As for reductive reasoning, as I claimed above, there are wonderful benefits to examing the components of a work, but I think they need to be re-examined in the greater picture or else the assesment of the whole work is skewed and the source for that assessment is distorted. I simply think its important to assess the parts within the whole and the context, especially after one has sifted them out.

it all seems hollow and unreal to me - false promises rooted in dreams that get swept away with the changing tides - nothing permanent or lasting ever happens today because nothing is valued beyond its ability to be some new idea or new creative tool for us all to use.

its all hype. more than ever. the quantity of these that are produced today and overlooked are evidence of that. we are in a sea of invention and so invention is no longer thrilling to anyone - especially because of bleeding edge, everything that is invented can be made closely enough related to everything else that the thing that is invented isn’t even new. its muddy waters where all the “individual” is homogeneos.

Algebra is a tool. Yet we can apply it to business, architecture, trajectory, force, momentum, support, interest, etc. The application is Choreobot. The tool is chance. Distinct.

Merce Cunningham employed chance procedures to APPLY eastern philosophy, specifically the I Ching, to music.

Calvin Tomkins explains that chance, “somethings (but not always) enters the choreographic process as a means of determining the kinds of movement used, the order of the movements, the tempi, and other specific aspects of the dance; Cunningham uses it to arrive at certain decisions, which are then permanent.” (1965:275)

I am very interested in issues of authorship - as opposed to the issue of nature or outside forces determining things instead, as a source of choreographic or compositional interest My interest is how much the “author” of a work has really done to “create” that work. An author is composed of a couple of things - the subjects encountered (experiences and ideas) and two, the way that author processes this information, resulting in the output of the integrated information. Choreobot simulates that relationship. A cyclical co-creating process sharing the mathematics and myself. I could not do it without VICKI.

What is intelligent dance? Why? What is important, or could possibly be, in today’s “anything goes” postmodern aftermath. Could one take any series of movement ideas, theoretical underpinnings, and whip them up into a masterful work that pleases crowds and critics alike? I was trying to personify this - the automation with which one can create.

The fact that it presents itself as a game is not coincidence. It’s a balancing act. Making choices, according to demands, agendas, desired outcomes. Although the options are automated in random order - to become unpredictable to their designer - they are rehearsed enough to be under control. Like our daily lives. We know that if we walk out of our house we could be suddenly struck down by a falling tower. We also know that’s not likely. We are creatures of routine. We do about the same thing every day to get by - or to get to some accomplishment as in the game - but there is room for some curve balls, as it were, to occur. I find that the unpredictable things that happen usually relate to unpredictable behaviors of systems we usually know and trust (else why would it seem surprising????) including people, technology, nature. In that system - - - How much risk do we choose to take? How much do we choose to obey the structures in our lives?

These were a few ideas behind choreobot, and I really felt that as we talked we squabbled so much over whether or not the isolated elements of vicki had ever been seen before that we never got to talking about what the piece meant for me. What does that say?

Something about what you value perhaps.
And again that brings us back to the issues of definitions which I mentioned earlier as optional focal lenses. Definitions represent perspective.

I also want to say that most of what we do in dance is attempt to relate to the audience perception - by playing with the way we shape or not shape material for them to experience, encounter, or watch…. hahaha nowadays. But part of what I wanted was to put myself, as the designer and choreographer, into my own game with the audience - I was playing my own game on myself. I was choosing to put myself through what I put my dancers through and/or the audience.

The reason is that again - I didn’t want to decide what to do, because I didn’t feel anything I did mattered because I could use the choreographic tools to enhance it. I caught myself sifting through theories like old toys - I could make anything relevant by refashioning the blade (this is so much the story of today in plays, movies, dance… that if the materials and process are new or different, there can be significance in the experience we are sharing). So, here I decided to abandon the idea of making ideas important - as in dance theories, dance making theories, social theories…. all of it. I wanted it out the window. It was just as much about interacting with a filtered fraction of myself controlling me as a rejection of choosing some part of myself (filtering myself) consciously to focus on. and this goes back to the authorship issues, and the cultural numbness of today. Choosing certain methods related to my conception of elements of dance I’d learned - a co-authorship then of my dance program, life, and my choice of what to do with these - was highlighting a filtered part of myself (social and cultural construction) and integrating it with a system in order to have the part that I was reflecting on control me…

I extracted parts of myself (a construction, and non-singular author by nature) and allowed them to construct me in my free will. That said, if I perform VICKI I am imposing highlighted parts of my own consciousness upon myself in order of variance and allowing my present free will to decide how to interact with those parts previously highlighted. It’s a reference to the past and present of self at once. It’s imposing me on myself in live performance with mathematical limits on the range and quantity of new relationships formed in that sequence. I can look at myself forwards, backwards, in one way and then another, and then in that other way with a new way - it’s all over the place really when you couple the program with what I might do live. And all this is just when I do it.

What about others?

meant to be more of a discuss type of question instead of a “yes, no” sorry if that was not clear -

can you expand on your answer?

consider the question on technique from a different perspective … such as timing. I think you said you discovered that you like to move slowly - is that mental or physical? Meaning, could this be part of your physical inclinations? as opposed to reaction time? just curious

EXPLAIN HOW THE COMMANDS AFFECTED YOU.
At first I was very literal about it but seeing as it was suppose to make you dance and create a phrase I tried to be more creative with the commands I heard.

HOW DID THE WORDING OF THE COMMANDS STIMULATE YOU?
The words are familiar to me because they are in the dance vocabulary that I know. It was challenging when the words repeated themselves right after it self.

DID YOU FEEL SUCCESSFUL? IF SO WHEN? PLEASE EXPLAIN.
I felt most successful on the gesture phrase and shape phrase. Most likely because it gave me time to create something to work with.

DID YOU FEEL UNSUCCESSFUL? IF SO WHEN? PLEASE EXPLAIN.
The points of support. I still have trouble with some of the commands in this section and the speed to so fast it doesn’t give you time to process it.

DID ANYTHING FEEL COMFORTABLE OR FAMILIAR TO YOU?
Commands like “repeat” “under curve” “retrograde” were the easiest to work with.

HOW DID YOU RESPOND?
I responding with exactly what it told me to do.

DID ANYTHING FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE OR UNFAMILIAR?
Again points of support. Putting my sternum to the floor was just strange to me.

HOW DID YOU RESPOND?
I tried to do what it told me but felt confused because it wasn’t something I was familiar with.

DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCOVERIES?
Not yet… I have to try it again.

DID YOU ENCOUNTER DIFFICULTIES?
I realized that I like to take things slow and it takes me an extra second to process commands. I guess that could be a discovery.

HOW DID FEEL YOUR TECHNIQUE WAS OR WAS NOT SUPPORTIVE FOR YOU?
Having an improvisation background helps. Also having done choreography also helped.

DID YOU DO ANYTHING THAT HAD NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BEFORE?
The things that I repeated in my phrase I wouldn’t of thought to repeat.

HOW DID YOUR PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE COMPARE TO THAT OF A TECHNIQUE CLASS?
No.

DID THE COMMAND SEQUENCING LEAD YOU TO DISCOVER SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR TECHNIQUE?
No.

MOVEMENT VOCABULARY?
No.

CHOREOGRAPHIC PALETTE?
Yes.

TEACHING?
No.

IMPROVISING?
Yes.

WOULD YOU CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR PERFORMANCE?
Yes. More movement without pause.

QUALITY?
No.

ENERGY?
Yes.

TIMING?
Yes. Faster at times.

PHRASING?
No.

MOVEMENT CHOICES?
No.

USE OF SPACE?
Yes. I would of liked to of moved more.

IS THERE ANYTHING YOU’D LIKE TO EXPLORE MORE?
A traveling phrase.

DESCRIBE ANYTHING THAT YOU LEARNED.
___

PLEASE FREE WRITE ON ANYTHING THAT YOU ARE REFLECTING ON.
HOW DOES WORKING WITH VICKI AFFECT YOUR VIEW OF CHOREOGRAPHY, IMPROVISATION, TEACHING, AND TECHNIQUE?
Working with Vicki is great because it gives you ideas about how to move and where to move.

HOW WOULD YOU CHANGE VICKI TO MAKE YOUR EXPERIENCE EASIER?
Slower commands and some how have it make you move your phrases more.

MORE CHALLENGING?
It is still challenging at this point.

MORE INTERESTING?
Having 4 gestures and 3 shapes so that things aren’t stuck in 3’s.

SUIT YOUR CHOREOGRAPHIC INTERESTS OR NEEDS?
I like to think of the movement myself. This is why I liked the part where you can make up your own phrase.

EMPHASIZE OTHER CONCEPTS?
It would be great if it could give images such as “water” “bug” “candle” This would help bring more flow to the movement and not make it so separate.

ahh, thank you for clarifying. the concept of questioning a thing is eons old. otherwise we’d still be in caves. I don’t know what to do with that.

“this also applies to the automation of forms. fugue is the same as vicki in that it automates the composition of a choreographic form. thus, the ‘creativity’ is in selecting the seed options and creating the automated structure. The ordering of the options (composition) is perfunctory rather than creative. but, the interpretation of the composition (by the performer) is creative.”

it is different from fugue in that it is the composition of a new work not a variation of a set work. but, yes, both use automation. As for the creativity, this is why I decided to extend the program for others. I started to realize that no matter what I did to try to expand the vocabulary it would still be me making commands for groups of dancers that I’d interviewed, teachers, or myself. I would still somehow be in the equation and I wanted to take myself out (at least at some point in this project). I decided that instead of trying to tailor the program for everyone myself, i would give it away and let others be creative with it as well, sort of like a max object, except this time written by a choreographer for other choreographers to do whatever with. in this way, the program has evolved from its original form.

I understand that I employed decisions in the process of selecting the vocabulary. You are right, I view it more as problem solving than creative - though problem solving requires creativity, its different than starting from a purely creative place and just creating than having a specific task to accomplish and finding ways to make it work. I just had to make sure that the dancer (me, in the case of the first performance) had room to be creative with the commands. I said that much earlier on in the conversation.

“- your programming choices are equivalent to the physical actions of drawing out of a hat (etc). it is all human manipulation of systems for generative outcomes. the same is true for ‘pressing start’ vs throwing a die, physical action leads to generative outcome.”

I acknowledge that in my creative process writing under the about tab. Not quite in such depth, but its there. That’s why the very first category in the program was “initiate” because that’s how everything starts, generally.

“- not all randomizers are equal, some produce better quality random numbers that others. this is why i asked what type of randomizer you used.”

I think given that my study was of max/msp, I was going to use the random object no matter what in creating vicki. I have since thought of looking into other randomizers, but the results of the random object fulfilled my vision.

“- even using a randomizer the output of vicki is not arbitrary. as you say “I chose a set of options to create versatile situations on stage. “, this is the control you exert. the way in which you wrote and sequence the generative procedure is another.”

I do not debate that I controlled the program. I think that’s the definition of being a programmer. You programmed it. I tried to create a performative environment of arbitrary choice… my design was by no means arbitrary, and I never said that. Marlon Barrios Solano and I once joked that it could be called, “issues of control.”

“- there are many examples of realtime chance procedures, in which the performers respond to the outcomes as they are generated. the three phases of ‘in performance’ composition/shaping by vicki (in the demo video) are form of ’setting’ and ‘committing to memory’.”

In theory, for ways in which I intend to create performances with vicki, that’s not true, but in the demo videos, yes it was true…

Being the programmer and the performer was tricky for me… learning how to trick myself. At one point I was going to put a randomizer on all the sections so that I would not know which section was coming next, but I envisioned myself having to reprogram for hours and it was not in my time line, but even if it was, it would not have been the same way of spelling it out for non-dance audiences, which is another issue all in itself.

vicki explains herself at the beginning of each section for first timers.

“- vicki is an example of chance procedures, set and groups of options are ‘randomly’ selected to compose choreographic elements into a ‘new’ variation. chance procedures do not provoke many questions about ‘form(s)’ (they used to in the mid 20th century).”

the randomizer was used to create the performance possibility - like ddr for contemporary dance. And again, the chance procedures were included in vicki’s repertoire of textbook methods. I’ve said that several times in this conversation. Not just using them.

“- the judson era was modernist, modern dance is expressionist. your use of form & function, and ‘universal truths’ (lma applies to all past, present and future forms) would suggest that you too are a modernist.”

This is a complicated issue. Yes, the judson era was modernist, I agree with you, but I called them post-modern because that’s how many people refer to them (depending on the definition they use of modern and post-modern or postmodern). But what I used in this project is not what I use in other projects so it doesn’t identify me, and I just don’t view myself or anyone as having a binary thought system.

lma is a complicated issue that we never really resolved on. lma is just ONE way of looking at all forms. that may be a better way of phrasing what i mean. lma distills choreography to its elements. kind of like in 3d animation.. translate, rotate, and scale are the basic ideas on the x, y, z planes. lma does that with dance… though we know that movement is far too complex to be completely notated perfectly. maybe in some far off superior alien race they have it covered, but we’re light-years from it.

**“As Madeleine Scott said, ‘LMA is the most comprehensive system we have’ - for old or new forms. [ ~ choreobot8 ]”**

I want to clarify that i added “for old or new forms” there.

“madeleine (unintentionally perhaps) supports what i said. she aknowledges that the system does have deficiencies (in application especially) and implies that is can be adapted to embrace new paradigms.

adaptation requires seeing or knowing what the new paradigms are. lma will not identify them for you (but the will be indicated when the lma struggles to describe something). if we must adapt a system to explain new phenomena then the system is at fault (if it claims to describe all phenomena).”

I don’t think she was contradicting herself. I think its possible to simultaneously grasp opposing points and to relate them to form a final opinion. It sounds like she’s saying that lma is a living language to me… that it adapts as forms change, instead of the other way around (which would be quite impossible)

I think it does matter who is saying something because experience and education make a person’s opinions more valid… than say, someone who’s not certified or never studied at all. But anyone can philosophically pick apart an argument.

The rest of your statement is true in some ways, but not true in others. By the cash register example I meant to refute your comparison of vicki with other forms that use automation.

but since you mention it, and say that automation of textbook methods does not question or provoke questions, i think that is and is not true at the same time. it depends on which community you’re in, and you never know how its going to hit an audience member. and the point is that vicki reflects my view of the works, the hundreds of works that i have seen from current choreographers. there are exceptions of course, but vicki is definitely a comparison to work in general. i don’t think its automation by itself that matters here. its automation in this program. that’s why i referenced a cash register…. automation by itself does nothing, no. but automation in this form is an entirely different issue. but if that is your opinion i can accept that. i just don’t think its the final answer on vicki or automation or both. i think this conversation proves that vicki can lead to some questions.

like these, “what are the forms of today and how far have they (or have they not) departed from ‘classical’ methods. what language should we use to describe them?

there are questions all over this page that resulted from analysis of this piece… with implications in the greater dance picture, as i see it (but as a grad student, the weight of my observations is not yet significant).

I checked out the ones you linked to, and don’t share the same view of that similarity, but if you explain further I may understand what you see.

also, I was referring to you stating that if methods are in textbooks than they have already been questioned and automated. I see what you are saying, and tend to agree. But I do not “equate identification with a description of a thing as automated.” that i do feel is inaccurate, but possible.

Basically, vicki senior solo performace was a way of saying that virtually all dance i had seen could be whittled down to methods i had seen and read elsewhere. this time, however, the methods would just be on auto-create… since that’s what it seemed so many others were doing.

audible commands do not equate to me as personification of automated creativity. I think that’s an entirely different metaphor, message, and outcome. it has to do with intent.

Above all, I agree with much of what you have said, and disagreed with some of your reasoning, but enjoyed the devil’s advocacy. But the distinguishing of elements of vicki has been accomplished quite clearly, with some identification of how these elements relate to other work. Still the overall questions I’d like to see answered remain,

“what are the forms of today and how have they departed (or not) from the ‘classical’ forms? what language should we use to describe them?”
the work “No On” with text by Candace Feck demonstrates the importance of language in dance. I think our conversation about lma is proof that there is more to be uncovered.
i would love to hear more from you on these issues. I also thank you for the dance-tech references. they have been useful.