|
Theoretical Perspectives:Chapter 1 |
The three concepts central to this research are interactivity, creativity
and knowledge. The following discussion of these areas forms the
theoretical grounding for the empirical study, which will take place in
1999/2000.
Interactive dance works currently exist employing both World Wide Web pages and CD-ROMs as platforms. The viewer has the opportunity to make choices that affect the dance product, via tasks designed by the choreographer. This research focuses on the use of Web pages, as the communication between choreographer and Web user, and also between users, is seen as being of great importance to the creative act. In order to consider how the Web may be used effectively in the interactive dance-making process, the characteristics of interactivity are explored. Discussion of the nature of creativity raises an apparent dichotomy between the roles of constraints in creativity and interactivity.
The appropriateness of involving the audience member in the choreographic
process is considered in the light of the changing role of the dancer in
twentieth-century modern dance choreography. Dance knowledge is shown
to be a central factor in the reason for the lack of dance works that involve
the audience in the choreography. It is proposed that knowledge drawn
from other arts and from everyday life can be applied to the interactive
dance-making process.
In 1988, Selnow described the computer as an ëinteractantí
in one-to-one communication with a human user. Tannenbaum, more recently
and rather more circumspectly, describes interactivity as a situation in
which the user of the computer can exercise some measure of control and
thereby influence the course of the proceedings or presentation of material.1
In terms of presentation of the process, the World Wide Web site is a means
of carrying, organizing and presenting knowledge, and allowing user-controlled
navigation of that knowledge. The individual interacts with the computer
to produce the required pathway, and navigates his or her own route through
the material, following personal interests or thought processes. Yet the
content and freedom of navigation are to some extent constrained by the
design of the Web pages. The designer facilitates choices by providing
a number of links between nuggets of information. If the number of
links provided is high, then there are a large number of routes of navigation
available to the user; perhaps more than the designer had originally intended.
In this sense, there may seem to be a great deal of freedom for the user.
But although many routes may be available, it is not possible to choose
a route that has not been facilitated by the designer. Interaction
allows personalized presentation of material based on the communications
of the individual to the computer, within the design of the environment.
However, it is the element of human/human interaction that makes the
Web site a preferred platform for interactive participation in the creative
process. The creative process requires a communicative element, both
in the process and the product. While the Web struggles for acceptable
multimedia transmission with low bandwidth, it allows the use of human/human
interaction through discussion and submission of personal thoughts and
comments via many forms of electronic communication, such as email and
videoconferencing. Its dynamic nature also permits the regular up-dating
of the Web site to incorporate and reflect communications from user-participants
into the design. Thus the user can affect the content of the site,
and so introduce his or her creative ideas to the work. With interactivity
and communications, the Web can offer the flexibility and communication
which allows the user to take an active part in the creative process with
the artist.
Borsook et al also offer the variables ënon-sequential access of informationí and ëadaptabilityí, which they state as being highly interrelated. These imply access to information as and when the user requires it, not as dictated by the program design. However, Borsook et al describe these two variables through examples of human interaction where sensitivity is employed, and this can only be simulated by the computer program. An increase in the first three variables stated above will have largely the same effect, in terms of increased interactivity which allows freedom of response in the user.
Therefore, in its analysis of interactivity, this study will be using the first three variables, which are the three suggested by Laurel, together with the fourth variable of immediacy of response, suggested by Borsook et al. However, Laurel also states another variable in the existence of human/computer interactivity. She defines this as the question of whether or not the user feels him or herself to be participating in the on-going action of representation. This is vital, as interaction can only be said to take place if the human user feels that he or she has participated in an interactive experience.
Öresearchers have implied that a high degree of learner control is synonymous with a high degree of interactivityÖ[however] total learner control is beneficial only to those who are already somewhat knowledgeable about a domain or who are generally high achievers.3
They suggest that, generally, optimum interactivity exists when the locus of control lies midway between the user and the program. But they also state that for those with pre-existing knowledge or who are ëhigh achieversí, greater control of the interactive situation is beneficial. This implies that the opposite holds true; that those with little or no knowledge in a domain, or who are ëlow achieversí require a shift of balance to lower levels of interactivity. Therefore there can, in fact, be no optimum level of variables for interactivity; the essence of interactivity is that it is concerned with individuals communicating one-to-one.
Interaction is paramount for games and teaching/learning aids. Games require players to keep to the pre-defined rules so that the game may continue. The level of interactivity is then dependent upon the design of the game. The Tomb Raider II computer game provides a relatively high level of interactivity, which is only dependent upon the user having understood the gameís controls and the goal for successful completion.4 The user or player can direct the direction and speed of movement, and the action of the character Lara Croft. The player can also decide on the angle from which to view the action on the screen, and what weapons or objects Lara Croft uses. Therefore there is no need for different levels of interactivity according to knowledge or achievement external to the game. Indeed the environment itself is immersive to the point where the player 'lives in' the activities of the game. The controls become the channels of command for movement or activity and the visual and audio elements of the game the senses. It is, in effect, no longer interactivity any more that driving a car is an interactive experience.
Selnow writes that the interactive computer program is an invaluable teaching aid because it does not only tell the user if the answer is ërightí or ëwrongí, but it can also explain why it is so in a variety of different ways to ensure learner understanding.5 This exemplifies a linear method of teaching, not so appropriate to the arts, and the creative process. In teaching music, computers are used as musical instruments, and learning to use the software is like learning to play another instrument. Playing music is not learnt by making ëmockí music; it is learnt by doing it. Similarly, in creating dance interactively via the Web, participants should be involved in creating real dance using real artistic processes and real dancers. Cook has created the computer program Metamuse for the teaching of problem-seeking and creative reflection in music. He states that most of the existing research on learning via interactive computer programs is 'Öfor closed procedural domains like mathsÖand physicsÖthat do not involve creativity as part of the learning processÖ'.6 For the arts, the possibility of the experience of creating interactively via a computer is still in its early stages. One of the most significant problems is the issue of constraints which, without alteration via programming, cannot be broken in the interactive computer program situation. The program will not allow for actions outside of the parameters with which it has been designed and programmed, thereby denying the possibility of originality.
Even vast numbers of possibilities available within the design of the
program cannot lead to a real sense of interactive creativity. Smith
(1997) writes of his CD-ROM for creating dance interactively, Natural Trips
(And Some Not Quite So), that he enabled more than twenty-five million
unique combinations from which the user could choose to construct the dance,
and then offered another range of options which multiplied this by over
a million.7 The vast range of possibilities all stem from certain
variables and tasks which are offered to the user. The user has a
remarkably rich number of choices within the variables, but he or she cannot
create anything outside of these very specific boundaries. Inspite
of so many possible experiences, all are predetermined.
Boden describes creativity as being the exploration of conceptual spaces, which are defined by constraints, followed by the overcoming of the limitations of those spaces; the pushing of boundaries beyond the defining rule-set of the paradigm.12 Several other authors use similar descriptions, including the ability to associate ideas which are not apparently related, in order to find new possibilities.13 The association of apparently unrelated ideas is similar to the extending of known constraints. The constraints of Bodenís ëconceptual spacesí are based on the individualís understanding of the situation, and the boundaries will lie in different places for each person accordingly. Where the individual has little knowledge of a situation, the extension of personal concepts may not include original notions, as others may have made that discovery before. Nonetheless, this is still a creative act on the part of the individual. If the individual is knowledgeable about a situation, then the extending of conceptual boundaries may include the realization or discovery of a point that is entirely new to the collective culture. This manifestation of the creative situation is far rarer, and illustrates how originality can occur. However, both personal conceptual extension and cultural originality are forms of creativity, in which the ability to be able to break constraints (personal or cultural) and explore other possibilities is essential. As previously indicated, this is not possible within the bounds of an interactive computer program. As in the case of the truly interactive situation, creativity requires the flexibility of the human mind.
Selnowís description of the computer program which can tell the user why the answer to a given question is right or wrong indicates a highly linear approach to problem-solving. Cook echoes this in his description of the 'closed procedural domains' of mathematics and physics. Poincaré writes about mathematical creation, describing invention as 'discernment, choice'.14 The problem is set up, and the process follows a route defined by the choices made until the problem is solved. Studentsí mathematics papers are often marked so that even if the answer reached is incorrect, marks can be given for the linear reasoning behind the process, as separate from the product.
Cook describes his own work in music creativity as 'problem-seeking',
where the problem must be defined, identified or created before it can
be solved.15 Smith-Autard considers the 'open-ended problem-solving
approach' to be the most readily associated with the teaching of creative
dance-composition, where there is no correct answer, but the student can
play with possible solutions.16 Hanstein identifies art-making
as 'a pervasive problematic situation'.17 She explains
that the process consists of identifying the problem initially, exploring
until a suitable solution is chosen (where possibly several options have
been discovered), and then addressing further problems arising from the
chosen solution, until the work is judged to be completed. Thus the
process, working from problem to chosen solution, has a cyclical nature
whilst travelling towards a final form. The artist maintains the
ability to revisit the work at any point during the process. The
type of problem-seeking and solving process described by these three writers
illustrates the flow of creativity in the arts as a non-linear process,
where ërightí or ëwrongí are inappropriate terms.
This approach is very different from the linear model which is employed
when the problem is pre-defined. Creativity in the arts implies a
state of ëplayí in which, during the early stages of the creative
process, the artist can experiment with ideas before forming them into
the product.
The problem-seeking and solving processes of the creative process do not represent the whole creative cycle, however. Equally important in art-making is the fact that art aims to communicate, and the art work is intended for sharing with an audience. In order to consider the role of the participant in the complete creative cycle it is necessary to extend Cookís, Smith-Autardís and Hansteinís problem-seeking and solving to include the presentation to an audience. This extension exists in Abbsí creative cycle, which is a model consisting of five phases of art-making:
Phase One: the impulse to create/stimulus
Phase Two: working within the medium
Phase Three: realization of final form
Phase Four: presentation and performance
Phase Five: response and evaluation.18
The problem-seeking and solving occurs in the second stage, although
the impulse mentioned as the first stage might also be part of the problem-seeking.
The problem-seeking ends with the realization of the final form and the
presentation to the audience. This may be the audience in terms of
the choreographer, viewing the dance from an audience's point of view in
order to evaluate it. It may also be the presentation to an audience
of advisors, who can give feedback, or a public performance from which
feedback is gained. All of these represent the fourth stage, and
all are followed by feedback, discussion, evaluation, by the audience,
if it exists, and the choreographer. Ideally, participation in the
creative process should imply involvement in each of the phases of the
cycle. The design of the interactive Web site in terms of progression
through the creative process will dictate the level of involvement that
the participant can achieve to some extent. However, because of the
communication forms inherent in the use of the Internet, such as email,
the participant may take some control of his or her own involvement through
direct contact with the choreographer. What is likely to happen is
that the choreographer will seek and present the problem, and the participant
will offer solutions. It is hoped that this can be extended to involve
the participant in problem-seeking also.
When the five phases of Abbsí creative cycle are applied
to the creation of dance, there appear to be four distinct participatory
roles. In the first phase the artist or choreographer finds a stimulus
or stimuli to create, to begin work on the dance. The second and
third phases involve the dancer or performer as the movement is created
and set. The fourth phase is the presentation to the audience, but
the fifth includes the critic as a vehicle of feedback in the form of response
and evaluation. Hanstein suggests that these four roles, 'artist,
dancer, audience, critic', are all assumed by the choreographer during
the choreographic process.
Each of these roles distinguishes a segment of the artistic or creative activity of the choreographer. Combined, they form a composite portrait of the creative artist at work in the dance medium.19
If these roles are all necessary to the choreographerís approach, then they must all have their part in the creative process individually as separate entities. The relationships between the roles are key in understanding the possible role of the audience as participant in the creative process. These relationships have altered over time, and their alteration offers insight into the possible shift in the role of the audience through interactive creativity.
Traditionally, the role of the artist is one of autonomy. In the
eighteenth century, choreographers were producers who controlled all the
components of the dance spectacle, consulting with designers and composers
to create the required effect. In the nineteenth century the ballet masters,
such as Bournonville, Petipa and Cecchetti, were celebrated as individual
composers of the great ballets.20 In the traditional choreographic
process, the choreographer is seen as the sole creator, with the dancer
as his or her tool.21 Ballet enables such a process to
occur easily, as the steps are named precisely, with additional specific
terms for direction and quality of movement. Verbal instructions
can be followed, which allows non-dancers to choreograph verbally if they
have the technical knowledge to do so.
In the 1960s, the Judson Dance Theatre and the Grand Union groups experimented with improvisation as a performance structure. Steve Paxton continued afterwards to advocate the performance styles of improvisation and contact improvisation.22 Improvisation in performance is described by Cohen as 'a more democratic format' than the dictatorship of the traditional single choreographer.
Öthey [the performers] worked with improvisation, agreeing on certain rules to be observed by all but letting each player fill in the framework at will. Still others employed strict structures but worked as collaborative units that gave nearly equal authority to a core of creators.23
The role of choreographer is spread throughout the group by means of shared decision-making both prior to and during the performance. Within the given framework the individual could play. In the quote above, Cohen even describes the performer as the 'player'.
These changes to the relationship between choreographer and dancer heralded
the recognition of the creativity of the dancer in his or her own right.
Butterworth states, 'Specific dancer/choreographer roles were particularly
challenged with a growing diversity of working processes'.24
Through improvisation in performance, dancers were acknowledged as choreographers,
albeit in a 'reactive' rather than 'reflective' role. The term 'reactive'
is used here to indicate the initial, spontaneous and therefore subjective
response within a (creative) situation. By contrast, the term 'reflective'
indicates a considered, informed and more objective response. In
improvisation, the problem-seeking and solving processes of the dancer
are carried out in the moment as movement choices, in response (reaction)
to the other dancers, the space, the audience, any accompaniment, and to
the aesthetic concerns of the style and genre. Improvised performance
techniques showed that dancers were able to do this, which was an important
shift in terms of acknowledging the creative skills of the dancer alongside
that of the exalted choreographer.
Following the dancerís foray into 'reactive' choreography, a further stage in the development of the choreographic process was recognized. This may also be related to the largely project-based approach to work necessitated by funding procedures for the increasing numbers of small-scale companies in Britain in the 1970s and early 1980s. Choreographers had to hire their dancers according to their requirements for the individual project. Dancers became more valued for their creative contributions and particular movement styles rather than simply being the available material in the dance company with which the choreographer had to work. Choreographers began to realize the rich potential of the dancerís own creative input. Some had been mining this vein for years to a greater or lesser extent, by allowing the dancers to make suggestions and comments as the work progressed. Balanchine, for example, took ideas from the dancersí own particular skills and idiosyncratic movement styles. However, he then required the dancers to imitate his choreographed movements.25 When a dancer finds a movement or phrase particularly awkward or even impossible to perform, then it is only logical that the choreographer should adjusted the movement accordingly.
The ëdevisingí process became popular, and remains so, in which the choreographer involves the dancer in the creative process 'reflectively'. Choreographer and dancers work together, with the choreographer asking the dancers for their suggestions of both movement material and ideas. Choices are made as a result of group input. The dancers are involved with the choreographer over the period of creation in the problem-seeking and solving process. Sometimes in the devising model the choreographer may set tasks to generate material, and this can be seen as analogous to the interactive creative situation.
It has only been in the latter half of the twentieth century, since
the birth of the dancer as 'reactive' choreographer in the 1960s and 1970s,
that it has become common for choreographers to acknowledge the contributions
of the dancers to the creative process. The choreographer remains
the artistic director of the work, and makes the final decisions, but much
of the input, in terms of both material and forming or structural suggestions,
may come from the dancers. The devising process, therefore, allows the
dancer to take part in the 'reflective' approach to choreography, involved
in the problem-seeking and solving process in the studio, under the direction
of the choreographer.
The audience, too, has experienced a change of roles in the last century. The passive mass who sat in silence in the darkness drinking in the performance is now seen as taking an active role. It is understood now that although the same dance is presented to the entire audience, the dance which is seen and thereby interpreted can vary dramatically from person to person.26 The viewpoint of the individual within the theatre/performance space may have a prominent effect on the way in which the dance is seen, and indeed some site specific pieces allow the audience to move around the dance to achieve different viewpoints. However, a greater influence in interpretation is the audience memberís own socio-cultural background, life experiences, experiences of other art forms, and knowledge of dance. The viewerís interpretation may also be greatly coloured by a personal experience which relates to the subject matter.
Gradually over this century more and more demands have been made on the audience to take an active part in the performance. Trisha Brownís Yellowbelly (1969) is an example of early ëinteractiveí dance.27 The audience members were asked to call out "Yellowbelly" accusingly at Brown, and she responded through improvisation. When she felt that it was time to finish the dance, Brown moved to bow to the audience, but they kept shouting. So Brown continued to dance until the audience had had enough. The audience was clearly in control of the length (and possibly the structure) of performance and thus were involved in the creative process. Other interactive dance pieces have been made since then, but they all have in common the fact that the audience response is 'reactive'. The response is required instantaneously to be a part of the performance, and therefore there is not enough time for a 'reflective' response to be properly formed.
Through their own experiences and understandings of these related factors,
the audience members interact with the dance to form their own interpretations
of it. Upon leaving the performance they are left with an impression
of the dance, perhaps a few fleeting images and an overall feeling about
the piece. This may lead to discussions in the bar or restaurant
after the performance, but the ëseriousí, ëprofessionalí
reviews are written by the critics. These are people who are educated
in viewing dance and writing about it. Through knowledge and practice
they are able to retain more of the dancework in their memories, and they
then reflect and analyse, and supply the public with their considered opinion.
This continues to create the performance in the minds of those who have
seen it or those who are going to see it, as they will be affected by what
they read, which in turn will influence their responses to the dance.
The artist and dancer have been established as taking part reflectively in the choreography. The differentiation between the viewing functions of audience member and critic exists by virtue of their 'reactive' and 'reflective' roles respectively. The choreographer, the devising dancer and the critic all fulfil 'reflective' (i.e. considered, informed and objective) roles in the creative cycle. All of them are involved in the act of presenting the work to the audience. The audience has been permitted to be involved in performance on a 'reactive' level (i.e. spontaneous and subjective), and indeed are recognized as interpreting the dance for themselves in a 'reactive' manner.
The choreographer is the artist because he or she has the impulse to
create, and the knowledge of the medium to be able to create a work of
art. The dancer has become involved in the choreographic process
because his or her knowledge of dance through watching and performing gives
him or her an understanding of the aesthetics as well as the technicalities
of performing the movement. The critic has either undergone training
in the skills and knowledge of appreciating dance or else is self-taught
from having studied dance for many years. Either way, he or she has
a body of dance knowledge on which to draw in order to make his or her
analyses. Audience members cannot be assumed to have any dance knowledge
at all, although in practice they will usually represent a whole range
of experiences in dance. It is this lack of pre-requisite knowledge
which has resulted in the audience being the only group who have not usually
been involved reflectively in the creative process.
[Audience knowledge/skills as applied by the dance artist.]
- Viewing with a ëdistancedí eye
- Responding to visual images
- Perceiving sensory images and qualities contained in the
work
- Perceiving the embodiment of the idea
- Relating to the work in an affective manner
- Considering the work as ëmeaningfulí
- Attending to the work as an expressive/communicative form.33
Hansteinís audienceís skills are all related to perception and interpretation, which may be assisted by dance knowledge and experience of viewing dance, but are not dependent upon it. Yet Hanstein includes the audience as one of the four necessary roles taken by the choreographer during the creative process, implying that she believes these non-dance-based skills to be important in the process. This is because, at the outcome, the art work is designed to be presented and to communicate to the audience. The skills of the audience as proposed by Hanstein are all concerned with receiving the work, as that is the role of the audience in an art work. All the skills involved in making the art work are listed under artist, performer and critic.
According to McFee, art appreciation operates through perceptual engagement, and judgement must be based on the perceptions of the art work by the individual, and not on what the individual is told.34 However, McFee concedes that discussion and prior knowledge may assist the perception of the viewer. Smith-Autard agrees that appreciation 'resides in the object and in the depth of feeling and understanding the perceiver brings to the understanding of it'.35 Reid states that all previous knowledge is brought to the perception of an art work.36 Each individual art work is seen autonomously, through the experience or perception of that particular object, coupled with knowledge of anything which can be seen by the viewer as being relevant in any way to the object and experience. Each audience member brings his or her own socio-cultural background, experiences of life, and perhaps of art, and applies this to the art work in question. The interpretation through personal feelings or reactions to the work and through knowledge of the work and the art form combine to form the experience of art.
Arnheim, however, states that for the purposes of the artist, understanding of an artwork based on prior learning or knowledge is at best secondary. The artwork stands alone, and should be appreciated primarily by the implicit perceptions which the viewer has of it. The artist must rely on 'the direct and self-explanatory impact of perceptual forces on the human mind'.37 Arnheim suggests that we perceive meaning in dance via the perception of forces and their interplay.38 Arnheim sees dance as essentially created in one medium, the physical human body, but perceived by the audience in another, as a totally visual experience. Is it possible, then, that people without experience of dance, but with experience of the visual arts, have skills that can be adapted for the creation of dance? Even animated figures which are not shaped liked humans, such as the dancing flowers in Disneyís Fantasia (1940), can be perceived as moving in a ëhumaní fashion, through the complexity of the patterns of the perceived forces. The artists for Fantasia were not choreographers, yet they created convincing dance sequences through animating the qualitative forces behind the movements of the dancers. They watched dancers, abstracted the qualities which they perceived in the motion, and applied the perceived qualitative forces to the characters which they created.39
Arnheim, McFee, Smith-Autard and Reid are all, like Hanstein, concerned
here with knowledge involved in perceiving art rather than creating it.
McFee, Smith-Autard, Reid and Hanstein all agree that some technical knowledge
of the art form will assist understanding of the perceived art work.
Other arts educators, including Abbs, Taylor and Eisner, also subscribe
to this view.40 Yet all concede that technical knowledge
of dance is not a pre-requisite for the appreciation of art. The
only pre-requisite to which they all concede is a perceptual engagement
in the art object, which implies an application of self and personal experience.
But there is no reason why this cannot lead to a 'reflective' interaction
with the art object, and indeed many people will take time to look at and
consider a painting, even if they do not have direct knowledge of the visual
arts. What is challenging about dance is its transience. It
requires a certain amount of skill to hold the fleeting images in the mind,
in order to be able to reflect and consider the art work. Thus, unless
some method of preservation or repetition can be used, it is difficult
to watch dance reflectively without some knowledge or experience.
Perceptual skills are required when engaged in the dance creative process regardless of the level of technical knowledge of the creator. The creative process requires the ability to see, understand and respond to emergent forms in the materials or ideas with which the creator is working: 'The act of creation does not emanate from a vacuum. It is influenced by the experiences that have accumulated through the process of living'.43 It is this perceptual facility which enables the creator to realize new possible connections between elements not previously united, which may result in the greatest challenges to conceptual boundaries. Technical knowledge of the medium would either negate or simply not suggest such connections. Under the skills required by the artist, Hanstein lists technical and perceptual skills in combination:
- Abstracting
- Manipulating the medium
- Recognizing qualities in the environment, personal experience,
the medium.44
In combining the skills, Hanstein illustrates that technical and perceptual skills are both important in choreography.
Piaget claims that the natural way for humans to behave is to structure
environment and experience, and he identifies this structuring with knowledge.45
Humans encounter patterns in nature and in man-made objects, and learn
to recognize objects as a child from this. A child learns to understand
the abstract concept of ëtableí from his or her experience
of tables, and will learn to recognize a table even when presented with
a new design, such as a three-legged one. Humans are also aware of
symmetry and other more complicated patterns, such as tessellation in bathroom
tiles, even if they cannot name the pattern. Likewise, perceptual
skills of order and form gathered from the visual arts, television and
film, nature, architecture, and any other viewed entity are also applicable
when creating dance. Individuals also have their own personal experiences
of life to draw upon, and therefore even the non-dancer has a wealth of
perceptual knowledge to share in the creative process for dance.
This potential for involving the participant reflectively in the creative process can only be successful if the choreographer designs the interactive situation effectively. If the choreographer invites people with varying degrees of experience in dance to participate interactively in the creative process, then the responsibility is with the choreographer to design the creative situation appropriately for all participants. Those who have a wider conceptual understanding of dance must be able to participate in a way which engages them, and those with little knowledge of dance must equally be engaged in the creative process. The choreographer must allow for the participant who is not knowledgeable in dance to apply knowledge gleaned from a variety of other sources. This implies that the tasks designed by the choreographer must be constructed carefully, with the maximum of flexibility. The directly interactive medium of video-conferencing or email is essential as a way of involving the individual in the process directly.
Hansteinís four roles of ëartistí, ëdancerí,
ëaudienceí and ëcriticí come into play, in a number
of variations, in the interactive situation for creating dance. The
artist maintains the role of instigator and director, while the dancers
take on their respective role of movement interpretation. The artist
may also be responsible for the criticís role, analyzing and evaluating,
and the participant fills the role of audience. However, the participant
may also take the role of critic, if he or she wishes. Via video-conferencing
or submitting sections of video, the participant may also become the dancer.
By offering comments and suggestions, the participant may even share the
role of artist. However, the ultimate responsibility for the final
product, and also for the participantsí experiences, lies with the
artist in terms of the design of the Web site and of the dance. The
role of the dancer altered over time, as choreographers recognized that
the knowledge of movement which the dancer possessed was a rich source
into which they could tap. But the choreographer necessarily remained
in control of the situation, as the initiator of the work and the artistic
unifying force behind the art work. So it can be that the choreographer
will recognize the potential available in the perceptual knowledge implicit
in the non-dancing audience member as a source of inspiration. Again,
the choreographer remains a unifying force, but the audience member can
be involved in the creating of dance, and thus understand and appreciate
dance more.
The Web has been selected as the most suitable medium for this research
because of the flexibility implicit in it as an interface between human
choreographer and human participants. The Web site offers a combination
of systems in terms of both interactive tasks designed for the site, and
Internet communication between participants and programmer (choreographer)
such as email and video-conferencing. Four variables have been identified
for assessing levels of interactivity: range of options, frequency of interaction,
significance of choice, and immediacy of response. However it has
also been stated that it is important for the participant to feel him or
herself to be involved in the on-going action to experience the creative
act.
Boden states that creativity is the extension of the conceptual spaces of the creator. The person involved in a creative activity works within the constraints of the medium in which he or she is creating, as defined by his or her personal knowledge and experience of the medium and of other areas of life. However, those constraints are able to be extended or even broken, and this extension is the leap from the known to the unknown which defines a creative act. Hanstein, amongst other theorists, describes the creative process in the arts as 'problem-seeking and solving'.47 The problem, once defined, has no 'correct' solutions, and the creator will choose the most appropriate from those solutions that are discovered. This will then lead to further problems, and the method forms a cyclical pattern. However, constraints in art-making are applied in a different manner from constraints in the interactive situation. The constraints which are applied in human-computer interactive tasks are inflexible beyond the parameters of the design. To support the creative situation, human-human communication, as well as human-computer interaction, is essential to the interactive creative process in dance.
The alteration in the role of dancer in the dance-making process, through the devising model, suggests that it may also be possible to alter the role of audience member. Abbs' creative cycle appears to require the involvement of Hanstein's four choreographic roles; artist, dancer, audience, critic. Traditionally the choreographer has been an isolated individual who took on the responsibility for all of these roles, and received all credit for the creation of the dance. Improvisation as performance challenged that assumption, showing that dancers could create the dance on the spur of the moment. However, this creation took place as an initial, spontaneous, subjective act ('reactive'), while the choreographer employed a considered, informed, objective approach ('reflective'). Through the devising situation dancers are now commonly involved over time with the choreographer, creating dance in a 'reflective' manner. Critics respond to viewing the dance in a 'reflective' manner, pondering and then writing their thoughts, and shaping the performance in the eyes of the audience. The audience, by contrast, employs a 'reactive' approach, making judgements spontaneously and subjectively.
Knowledge is central to the 'reactive'/'reflective' dichotomy.
Choreographer, dancer and critic are all involved in reflectively creating
the dance for the audience, while the audience receives it reactively.
The difference between the audience and the other roles is that the audience
cannot be assumed to have knowledge of dance, and so reflective participation
is problematic. Choreographer, dancer and critic all have specialized
knowledge which enables them to make artistic decisions in the creative
process. However, although the audience member does not necessarily
possess knowledge directly related to dance, he or she will have knowledge
gathered through perceptions of the world and life. These perceptions
can be applied to dance, particularly in terms of forming and interpretation
skills, as form and abstraction are commonly encountered in everyday life.
The choreographer's guidance may be sufficient for the audience member
with no dance knowledge to become involved in the dance-making process
in a 'reflective' manner via the interactive Web site. The challenge
for the choreographer is to provide tools which can be used in the creative
process by the participant, and which allow him or her to make connections
between concepts implicitly, through experimentation. Concepts of form,
which are inherent in many aspects of everyday life, could be adapted for
dance if the tool is designed to introduce the concept in a manner to which
the participant can relate.