Advertisement

Nexus Network Journal

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 75–94 | Cite as

Fabricating Performance: Reciprocal Constructs of Dance Notation

  • Syuko Kato Westby
  • Ruairi Glynn
Research

Abstract

The analogue and digital notational systems for documenting choreographic movement provide alternative strategies for spatial design. These strategies overlap architectural design and dance choreography to explore reciprocal exchanges regarding the body, geometry and methods of spatial notation. Analogue and digital notational systems are compared to illustrate a change where the notation is fed back to the performer and used as inspiration for further iterative performances. Whilst the use of analogue notation systems supports the criterion of fundamental design, they have limitations which are overcome with the use of flexible digital systems that more readily adapt to change and interrelate to a dancer’s intentions for movement creation. Performance-driven fabrication explores the practical application of this process. Two stages of ‘Performance-driven design’ and ‘Data-driven fabrication’ are combined, resulting in a spatial design and construction system that incorporates interactivity between human and robotic performers.

Keywords

Notation Choreography Performance Fabrication Robotics 

References

  1. Bacon, Edmund N. 1974. Design of Cities. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  2. Bonnemaison, S. and R. Eisenbach. 2009. Installations by Architects: Experiments in Building and Design. Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  3. Collard, C. 2015. Moving or Morphing Target? Hypermedial Hybrids, Diller + Scofidio-style. Body, Space, and Technology 14, Brunel University London.Google Scholar
  4. Gage, S. 2007. Constructing the User. Systems Research and Behavioural Science 24(3): 313–322.Google Scholar
  5. Goulthorpe, M., Burry, M., Dunlop, G. 2001. Aegis Hyposurface: The Bordering of University and Practice, Work-in-Progress, Part 1, ACADIA 2001, 344–349.Google Scholar
  6. Groves, R., deLahunta, S., Zuniga-Shaw, N. 2007. Talking about Scores: William Forsythe’s Vision for a New Form of ‘Dance Literature’. In: Knowledge in Motion: Perspectives of Artistic and Scientific Research in Dance, TanzScripte 9, 91–100.Google Scholar
  7. Kamvasinou, K. 2010. Notation Timelines and the Aesthetics of Disappearance. The Journal of Architecture, 15(4): 397–423.Google Scholar
  8. Negroponte, N. 1970. The Architecture Machine: Toward a More Human Environment. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Salingaros, N. A. 1999. Urban Space and its Information Field. Journal of Urban Design, 4(1): 29–49.Google Scholar
  10. Schwabe, C. 2010. Eureka and Serendipity: The Rudolf von Laban Icosahedron and Buckminster Fuller’s Jitterbug. Bridges 2010, 271–278.Google Scholar
  11. Siegfried, W. 1988. Dance, the Fugitive Form of Art: Aesthetics as Behaviour. In: Rentschler, I. et al. Beauty and the Brain. Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  12. Sparacino, F. 2002. Narrative Spaces: Bridging Architecture and Entertainment via Interactive Technology. In: 6th International Conference on Generative Art, Milan, Italy.Google Scholar
  13. Tschumi, B. 1996. Architecture and Disjunction, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Weinstein, B. 2013. Performing Architectures: Closed and Open Logics of Mutable Scenes. Performing Research: A Journal of the Performing Arts 18(3): 161–168.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kim Williams Books, Turin 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bartlett School of ArchitectureUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations