Composing for Interactive Dance: Paradigms for Perception

Abstract

Composing for Interactive Dance: Paradigms for Perception 1? John Toenjes The relationship of music score to choreography, and ofmusician to dancer, has been explored in theory and performance from many different perspectives. Yet now, through the use of new technologies, other options and possibilities forframing this relationship are opening up, particularly for artistswho are keen on unifying the art forms by integrating their formerly separate identities in the process and perfor mance of new dance works. Such artists often perceive any separation between music and dance as an artificial and unnecessary division. I am a musician who specializes in dance, interested in melding the musical roles of composer and performer with those of choreographer and dancer on stage. My main vision is to create a unified, yet flexible struc ture of choreography and music score, and to reduce or eliminate the physical and artistic distinction between dancer and musician. Recently I Composing for Interactive Dance 29 have been inspired by the possibilities afforded in this area by computer assisted "interactive dance." So, while moving into this genre, I sought to define the aesthetic issues and artistic practices involved in creating, and more specifically with composing music for, a work of interactive dance, in order to provide some context for exploration, and to avoid having to "reinvent thewheel" both technically and artistically. Thus, I surveyed thewritings on the subject, and, as the literature on this sub ject is still rather slim involume, sought out several notable practitioners in the field for interviews. This article describes my investigation and findings, beginning with a brief explanation of interactive dance and a definition of parameters fordiscussion. After placing this genre inhistor ical context, common aesthetic principles in the creation of interactive dance works are outlined, supported by quotes from the interviews. Lastly, I discuss ramifications of this investigation for current interactive dance artists, for artists interested in pursuing interactive dance, and for teachers responsible for training the next generation of performing artists. While defining the aesthetic issues involved, I discovered that the term "interactive dance" is somewhat problematic. What, precisely, is "interactivity?" Certainly musicians and dancers have been interacting for centuries. When Palindrome Dance Company choreographer Robert Wechsler writes, "Interactivity is simply the instinctive back and forth of energy which occurs when animals come together to speak, gesture, touch or, in the case of humans, create art. ... [It is] a feeling you can achieve in a performance ... a certain looseness, or openness, which allows for an honest or at least convincing exchange to take place,"1 he isdirecting us to look more deeply intowhat thisword connotes, to find the reason whywe might be interested in creating an interactive dance, what fundamental notions we must retain when moving forward. One may think that interactivitymeans using a computer sensing system to control sound, lighting, and video projections. Wechsler contends, how ever, that incorporating a computer to automate a performance "in no way implies interaction,"2 or guarantees a "back and forth." Precise tim ing is one of the benefits of interactive performance, which allows a dancer to stretch a phrase or have a sound cue follow how she feels on a given night. But as revolutionary as this is, this alone does not make a dance "interactive." Siegel and Jacobson, developers of the DIEM dance system (which converts dancer's movements to computer data), contend that inter activity "implies interplay between two equal parties."3 This indicates, then, that performers must have a computer "partner" with similar capa bilities or attitudes to themselves. Composer Christopher Dobrian 30 PerspectivesofNew Music provides a robust definition of interactivity in his discussion of gestural control ofmusic: The prefix inter- implies that both human and computer can act independently and react responsively to the actions of the other. Thus, true interactivitymust involve mutual influence, and cannot be all deterministically programmed. In a truly interactive instru ment, the computer will have the capability to act independently and to react indeterminately to input . . .must have the capability to respond to input that isnot previously known to it. . .and must be capable of producing results that are not fully predictable. In other words, the computer must be able to respond appropriately to improvisation, and...