
A reactive system is characterised by multiple
choreographed behaviors following non-linear
arrangements, triggered by stimuli [Glynn, 2012].
As an analogy to contemporary dance, dancers’
movements are triggered by stimuli (or else
scores) that a choreographer provides. They have
the opportunity to be differentiated from a linear
choreography and be able to choose from a list of
“devices” that a choreographer provides. A small
opportunity of personal interpretation is provided
not only for the “performer” but also for the
observer. The observer starts to share the “stage”
with the performer and the hierarchy between
audience and performer begins to blur.
This change of perception of the space from the
point of view of the observer can be analogous
to the previous gradient of choreography. In
planned choreography (e.g. ballet performances)
the audience watches the performance from
a dark, seated spot in a theatre without having
the opportunity to be integrated into the stage
(figure 24). Moving on to contemporary art and
dance, the stage becomes a open, round space, an
unseated, abstract room which can adapt according
to the performance. The audience is free to move
around the space or the performer and become
part of the performance (figure 25).
4.04. Interactive Systems/
Unplanned Choreography
(Improvisation)
[i]Final Design Project
Using ideas taken from William Forsythe’s
and Wayne McGregor’s work on structured
improvisation, a combination of pre-
choreographed and improvised performances will
be designed as a gestural dialog between a dancer
and two Universal Robot Arms. The result will be
an emerging set of movements that conclude
to an unpredictable choreography for every
performance.
Using Laban’s description of movement the project
is divided in 4 parts of movement research: body,
time, space and dynamics. The human body and
the way it moves is reciprocated in the movement
of the robots as different parts of a dancer’s
anatomy will trigger differing movements. Time
is introduced to the performance with a real time
dialog between dancer and robots affecting the
synchronization and the speed of movement (using
the technology of body tracking with a Kinect
camera and computer vision).
In terms of dynamics, different gestures and
shapes based on McGregor improvisation process
cause various qualities of the movement (e.g. A
geometrical form (L-shape) and a 3d gesture
(twist)). The space occupied by the performers
is depicted by an end effector for the performer
and the robots respectively. Big fans performing
as spatial modulators are complementary to each
other. As they perform attached to the robots,
they create unpredictable spatial qualities with the
dancer and the stage.
The installation is a proposal of a stage set. The
“performers” (i.e. dancer, robot arms) give and
receive visual scores to and from each other. A
score is an indication that one or more dancers can
initiate a specified movement phrase. Effectively,
as the improvisers perform they continuously
change their role as being simultaneously their own
choreographers and their partners’ audience.
[ii] Future Development
In order to expand the ideas of improvisation to the
wider spectrum of spatial interactivity in a public
space, the project is intended to be installed in
an exhibition space. The installation will explore
the different behaviours between performers and
observers. The gestural dialog between machine
and human will be directly relatable to the degree
of expertise of movement the observer has.
 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”

Figure 16. Grasshopper, Kinect, and Arduino

Diagram

FIG.15

FIG.16
5. Conclusions
Reviewing the three objectives set out in the
introduction, some conclusions can be drawn.
1. The choreographic objective:
An observation about the gradient of choreography
has been discussed. Choreography is characterised
as the organisation of the heterogeneous materials
of movement, bodies, language, narratives, images,
light, space, and objects [Siegmund, 2012].
Within this context, the participation and personal
interpretation of the performer and the audience
needs to be considered. In restricted, pre-planned
performances (such as ballet) these elements
follow linear arrangements of rules with diminishing
opportunities for the audience, the performer
or even the space to adapt. Contemporary
performances based on improvisational techniques
afford ample participation in the decisions of
the choreographic routine. This applies to the
performers, the audience and the space; all
of which are able to adapt, perform and thus
participate. In both cases, elements of freedom and
restriction blur the limits of these gradients.
2. The design objective:
In the constructed kinetic installations, automaton
systems were observed to be following a linear
arrangement of rules but are able to add a small
element of unpredictability in the behavior of the
audience. Conversely, interactive design offers
emergent, unpredictable behaviors by following
a set of rules. The difference between the two is
that while the automaton systems exhibit a linear
arrangement, the latter exhibits rules which are
constantly evolving according to the audience,
the designer or the space. This clearly parallels the
hypothesized blurred choreographic gradient.
3. The shared objective:
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
connections between choreographic processes and synchronisation of a repertoire of functions/
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
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
layers of increased complexity, based on structured of the bespoken vocabulary. Improvisation might
improvisation and Laban’s movement description. offer complexity in interactivity as a form of
elements that could not be found in a systematic
This vocabulary contains 4 parts of Laban’s preconceived process. This research contributes
movement research (body, time, space, dynamics). some way towards generating renewed and
These elements were chosen as a novel way to significant relationships between the space and its
describe choreographed movement in relation habitats.
to robotics. The research has highlighted that
after several experiments, the translation of
choreographic terms into terms understandable in
the field of robotics is vast.
As opposed to literal robotic mimicry, a
decomposition of the human anatomy was used,
with different parts of the body being adopted by
the robots at any time. Using the process of Wayne
McGregor to create un-natural, fragmented
forms and movements, time and dynamics were
added to the investigation of movement. Space
and its changes during the choreography has
been depicted in the form of two large spatial
modulators. Finally, the gestural dialog has been
implemented with the use of computer vision and
adaptive computation technology.
Further Research
This thesis is part of research on how a designer can
achieve spatial interactivity between performers,
observers, technology and a space; using the
proposed vocabulary to set up a scenery for a
performance or an exhibition space.
Looking at the wider spectrum of architecture,
this vocabulary can adapt and expand in order to
 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.

Figure 19. Photo of a proposal for a performance

stage set up (First Prototype)

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
Brooks, R (1985), A robust layered control system
for a mobile robot, Thesis, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology
Ellfeldt, L. (1998) A Primer for
Choreographers . Waveland Press
Carter, L.C. (2000). Improvisation in Dance, The
Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 58 (2),
181-190
Copeland, R (2004). Cunningham: The
Modernizing of Modern Dance, New York and
London: The MIT Press, p. 180-182
Cunningham, M.(1980), “From Notation to
Video” The Dancer and the Dance, Marion
Boyers Inc., pp. 188-189
Gavrilou, E (2003). Inscribing structures of dance
into architecture, National Technical University of
Athens, Greece
Glynn, R (2012). Research Cluster 3, Motive
Mythologies brief, http://www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/
architecture/programmes/postgraduate/units-
and-showcases/march-architectural-design/
cluster3/2012-2013. Last accessed 26th April
2013.
Grand, G (1982). Technical Manual and Dictionary
of Classical Ballet. Dover Publications
Goodman, N (1968). Languages of art. An
approach to a theory of symbols. The Bobbs-
Merrill Company,Inc.
Hansen L.A. (2011). Full-body movement as
material for interaction design, Digital Creativity,
22(4), 247-262
Hill, J (2001). Architecture: The subject is matter,
New York: Routledge
Hutchinson, A (1989). Choreographics: A
comparison of dance notation systems from
the 15th centrury to the present. Amsterdam:
Gordon and Breach Publishers
Hutchinson, A. (1991).Labanotation: the system
of analyzing and recording movement. Great
Britain: Routledge
McGregor, W. deLahunta, S. Barnard, P.
(upcoming 2009). Augmenting Choreography:
using insights from Cognitive Science, In J.
Butterworth & L. Wildschut (Eds.), Routledge
Reader in Contemporary Choreography. London:
Routledge
Pask, G (1971). A Comment, A Case History & A
Plan, in Reichardt J (ed.), Cybernetics, Art & Ideas,
London: Studio Vista
Ribeiro, M & Fonseca, A (2011). The empathy
and the structuring sharing modes of movement
sequences in the improvisation of contemporary
dance, Research in Dance Education, 12 (2), 71-85
Schiphorst, T (1993). A case study of Merce
Cunningham’s use of the Lifeforms Computer
choreographic system in the making of Trackers.
Thesis (Ph.D.), Simon Fraser University
Siegmund,G. (2012). What is choreography?.
Available: http://www.corpusweb.net/tongue-7.
html. Last accessed 17th May 2013.
Smith - Autard, J. (2010). Dance Composition: A
practical guide to creative success in dance making,
London: Metheun Drama
Sparacino, F. Wren, C. Davenport,G. Pentland, A.
(2000) Augmented Performance in Dance and
Theater, MIT Media Lab
Spier, S (2005): Dancing and drawing,
choreography and architecture, The Journal of
Architecture, 10 (4), 349-364
Spier, S (2010). William Forsythe and the Practice
of Choreography. Routledge
Stathopoulou, D (2011). From Dance Movement
to Architectural Form, Thesis, University of Bath,
Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering
Seminars, Lectures,
Performances, Videos
Seminar: McGregor, W. Weekend Dance
Workshop with Random Dance Company, Rain
Room, Barbican Centre, February 2013
Videos: Forsythe, William. Improvisation
Technologies: A Tool for the Analytical Dance Eye
(CD-ROM). Ostfildern, DE: Hatje Cantz Verlag,
June 2000
Symposium: Mulvey, M. What does performance
have to do with architecture? How can a building
perform, and how can we perform a building. Tate
Britain, London, February 2013
Performance: Mortal Engine, Chunky Move,
Southbank Center, London, October 2012
Performance: Infra, Wayne McGregor, Royal
Opera House, London, November 2012
Performance: FAR, Wayne McGregor, Royal
Opera House, London, November 2012
Performance: Don Quixote, Mikhailovsky Ballet,
English National Opera, March 2013
Performance: The architects, Shunt at the Biscuit
Factory, London, January 2013
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 9. Varna, C. (2013)

Lectures: The Bartlett Research Exchanges:
Performance/Performativity,Speakers: Camillo
Figure 10. Varna, C. (2013)
Boano (DPU), Matthew Butcher (School of
Architecture), Ava Fatah (BSGS), Ruairi Glynn Figure 11. Varna, C. (2013)
(BSGS), Sean Hanna (BSGS) , Andy Hudson-
Smith (CASA), Yeoryia Manolopoulou (School Figure 12. Haptic Architects (2013)
of Architecture), Dejan Mumovich (BSGS),
Alex Murray (C&PM), James O’Leary (School Figure 13. Haptic Architects (2013)
of Architecture), Tadj Oreszczyn (UCL Energy
Figure 14. Varna, C. (2013)
Institute), Satu Teerikangas (C&PM), Filipa
Wunderlich (School of Planning), at the Bartlett
Figure 15. Varna, C. (2013)
School of Architecture, March 2013
Figure 16. Varna, C. (2013)
Conference: National Choreographer’s
Conference (Choreography and Collaboration) Figure 17. Varna, C. (2013)
2013, organised by Angela Towler, at Sadler’s Wells
Figure 18. Varna, C. (2013)
Sources for illustrations
Figure 19. Varna, C. (2013)
Figure 1. Varna, C. (2013)
Figure 20. Varna, C. (2013)
Figure 2. www.arcspace.com Retrieved on
February 2013

Figure 3. www.tanzarchiv-leipzig.de Retrieved on

February 2013

Figure 4. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/
topic/150794/dance-notation/252588/
Twentieth-century-developments Retrieved on