international journal of performance arts and digital media: volume: 3 | issue: 2-3

International Journal of

Performance Arts and DigitalMedia

International Journal of Performance A

rts and Digital M

edia | Volume Three N

umber Tw

o and Three

ISSN 1479-4713

3.2&3

intellectwww.intellectbooks.com

Volume Three N

umber Tw

o and Three intellect Journ

als | Theatre & Perform

ance


Performance Arts and Digital Media Volume 3 Number 2&3 – 2007

Special Issue: Performance and play: Technologies of presence in performance, gaming and experience design (Guest editor: Lizbeth Goodman with Deveril, Esther MacCallum-Stewart & Alec Robertson)

Editorial

97–99 Performing and Being (There) live and online Lizbeth Goodman

Introduction

101–102 Part 1: Performance futures: Bodies in movement, viewed through multiple screens Introduced by Lizbeth Goodman

Article

103–121 Performing self beyond the body: Replay culture replayed Lizbeth Goodman123–138 Performing in (virtual) spaces: Embodiment and being in virtual environments Jacquelyn Ford Morie 139–150 Being there: Heidegger and the phenomenon of presence in telematic performance Martha Ladly151–165 Ersatz dancing: Negotiating the live and mediated in digital performance practice Helen Bailey

Introduction

167–168 Part 2: First, second and third spaces: Digital narratives and the spaces of performance Introduced by Lizbeth Goodman

Article

169–181 Hotel Pro Forma’s The Algebra of Place; destabilising the original and the copy in intermedial contemporary performance

David Fenton183–195 Orienteering with double moss: The cartographies of half/angel’s The Knitting Map Deborah Barkun and Jools Gilson-Ellis197–208 The warfare of the imagined – building identities in Second Life Dr. Esther MacCallum-Stewart209–222 Embodied narrative: The virtual nomad and the meta dreamer Denise Doyle and Taey Kim

223–236 Playing the third place: Spatial modalities in contemporary game environments Axel Stockburger

Introduction

237–238 Part 3: Complexity: The theory into the practice Introduced by Alec Robertson

Article

239–252 Emergence and complexity: Some observations and reflections on transdisciplinary research involving performative contexts and new media

Dave Everitt and Alec Robertson 253–267 Reconstruction theory: Designing the space of possibility in complex media Karen Cham269–279 Emergent objects: Designing through performance Alice Bayliss, Joslin McKinney, Sita Popat and Mick Wallis281–294 An approach to the design of interactive environments, with reference to choreography, architecture,

the science of complex systems and 4D design Alec Robertson, Sophia Lycouris and Jeffrey Johnson

295 Index

9 771479 471004

ISSN 1479-4713 0 3

International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media

Volume 3 Number 2-3

The International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media draws its contri-butions from researchers and practitioners placed at the rapidly developinginterface of new media technologies and performance arts. As such, it acts as aforum for both creative thinking and innovative practice in theatre, dance,music and live art. Contributions cover work that is either domain-specific orwhere disciplines are in convergence.

The journal actively encourages debate and cross-disciplinary exchangeacross a broad range of approaches. Such debate may extend into associatedimplications for teaching and research at both undergraduate and postgraduatelevel.

The spectrum of topics identified in the scope includes areas such as virtualand physical bodies, distributed non-linear performance, interactive performa-tive installations, and real-time music performance interfaces, among manyothers. However, all subjects within or across the disciplines will be considered.

This journal presents an innovative platform for lecturers, researchers, stu-dents, practitioners and educators in music, theatre, dance and the live arts toboth learn and contribute. Furthermore, it allows researchers and software/hardware developers with an interest in the performance arts to become moreinvolved in the debates surrounding their work.

The views expressed in this journal are those of the authors and do not necessarilycoincide with those of the Editor or the members of the Editorial Advisory Board.

International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media is published three timesper year by Intellect, PO Box 862, Bristol BS99 1DE, UK. The current subscriptionrates are £30 (personal) and £210 (institutional). Postage for each volume is freewithin the UK, £5 within Europe, and £10 outside of Europe. Enquiries andbookings for advertising should be addressed to the Marketing Manager atIntellect.

© 2007 Intellect Ltd. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personaluse or the internal or personal use of specific clients is granted by Intellect Ltd forlibraries and other users registered with the Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA) inthe UK or the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) Transactional Reporting Service inthe USA provided that the base fee is paid directly to the relevant organization.

EditorDavid CollinsSchool of Intermedia andPerformance Arts, University CentreDoncaster CollegeHigh Melton Doncaster DN5 7SZE-mail: [email protected]

Associate EditorsAlice Bayliss University of LeedsE-mail: [email protected]

Steve Dixon Brunel UniversityE-mail: [email protected]

Sita PopatUniversity of Leeds E-mail: [email protected]

Book Review EditorBarry SmithUniversity of Bristol, UK

Editorial AssistantJulie NorthmoreSchool of Intermedia and

Performance ArtsDoncaster CollegeHigh Melton Doncaster DN5 7SZE-mail: [email protected]: 01302 553553 ext 4215

Printed and bound in Great Britain by4Edge, UK

ISSN 1479-4713

Editorial Advisory Board

Philip Auslander – Georgia Inst. of Technology, USAJohannes Birringer – Brunel University, UKGlorianna Davenport – MIT, Cambridge, USAJane Davidson – University of Sheffield, UKScott deLahunta – Dartington College, UKDuncan Holt – University of Hull, UKSusan Kozel – SMARTlab, University of East London, UKSimon Lock – University of Lancaster, UKGary McPherson – University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USALisa Naugle – University of California, Irvine, USAKia Ng – University of Leeds, UKJames Oliverio – University of Florida, USAGordon Ramsay – University of Nottingham, UKPaul Sermon – University of Salford, UKJenn Sheridan – BigDog InteractiveKate Sicchio – University Centre, Doncaster College, UKBarry Smith – University of Bristol, UKAndrea Zapp – Manchester Metropolitan University, UK

PADM_3_2-3_00-FM 11/28/07 6:40 PM Page 95

Author biographyA note on each author is required, and thisshould include details of their currentposition, their institution, institutional mailand email address, or an alternative contactaddress if necessary. This should notexceed 80 words.

Abstract and keywordsEach article should be accompanied by anabstract, which should not exceed 150words in length and should concentrate onthe significant findings. Authors maysubmit a second abstract in a first languageother than English also where appropriate.Each article should also be supplied with3–5 keywords for searching purposes.

HeadingsThe main text should be clearly organisedwith a hierarchy of heading and subhead-ings. Main headings should be typed inlower case, bold and increased size;secondary headings should be in lowercase, bold italic.

QuotationsQuotations exceeding 40 words aredisplayed (indented) in the text. Theseparagraph quotations must be indentedwith an additional one-line space above andbelow and without quotes.

Captions All illustrations should be accompanied bya caption, which should include the figurenumber. and the acknowledgement to theholder of the copyright.

NotesNotes will appear at the side of appropriatepages, but the numerical sequence runsthroughout the article. These should bekept as short as possible and to aminimum, and be identified by asuperscript numeral.

References and BibliographyThese should be listed alphabetically at theend of paper and must adhere to thefollowing models:

Books: author’s full name, title (italics),place of publication, publisher, year, andpage reference.

Articles: author’s full name, title (withinsingle quotation marks), name of journal(italics), volume and issue numbers, date,and page reference.

A bibliography may be included if this isdeemed to be a necessary addition to thesidenotes.

Notes for ContributorsOpinionThe views expressed in the journal arethose of the authors, and do not necessarilycoincide with those of the Editor or theEditorial Advisory Board.

RefereesThe International Journal of Performance Artsand Digital Media is a refereed journal.Referees are chosen for their expertisewithin the subject area. They are asked tocomment on comprehensibility, originalityand scholarly worth of the article submitted.

LengthArticles should not normally exceed 6000words in length.

SubmittingArticles/visual texts should be original andnot be under consideration by any otherpublication. Three hard copies must be sentto the editor, typewritten or printed on oneside only, and double-spaced. If the articleis accepted, it should be put on disk, withany required amendments, and thiselectronic version of the article as agreedfor final publication should then be sent tothe Editor. The electronic version should bein Word, and be submitted on a 3.5 inchdisk or CD, along with a hard-copy version.The disk should be labelled with the nameof the author, the title of the article, and thesoftware used. (Formats other than Wordare not encouraged, but please contact theeditor for further details.) Please provide aself-addressed envelope to cover the returnpostage of submissions.

LanguageThe journal uses standard British English.The editor reserves the right to alter usageto this end. Foreign words and sentencesinserted in the text should be italicised.Because of the interdisciplinary nature ofthe readership, jargon should be kept to aminimum. Whereas articles in otherlanguages may be submitted for review,translation into English will be theresponsibility of authors should they beaccepted for publication.

Hard copyHard copy text should be double-spacedand single-sided with at least a 3cm leftmargin.

SoftwareThe journal is set with Apple Macintoshequipment and reset using QuarkXPress; itis therefore best whenever possible tosupply text in Word as this crosses easilyfrom PC to Mac systems.

Visual Materials Illustrations to articles are welcome whenthey assist discussion of artworks, learningactivities and/or environments. Generally,only non-colour reproduction is available.All illustrations, photographs, diagrams,maps etc. should follow the samenumerical sequence and be shown asFigure 1, Figure 2 etc. Please do not sendoriginal slides, photographs and otherartworks. If originals are all that is available,these will need to be supplied electronically.Visuals in proposals should initially be sentas low-res JPEG files on PC formattedfloppy disk or as an email attachment. Theyshould be accompanied by an electronicversion of the original text in MS Word oneither 3.5 inch PC formatted disk or a CD. Ifarticles are selected for publicationcontributors will be asked to provideimages to the Editor with respect toIntellect’s Notes to Contributors.

CopyrightBefore publication, authors are requested toassign copyright to the Journal subject toretaining their right to reuse the material inother publications written or edited bythemselves and due to be published at leastone year after initial publication in theJournal. A credit to the publisher and theoriginal source should be cited if an articlethat appears in the Journal is subsequentlyreprinted elsewhere.

PermissionsCopyright clearance should be indicated bythe contributor and is always theresponsibility of the contributor. The sourcehas to be indicated beneath the text. Whenthey are on a separate sheet or file,indication must be given as to where theyshould be placed in the text. The author hasresponsibility to ensure that the properpermissions/model for visual imagereleases are obtained.

Reviewing Please contact the Editor if you areinterested in reviewing for this journal.

Contributions welcomeThe Editor welcomes contributions. Anymatter concerning the format andpresentation of articles not covered by theabove notes should be addressed to theEditor, David Collins, School of Intermediaand Performance Arts, Doncaster College,High Melton, Doncaster DN5 7SZ.Email: [email protected]

Any matters concerning the format and presentation of articles not covered by the above notes should be addressed to the Editor.The guidance on this page is by no means comprehensive: it must be read in conjunction with Intellect Notes for Contributors.These notes can be referred to by contributors to any of Intellect’s journals, and so are, in turn, not sufficient; contributors willalso need to refer to the guidance such as this given for each specific journal. Intellect Notes for Contributors is obtainable fromwww.intellectbooks.com/journals, or on request from the Editor of this journal. For additional guidance on submissions, review-ers guidelines or general information, please contact David Collins. Email: [email protected].

96 PADM 3(2&3)

PADM_3_2-3_00-FM 11/28/07 6:40 PM Page 96

International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media, Volume 3 Number 2 & 3.

© Intellect Ltd 2007. Editorial. English language. doi: 10.1386/padm.3.2&3.97/2

EditorialPerforming and Being (There) live and online

Lizbeth Goodman SMARTlab, University of East London

As each live performance team struggles with issues of documentation, sotoo do mediated performance teams struggle with issues of technologicalchange and rapid ‘upgrading’ of systems that outstrip most academicbudgets and project time frames. Some of these same issues impact oncreative design teams: whether for scholars studying user-centred designmethods, or for practitioners engaging in research and knowledgeexchange projects.

At the same time, many of us fight to beat the daily clock, to expand thespace-time continuum just far enough to cram in that much needed ‘spare’time before and after the full-time working day, to allow for reading andscholarly reflection, creative writing or design work, rehearsal, performance,filming, editing and more critical reflection.

There is rarely enough time to engage in both the time-based arts andthe scholarly consideration of them, and yet, we make time, all of us,somehow. This work matters, and is developing rapidly, and is shaping thescholarly as well as the practical parameters of the next generation (of stu-dents, or researchers, of makers, producers and of consumers or – in com-puter terms – of ‘users’).

This is itself a feat of considerable complexity and dedication to design,and in some senses can also be seen as a form of ‘magic’, or of creativeinvention the rules of which cannot be shared because they are reinventedwith each act of engagement (whether intentional or not) with the socialnecessity of making time for work that matters.

Within all this, the academic domain of performance art has, in recentyears, had its borders further challenged by the advent of game studies andtheory, and the interplay of design and experience design with the fieldsonce recognisable for their focus on bodies in spaces. In addition to includ-ing representatives from art, fashion, design and architecture in any givenperformance team, it is now typical to include experts from a much widerrange of disciplines too. Drama and theatre studies have made room forlive art, performance art and also mediated performance and embodimentstudies. With the growth of all these distinct but overlapping fields, ideashave evolved along with the scholarly community’s vocabularies and criticalframeworks for engaging and analysing with the emergent ideas, so that in2007, a study of performance and play also reaches quite naturally andseemlessly into the domains of computer science, informatics and

97PADM 3 (2&3) pp. 97–99. © Intellect Ltd 2007.

PADM_3-(2-3)_01-GOODMAN 11/28/07 7:59 PM Page 97

engineering (with work that engages with artificial intelligence and robotics,including computer vision, sonic design etc.), psychology (with virtualreality studies), education (with the increasingly common focus on role playand interaction design in virtual learning environments and online games),on gender studies (in terms of avatar role play), philosophy and phenome-nology), critical theory (with the theoretical framing of time-based arts andmedia in terms of their cultural status and complex ideological systems andimpacts). The list goes on . . .

Within this increasingly interdisciplinary academic world, scholars andpractitioners are, quite sensibly, seeking out new methods of workingtogether to address key concerns with shared vocabularies and joined-upthinking and implementation strategies.

The authors in this special double issue of IJPDM were all encouragedto address their own work in relation to the wider field: to consider theimpact of play in its widest forms to their own work, and to show some ofthe steps that lead between performance, digital media, game studies andplay in design.

In Part 1, the focus is on Performance Futures, with a focus on Bodies inMovement as viewed through Multiple Screens. The authors in this sectionwere invited to address their own subjects whilst framing larger issues fromthe fields of Performance and New Technology, Psychology and VirtualReality, and Dance Studies.

In Part 2, the focus shifts to the domains of scholarship that reach backtowards performance from Gaming and Experience Design, with authorscontributing from the fields of Theatre, Game Studies, Cultural Studies andDigital Media, and Art and Design.

Finally, in Part 3, the last four papers engage with the theory of complex-ity as it is employed and evolving in both the scholarship and the practice ofdesign, from performance to play to the design of new modes of thinkingabout design. This last section includes work gathered at the Design for the21st Century event on Magic In Complexity, held in London in February2007. That work brought together an unusual group of artists, designers,technologists, performers and scholars, engaged in two different strands ofwork and thought, from Emergent Objects to the theories of ComplexityScience as applied to the 3d and 4d design arts.

As all the papers in this double issue show, the technologies that allowus to view and review, play and replay, both ourselves and our technologicalframing of selves, have developed to such an extent in the past few yearsthat what was unimaginable only a decade ago is now ‘reality’ or embodiedin ‘virtual’ reality.

The authors whose work now fills the pages of this double issue haveaddressed these ideas, these modes and modalities, in their bodies, theirperformances, their interactive films and digital narratives . . . and have re-viewed their work for scholarly presentation here, in order to inviteresponse and ‘replay’ from the wider community of readers too.

Yet, it is notable that there is an increasing resistance in the scholarlycommunity to fixing ideas in time by printing on paper. Some scholars, and

98 Lizbeth Goodman


many students, have arrived at a point where it is either not possible toread the bulk of academic texts that appear, or is no longer seen as relevantto engage solely with published text. The work in this issue is thus pre-sented to the public at a time when the status of the book as a designedartefact is in question – to a greater extent than in previous generations –and when it is now common for students to comment that they no longerrely on the reading of texts, ordering of books, use of libraries for theirscholarship. Whether we like it or not, it is a fact of the academic culture of2007 that many now rely on Google and Wikipedia as tools for study.

In summary, this double edition of IJPDM has two main objectives:

1. To engage thinkers and makers in the world of performance and digitalmedia in a transdisciplinary discourse, committed to the page butreaching beyond the frame of that page, and beyond the boundaries ofplay in its many and varied forms; and

2. To inspire thinking across disciplines and to encourage reflection frompaper to paper, idea to idea, as each informs and re-contextualises theother.

Thanks to David Collins, editor extraordinaire and remarkably (or ‘astound-ingly’) present and intuitive collaborator. May this first inter-action be just astep along the road to many more creative engagements and moments ofmagic in complexity.

Lizbeth Goodman University of East LondonFor the SMARTlab Research Team

99Performing and being (There) live and online



© Intellect Ltd 2007. Introduction. English language. doi: 10.1386/padm.3.2&3.101/2

IntroductionPart 1: Performance futures: Bodies in movement, viewed through multiple screens

Introduced by Lizbeth Goodman

The first section of this special double issue on play in performance andnew media looks, and relooks, at the body and its frames. Each frame isconsidered as a reflective surface in the hall of mirrors of multiply layeredfictions and mediated stories, that John Barth describes in ‘Lost in theFunhouse’, as discussed in the first paper in this part.

The term the body, refers, for the purposes of this section at least, to thevisceral form of the human as s/he engages in space and time, and makesan impact on others through the act of being present, whether live or onscreen. The focus here is on the body as placed: the space it takes up inlived experience and within the alternative frame of screenic presence. Thework revolves around the notion that each body and each body memory,gesture, deliberate and multiply framed staging of self in performance leadsto another layering of communication as bodily inscription. The four papershave thus been gathered around the central theme of multiplicity in framingembodiment, and each engages in a deliberately polysemic act of writingabout the body and embodiment, with an awareness of the presentation ofthe ideas both in print and in digitally mediated formats. In each of thepapers, the themes of replay are considered: in other words, each pieceengages with the theme of the role play of self in the increasingly media-tised and theorised worlds in which we live and present ourselves daily.

The first paper tackles a subject of long-standing concern to researchersworking on the body and embodiment: the subject of self in replay culture.This paper reaches back through a decade of ideas and critical, performa-tive and screenic experiments in re-presentation of bodies of all shapes andabilities, across a wide range of media formats. The paper is deliberatelywide ranging, as the themes set the scene for the papers that follow in allthree sections, even as they summarise and analyse a set of ideas that havebeen developing for a decade, and that will be replayed in new form in workto come. The focus on the emergence of new forms of body images in theage of ‘mechanical reproduction’ takes up Benjamin’s classic argument andapplies it to the body as an increasingly commodified and designed ‘object’in its framing and reframing in early 21st century culture.

The second paper, by artist/scientist Jacquelyn Ford Morie, draws uponthe author’s long career in virtual environments and experience design,



focusing on the performance implications of this emergent high tech medialandscape. The paper takes some of the same themes raised in the ‘ReplayCulture’ article – those of embodiment, or play and role play, of the theatri-cality of performance, and the shifting boundaries of ‘real space perfor-mance’ – and replays these in relation to a study of Virtual Environments:seen as a new frontier in performance and digital media, and as a sphereinfluenced and shaped largely by teams led by women artists as well.

The third paper, by musician and digital media expert Martha Ladly, con-siders embodiment, presence and absence in virtual spaces beyond thecomplex, high technology screens of VR and VE, in the domains of smallscreen mobile technologies and real space performance stages and streetsas well.

The fourth and final article, by dance expert Helen Bailey and her team,studies and considers the negotiation of the live impulse and images ofliveness as framed and mediated by digital performance practices.

By placing these four papers together as a set, though they are writtenby authors of different generations and cultural backgrounds, and from awide variety of disciplines, this section aims to raise a few questions and tooffer the first stabs towards paths for finding answers.

102 Lizbeth Goodman



© Intellect Ltd 2007. Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/padm.3.2&3.103/1

Performing self beyond the body: Replayculture replayed

Lizbeth Goodman SMARTlab, University of East London

AbstractThis paper re-views the field of performance studies through the lens of a largebody of the practical work in new media performance and technology tools cre-ation. It thus engages critically with the author’s own earlier ideas about play,replay and the performance of self: taking a new position informed by an alteredview of performance that has developed in recent years with benefit of bothhindsight and the applied method of multimodal vision. Working live as a moverand director who has taken a visible physical place in mixed ability performancework, the author argues that the framing of self in performance which is per-sonal, is complicated not only by theories of agency and the frames in which per-formance and performance theory are both viewed and reviewed, but also by theshifting nature of ‘self ’ as the body and one’s ways of engaging through the bodyboth age and change. The paper has been written specially to set the scene forand raise key issues discussed elsewhere in this double issue of IJPDM. It sharesthe body of a decade’s research (1987–1997) and another decade’s furtherresearch and reworking of ideas around the omni-presence of media and the per-formance of text and other forms of representation in the digital age (work con-ducted since 1997, but focussing on original practice-based researchperformance experiments and shows staged for these purposes between 2000and 2005). The paper takes its own media, for example the paper on which it isto be printed – as one of the subjects of study – exploring key theories of repre-sentation and gendered performance re-viewed from the lens of the new mediaage of the early years of the 21st century, as they are now ‘replayed’ here, but forthe first time in print, on paper.

Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element:its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where ithappens to be. This unique existence of the work of art determined the historyto which it was subject throughout the time of its existence. This includes thechanges which it may have suffered in physical condition over the years aswell as the various changes in its ownership. The traces of the first can berevealed only by chemical or physical analyses which it is impossible toperform on a reproduction; changes of ownership are subject to a traditionwhich must be traced from the situation of the original.

(Walter Benjamin 1936)


Keywordsperformanceplayreplaypresentationre-presentationselfpresenceengagementerasuredigital medialive artlive textblogwiki

PADM_3-(2-3)_03-GOODMAN 11/30/07 8:06 AM 3

Breaking apart and reforming the notion of the selfWhat does it mean to commit to paper the research outcomes, expressedhere as ideas inscribed in text and destined for print, of a few decades –when that work has explicitly aimed to remove the fourth wall not only fromthe theatrical stage but also from the framing mechanisms of screenic tech-nologies? What does the act of enactment entail in a body of work thatspans theatre, dance and technologies for social inclusion, the joint aim ofwhich is to empower audiences and ‘users’ of all levels of ability to engageequally, across what was known has been called ‘the digital divide’: toempower action and free participation on a world stage? . . .

This paper explores the many and varied ways in which new technolo-gies call us out of ourselves and our moments of being in shared time-space with others, and beckon us through the screen to other places,sometimes but not always coincident with our social, educational and cul-tural needs. As the moment in which we write is, as I and others have saidand written before, ‘always-already-gone’ even as it is documented, it is theironic but deeply engaged sense of being present that persists beyond themoment of enactment, or the moments of archival in digital form. Our acts,staged, filmed and lived, are all recorded and viewed even as they are expe-rienced, and before they are stored in human memory, so – I would argue –before they are fully lived. In Britain, the most highly surveillance-markedcountry on Earth, the act of ‘being’ in terms of play is marked in eachmoment by the certainty of knowing that each moment is indeed recordedand (perhaps) watched by distant others.

In this context, methods for re-embodying self (and other(s)) in themultimodal world are offered daily, but are rarely clearly labelled as such. Inprevious eras, it might have made sense to try to label the multimodal per-formances that we, many or most of us, embody. But now, given the speedof technological change combined with the shifting relationships that we allhave to the notion of ‘present time’ in the age of telematics, it seems lessimportant to label and tie down any concept or mode of communication orperformance, and more important to capture instead a sense of the multi-ple streams of embodiment, and connection, that develop between bodiesand minds in performances, staged and screenic. In this paper, the focus ison performances by and with people of mixed ability: a form marked by theabsence of limbs and by stillness and silence as well as by movement andspeech, and therefore a perfect focus for a study of multimodal communi-cations (or the expression and experience of ‘self’ in and through multiplesenses beyond the seen and heard).

An important aside – the self in flux, over time and in spaceThe term ‘mixed ability’ is used here to refer to a state between all possibil-ities of movement, the remembrance of movement and the limited set ofmovement vocabularies that parts of the body are willing or able to makeunassisted. Mixed ability performance is now a speciality of the SMARTlabteam, who make work that pushes bodies to work together, live and onscreen. This phase of work, informed deeply by the Theatre Games training

104 Lizbeth Goodman

PADM_3-(2-3)_03-GOODMAN 11/30/07 8:06 AM Page 104

of Clive Barker and by subsequent years of work in physical theatre andcomedy, has all informed our professional theatre practice, whichaddresses a core theme; that of being in a state of being that is in constantreplay, time-shifting between body states and memories of body states. Thisrecognition of the importance of re-placing the embodied self, or of thebody in real space and in screenic space, in the age of the digital, was thestarting point for a new phase of research that coincided with a series ofevents (see Goodman 2007a,b) that led to collaborations with a new groupof performers and technologists who were, and remain, equally engaged ina quest for re-embodiment in multiple spaces.

These performances have involved six years of dancing with women andmen in wheelchairs: some of whom have suffered spinal break or otherserious injuries, others of whom dance despite chronic severe CerebralPalsy, and related conditions that limit their freedom of voluntary move-ment and speech. The SMARTlab team has become in effect, adept atlooking away from itself in order to sense and become part of the body ofsomeone else in dance, virtual interaction or synthesised speech andmusical interface experimentation (see for instance, the results of the TheInterfaces Project, detailed online: www.smartlab.uk.com).

The story of self in replay culture, is the story of sexuality in perfor-mance (the title for the book that I chose not to publish when it was firstready to print, as discussed below) as framed and reframed over a numberof years with feedback and interaction from a number of sources. It is astory of stories within stories, many told by pictures and some told by ges-tures. It is a story reframed in a house of mirrors like John Barth’sFunhouse. This paper is the first sustained attempt to remove the storyfrom the funhouse and to look at it from each of a series of modalities, andperspectives, at a time.

Back to the future – a series of radical breaks through the frame

A piece devised by SMARTlab, Flutterfugue, was devised to showcase arange of performance technologies created by out team and colleagues inthe course of a large European Commission Project,1 and brought womenand (performing) artists into the mainframe of funding from Europe. Thatwork is documented elsewhere, with focus on the aims and outcomes ofthe research that led to interaction between robotics and haptics engineerswith animators, dancers and puppeteers in the Mediatheque showcase theSMARTshell tools that were created for it. What was not documented at thetime was the radical reframing the evolving image of self in performancethat evolved, invisibly, on two parallel tracks at this time: on the one hand,through a move back into live performance – though this was not con-sciously construed at the time in terms of terms of ‘self embodiment’ sincethe work in this show and its series of accompanying workshops was linkedto closely to movement with Jayne K Rose, and with the other performersusing wheelchairs and robotics to enable their live, embodied engagement.This process of becoming part of another person, or being directly silently

1 RADICAL: ResearchAgendas Developed inCreative Arts Labs, apartnership ofSMARTlab (UK), theBBC (UK), the WAAGSociety for Old andNew Media(Amsterdam), L’ecoleSuperiored’Angouleme (France),et al. Funded under heFramework V IST(Interactive SocietyTechnologies)Programme. SeeGoodman 2002b and2003b.

105Performing self beyond the body: Replay culture replayed


and in real time improvisation by the ‘flow’ of another person, deservesmajor consideration here: not only as a stage in the body of work under dis-cussion but more generally, in terms of a larger argument developing aboutthe liveness of improvised ‘being in space’, in the age of the digital.

As part of another person’s body, the move back through the frame tolive embodiment on stage did not seem so radical at the time, as it did notfeel ‘like me’ on stage. At the same time, or in parallel, this body of workinvolved a large and very conscious element of translation between disci-plines: as project director yet not only devising, choreographing and per-forming in the showcases, but also researching, writing, presenting,chairing, moderating the UK lectures, seminars and symposia – and this isthe part that made the most lasting difference to the academic work and itsphase shift – I also engaged in the academic and practical translation of themeanings, needs and intentions of the engineers and robotics experts tothe dancers to the animators to the theatre directors to the visual artists tothe medical teams and disability experts . . .

The earliest experiment with stillness on a mainstage that set the pathin this direction (of stillness and reflection) for the SMARTlab team was theGlobe Theatre 3d render: the first widely available 3d (Quicktime VR, orQTVR) reconstruction of Shakespeare’s Globe, in which London Equityunion actors were not permitted on stage. Therefore, the academicresearch team for the BBC Open University Project – the same team whostill make up the core of the SMARTlab today – took up still positions at keyplaces in the space, and held those poses for a full day of still shoots. Inthat work, there was plenty of time to think about the role of the body inspace as a marker of presence.2 Through this work the idea of the body as amarker for others and as a vehicle of translation and imagination for otherswas developed, in many senses, at many levels. And in that time, invisiblyeven within the research team, our focus shifted from solo performanceexperiments single authored works in what was then still recognisable asPerformance Studies, to multiply authored work by interdisciplinary teamswith common goals: from the ‘art’ to the ‘science’ model.

But here, discussion of a show which played out the theme – selfreplayed – brings us to the Flutterfugue: danced live with a paraplegicdancer, an able bodied dancer and virtual dancer (in this case a butterflyavatar in 3d controlled by a Midi slider/puppetry interface and also by earlymotion tracking technologies), in which the audience viewed the live showthrough 3d spectacles to take in the full effect of the image mix – all thisgave a new frame to the notion of self in performance.

Thus, Flutterfugue, along with the previous major experiment in limitedmovement (in the VIP Project, which positioned the sole living body onstage with massive great marionettes made by Forkbeard Fantasy: listeningto choreographic calls from many but allowing my body only to make thesame small movements that the puppets could make, and only to followtheir lead3) marked a turning point in the research. This heralded a returnto embodied work after years of considering the text and political contextsof performances. The shift happened in real time and I remember it vividly,

2 The original QTVRGlobe is now a classicexample of ‘oldtechnology’ but as thefirst to be made onthe reconstructedGlobe, it remains as amarker in time. See:www.smartlab.uk.com/QTVRShakesGlobe.Also see Owens andGoodman 1996; andthe Theatre Gamesworkshop video forthe BBC OU, newShakespeare course,discussed briefly inGoodman 2007. Theinteractive strategiesdeveloped by the BBCteam are discussed inGoodman 2007 andin Goodman,Williams, Coe 1998(transcript of ourBAFTA awardslecture).

3 VIP: staged at theTheatre Museum asan experimentalworkshop onpuppetry, people andperformances onstage and screen. BBCproduction crew, withfootage gatheredspecially for the MA inGender andPerformance (Live andthrough the Screen),known as theExtended Body Project(course co-directedwith Susan Kozel).See Goodman 2001band 2002a.

106 Lizbeth Goodman


as it marked itself in memory and on the body simultaneously: it occurredas I watched a time-shifted rerun of a BBC2 Theatre Workshop on late nightTV. Watching myself in the TV frame, I wondered how this simulacrum ofthe academic speaking about performance had come from, and where I hadleft my own body, and why it had not occurred to me for so long that mybody was no longer present in the performance studies work in which I hadbeen engaged for so long. The wonder led to a major transformation in thework: a re-introduction of the body to the stage and screen as both a moverand a thinker about movement, but always already aware of the shiftingstate of both the body and the memory of its movements.

Throughout this period, SMARTlab’s work (then operating under thename of The Institute for New Media Performance Research: INMPR)stretched and shifted between live experiences on stage with both the realand the virtual, the body and the simulacrum. The VIP Project evolved withmore dancers and puppeteers engaging over time and across distance,while the group also extended its study of bodies as extended over time andspace through the continued experiments with MA students in London,New York, Phoenix, LA, et al. These two parallel threads of work tested thelimits of ‘ownership’ of a body image, a moment in time of any perfor-mance or indeed the ‘ownership’ of an original . . . The team created simul-taneous moments, led by distant others. Thus the work raised issues aboutauthenticity, presence and absence, multimodal and multi-located experi-ence. As nearly all the participants were women, the work naturallyextended into study of gender roles with regard to these states of being.Some of this research found form in the chapters of the book that was to bepublished under the name of Sexuality in Performance.4

At the same time, two key ideas, expressed as questions, emergedsimultaneously:

How did experimentation with limited movement if expressed carefullyallow for accessibility VIP Project, (particularly through the research phasefunded by the Gulbenkian Trust) and on through to current work withdancers, writers, musicians and film makers with severe cerebral palsytoday;5 and

How best to document and also share knowledge gained throughembodied practice with technology: how to place oneself in the frame buton both sides of it too?

Re-embodying performance in the age of virtual reproduction– real TIMEThe shift in terms of considering research outputs from writing and pub-lishing single authored work for readers of Performance Studies, towardspreparation and moderation of joint publications on group trans-discipli-nary work was, in retrospect, not just a practical choice but also a politicalone. It was in essence a shift in the means of mechanical reproduction,linked to a shift to understanding multimodal communications (includingsilent communications marked and monitored by biosensors andinterpreted by people who spend enough time with the person attempting

4 Sexuality inPerformance waswritten as the resultsof an extended bodyof research andengaged practice onstage and on screen.

5 This early workmarked the beginningof a research thread increation of new mediaand assistivetechnology tools thatenable people withseverely limitedphysical movement toenable writing, speechand the making of livemusic. See Goodman2007, and also see thefull documentation ofthe Interfaces Projectforthcoming in JamesBrosnan’s book forMIT Presshttp://www.smartlab.uk.com/2projects/interfaces.htm



to communicate beyond the body6). While the engagement with ourselvesand others whose bodies has been altered and whose understanding ofbody politics had thus also shifted was influential to the team’s work at thistime, so too were the evolution of new design concepts in the parallel fieldsof architecture, product design and systems engineering. For in the modelsof user-centred design and participatory design, a good deal more aboutthe body as part of a complex performance system became apparent.

The work undertaken in this period with people who could not move orspeak re-awakened an awareness of spending time as a method that was notvalued in academic circles: that was not taken account of in practice-basedwork where rehearsal, production and documentation of live performanceswas included as but made invisible in academic timetabling for performanceresearchers. In the increasingly management-led structures of universities, itwas hard enough to argue for reasonable timings for process-based coursesand assessments, without bringing in the additional demands of what isoften referred to as ‘disability time’, where site based witnessing of people’sown ways and means of interaction could take significant amounts of timebeyond the rehearsal space. And yet this was the time that mattered, that ledto multimodal understanding an awareness of the meaning of the term‘presence’ in practical as well as theoretical contexts. So, if universities wereunable to deal with the basic truth that some forms of user-centred designtake considerable amounts of time, it seemed impossible that industry orbusiness environments would consider these issues.

It was with this new and frustrating sense that there would never beenough time to spend to make a real difference, nor an appropriatemedium through which to enable a rich mix of performers and people toshare their forms of expression equally, that the SMARTlab research shiftedtowards Assistive Technology tools creation: a research focus that drewengineers and haptics engineers to our core team, and that produced amore scientific style of writing for technology journals and conferences.

That body of group work is now, after it has settled with time, thesubject of study in performance terms once more: it now sits as an exampleof a form of interactive performance that demands embodiment in thesystem, and a simultaneous ability to look from both sides of the system,both sides of the frame, to translate the work to the participants and toaudiences and readers alike.

Much of the SMARTlab history (or herstory) has been written over theyears, and that body of work has placed the evolving SMARTlab method inthe context of performance theories and concurrent practices in new mediaart, from the earliest writings performance and its political and cultural con-texts, to the later team articles about the interconnectedness of disciplinesin the making of interactive works: see the short list of the most relevantpublications below for entry to that work. Rather than recap that body ofperformance work here, this section will instead review earlier theories ofperformance and replay culture from the more up to date frame of a bodythat no longer plays as it used to, in an age of technology that replaysbefore we even have time to play . . .

6 The MINDtouchProject (SMARTlab &BBC R&D) addressesthese issues with bothtechnology andpeople. Seehttp://smartlab.uk.com/2projects/mindtouch.htm

108 Lizbeth Goodman


So, the discussion below offers analysis and reflection, underpinned byexamples from a range of performance media experiments and workshopsdocumented on the web and Dvd materials that can be provided for inter-ested readers.

Replaying replayThe first articulations of theory of ‘replay culture’ (first penned, or writtenwith digital ink back in the 1990s) was researched and written up in the olddays of technology, when the ability to ‘time shift’ a television programmeto video for viewing at a more convenient time was still a new and relativelyimportant development.

The published extracts that became best known from this period werefirst outlined in the wake of the death of Diana, and likened to the perceivedmass-scale media developments impacting on the fields of performance andrepresentation at the end of the last century. With numerous books alreadypublished, widely taught and translated, there was no perceived need to putyet more onto paper in those early years of this new century. Instead, thefocus became reflective of that earlier output, and engaged in a practical andethical debate about the value of trees as opposed to more print publica-tions that could reach wider audiences for free, online, and without thedestruction of the world’s resources. Much of the research output of thoseyears was thus shared online, in what would now be called a wiki format.

As the subject of the work was ‘replay’, and the multimedia innovationsthat could make a difference to our perception, documentation of the live, itseemed particularly important to take a stand of this kind while alsorespecting the needs of scholars, students and the publishing industry. Thearguments of the book seemed to contradict the cultural trend towardspublication in print, and were better supported – and more easily updatableand customisable by other scholars, performers and students internation-ally – when the work was made available for free, online. Each iteration ofthe argument has been reworked with the participating students and schol-ars offering feedback and new layers of performance material and casestudy footage.

So, this section cites short extracts from a larger body of work that setup a dynamic of scholarly exchange that continues to this day: The set ofRoutledge Readers in Gender and Performance and Politics and Performance,first published in the years 1999 and 2000 respectively, and the writingsshared in pre-wiki format, online:

Many of the authors whose work appeared in those Readers took posi-tions on the political aspects of the performative, some in relation togender and the performance of sexuality and gendered role play, and othersin relation to more ‘party political’ or historical issues around performancetheory. A dialogue has thus developed over time between authors and prac-titioners who did not, prior to those publications, often converse directlyabout their work. While many other readers have been published before andsince these, they are cited here as markers in the sands of time for a spe-cific set of debates and collaborations arising from an early invitation to



engage in constructively critical sharing of ideas, which was the frameworkfor those books. In that work, Jane de Gay engaged in a good deal of whatcan now be thought of as the ‘translating between disciplines’ which is somuch a part of any editorial work on trans-disciplinary subject, but that wasparticularly engaged in the late 1990s with debates about the uses of thedigital to capture the live, and with the role of the page, in relation to thestage more generally. That work and process can, in retrospect, be seen assome of our earliest work in what is now a common SMARTlab practice:that of co-publication with teams of authors, in both ‘arts’ and ‘scientific’formats, and for a wide variety of presses.

However rigorously we encouraged debate and interaction prior to pub-lication, the resulting books, while widely studied and set, still seemedlimited as resources, due to the very nature of their status as fixed oncethey hit print, on paper. The process of putting together those books was asinteresting as the final products. We invited each reader to respond andinterpret, to select readings and reading strategies. Yet, as digital mediawas not so advanced: e-mail was relatively new and the electronic exchangeof data files was a novelty, not the norm, in order to respond, readers had towrite to me directly, or to respond in their own classrooms and rehearsalrooms. Thus, the attempt to involve a real conversation or dialogue oncethe book was in print raised an important issue: a similar framing of self asboth performer and critic/audience: that is, what form would be mostappropriate for engaged interaction, beyond the frame of the printed text?

The challenge, seen in retrospect, was in rethinking the very act ofwriting about performance, with its inbuilt resistance to treating a text bothas a finished thing, or an artifact, and a living document, or script forimprovisation. Thus, that set of Routledge Readers can now be seen asboth books and as artifacts of an age that aimed to evaluate and documentthe playability of their subjects: gender and performance, and politics andperformance. The working techniques advocated for live performance work-shops by Jerzy Grotowski can still be seen to overlap and enrich the digitalperformance practices experimentally and experientially designed by liveartists and performance practitioners engaging with the digital today.Grotowski’s principles of ‘poor theatre’ with no sets, no props, no make-upor stage lighting are typical of mass produced digital performances, butalso quite distinct from the higher tech mediated performance technologyshowcases that still challenge a performance paradigm, and that Grotowskidid not code in his juxtaposition of ‘poor’, ‘rich’ and ‘total’ theatres.

As argued in the second Reader:

In dance and other types of performance, the live event now questions its ownephemeral nature; the moment of performance is complicated by asynchronousparticipation by audiences and collaborations, while any event is increasinglylikely to be represented, shared, archived, and stored in digital form. The strug-gle of the performer and artist today, then, must include battles with the realand the virtual, with ways of making work which are informed by knowledge of‘new media’ and respect for more traditional and visceral live art practices. The

110 Lizbeth Goodman


same might be said for those who wish to study ‘sexuality in performance’: thespaces in which our bodies and senses of identity are ‘performed’ and ‘replayed’will influence the forms of representation as well as the types of reception.Sexuality is process; performance is process; to replay gender in theatre andculture is continually to reconsider the place of our bodies in many differentkinds of space, and to replay our own embodiment(s) in both physical and intel-lectual terms, on a daily (performed but still ‘real’) basis.

(Goodman 2000)

In her book on time-based arts, Andrea Phillips also argues that: ‘perfor-mance and technology have been intimately bound up since photo-mechan-ical means enabled firstly, static, and then, durational representation to turnaround our notions of the real, literally re-focusing our idea of our bodiesand, consequently, ourselves’ (Phillips 1998: 11). This statement, even whenreplayed nearly a decade after it first appeared in print, still summarises anumber of the concerns addressed in my early writings on sexuality in per-formance (back in 1999), wherein Walter Benjamin’s notion of ‘the work ofart in the age of mechanical reproduction’ was considered with reference tostill images, video and live performance.

But here, the aim is to replay that argument, considering the impact ofembodied presence in the text and the image simultaneously.

So – take two:Here is Benjamin on the actor and the image (citing Pirandello): a key

passage, somehow overlooked the first time around:

The feeling of strangeness that overcomes the actor before the camera, asPirandello describes it, is basically of the same kind as the estrangement feltbefore one’s own image in the mirror. But now the reflected image hasbecome separable, transportable. And where is it transported? Before thepublic. . . . Never for a moment does the screen actor cease to be consciousof this fact. While facing the camera he knows that ultimately he will face thepublic, the consumers who constitute the market. This market, where heoffers not only his labor but also his whole self, his heart and soul, is beyondhis reach. During the shooting he has as little contact with it as any articlemade in a factory. This may contribute to that oppression, that new anxietywhich, according to Pirandello, grips the actor before the camera. The filmresponds to the shriveling of the aura with an artificial build-up of the ‘per-sonality’ outside the studio.

. . . Any man today can lay claim to being filmed. This claim can best beelucidated by a comparative look at the historical situation of contemporaryliterature.

(Walter Benjamin 1936, web)

Years before I first trawled Benjamin for ways to frame the late 1990s pageand stage debates, Peter Wollen took up a similar set of issues in his bookRaiding the Icebox: Reflections on Twentieth-Century Culture (1993: 35–72).Wollen applied Benjamin’s ideas about art and mechanical reproduction to



the development of cinema which, Wollen argued, ‘can be condemned as asimulacrum, a masquerade, a display’.

These are among the core set of ideas investigated back in the late 1990s.But it was not until the research team had engaged, in embodied form liveand onstage as well as on screen, in dance with severely disabled people thatthe arguments took on research meaning again, in the context of SMARTlab’swork. The research process itself took bodily shape and meaning in theprocess of standing still and then moving on stage, in the freeze frames ofthose first complex multi-camera shoots and live performances – whereinmovement was literally frozen into frames: first for the QTTV camera model-ling (wherein hundreds of still images were stitched together to make adeceptively simple 3d model that could be viewed from many perspectives),and then in a conscious modelling of bodily gestural language to match thoseof the puppets and robots that shared the stage spaces. And in that process,movement and stillness, sound and silence, became readable and choreo-graphable, but most importantly, meaningful, in ways that the theorised studyof movement and freeze frames’ had not shared.

The focus in those early writings on Sexuality in Performance was not somuch on the nature of that display, nor on any given aesthetic or philo-sophical questions, but rather on the content of the ‘display’ (sexuality, rep-resentations of gender) as always already at odds and yet engaged in astrange encounter with the context in which all such displays are replayed:that is, contemporary theatre and culture, in an age when we have all cometo terms with the fact that we can, if we so desire, take control of the basicmedia of recording and replay so that we frame our own experiences ofinteraction as ‘theatre’.

A text cited years ago still speaks to these key issues: Jeff Ross, in hisbook The Semantics of Media (1997) provided an engaging analysis of theways in which we use spoken and written language to describe media,along with discussion of ‘possible worlds’ and semantics for analysis ofimplicit and explicit content in multi-media. Ross’s book included discus-sion of the ways in which we see, and describe what we see, in films andother performative and representational dynamics, paving the way forfurther exploration of the semantics of virtual performance. Intriguing workon sign language and the grammar of gestural communication (see forinstance Lillo-Martin 1991, and her work – which seems more importantnow, reviewed with a decade’s hindsight on its first framing in my argumentsabout layered communicative gestures7) might be applied in exciting waysto the field of performance, while research bridging the fields of computers,‘natural language’ and visual communications is opening up new areas ofinterest to those of us making and writing about live and virtual perfor-mance (see for instance McKevitt 1995).

From the vantage point of late 2007, Lillo-Martin’s words sound out todifferent effect:

. . . . Where two languages take opposite settings of a (binary) parameter, itwill also be informative to see whether both languages show an acquisitional

7 Lillo-Martin publisheda revised verion of herpaper, based on workpresented at the IVCongressoInternacional deLÌngua e Literatura doMercosul,Universidade Luteranodo Brasil: nowavailable athttp://web.uconn.edu/acquisition/CLESS.pdf[Cited 28 September2007].

112 Lizbeth Goodman


clustering of constructions related to the parameter, or only one languagedoes. The latter outcome is what we might expect if one of the parameter set-tings has an ‘unmarked’ status, and is set correctly from the outset.

(Lilo-Martin 1991: 5–6)

Here, Lillo-Martin and her colleagues discuss their CLESS Project, whichstudied learned communication patterns in control groups of deaf childrenfrom families where signing (ASL or American Sign Language) was or wasnot used at home, and/or was or was not used from birth. The links to myown practice with deaf children from different language backgrounds ishighly relevant in terms of a comparative frame for my own work, and alsoharks to Peggy Phelan’s groundbreaking work on sign systems and the‘unmarked’ body in the frame of representation.

But there is another relevant frame to weave into this particular houseof mirrors, or this particular funhouse of interpretation. It is the bridge tothe virtual, or the linkages between spoken and written languages and thelanguage of 1s and 0s which make up digital computer code. Here, BrendaLaurel led the way in her framing of the debates at an early stage of thedevelopment of ‘virtual theatres’.

In Computers as Theatre, one of the earliest major comparisons betweenmethods and models of trans-discipliinarity, Brenda Laurel argued that theintensity of contemporary response to and debate about VR (virtual reality):

. . . mirrors the nature of the medium itself: by inviting the body and thesenses into our dance with our tools, it has extended the landscape of inter-action to new topologies of pleasure, emotion, and passion. A similar trans-formation occurred in the Middle Ages, when theatre exploded out of thetextual universe of the monastery into the sensory fecundity that gave rise toCommedia Dell’Arte, . . . in a wave of sensory, passionate, and archetypalimagery. It was this coming together of text, body and narrative polyphonythat opened the way for Shakespeare, Grand Opera, and all the vital permuta-tions of the dramatic impulse that have come down to our day.

(Laurel 1993: 213–214)

In the late 1990s when this ideas was newly coined, the response thatseemed most appropriate was that VR could best be seen, not so much asa medium to mirror reality, but more as a type of performance, or a modeof presentation of the live. The term ‘computer-assisted performance’ wasused a few years later, in the rich and evolving field of ‘CAD: computer-aided design’. VR, then, was a form that differed mechanically and there-fore functionally from other forms or modes of performance, whether onstage or in the streets and private spaces (however defined and limited) ofdaily life. And years later, students and colleagues including Jacki Morie(in this journal) have shown through both practice and theory just howcomplex and rewarding this journey through VR to virtual embodimentcan be.

But back to the hall of mirrors.



Replay and the right to replyOver the years, it has of course proved more and more common, and there-fore less and less controversial or difficult, to work acros disciplinaryborders and media formats. For all of us who make theatre and write aboutit, who create new media programmes and analyse them or teach withthem, these have been heady, busy, exhausting years. Many paths havecrossed on any number of different stages, in various recording studios,media labs and in the pages of numerous texts.

Inevitably, it is the work that has been most personally charged, and inwhich any of us has been deeply involved, that reflects back an image thatis both imaginatively playful and enduring (because multiply layered),thereby allowing both an enjoyable sense of body memory in the telling orsharing in image-based form, or rewarding in terms of seeing the next gen-eration picking up and taking further not only the ‘product’ but moreimportantly, also the process.

So it will be for each artist, each reader, each critic. The work of ourbodies informs the work of our minds. How we share that work with othersremains a conundrum, a concern, for many of us as we move from solo tocollaborative performance-making intended to include the audience, notonly as ‘spect-actors’ (in Boal’s terms) but as creators of the work inprogress. Yet there are many choices to make, each of them charged withissues of ethics, economics and politics: in what terms, in what media, inlive or asynchronous performance contexts, in co-present or mediatedspatial relationships, will any artist or academic choose to work? Whichformats will allow for the energised exploration of ‘politics’ and ‘perfor-mance’ in the next century?

The notion of the ‘spect-actor’ draws upon Boal’s politics as well as hisknowledge of theatre and of what might now be called ‘serious play’. Boal’sgames for actors draw heavily upon his brutal life experience and his trans-lation of that embodied knowledge into a theory and method, documentedand analysed in his work as a cultural activist as well as in his writings andprofessional practices of and for the Theatre of the Oppressed (1973). But inGames for Actors and Non-Actors, Boal went further to offer a way of seeingthe spectator of a theatre performance as an engaged, embodied partici-pant in a dynamic. This work has influenced the methods not only oftheatre, but also of live art, and more recently, of game developers, whosework is deeply indebted to the role play analyses of early theatre scholars,as demonstrated in the continuing reference to Boal, Caillois, Barker andmore recently Poulter, in studies of the ‘actor’ or ‘avatar’ in serious gamesand play.

I closed Sexuality in Performance (the book that I did not publish in printbut shared instead online, sections at a time as the sections then rewroteand reframed themselves over time, in what might mow be called a WIKIformat), with a final question that led to the long debate about publicationof this kind of work for me. The question was: ‘Can you really perform onthe internet?’. In Leslie Hill’s words – from her work with Helen Paris on ‘INever Go Anywhere I Can’t Drive Myself’

114 Lizbeth Goodman


Considering that futurists predict that the most profound shift to occur in theTwenty-first Century will be the shift from a place oriented to a ‘placeless’society, this is something I want to know. As we conduct more and more of ourcommunication, research and commerce on-line and as the world around usshifts from analog to digital, physical location becomes less and less of a deter-mining factor in our ability to do our work, access information, keep in touchwith friends and buy or sell. Having an email account, internet access and acomputer, of course, become increasingly important to our ability to functionas members of a community, to interact with our peers, to access and to makework. What does this mean for performance? It’s one thing to publish text onthe internet, but how can one conceptually, atmospherically and emotivelymake the leap from atoms to electronic bits when it comes to Annie Sprinkle’scervix? Scan the cervix, upload it and program it to blink on and off, createsome roll-over text, embed an element of interactivity for the audience, forgehot-button links to other cervix-related sites? No doubt people would then saythings like, ‘I went to Annie Sprinkle’s cervix last night’, because people tend totalk about sites they have downloaded as places they have ‘been’.

(Curious 1998, web)

In applying Brenda Laurel’s ideas about computers as theatre, to the experi-ences of performance company Curious, whose co-creators Leslie Hill andHelen Paris’s work is stored in digital form on the web for continued replayand interaction by distant audiences . . . The possibilities and parallels aboundfor comparison of performance ‘engagement’ across media. The window into‘Pandora’s Box’ which Laurel saw early on as opening with VR, can be seen allthese years later as re-opening with replay culture. Indeed, the performancework experienced in the late 1990s framed the earliest writing about replayculture, whereas other students and colleagues have built upon this work andshown how VR and VE can open the window to experience in the house ofmirrors, and equally, how the house of mirrors that is digital technology hasframed our experiences and engagements with our own images, in ways andto an extent that could not have been predicted even a decade ago.

In this final re-view or reframing as these ideas are about to be committedto print, Janet Murray’s ways of seeing and expressing the layers and decep-tively reflective surfaces of new media come to mind – as penned in her influ-ential book, Hamlet on the Holodeck. There, Murray studied the framings ofdigital technology as a tool that can and (now) has engaged in the continualprocess of reshaping the role and form of narrative environments in ourculture, and in the funhouses of literary representations, or our frameworksfor visual and imaginative representations as expressed in words.

Digital environments are procedural, participatory, spatial, and encyclopedic.The first two properties make up most of what we mean by the vaguely usedword interactive; the remaining two properties help to make digital creationsseem as explorable and extensive as the actual world, making up much ofwhat we mean when we say that cyberspace is immersive.

(Murray 1997)



Murray’s work, like Laurel’s, made an indelible mark in the sand of digitalunderstanding. Both of these critics expressed early and deep understand-ings of the possibilities of the digital in relation to theatre, text, story, per-formance and replayable images.

Looking back, it is possible to see a sense of premonition in their words:for what they recognised in the marking out of VR as a form of theatre, wasa need for documentation of the live within the virtual, and also a need forindividualised routes through the funhouse of VR.

This is the very terrain that the SMARTlab team have explored and builtin recent years, from the assistive technologies that have made both liveperformance and the communication spaces of the digital domain moreaccessible, to the through critical and theoretical explorations of thesedomains made by PhD graduates including Sher Doruff, Anne Nighten,Mary Flanagan, Jools Gilson-Elllis, Helen Paris, Sara Diamond, AxelVogelsang, Chris Hales, Vesna Milanovic and Fiona Wilkie for example (seewww.smartlab.uk.com/docsmarts for full details and abstracts), but alsoand perhaps most strikingly in the very recent PhD submissions of two pre-vious students and long time contributors to the realm of ‘Replay Culture’:for example in the work of Celia Pearce, whose ethnography of self andavatar in the migratory worlds of online gaming and massively multiplayerenvironments broke new ground in the fields of experience design, gamestudies and performance studies simultaneously,8 and also in the remark-able work of Jacki Morie, who has invented a new theoretical framework forunderstanding gendered ways of making and using virtual environmentsbased on years of work in creating archetypal virtual memories and testingthese with audiences using botanical and synthetic scent triggers, soundsand visuals that encourage the viewer to re-frame herself again and again inthe funhouse of what Morie calls VE (virtual environments, or virtual expe-riences) rather than VR . . . There is nothing ‘real’ about it.

As Steve Anderson argued in his work on ‘Past Indiscretions: DigitalArchives and Recombinant History’:

. . . the narrative logics of the database and search engine have resulted in twodivergent movements – one that seeks to articulate a ‘total’ history that is ency-clopedic in scope and rooted in relatively stable conceptions of historical episte-mology; another that exploits digital technology’s potential for randomisationand recombination in order to accommodate increasingly volatile visions of thepast. . . . Both are enabled by the proliferation of digital information systems.

(Anderson 2004)

What we do, how we choose to act and interact and ‘spect-act’, performand play and replay, will differ for each of us, at each moment, and for manypolitical and personal reasons. One thing only is certain: we will be facedwith such choices in real life and in any number of digital or virtual perfor-mative spaces as well – even in our own imaginations and dreams: in thespaces of our own desires.

So we return to the beginning.

8 And it is notinsignificant that CeliaPearce alsosuccessfully defendedher PhD ‘in game’ orin avatar form:demonstrating in realspace and time thatthe role play of avatarpresence is integrallyrelated to the self-conscious craft of theperformance of self ineveryday life.

116 Lizbeth Goodman


The replay/rebound: the final reframing (for now)Even ten years ago, the value of books as saleable commodities was still amajor consideration in the process of academic publication. These days,when every thought is shared online before it hits the page, the controversyis largely removed from my belief that sharing work online was the best wayto engage with updatable, viewable clips from performance. I realise on ret-rospect that the edgy nature of this decision a decade ago was to do withthe times: the then-topical debates about the documentation of live perfor-mance colliding as they did with the period that saw the beginning of theend for major publications, as the status and role of publishing began toshift in the digital age. So today it no longer seems radical to suggest that itmay be fairer, more collaborative and more appropriate to a real-time schol-arly debate about the nature and value of both scholarly performanceresearch and of theatre performance (which required audiences as well asreaders to view it, even if in video-captured format, before they couldrespond) to share work online and to provide online space for responses too.

Years on, the most striking aspect of this ‘debate’ about the page andthe stage, reframed from the end of the era of ‘replay culture’, is this: thestudy of scripted plays as drama has retained its form and focus, as itshould be. The study of live performances in various genres has beenreviewed and reframed by scholarship published in the field of practice-based research and the documentation of performance. The alternative hasindeed become the mainstream and as a result, a different kind of radical-ism is required in thinking and writing about performance in the age of thedigital. So while it now seems sensible, once again, to commit some wordsto the page, it also, simultaneously, seems wise to use the digital stagesand online spaces at our common disposal, to encourage debate and toinvite constant replay of ideas and performance, from many different pointsof view.

As more of our theatres close down or give way to shred venues thathouse myriad forms and events, we may now consider the role of play, andof replay, in live culture generally.

Each of us engages daily with a plethora of media and messages, andthey do not always merge. In fact, the medium of the ‘chatbot’ defies thevery idea of the medium as the message, by showing how new virtual envi-ronments and the AU creatures that inhabit them only appear to learnbehaviours and languages in ways that can seem to respond to us, but areonly, in effect, ‘acting’ (I refer here to the chatbot’ as developed for userinterface and role play games that entrain the ‘bot’ or automated characterin Second Life, for instance, to respond in a ‘learned behaviour’ to thespeaker in the ‘real world’: see Burden 2007: 1). We have moved away fromArtaud’s ‘theatre and its double’ not to ‘life and its double’ but rather, andbeyond, to ‘life and its multiply mirrored others’. Within this new house ofmirrors is reflected and re-reflected the grotesquely exaggerated, and mini-mally reduced, image of self in contemporary society.

Each of us must measure out our own space in that ‘real news’ or ‘per-formance space’ as the case may be.



I remain, at the end of this dive back into replay culture, as thoroughlyengaged and immersed as I was a decade ago, yet also, in the words of JackHanna (expert survivor of life lived in time-shifted attentiveness to thosewhose speech came differently and in its own time), ‘astounded’ to be here,9

astonished at the major shifts in technology of recent years, and equally atthe levels of commitment and energy that scholars, so many, clearly stillhave for reading words on pages rather than screens, at least sometimes.

It is therefore a privilege to share these words, on paper as well asonline, and to challenge thought leaders in many disciplines to share theirown views, perhaps by responding online.10 The point of all research andscholarship is surely about keeping it alive, keeping thoughts relevant. Thepublication of this paper is part of a process of re-engagement, whichbegins with the publication but will now evolve as the ideas here are inter-acted with by others.

The InvitationAnd so to end at the beginning: this paper goes to press, to ink on paper,even as a new media experiment is about to be launched by the SMARTlabteam. This piece will push the limits of the notion of an event in space andtime by performing moments of self for multiple players in real and virtualspace simultaneously.

The team for the next performative research project, called GLAM(Games, Life and Media). has decided to continue with its dedicated opensource and creative commons ethos, and in this instance, to share ‘owner-ship’ of the ideas of this project, and of the avatars, to the vast and as yetuncharted communities of East London: the people who currently livewhere the new Olympic City will be built and whose personal stories andjourneys and histories will be mapped there. The GLAM team is thusdrawing a massive to-scale 3d Pirate Map, to show the real treasures of thesocial networks embedded in the real spaces of these neighbourhoods.These can be analysed and experienced, and will be mapped and mademanifest alongside more official government documents and strategies forthe ‘regeneration’ and ‘build’ projects as the clock ticks on towards 2012.

The team is interested in the legacy, in asking not what will happen for abrief period in 2012, but rather what will be left?

Time will tell. And, as Benjamin predicted, the outcomes of the 2012build, just like the outcomes of our next major performance experimentwith people of mixed ability inter-acting in person and online in many lan-guages and dialects, will challenge the very idea of ownership for this partof London, and for the traditions of its many people, which must ‘be tracedfrom the situation of the original’.

ReferencesAnderson, S. (2004), ‘Past Indiscretions: Digital Archives and Recombinant

History,’ in M. Kinder and T. McPherson (eds.), Interactive Frictions, Berkeley:University of California Press.

9 Jack Hanna, Irishjournalist, was thefather of awardwinning poet DavorenHanna, who diedtragically young ofCerebral Palsy andrelated conditions, yetwho left a legacy ofstrong words onpaper that demanded,and still demand, acertain presence. Thefather described hisastonishment ofsurviving the death ofboth the son and themother and ponderedhis continuingexistence andcontinuing ability towrite words in TheFriendship Tree: aremarkable book, andone that inspiredsome of the practicalperformances andalso the return towriting marked in thispaper.

10 Readers andencouraged torespond and tosuggest futureprojects,collaborations andexperiments via thewiki set up speciallyfor this purpose onthe SMARTlab site).

118 Lizbeth Goodman


Artaud, A. (1958 [1936]), The Theater and its Double (trans M.C. Richards), New York:Grove Press.

Austin, J.L. (1975 [1962]), How to Do Things with Words, Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Barker, C. (1977), Theatre Games, London: Methuen.

Barth, J. (1968), ‘Lost in the Funhouse’, first published Atlantic Monthly, 1968.Reprinted by Doubleday Books, 1968.

Benjamin, W. (1968), The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (essayoriginally published in 1936). Full English text available at: http://web.bentley.edu/empl/c/rcrooks/toolbox/common_knowledge/general_communication/benjamin.html#top (cited 28 September 2007).

Blakely, R. ‘Web Rivals Plot the Answer to Wikipedia’, The Times, Saturday 8Septemer 2007, p. 13.

Boal, A. (1979), Theatre of the Oppressed, London: Pluto Press.

——— (2002), Games for Actors and Non-Actors, London and New York: Routledge.

Burden, D. (2007), ‘SLBots’, Daden Newsletter, Daden Limited. Available at:www.daden.co.uk. Cited 28 September 2007.

Caillois, R. (1962), Man, Play and Games, London: Thames and Hudson.

Castronova, E. (2005a), Synthetic Worlds: The Business and Culture of Online Worlds,Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

——— (1997), ‘Creative Imagination and Media-Assisted Learning’, in Literary andLinguistic Computing, Oxford University Press: Oxford (print and electronic forms).

Goodman, L. and de Gay, J. (eds.) (1999), The Routledge Reader in Gender andPerformance, London and New York: Routledge.

——— (2000), The Routledge Reader in Politics and Performance, London and NewYork: Routledge (later translated to Japanese).

——— (2002), Languages of Theatre Shaped by Women, Exeter: Intellect Books.

Goodman, L. and Kuppers, S. (2002), ‘Virtual Interactive Puppetry’, in Leonardo,Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Goodman, L., Tony, C. and Huw, W. (1998), ‘BBC – The Multimedia Bard: Pluggedand Unplugged’, in New Theatre Quarterly, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, Vol. 14, No. 53, pp. 20–42.

Goodman, L. and Perlin, K. (2002a) ‘The Butterfly Project: Summary Paper’ LizbethGoodman with Ken Perlin, in Ruth Aylett and Cañamero, L. (eds.), ConferenceProceedings: Animating Expressive Characters, Imperial College London, pp. 43–44with interactive DVD of project performance documentation available upon request.

Goodman, L. (2002b), Creativity and Innovation: Ways Forward for the EuropeanUnion in Cross-Sector and Interdisciplinary International Partnerships, EC finalreport for the RADICAL project.

Goodman, L., et al. (2003a), ‘SPIRITLEVEL: Making & Using “SMART” ToolsIntegrating Intelligent Systems & Performance Technologies to Connect andEmpower Creative Spirits in Shared and Distant Spaces’, in G. Craddock (ed.),Assistive Technology: Shaping the Future, IOS Press: Amsterdam, pp. 89–97.

Goodman, L. and Milton, K. (eds.) (2003b), A Guide to Good Practice in New MediaContent and Tools Creation (by and for artists in the cultural sector). Publishedonline by HEFCE/AHDS in 2003, print edition following best practice citationfor this volume published by King’s College London, Office for HumanitiesCommunications Publications number 18, 2005.



Goodman, L. and Brian D., et al. (2005), Anima Obscura, IBC Amsterdam.

——— (2007a), ‘Performing in the Wishing Tense: SMARTlab’s Evolution on Stage,Online and in the Sand’ – memorial issue for Clive Barker, in New TheatreQuarterly, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, NTQ92, Vol. 31, No. 4,pp. 352–375.

Goodman, L. with Donegan, M., Kennedy, H., Palmer-Brown, D. Zhang, L. (2007b),‘InterFACES: Affective Interactive Virtual Learning & Performance Environmentsfor People with Physical & Cognitive Disabilities – Playing the Eyeflute’, Leonardo(MIT Press) special issue on Mutamorphosis, Conference Proceedings/publication,November 2007.

Goodman, L. with Perlin, K., Duffy, B., Brehm, K., Castiglia, C. and Kollin, J. (2008),‘The Butterfly Effect: Dancing with Real and Virtual Expressive Characters’ fullproject paper, in Ruth Aylett and Cañamero, L. (eds.), Animating ExpressiveCharacters for Social Interactions, John Benjamins Press, ISBN 1 902956 25 6,pp. 182–207.

Grotowski, J. (2002), Towards a Poor Theatre, London and New York: Routledge.

Hanna, J. (1996), The Friendship Tree: The Life and Poems of Davoren Hanna, Dublin:New Island Books.

Laurel, B. (1991), Computers as Theatre, Cambridge, MA: Adison-Wesley Press.

——— (2004), Design Research: Methods and perspectives, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lillo-Martin, D. and William, S. (1991), ‘Cross-Linguistic Study of Early Syntax’,University of Connecticut and Haskins Laboratories, 1991.

Murray, J. (1997), Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace,Cambridge: MIT Press.

McKevitt, P. (ed.) (1995), ‘Integration of Natural Language and Vision Processing’,Language + Vision: AI Review, 9: 5/6.

Owens, W.R. and Goodman, L. (eds.) (1996), Shakespeare, Aphra Behn & the Canon,London and New York: Routledge, published with an original series of BBC TVprogrammes, audio and video cassettes.

Phelan, P. (1993), Unmarked: the Politics of Performance, Routledge: London andNew York.

Phillips, A. (1998), Out of Time, Hull: Time- Based Arts Publications.

Poulter, C. (1987), Playing the Game, London: MacMillan/Palgrave.

Ross, J. (1997), The Semantics of Media, Dordrecth: Kluwer.

Sudol, J., Duffy, B.R., Goodman, L., Brosnan, J. and Riedel, J. (2006), ‘PLAYBOX: AFlexible Framework for All’, VR and Motor Disorders, 8th InternationalConference on Virtual Reality, 27 April 2006, Laval, France.

Wollen, P. (1993), Raiding the Icebox: Reflections on Twentieth-Century Culture,Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 35–72.

Suggested citationGoodman, L. (2007), ‘Performing self beyond the body: Replay culture replayed’,

International Journal of Performance Arts and digital Media 3: 2&3, pp. 103–121,doi: 10.1386/padm.3.2&3.103/1

Contributor detailsLizbeth Goodman is Chair in Creative Technology Innovation at the University ofEast London, where she is also founder and Director of the SMARTlab Digital MediaInstitute and the MAGIC Multimedia & Games Innovation Centre. She is also

120 Lizbeth Goodman


Director of Studies for the UEL practice-based PhD programme in Performance &Digital Media: a large cohort of professional artists and engineers conducting col-laborative research into the transdisciplinary fields of technology development andperforming arts, e-health, e-inclusion, wearable tech, virtual environments, hapticsand ‘artsci’. Her main field of speciality is the creation of performances, workshopsand learning games developed WITH, not only for, people with disabilities and ‘non-standard gamers’ including communities of women, children, and young people atrisk in the ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ worlds. Contact: Professor LizbethGoodman, Chair in Creative Technology Innovation, SMARTlab, University of EastLondon, 4–6 University Way, London, E16 2RD, UK.E-mail: [email protected]





Performing in (virtual) spaces:Embodiment and being in virtual environments

Jacquelyn Ford Morie University of Southern California

AbstractThis paper focuses on how the body has been recontextualised in the age ofdigital technology, especially through the phenomenon of Virtual Reality, andspecifically on fully immersive VR environments made as art or performativeinstallations. It discusses the progress\ion in form and function from otherdigital media or ‘cybermedia’ to fully immersive virtual environments (VEs).This paper attempts to explicate the specialised and intrinsic qualities of ‘Being’in immersive VEs, and how it impacts both the experience of the embodiedperson in the virtual environment, and our thinking about everyday reality. Theunique state of Being in immersive VEs has created a paradigm shift in whathumans are now able to experience, and affects how we understand our embod-ied selves in an increasingly digital world. Because of this, the contributions ofvisual and performance artists to VE’s continued development is key to how wewill know and comprehend ourselves in the near and far future as creaturesexisting in both the physical and the digital domains. The paper draws upontwenty years as a professional Virtual Reality ‘maker’ who has trained in bothComputer Science and in Art, and finds fascinating affinities between these dis-ciplines in the space of the VE where people and performers interact in newembodied modalities.

Part 1. Rethinking the body in the digital age

The body is the zero point of the world. There. Where paths and spaces cometo meet, the body is nowhere. Michel Foucault Utopian Body.

(2006: 233)

A number of late twentieth century theorists, as well as practitioners ofdigital art, have reconsidered the significance of the body in the digital age.For some, the ‘meat shell’ – or physical aspect – of the body is no longerrelevant. Australian performance artist Stellarc, who accoutres his meatshell with numerous physical and digital devices, has proclaimed his desireto replace all the internal parts of his body with mechanical or electronicsubstitutes. Hans Moravec, a prominent roboticist at Carnegie Mellon,


Keywordsvirtual realityvirtual environmentsimmersivepresence performanceartembodimentBeingrole play

PADM_3-(2-3)_04-MORIE 11/27/07 5:24 PM Page 123

promotes the concept of downloading the essence of the human mind intoa computer, so one may live forever. However, technology is not infallible.Beyond the fact that most computers have life spans that do not even reachthat of a half-grown child, what of long-term maintenance? Will there be anarmy of servant bodies left behind to tend to the machine-encapsulatedbrains? Or worse yet, human slaves? Or, will the machines simply be pro-grammed to tend to themselves until the inevitable post-apocalyptic powerfailure? Then wither the no longer electrically sustained silicon-embeddedminds?

I believe, as Erik Davis has stated, that these ideas could be seen as‘symptoms of an arrogant and deadly rift with nature’. Our meat shell isthat which connects us to the natural world most directly. To deny it is tobreak not only with what we know but also with how we know.

Body as meat can be contrasted with the concept of body as containerfor information, promoted by Katherine Hayles in How We BecamePosthuman. As many feminist critics assert, Hayles maintains that bodyconcepts reflect gender differences at their core and that the body is afemale concept; disembodiment is a male one. Direct sensory input ismessy, the ‘wetware’ limited and confining (which according to Hayles par-allels the state of women in society), whereas the realms of thought andsilicon are clean and noble. Yet, Hayles says that today’s situation movesus beyond this dichotomy, starting to fuse these ideas. Describing this asthe age when we became posthuman, she recognizes that the body is anintegral part of an ‘information/material circuit that includes human andnonhuman components, silicon chips as well as organic tissue, bits ofinformation as well as bits of flesh and bone’. The virtual body needs bothaspects: ‘the ephemerality of information and the solidity of physicality or,depending on one’s viewpoint, the solidity of information and theephemerality of flesh’ (Hayles 1996).

Neither has modern science lent much credence to the ‘arrogant rift’ ofStellarc, Moravec and their similarly minded colleagues. The cognitive sci-ences, strongly influenced by recent findings from neuroscience, is support-ing and justifying a mind/body union, finding extreme interdependenciesbetween our brain’s development and our embodied human state. Inpointed terms, there would be no mind as we know it without the body thatengenders, contains and nurtures it.

This move away from mind as a computer where neurons equate toelectronic circuitry, has begun to take hold in philosophy as well. Lakoff andJohnson’s foundational work The Philosophy of Mind brings this debate to aclear resolution, which echoes the neuroscience findings:

There is no such thing as a computational person, whose mind is like com-puter software, able to work on any suitable computer or neurological hard-ware . . . Real people have embodied minds whose conceptual systems arisefrom, are shaped by, and are given meaning through living human bodies.

(1999)

124 Jacquelyn Ford Morie


Such arguments deflate the concepts of such notable philosophers as Kant(‘no autonomous person’), Frege (detached thought not based on mind orbody) and Chomsky (language as pure form) and such movements as post-structuralism (no decentred monolithic self, whose meaning is only rele-vant to a particular milieu).

Phenomenologists, from Husserl to Merleau-Ponty, have also broughtthe body back into the picture, and their concepts of embodiment havehad tremendous influence on diverse areas of thought, from cognitivescience to the arts. But only recently, with the bridge of cognitive scienceadopting empirically derived knowledge about the inner workings of ourbrains from neuroscience, has there been any means of vetting the philo-sophical theories.

It seems clear that all prior philosophical schools of thought have beenbased on a priori assumptions, and not empirical data. Cognitive science, acontinuum of related disciplines ranging from the more pragmatic computerand neurosciences on one end to psychology and philosophy on the other,now brings a degree of empiricism into philosophical discourse. It has itselfgone through an evolution paralleling, in some sense, that of philosophicalconstructs that have to do with the mind. According to Lakoff and Johnson,the first generation of cognitive science was based on symbolic computa-tional systems, such as computers. It is logical that this phase developed inthe 1950s and 60s. They argue that such concepts were in synch with the‘Anglo-American philosophy’ of the time, and were informed by the domainsof ‘early artificial intelligence, information-processing psychology, formallogic, generative linguistics, and early cognitive anthropology’. Moravec wasa first generation cognitive scientist. Succeeding generations of cognitivescientists subscribe less and less to the mind-body duality.

When findings from neuroscience about the mind-body connectionbegan to be published, it became evident that many assumptions on whichearly cognitive science was built could no longer be justified. Chief amongthose findings was the understanding that our brain and its functioning,structure and ability to reason is based on the actions of the body, and thatabsent such a body there can be no mind as we know it. Antonio Damasioand other neuroscientists (Edelman, LeDoux and Schacter) have shownhow far from the mark the prophets of disembodiment are. The body andwhat it does, how it experiences the world, is responsible for the compli-cated interweaving of neuronal connections in our brain, out of which ourmind – and perhaps consciousness itself – is constructed. Twenty-firstcentury science has only confirmed that corporeal intelligence translatesdirectly into our mental intelligence.

More evidence from philosophy shows that even our most basic linguis-tic/mental concepts are built upon metaphors so deeply integrated into ourembodied self that they are taken for granted. Phrases such as: life is ajourney, these two names are close, face your problems, grasping theconcept, I see what you mean, or weighed down by grief, all originate in alived body experience. The discourse between science and philosophy is

125Performing in (virtual) spaces: Embodiment and being in virtual environments


finding mutual benefit, and as Lakoff says, science promises to give usinsight into philosophy in three important ways. It can provide conceptualanalysis, critical assessment, and a means of constructive philosophicaltheorizing’.

Part 2. The body emplaced within the virtualThe phenomenological discussion and its focus on the lived experienceleads directly into one of the quintessential qualities of virtual environ-ments (VEs). Because our bodies must be emplaced within the virtualspace, VEs constitute a distinctive medium of embodiment. VEs engage thebody as kinaesthetic input via the specialised interface devices that not onlypermit but require bodily actions to be performed sensorially, kinaestheti-cally, proprioceptively – within a full 3D spatial, yet virtual construct.

When our perception is mediated by the VR equipment yet seems soreal, we must reconsider what does and does not constitute a mediatedenvironment. VR expert and psychologist Jack Loomis has equated this tothe unaware state most people have of their everyday embodied existence:

The perceptual world created by our senses and the nervous system is sofunctional a representation of the physical world that most people live outtheir lives without ever suspecting that contact with the physical world ismediated . . .

(1992)

Now that we can experience technologically mediated experiences withinvirtual environments, the mediated nature of our natural world must be re-examined. VR philosopher Frank Biocca says that our previous compla-cency has been shattered by the onset of VEs. Yet this state allows us tobetter understand the basis of immediate experience.

The relationship between the body and experience is direct and immedi-ate, even entwined. Our body becomes the vehicle for sensory experience –that body which has itself been formed of experience. The body shapes whowe become by compelling our neurons to form their intricate and scintillat-ing patterns of connectivity. Experience affects how we think, feel andunderstand our place in the external world, and it does this by forming themind by which we make sense of it.

The body and the space it occupies are part of the full experiential equa-tion. Merleau-Ponty describes it thusly:

Experience discloses beneath objective space, in which the body eventuallyfinds its place, a primitive spatiality of which experience is merely the outercovering and which merges with the body’s very being. To be a body, is to betied to a certain world. Our body is not primarily in space: it is of it.

(2002)

While virtual environment technology still suffers from lack of access by thegeneral public (due to its historical roots in militaristic strongholds and



concomitant high cost) those who have been fortunate to experience com-pelling virtual environments have been put in touch with something won-drous and expansive. An early, yet pivotal example is the Placeholder project,done in the early 1990s by Brenda Laurel, Rachel Strickland and team,which is arguably one of the most embodied virtual experiences ever to becreated.

Placeholder directly recalls Donna Haraway’s notion of our relationshipto other gendered creatures. (Haraway 1985) In Placeholder you are embod-ied, but not as a human being. You take on the persona and characteristicsof one of four totemic animals: spider, crow, snake or fish, performing fromtheir point of view, speaking in their voice, seeing with their eyes and evenleaving messages in the virtual world for others to find. The human body isthus transformed, or, as Hayles says, ‘resurfaced and reconfigured by itsinterface with the technology’. This reconfiguration, even if not directed atperforming other species, is nonetheless necessitated by one’s emplace-ment within the virtual environment, in both the embodied and cognitivesense. The space and the ontological framework of the space we experienceis an extremely seductive form of reality.

Part 3. The isochronic structure of emplacementIn immersive environments we are embodied – this is one of their hall-marks – yet, we know little about the body that is experiencing the virtualenvironment. Any investigation into this dualistic phenomenon will surelyraise more questions than it can answer. Where do we position the bodythat the participant leaves behind in the room? It is the living body, as itexists, breathes and continues working where it is situated, but it is not thelived body, which is experiencing the world within the virtual environment.The VE experient possesses knowledge of two simultaneous bodies. This istrue whether there is a virtual body image or not, or whether there is director interpreted mappings of navigation and movement.

The act of emplacing one’s body within the immersive environment sig-nifies a shift to a dualistic existence in two simultaneous bodies. VR pioneerMarcos Novak (in Palumbo 2000) calls the body the ‘threshold betweentwo worlds’ and there is much evidence to support this view.

Many VR critics have described how participants enter into the world ofthe virtual and leave their bodies ‘behind’. I believe that participants do notactually leave their bodies behind, even though to a bystander or spectatorthe physical body may seem to be a form of shed detritus in the room. Thebody of the participant is synchronously subsumed into the virtual self thatenters into the world within the screen, which is created in the mind fromwhat the body experiences. Entering into a territory that is not quite imagi-nal, and yet not fully based in solid physicality, the self becomes subsumed,bodily, consciously and subconsciously – dancing with the created space-for-becoming.

Ontologically, simultaneous Being within the real and the virtual worldsis a situation humans rarely experience, even if one considers the phenom-enal states shamans enter into in performance of their ritual duties. Much



of the intrinsic nature of Being in an immersive virtual environment under-scores this profound phenomenological shift. In a virtual environment, ourself exists within a space that in itself does not exist, but that our sensesreadily believe is there. In our lifetimes, no greater change of Being hastaken place than this duality of existence at our command.

The lived body has bifurcated and become two. What does this imply forthe lived body? Does it inhabit both spaces equally? Do the isochronalembodiments affect our conscious Being equally? An actor ‘bodies forth’(in performance terms) the character he or she is playing in a play or film.Does a VE participant ‘body in’ to the virtual construction? Are we semi-embodied in a virtual environment, or dually so, ontologically speaking? Arethese diacritical states of embodiment, or complementary?

We are inside the virtual yet we are also aware that we are still in thephysical world. I believe this is the quandary that makes the concept of pres-ence1 so elusive. At some level we are aware of our dual perceptions, andbecause of this it takes an extraordinary amount of connection to the virtualexperience to overcome, or momentarily forget, this dualistic state of Being.It is more than a simple ‘willing suspension of disbelief’. Such a feeling canhappen in Csikszentmihalyi’s famous state of flow (Csikszentmihalyi 1997),but the conditions that can bring us to it are far from predictable. I believethat while this sense of presence is the ultimate goal of many virtual envi-ronments, the experient may also have meaningful experiences whilst stillaware of the bifurcated nature of this self-ness (Figure 1).

It is true that we have material bodies and that these bodies ‘think’within their embodiment, yet, as Merleau-Ponty explains: ‘We actualise sep-arately from the physical body, the body of the anatomists or even theorganism of the physiologist, all of which are abstractions, snapshots takenfrom the functional body’ (1962). Experiencing the immersive virtual envi-ronment, our functional body is within, yet the physical body is not simplyplaying the role of a snapshot; it remains the context for our functioning.

Kathleen Rogers, a United Kingdom-based artist whose immersive VRworks include the series Sleepless Dreaming, describes this bodily displace-ment phenomenon within her work:

1 Presence is a specificterm used by virtualreality researchers toindicate the statewhere one believesthat the computermediated world isreal, to the exclusionof the physical world.Much work has goneinto trying to findwhat induces a fullstate of presence.


Figure 1: The bifurcated self – existing isochronically in both thereal and the virtual worlds.


Sleepless Dreaming is composed of computer model houses and interiorsthat a participant could navigate through to experience the gravitationalparadox and the heart of VR. In this work a participant was in effect in twospaces simultaneously. In the real world of the gallery, and moving along arecurrent corridor of rooms navigating through doorways, along walls andinto a void.

(2006)

Experiencing a virtual environment provides what Maria Palumbo calls anopening for ‘a new interrogation of the world and ourselves, and, conse-quently, the possibility of imagining other possible kinds of space, otherpossible ways of being a body-that-becomes-space’.

Part 4. Representation: the imaged forms of embodimentOnce we are in the virtual environment, what form do we take? In immer-sive VR the physical body itself is shielded from the view by the VR headmounted display. Early VRs at first made do with the simple representationof a disembodied hand, correlated to a physical hand encased in an instru-mented glove. Within the virtual space, one saw this representational handfloating out in front of the computed ‘eye position’. Moving one’s realfinger caused a similar motion to occur with the virtual hand. Later theimage was expanded to a crude but full body image correlated to the physi-cal body’s location in virtual space via a tracking system connected to thehead display.

These bodily representations, called avatars (a name borrowed fromHindu mythology, where it denotes the incarnation of a spiritual being intobodied form), are more graphically sophisticated today, though not yet tothe level of photorealism. The question these visuals raise is not how realthey look, but whether they are helpful or distracting to the experient in aVR world. VR practitioners agree there is no single answer to this question.In his foundational article, The Cyborg’s Dilemma (1997), Frank Biocca dis-cusses evolutionary consequences engendered by the avatar concept andthe way we perceive ourselves in a virtual environment. He contends thatwe have been moving towards ever-more digital representations of our‘self’ – a ‘progressive embodiment’ of which virtual reality is the mostadvanced and sophisticated example.

Michael Heim, noted philosopher of VR, asks what form the cyber bodyshould take. He questions the range of representation, from a detachedhand to a full body, to no image at all: ‘should users feel themselves to beheadless fields of awareness, similar to phenomenological experience?’

How are users best immersed in virtual environments? I mean this from atechnical-ontological point of view. Should users feel totally immersed? Thatis, should they forget themselves as they see, hear, and touch the world inmuch the same way as we deal with the primary phenomenological world?(We cannot see our own heads – just part of our noses – in the phenomeno-logical world.) Or should users be allowed and encouraged to see themselves



as cyberbodies? Should they be able to see themselves over their own shoul-ders? Should they be aware of the primary bodies as separate entities outsidethe graphic environment? Should they be able to see other primary bodiesinteracting with virtual entities? Or should they suspend physical experience?Should we see the primary bodies of others in virtual worlds, or does telep-resence mean that we will never be certain of the society we keep, how muchof it is illusory or artificial? Should we make up the avatars that represent usor be given various identity options by the software designers?

(1998)

The selection of a body image within virtual environments is not simply anaesthetic choice; it incurs distinct effects on the structure of one’s percep-tions within the experience, and therefore on the overall qualities of theencounter. Our experience is very much influenced by how we perceive ourself, and yet, within most immersive environments, as they exist today, thischoice is still made by the VE designer.2 Neuroscientist Antonio Damasioreminds us how acutely our thought processes are informed by our (realand now virtual) bodies:

. . . the body as represented in the brain, may constitute the indispensableframe of reference for the neural processes that we experience as the mind;that our very organism rather than some absolute experiential reality is usedas the ground reference for the constructions we make of the world around usand for the construction of the ever-present sense of subjectivity that is partand parcel of our experiences; that our most refined thoughts and bestactions, our greatest joys and deepest sorrows, use the body as a yardstick.

(1994)

Modern neuroscientists view the body as the primary shaper of neuronalconnections constituting our brains, which, in some as yet-to-be-deter-mined way, create our minds and even our human essence. It also containsthe grammar of experiencing, rule bound by its sensory apparatus andneural underpinnings, networks and connections. It provides not only ourspatial but also our temporal locus, and we may well question how alter-nate forms of experiential representations in the virtual domain will influ-ence and perhaps change our mental development? Answers to thesequeries are the domain of future researchers as the numbers of virtual envi-ronments reach a critical mass; for now we can simply enumerate theforms of representations and how they are experienced.

The primary modes of embodied expressions in contemporary VEs,delineated by Heim (above) and others, include no avatar, a mirrored self, apartial or full graphical personification and an observer’s view of a graphicalavatar that represents the self. I will discuss aspects of these as they relateto our ontological nature as emplaced in the immersive environment.

No avatar: The simplest means of representation is no representation atall. This is the first person point of view. The environment appears asthough seen through our own eyes. The views in the virtual world are

2 Most avatars in VR, ifthey exist at all, arenot customisable,though the myriadrepresentationalpossibilities inherentin digital games mayexert a stronginfluence on futuredecisions aboutrepresentational formin virtualenvironments.



computed with the camera lenses situated at the approximate location ofeach eye (as there is a wide range in the actual physical parameters of eachexperient). This corresponds to the mental model we have of the self thatinhabits the physical world, but in a virtual form within virtual space.

While we are perceptually aware of our physical bodies (seeing the nosein our field of view as Heim mentioned, or even looking down and seeingour laps), not having a representational body is not usually disconcerting.The exception is when we consciously look to see ourselves and don’t, forexample, when we look down to ensure correct placement of our feet upona stair, and we see no corresponding virtual foot to place. As Bruce Wilshireexplains, ‘. . . in perception it is only because the body is perceptuallyengaged with the perceivable world that the world is perceived at all, yet it isonly because the body gives way to this world beyond it (it is not focally per-ceived itself) that perception of the world can occur’ (Wilshire 1982) (empha-sis mine).

Many immersive environments use this mode of (non)representation.Char Davies’ worlds fall into this category, as they are specifically designedto take one outside of the ordinary body, even while using aspects of thephysical body (i.e. breathing) to navigate the environment. She says herwork is meant to ‘. . . reaffirm the role of the living physical body in immer-sive virtual space as subjective experiential ground’ (Davies 1995). Shebelieves having a body representation would interfere with the connectionto the physical body. This type of (non)imaged embodiment can allow oneto remain in touch with their inner conception of their own native, imag-ined self. This is the underlying premise for my own virtual environments,which also use this first-person point of view.

Some VR critics have a very different view of the non-representationalform of Being in virtual environments. Writing in the early days of VR,Nell Tenhaaf (1996) calls the human in concert with the VR experience a‘bioapparatus’, and argues that the ‘absence of representation’ in VEs iswhat allows them to seem unmediated, and produces a ‘new order oftranscendence’.

The mirrored self: This form presents the participant with a view ofhimself as captured (typically) by video cameras or other devices that keeptrack of the body movements of an individual. Few VEs have yet to fullyemploy the mirrored self, with one prominent exception. Myron Krueger,pioneer of immersivity,3 believes the human body to be the ultimate interfacebetween the mind and the machine. He insists the body of the participant beunencumbered, and has worked for many years to build interactive mediabased on this philosophy. In Krueger’s installations, the movement andactions of the body alone cause the desired results to occur, by integratingmirrored representations of participants. The body image presented inKruger’s work is typically a single colour, flat field video silhouette of the par-ticipant, seen by him (and others) on a screen at the same time as he moveshis own body(Krueger 1983). The mirrored image is intuitive, in that we havebecome accustomed to such representations of self since we first learned torecognise ourselves in a mirror.4 It is nevertheless a dualistic form, though,

3 Krueger startedworking inunencumbered fullbody computerapplications in the1960s before virtualreality was named aconcept. He coinedhis own term for hiswork – artificial reality– and later wrote abook by that name,espousing his ideas.His term never caughton, rather JaronLanier’s term, virtualreality, became theaccepted designationfor immersiveenvironments.

4 Kreuger’s work bringsto mind Lacan’sconcept of the child’sfirst experiences withmirror, and how theseencounters help formthe image of self.Krueger’s work isextremely attractive tochildren and adultsalike, not only for, Isuspect, its playfulqualities, but also dueto the mirror imagepresent during theinteractions.



separating the representation from the physical body spatially, but not tem-porally. Such a representation is isochronic with the physical body.

Graphical personification (partial, whole): When a body image is used, itraises a more ontological question concerning the nature of that image andits correspondence to the experient’s own body. Unlike Krueger’s videoimage that was a spatial translation of the ‘own body’ some VR creatorselect to use a spatially coincident graphical avatar for the body representa-tion. In other words, the avatar appears to be in the space occupied by theperson’s mental construct of where they are in the VE.

Designers are not yet able to create a specialised image for each indi-vidual without a great deal of advance planning, and therefore use a generic3D model. The design of this model is up to the creator of the work whocan decide to make it humanoid or not, or limit the representation to asingle gender, whereby one could find their female self housed in a male-modelled body.5

Third person/observed avatar: In this form of embodied image the partic-ipant takes on an embodied image at an experiential locus that is outsidetheir perceptual self. An avatar appears, at some distance out in front of theexperient’s physical and imaginal locus. It is obviously related and con-nected to the experient, in that its motions and actions may be controlledby the participant’s actions and corresponding decisions. This is whatFreud might call the ‘observer’ or third person view as opposed to the ‘field’or self view.

This form of body image is most common in games, where playerscontrol an avatar to move through the objectives of the game world, but itis far less common in immersive virtual environments. Rebecca Allen doesuse this form of representation in her Bush Soul series of virtual environ-ments, allowing the participant to inhabit the 3rd person view/body of anintelligent virtual agent. The graphical depiction of this agent is not ahuman form, but a set of swirling geometric shapes that twirl and spin asthe experient directs it, via a force-feedback joystick, across the colourfulvirtual bush landscape. In fact, however, Allen’s design allows the avatarsome autonomy. While the experient provides suggestions to the character,ultimately it may not fully follow those directions. The avatar/agent has itsown intrinsic behaviour set that can take precedence during the experience(Allen 2000). This situation sets up a phenomenal dichotomy that ques-tions whether I myself, or another controls me. In fact, one of Allen’s statedresearch goals for this series was to investigate the relationship betweenthe avatar and the human.

Shared environments: In shared virtual realities, there is also the ques-tion of the representation of others in the environment with the experient. Arepresentation of some form seems mandatory, for absent it, the worldswill appear empty. This poses a larger question: how are forms of self andother determined? Are there guidelines that might govern how we see rep-resentations of self and others in shared spaces?

Benedikt maintains that participants should have a body representation.His Principle of Personal Visibility (1991: 177–179) actually addresses two

5 This was a state Ifound myself inrecently. In one demoworld, I had an avatarrepresentation thatwas a graphicalhuman figure. When Ilooked down at myvirtual body, however,I found I was a malefigure, and a nakedone at that!



rules of visibility: that you must project an image within the digital realm,and you must have the right to decide which others in the environment youwant to see. (This strikes an odd note in the name of privacy. If I must bevisible to everyone, but I can turn off representations of others, then otherscan turn off my representation. This seems to defeat the purpose of havinga representation at all, and in any case it works only for realms of the virtualthat are truly shared spaces). Part of his rationale for this is to fosteraccountability in cyberspace and to nullify voyeurism, but curiously, he sug-gests a ‘small blue sphere’ as a minimal presence marker for cyberspacedenizens. In spite of a shared space, he argues for a way to be alone, byturning off the representations of others. What if that is done, but otherscan still see you? What sort of snobbery might they conclude is behindbeing ignored by that out-of-touch blue ball?

Private, meaningful, immersive worlds are my primary interest here, so Iwill conclude with a few more thoughts on the subject of self-representationwithin them. A form and metaphor of my body icon that I cannot controlmay compete with my own inner representation of self in inhabiting thisenvironment. In such cases, it may be better to have nothing at all. AsDavies’ work shows, the virtual environment becomes a sacrosanct enceinte;a sacred, encompassing space, where mind transcends body even as it refer-ences the body, felt organism even in visual absence. This body, as felt phe-nomenon, is how we know the world, true as much within the virtual as inthe real. To have no body icon might even be perceived as an antidote to thecommodification of the body in our consumerist, product-saturated world.

Finally, from the phenomenological standpoint, while Merleau-Pontyviews the body as ‘the common texture of which objects are woven’ (1964),he never had to grapple with new forms of immaterial bodies beyond thephenomenal, nor with questions about how we might weave new forms of‘common texture’ from them. This is up to us.

Part 5. Role playing and performance within VEsRole-playing is direct since it engages both the physical and cognitive ele-ments of our psyche. Anyone entering into a virtual world is, by default,playing a role. At the most basic level, he is playing the role of one willing,or unafraid, to enter into a technically mediated environment.

More importantly, the user is also playing the role that the virtual envi-ronment imposes on him by the VE. In Placeholder, as mentioned, each par-ticipant takes on an animal persona such as a snake, bird, spider or fish. Tofully enter into the role, they must act like the creature whose form theyinhabit. Josephine Anstey’s ‘Thing’ character in her VE work The ThingGrowing (2000), compels you to play a starring role opposite itself: astrange and fickle creature you have freed from its prison, who is at firstgrateful and then becomes increasingly demanding.

In any virtual environment that asks the participant to be other than hisnatural self, he must play along with the role to get the most out of theexperience. What happens, however, if the person is at odds with that role?In my VE DarkCon, which had a military theme, the mission briefing gave



some participants an aversion to playing the lead role of the scout directedto find information. We found people wanted to able to choose – even in anersatz discovery mission – to play different parts. One participant wantedto be able to see the world through the eyes of a refugee; others thought itwould be more helpful to achieving the mission’s goals to be inside themind of one of the suspected rebels.

Role-playing in virtual environments ties neatly into Brenda Laurels’concept of computers as theatre (Laurel 1991) and relates directly to otherperformative aspects of virtual environments. The word performance con-jures images of the theater, which itself comes from the Greek word the-atron, a place for seeing, not simply in the sense of watching, but also asthe deeper meaning to see – to behold, grasp or understand. Post-human-ist theorists maintain that interaction with our technologies allows us togain new understandings of our self. Immersive virtual environmentsproffer exceptional insights, through expanded concepts of body and iden-tity and understanding of essence, agency and meaning in life.

In real life we put on different personas to perform specific social roles.These are often referred to as masks. Within private, immersive virtual envi-ronments, we most often (though not always, depending on the maker’sintent) play ourselves. Viewed thus, virtual environments become not somuch a mask waiting to be put on, as an enabling methodology, allowingus to cast aside the social masks that everyday conduct requires. Despitesome having equated the HMD to a physical mask, it can actually serve inreverse, a mask that removes other masks. Because of this, I view the per-formance within the virtual environment more as a metaphorical door thatleads to an understanding of a private and personal self.

The view available to the observer of a person wearing VR gear is that ofthe physical body as a text, the body as performer of the virtual experiencefor the enjoyment of others. This is a very different kind of performancethan the first person one from within the virtual environment. Many partic-ipants in virtual experiences are not aware they are performing in a dualmode. However, there are few instances where a participant is alone whilein the environment; most often others are watching, listening and maythemselves be involved with either facilitating or observing. At some level,the participant knows this to be the case. Such knowledge can engenderactions that the participant intends to be seen. Yet, if the experience createsdeep involvement on cognitive and emotional levels, then the experientmay become much less aware of their body’s physical performance.

If an experience is convincing and meaningful, the experient primarilyperforms the text of the experience, and not the reflexive meta-text ofherself experiencing the VE. This private performance requires no audiencesave the performer, observing the inwardly focused experience.

In many forms of new media, the performance aspects have a functionalrole. Grounding virtual environments in embodied performances gives riseto particular phenomenological issues, some of which may share philo-sophical territory with other forms of embodied performance, such asritual, performance art, theatrical or social roles.



Perhaps the most salient example of a private, performative experienceis Char Davies’ Osmose. Davies says the ‘Osmose swallows the participants –suitably swathed in electronic gear – into a sensuous, luminous, and deeplyenveloping dreamworld of cloud forests, dark pools and verdant canopies’.(in Erik Davis 1998). Yet Osmose is unique in that is promotes both publicand private forms of performance. Not only is the experience itself soengaging that it ‘swallows’ the experient, Davies also allows an externalaudience to observe the Osmose participant behind a screen, as a silhouetteengaged in her personal performance. Davies shrewdly imbricates both per-formative aspects in exhibiting her work, and resolves any speculative con-flicts thusly:

. . . Osmose is a powerful example of how technological environments cansimulate something like the old animist immersion in the World Soul,organic dreamings that depend, in power and effect, upon the ethereal fire.Besides pointing to a healing use of virtual technologies, Osmose alsoreminds us how intimate we are with electronics, in sight and sound, in bodyand psyche. (ibid.)

Part 6. Performance, rituals and rites de passagePerformances in general, and VE performative possibilities in particular, canhave meaningful and significant effects on those who perform. Victor Turner(1979) cites experimental theatre evangelist Jerzy Grotowski’s concept of thetheater as a platform for a modern rite of passage, where the stage is doneaway with, and the spectator becomes a participant in a liminal activity.According to Turner, Grotowski’s concept goes so far as to imply the partici-pants in his theatre will discover their essential selves through these ritualis-tic performances without standard theatrical boundaries.

Unlike Grotowski, noted performance researcher Richard Schechnerdoes not disallow the separate audience within theatre’s ritualistic func-tions. In Ritual, Play and Performance (1976), he explains the ‘efficacy/ritual –entertainment/theater’ as a general form of performance that embraces

the impulse to be serious and to entertain; to collect meanings and to passthe time; to display symbolic behaviour that actualises ‘there and then’ and toexist only ‘here and now’; to be oneself and to play at being others; to be in atrance and to be conscious; to get results and to fool around; to focus theaction on and for a select group sharing a hermetic language, and to broad-cast to the largest possible audiences of strangers who buy a ticket.

Virtual environments have much in common with Schechner’s form oftheatre, but those that are meaningful and private are closer to Grotowski’sconcept. For now these ritualistic forms of virtual environments are notcommon (Osmose and Ephémère excepted), but nonetheless important inwhat human needs they address.

Phenomenology and semiotics are two ways of looking at a thing. Thefirst embraces the corporeal body; the latter makes of it a sign, even within



its lived state. The symbol and the experience cannot co-exist temporally. Inliving, in our direct experience, we are unaware of our meaning. It is onlywhen we put on the distancing goggles with their semiotic lenses that wecan observe the signs engendered by that experience. The views are com-plementary, but not congruent. We move back and forth between thesemodes, experiencing and assimilating, in an endless dialogue that informswho we are, and how we will respond to the next experience.

Ritual action, with its intrinsic, socially construed meanings, may be anexception because it provides an immediate means of signification duringthe actual living experience, while at the same time, as Robert St. Clair says(1992), it predates and precludes any linguistic retelling of it. Instead wehave a multisensory enclosure, a space apart that serves as a respite fromthe layers and simulacra (in Baudrillard’s sense) that confound our day-to-day existence. Immersive virtual environments, imbued with meaning, areopportunities for post ritual formulations, created by the shamanisticefforts of the modern, technologically savvy artist. The VE experience itselfmust precede and inform any narrative retelling of it.

Our intimacy with technology – its pervasiveness – appropriates every-thing, from social activities to those that press deeply into our privateselves. Where is there escape? What respite do we have? Paradoxically,immersive virtual environments may serve as an antidote to this constantflux of technology in our lives. It is hard to be alone in this day and age, andyet, within Char Davis’s work, in a museum full of people, and with specta-tors looking on, I could be alone with, and find myself at last.

In the act of concluding . . . In setting out the terms of embodiment in virtual spaces, this paper alsoplaces the subject of VE next to that of performance practice. It defines theterms: bifurcated body, presence and isochronal embodiments and discussesforms of embodied representation, including avatars, and the mirrored self.The paper notes the primacy of experience that must precede personal self-narrative, and considers the correspondence of virtual environments to ritesof passage and post ritual possibilities of virtual liminal states.

Most importantly, this paper argues that there will always be a need forour bodies to develop our brains and, by the mysterious means of con-sciousness, our minds. The disembodiment of much of our day to dayliving may push us further into new and unique means of bodily involve-ment. The ‘segmented self’ engendered by Hillis’ ‘polyvocal polyvalency’ ofour increasingly fractured lives may desire a place of unity, where the onlyself there is the one that is core to one’s consciousness. This argumenttakes forward my study of immersive experience whilst also contextualisingthe concepts of self (and particularly embodied ‘selves’) in relation tovirtual environments.

ReferencesAllen, R. (2000), The Bush Soul: Travelling Consciousness in an Unreal World.

Available online at http://emergence.design.ucla.edu/. Accessed 7 April 2004.



Anstey, J., Pape, D. and Sandin, D. (2000), The Thing Growing: AutonomousCharacters in Virtual Reality Interactive Fiction, Proceedings of the IEEE VirtualReality 2000 Conference, New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 71–78.

Benedikt, M. (1991), ‘Cyberspace: Some Proposals’, in M. Benedikt (ed.), First Stepsin Cyberspace, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Biocca, F. (1997), ‘The Cyborg’s Dilemma: Progressive Embodiment in VirtualEnvironments’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3: 2.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997), Finding Flow: the Psychology of Engagement in EverydayLife. New York, NY: Basic Books, a member of the Perseus Books Group.

Damasio, A.R. (1994), Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain, NewYork, NY: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.

Davies, C. (1995), ‘Osmose: Notes on Being in Immersive Virtual Space,’ Colin B.,Lone M. and Masoud Y. (eds.), in Digital Creativity, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1998), TheNetherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, pp. 65–74.

Davis, E. (1998), Techgnosis: Myth, Magic + Mysticism in the Age of Information, NewYork, NY: Three Rivers Press.

Garner, S.B., Jr. (1994), Bodied Spaces: Phenomenology and Performance inContemporary Drama, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

Hansen, M.B.N. (2006), Bodies in Code: Interfaces with Digital Media, New York, NYand London, UK: Routledge.

Haraway, D. (1985), A Manifesto for Cyborgs, Socialist Review 80: 65–108.

Hayles, N.K. (1996), ‘Embodied Virtuality: On How To Put Bodies Back into thePicture, in M.A. Moser and D. MacLeod (eds.), Immersed in Technology: Art andVirtual Environments, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Heim, M. (1998), Virtual Realism, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Krueger, M.W. (1983), Artificial Reality, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1999), Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind andIts Challenge to Western Thought, New York, NY: Basic Books.

Laurel, B. (1991), Computers as Theater, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Loomis, J. (1992), ‘Distal Attribution and Presence’, Presence: Teleoperators andVirtual Environments, 1: 1: 113–118.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962), Phenomenology of Perception (trans. C. Smith), London,UK: Routledge.

——— (2002), The Structure of Behavior, 7th Printing, (trans. A.L. Fisher),Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press (originally published 1942 in Frenchas La Structure de Comportement).

Moravec, H. (1998), Mind Children: The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence,Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Morie, J.F. (1992), Personal Conversation with Stellarc, ISEA 1992, Sydney, Australia.

Palumbo, M.L. (2000), New Wombs: Electronic Bodies and Architectural Disorders,Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser.

Rogers, K. (2006), From personal website. Available at http://www.kathleenrogers.co.uk/2006/01/sleepless_dreaming_1.htm. Accessed 23 February 2007.

Schechner, R. and Schuman, M. (eds.) (1976), Ritual, Play and Performance, NewYork, NY: Seabury Press.

St. Clair, R.N. (1999a), ‘Cultural Wisdom, Communication Theory, and theMetaphor of Resonance’, in W.G. Davey (ed.), Intercultural CommunicationStudies, Special Issue on Language and Interculturalism, Vol. 8, No. 1, Institutefor Cross-Cultural Research, USA, pp. 79–102.



Tenhaaf, N. (1996), ‘Mysteries of the Bioapparatus’, in M.A. Moser and D. MacLeod(eds.), Immersed in Technology: Art and Virtual Environments, Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press, pp. 51–72.

Turner, V. (1979), ‘Frame, Flow and Reflection: Ritual and Drama as PublicLiminality’, Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 6: 4, pp. 465–499.

Wilshire, B. (1982), Role Playing and Identity, Bloomington, IN: Indiana UniversityPress.

Suggested citationMorie, J.F. (2007), ‘Performing in (virtual) spaces: Embodiment and being in virtual

environments’, International Journal of Performance Arts and digital Media 3: 2&3,pp. 123–138, doi: 10.1386/padm.3.2&3.123/1

Contributor detailsJacquelyn Ford Morie is a professional artist and computer scientist, widely known asa passionate VR maven. She is currently a Senior Scientist at USC’s Institute forCreative Technologies in Los Angeles, California. She has worked in both animationand visual effects entertainment (Disney, Rhythm & Hues Studios) and has spent twodecades developing virtual environments in US government-sponsored research labo-ratories. She has recently completed her PhD with the SMARTlab, London. Contact:Jacquelyn Ford Morie, Senior Scientist/Project Director, University of SouthernCalifornia, Institute for Creative Technologies, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA.E-mail: [email protected]





Being there: Heidegger and thephenomenon of presence in telematic performance

Martha Ladly Ontario College of Art & Design

AbstractThe phenomenological tradition and Heidegger’s theory of Da-sein – literally‘Being there’ – speaks with distinct resonance to virtual and interactive com-munication, games and telematic performative experiences. In fact, the notionof presence has greater currency, now that its correlate – absence, and virtualitysupported by technology and the Internet – has become ubiquitous.Hermeneutic interpretation may be used as a lens for current technologicallymediated performance, and the intoxicating idea of being in the world as a con-stant beginner is translated into a foundational construct for telematic practice.

Presence is an insurrection against nothingness.(Martin Heidegger, An Introduction to Metaphysics, 1959)

Heidegger’s work represented a confluence of thinking within significantnetworks that altered the philosophical landscape of Germany in the 1920s.With the theories set out in his book Sein und Zeit (Being and Time) pub-lished in 1927, phenomenology became a significant force for intellectualchange, with far-reaching effects in Europe, and to a lesser extent, NorthAmerica (Collins 1998). I propose that the phenomenological tradition con-tinues to have meaning and that this technologically mediated momentmay be an opportunity to give Heidegger’s theory of Da-sein, literally ‘Beingthere’, another look. The central tenets of the phenomenological traditionhave distinct resonance within telematic performance and virtual commu-nication. In fact, the notion of presence has greater currency, now that itscorrelates – absence, and virtuality supported by technology and theInternet – have become ubiquitous.

I believe that the hermeneutic interpretive method may translate as alens for telematic performance practice. Telematic performance describesthe process of engagement with the long-distance transmission of digital,visual or kinetic information, and the interaction of the mind, the body andthe senses, with the information received. As such, telematic performancecan act as a catalyst for understanding the wider social and cultural impli-cations of digital technology (Kozel 2008). There is also a moment whentelematic practice or process itself becomes a tool. This emphasises the


Keywordsphenomenologynew mediaInternetcommunity networksvirtual communication

PADM_3-(2-3)_05-LADLY 11/27/07 5:27 PM Page 139

layers of connectivity that make up performance processes using networkedtechnologies (Goodman, Lizbeth, Milton 2004).

Towards a phenomenological practice: being in the ‘Mood’Edmund Husserl, the founder of the phenomenological tradition, built hisphilosophical theories upon the study of consciousness and its object. Inthe practice of phenomenology, Husserl required that all preconceivedideas of consciousness were to be set aside, so that one might observewhat is actually taking place within consciousness; within the here and now.The great project of phenomenology was to disregard anything that hadpreviously been said or written about consciousness or the world. Realityhad to be given an opportunity to show itself as itself, uncovered and freefrom preconceived notions. Accordingly, once this veil was removed, thething that was then revealed, and the way in which it showed itself, wasconceived as the ‘phenomenon’. Phenomenology states that in order toobserve and perceive phenomena directly, a sense of navigating the worldas an absolute beginner is required. An impulse to be open to the evidenceof apprehending things as though for the first time engendered the won-derful phenomenological battle cry ‘toward the things!’ (Safranski 1998).There is something entirely contemporary about this credo. What doteenage video gamers, Second Life online world inhabitants, participants inthe current TV rage for home and lifestyle improvement, or families plan-ning a trip to the mall for their weekend recreational shopping, not under-stand about ‘toward the things’?

To be exact, Husserl wanted to demonstrate that the whole externalworld is actually present within us; that we are not empty vessels into whichreality is poured (or more contemporaneously, into which ‘things’ can bepoured), but that everything within us relates to something in the externalworld. ‘Consciousness is always conscious of something’ and ‘it is notinside but alongside’ that which it is apprehending. This is not in themanner of an inner explanation or an interpretation, but more of a descrip-tion of what the actual phenomenon is ‘in itself’ (Smith 2003). The intoxi-cating idea of an ongoing experience of the evidence of things that continueto offer themselves up, as if for the first time, became a foundational con-struct for Husserl’s pupil, Martin Heidegger. Heidegger described this stateas the phenomenological ‘Da-sien’ or ‘being there’. Heidegger reasonedthat the natural and inevitable experience of being, merely existing in theworld, is not understood by analysis or reduction, but more simply anddirectly, through Da-sien (Heidegger 1962).

A relevant contemporary call to action (or perhaps more accurately, toinaction) is the idea of ‘being in the moment’, a strategy to slow down thefrenetic pace of 21st century living, and to reflect on our current state.Phenomenologists muse on the loss of control that we feel when over-whelmed by our state of mind, and the role of mood:

Mood determines our being in the world. We are always in some mood orother. Mood is a ‘state of mind’. Although we can drive ourselves into a

140 Martha Ladly


mood, the essential characteristic of moods is that they arise, seep into us,creep up on us, pounce on us. We are not the master of them. In mood weexperience the limits of our self-determination.

(Safranski 1998)

This assertion seems contemporary, and pertinent to a loss of self-determi-nation through artificially altered, elevated and anti-depressed mood states.We live in a frantic, bored, frenzied, mediated, medicated world. By con-sciously stepping off the treadmill of a present that is constantly reflectingon the past while looking forward to the future, one may take time, andcreate space in the inexorable progress. But Heidegger asserts that thisprocess of examination may also require a measure of boredom, anxiety oreven frenzy. Within an anxious state, the sufferer drifts because ‘the worldhas nothing more to offer him, nor has the Dasein-with of others’. But thedrifting progress of boredom and anxiety may also force one to lift the veiland uncover a state of Being ‘. . . free for the freedom of choosing itself andtaking hold of itself’ (Heidegger 1996). To be in the moment, to really bethere, takes an individual effort of will, and involves a certain amount of risk.

The trick is to be ‘mindfully’ present, to step outside of the constantwhirl and buzz of cultural input and output activity. Although it may seemcontradictory, (and there is of course an argument that any engagementwith technology situates one directly in the space of input and output),never the less there are corollaries, and attempts to create or mimic still-ness and mindfulness, in the history of telematic performance. In the earlyyears, with technology as the major barrier, a simple, mindful recognition ofhuman presence was often all that could be mustered (Diamond 2004).Artist Vera Frenkel’s String Games (1974) utilised teleconferencing technol-ogy to enact a ‘cat’s cradle’ string game over several hours, with five partic-ipants standing in for the fingers, while performing gestures, word gamesand improvised sounds, in studios in Toronto and Montreal. The two teamsplayed back and forth, broadcasting to each other as playback; each was theaudience for the other, in an agonisingly slow, simple, seemingly juvenileactivity. Kit Galloway and Sherrie Rabinowitz formed the Electronic CaféInternational during the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles, as an artist network,using analogue telephone lines, digital ISDN lines and then video andInternet networking, as a space of connection for dialogical performance(ibid.). The performers, who create simultaneous spaces in time to interactin various locations around the world, describe their practice as ‘casual’and ‘conversational’ (Galloway and Rabinowitz 1992). In an effort topromote both situated and virtual mindfulness, and solidarity, the World TeaParty (1995–present) celebrates the slow ritual of tea drinking with perfor-mances, tea ceremonies and telematic Tea Parties, linked remotely(Diamond 2004). Mood is the shape-shifter of experience, and perfor-mance is its actor. Taking this one step further, performative act can fostera collaborative construction of new physical states, levels of consciousnessand awareness. By sharing our moods and states through telematic anddigital devices, we may reencounter ourselves, and others (Kozel 2008).

141Being there: Heidegger and the phenomenon of presence in telematic performance


The hermeneutic circle of interpretation as lens‘The purpose of phenomenology is to demonstrate ontology by bringingtogether the phenomenon – “the self showing in itself” – with logos (scien-tific inquiry), a specific mode of letting something be seen’ (MartinHeidegger, Being and Time, 1996). Interpretation is central to phenomeno-logical thinking; it is the active process we undertake when we assignmeaning to our experiences. From a phenomenological viewpoint, interpre-tation cannot be separated from reality; it is an active process and as such, acreative act. Communication – one to self; one to one; one to many; andmany to many – supplies the means by which we integrate and assignmeaning to experience (Littlejohn, Stephen, Karen, Foss 2005). LeonardHawes, in his 1970s treatise on the Phenomenology of Communication states:

The relationships among ontology, phenomenology, hermeneutics, and com-munication are developed. Communication is both a resource of the socialworld and that which constitutes the social world. As such, communication ishermeneutic – the interpretive and critical scheme – and the ontological foun-dation of the social world.

(Hawes 1977)

By what method do we distinguish and describe social phenomenon, andthrough interpretation, arrive at meaning? Richard Lanigan details a three-step phenomenological methodology for investigation, analysis and inter-pretation. Lanigan’s method was distilled from Herbert Speigelberg’s moreelaborate seven-step method, described in his work The PhenomenologicalMovement (Speigelberg 1994). The first step in the method is to formulate aphenomenological description using phenomenological intuition, dealingwith the capta, or conscious experience of the phenomena. The next step isto make a phenomenological reduction, whereby the observer determineswhich parts of the description are essential. The goal is to isolate the object ofconsciousness, the thing, situation, emotion or person that constitutes theexperience. The description then becomes a reduction or a depicting defini-tion, based directly on the experience, rather than on a conception of whatthe experience may be like. The final step is to produce a phenomenologicalinterpretation, an attempt to signify meaning, using hermeneutic analysis.Lanigan describes it thus ‘. . . the use of hermeneutic is to uncover thosepre-conscious structures of meaning that inhere in the conscious presenceof phenomena’ (Lanigan 1988). The logical difficulty is how and where tointerrupt the process, necessarily creating a fissure in the ongoing experi-ence. But one must temporarily remove oneself from an ongoing synthesisof experience, in order to reflect, to create definition, and interpretation.

The process of interpretation is an imperative creative process of themind; it literally forms what is real. Interpretation emerges and is identifi-able through the employment of a hermeneutic circle of interpretation.Within the hermeneutic circle the interpreter goes back and forth betweenexperiencing an event or situation, and assigning meaning to the event;moving from the specific to the general, and back to the specific again, in a

142 Martha Ladly


process of testing and refining the interpretation. The interpretation willalways be subject to changes and shifts in nuance, as the interpreter con-tinues to traverse the space between experience and interpretation(Littlejohn, Stephen, Karen, Foss 2005).

Applying hermeneutic practice in mobile communicationI propose using the hermeneutic circle as a tool to reality check an ongoingunderstanding of what it means to be present in the world, while at thesame time existing and communicating in a sort of parallel virtual world.Wireless technologies have added a new twist to the telematic, with dis-persed theatrical performances, sequential dialogue-driven stories and dis-covery and adventure games being distributed over mobile phones(Diamond 2004). When engaging in a mobile phone conversation, weimagine ourselves into a situated interaction with the other person, pictur-ing their face, their body movements and gestures and placing the conver-sation within a scenario that we must imagine. We often have no ideawhere, or in what situation, the person we are conversing with may be. Thispartially explains the dangers of driving while conversing on a mobilephone – it is not just the use of the device that distracts us; far more pow-erful and distracting is the focus of attention on active creation of the imag-ined scenario with the correspondent in our conversation (Kubose 2005).

The use of the hermeneutic circle is instructive in imputing interpretationand meaning into the mobile phenomena. First, we must immerse in directexperience, or the capta, to understand the challenges that we face as dis-embodied communicators. Using mobile technologies, we communicatewithout facial expressions, body language and in the case of SMS (shortmessage service, for mobile devices), tone of voice, to aid in the nuance ofdiscourse. Short-form versions of conversations, salutations and greetingsthat occur in SMS modes are often open to interpretation. By reduction weperceive that our virtual communication can become muddled. Shortforms, used for directness and speed, can be interpreted as shouting,offhandedness or even rudeness; acronyms abound that may be useful tothe initiated but exclusionary to the novice (Plant 2001). When the shortforms acceptable in disembodied communication bleed into the real world,further confusion results. There is an apocryphal belief that the ‘thumb gen-eration’ (kids who grew up with cell phones and use their thumbs to dial)will become illiterate as they now write and even talk with SMS and IM(instant message) style short forms (Plant 2001). This bleed of modes fromthe virtual into the real world begs for interpretation, in the hermeneuticsense. It would seem that the telematic performance of reality has becomereality indeed, and that the boundaries between performance of the realand the virtual have dissolved to the extent that they have become one act,at least in the minds of most young users of the technology.

Hermeneutic analysis of the mobile phenomenon uncovers the prob-lematic in communication within a space of relatively thin telematic media-tion. This problem is amplified when the mediation becomes thicker, suchas the immersion that occurs in virtual gaming environments.



Phenomenology and performance in virtual gaming

The presencing (Anwesen) of presence (Anwesenheit) is difficult to detect.(Martin Heidegger, An Introduction to Metaphysics, 1959)

The term virtual is understood as ‘existing or resulting in essence or effectthough not in actual fact, form, or name’; and ‘existing in the mind, espe-cially as a product of the imagination’.1 The ability to re-construct oneself invirtual situations and places is a powerful and addictive activity, made pos-sible through an extension of the body and imagination, essentially assistedby technology. When we perform in activities outside of our situated envi-ronment, we have to imagine ourselves into that virtual world.

What is the nature of performance in the virtual gaming world?Communication played out in cyberspace supports the suspension of iden-tity, place and time, within the virtual environment:

Virtuality is a concept based on the relative transparency of a technologicalsystem that allows a user to experience a communicative event and to ignorethe technology mediating the experience.

(Downes 2005)

The allure of virtual gaming is the freedom to slip out of one’s skin andinvent another persona in the game world; the ability to communicate andplay with people one has never met, in places one may never visit; to beoperating in a constructed fantasy environment; and the God-like potentialto stand outside our bodies, and watch ourselves perform. All of these phe-nomena offer gamers a powerful form of immersion, and explain thetremendous popularity of ‘first person shooters’ such as Doom and the Haloseries. These games, designed from the point of view of the player, place theparticipant as the star performer in the game scenario. The player takes on apersona, sometimes pre-packaged, sometimes more personalised, insidethe virtual environment. In this way, ‘first person shooters’ emulate a sort oftelematic fantasy experience, with the player as a disembodied interactor,able to control and navigate the environment. Without the direct use of ourbodies we find it difficult to understand, interpret and have a modicum ofcontrol over experience, and so for virtual gamers, the interface device or‘controller’ has become an important and elaborate performative device. TheNintendo Wii gaming console offers the best performance of any controllerdevice to date, with a wireless remote handheld controller that can detectacceleration in three dimensions. Using one’s body to manipulate one’svirtual body affords the user an experience of heightened reality and reso-nance. Experiments in full-body movement within screen-based interactiveenvironments, via sensors and/or triangulated cameras that translate bodymovement, have proven to be even more effective. This allows the player touse their whole body, not just their fingers, hands and arms, to control themovement of their character (or ‘avatar’), thus allowing players to becomemore embodied within the game activity (Morgenstern 2005).

1 http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=virtual.Accessed 20 August2007.

144 Martha Ladly


But even with enhanced control, are players able to savour their experi-ence, and is this highly mediated telematic performance fulfilling andauthentic, in the phenomenological sense? If authenticity is understood asthe conscious self coming to terms with Being in the world, and withinone’s own experience, then an authentic response to the pressure of saysof Being in the virtual world, is to adapt one’s body for virtuality. How thento gauge authenticity, when the aim is to make the liminal thresholddisappear?

A phenomenological praxeology: the embodied experience of‘Savouring’ and ‘Fulfilling’Heidegger devised the idea of formal notification in communication, as ademand that the other person (the one with whom we are communicating),when shown a thing, must look at it themselves. They must see for them-selves what is notified (or shown) in order to fulfill that thing, with their ownexperience of it. With fulfillment comes the opportunity to savour the thing.We can only do this if we are present, and in the flow of temporal experi-ence. The crucial part of this phenomenological transaction is that for it tobe authentic, it must be carried out in person (Safranski 1998). On thispoint, Heidegger is adamant. If we cut ourselves off from our essential tem-porality, we evade the deepest part of reality, and the inevitability that Beingmust encounter loss of Being. Without this acknowledgement, our relation-ship with Being becomes inauthentic (Collins 1998).

There is a sort of cheating of time and space, and even death, in thevirtual world. How can a performer in the phenomenological tradition, rec-oncile the imperatives of being present, with the ubiquity of mediated expe-rience? Do you need to be present, when you can communicate, work andplay with people you will never meet, in places that you may never visit?This expansion of the limitations of time and place extends to even to thetemporal life, in the sense that an on-line persona may even cheat death;living on, in a sort of virtual state of limbo. The Dead People Server,2 a virtualhome for the recently deceased, and on-line services such as virtual-memorials.com3 along with the nearly 65 million individual memorial sitecitations on the Internet, attest to the virtual world as the home of choice,for the departed.

Phenomenology, technology and the end of distance

In the inception of its history, Being clears itself as emerging and disclosure.From there it acquires the cast of presence and permanence in the sense ofenduring.

(Martin Heidegger, An Introduction to Metaphysics, 1935)

Heidegger did not condemn technology; but believed that it was instru-mental, a means to an end, and hoped that it might also free humanity toreturn to the authentic task of Being (Heidegger 1977). Heidegger alsonoted the dangers of technology, with its ability to enframe authentic

2 http://www.dpsinfo.com/dps/index.html.Accessed 20 August2007

3 http://virtual-memorials.com/.Accessed 20 August2007.



experience. His criticism of technology took the form of a warning againstthe perceived technological transformation of entities into essentiallymeaningless resources, intended only for optimisation. The enormouspower of technology is in the conversion of Being into an undifferentiated‘standing reserve’ of available energy, to be put to uses that ultimately sub-ordinate the will of the human subject (Thomson 2005).

Heidegger identified the distinctive problem with technology as ‘the endof distance’. Grant Kein, in his work on Phenomenology and Technography,identifies this phenomenon, and describes the affect of technology:

The speed of modern technology leads to de-distancing of the world, bothexpanding and destroying the everyday world that surrounds. De-distancing isnot only a spatial issue. Being is temporally grounded, in that time structuresthe world, ordering the everyday. The everyday is what is familiar, by which weinterpret and estimate our worldly experiences, and it is this everyday experi-ence that is problematised by the de-distancing of the world (Kein 2005).

As the everyday is re-ordered by technology, so that distance evaporates,the process of Being in the world is internalised, so that one is left with thebelief that all experience comes merely from oneself. Taken to its logicalend, this takes the form of solipsism. This is a nihilistic view, and it isencouraging that most young adult users employ technology not so muchas a place to get lost, but more as a highly effective form of social glue. Infact, the end of distance, for them, is highly desirable. It allows them to behere, there, and everywhere, in their social interactions (Rheingold 1993).Personal community networks and sharing sites such as Flikr4 called ‘thebest online photo management and sharing application in the world’,YouTube,5 which allows users to broadcast themselves and share videos,MySpace6 ‘an online social networking service, allowing users to share mes-sages, interests and photos with a growing body of friends’ and Facebook,7

‘the social utility that connects you with the people around you’, havebecome the communication tools of choice for the ‘Echo’ generation (BabyBoomer’s kids). Facebook is one of the biggest success stories in the pack,with 34 million active members worldwide. Created by Harvard graduateMark Zuckerberg, the site started out in 2004 as a digital version of anincoming freshmen’s photo guide. It expanded over two years to more than2000 colleges and universities, and then high schools, and when, in 2006,the founder invited the rest of the world in, Facebook’s website became themost trafficked site for photo sharing in the world. According to ComScoreMarketing, Facebook ranks as the 7th most trafficked site in the UnitedStates.8 Its popularity has no doubt been due to its functionality, but ubiq-uity also plays a big part, if you subscribe to the thinking that the larger yournetwork is, the more effective your network becomes. As on-line social net-works expand, self-regulation and effective official moderation becomesmore difficult. As a consequence, opportunities for inappropriate activities,such as Internet stalking, flourish. MySpace users became so concerned,that a user-group called ProfileSnoop developed a snippet of code toembed into their profiles that takes a snapshot and allows them to viewanyone who has been looking at their online profile.9

4 http://www.flickr.com/.Accessed 23 July 2007.

5 http://www.youtube.com/. Accessed 23July 2007.

6 http://www.myspace.com/. Accessed 23July 2007.

7 http://www.facebook.com/. Accessed 23July 2007.

8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_(website). Accessed 23July 2007.

9 http://www.profilesnoop.com/.Accessed 20 August2007.

146 Martha Ladly


Facebook’s unique differentiator was a constraint on membership thatallowed only students who had registered email addresses at their college,university or high school to join, view and connect with others in theirnetwork. For parents as well as the kids who used it, there was some confi-dence in this feature embedded in the technology. Another distinguishingfeature of Facebook is that, unlike MySpace and most other online socialnetworks and communities, its hook is not its universality, but its locality.You can’t get much more local than your own high school or college com-munity. And the people that use the site seem to really appreciate thatabout it. There is no doubt that as powerful social-networking tools, thesesites have become indispensable. Providing the capta for this performativephenomenon, an 18-year-old High School student who used Facebook,reported:

I check it everyday. It’s really easy. I use it for making plans online, it’s fasterthan calling, and you can plan things or share homework by IMing, in privateor in public. Most people use the public messaging, and then you can seewho is talking to whom, and about what. I think it’s also about popularity.Everyone asks each other ‘how many people do you have in your network?How many people have added you today?’ You can check out anyone’s profilein your school’s own network and also your friends at other schools, peoplewho have accepted you into their networks. When someone adds you, it’s funbecause you can check out their photos, see who has added them, and findout who they have been talking to. The only thing is that it’s pretty addictive;it eats up a lot of your time. I almost wish I hadn’t joined.10

So we can deduce that most students use their Facebook profiles for thincommunication, as a support for such ordinary routine activities as sharingmusic, making plans, meeting up and socialising together, or sharing theirlatest experiences of social events, by exchanging photos. And, throughhermeneutic observation, the reduction of this telematic social performanceis found in the virtue of near-presence. An interpretation might be thatvirtual social networking and performative activities constitute a phenome-nological sense of Being in the ordinary world, much as Heidegger wouldhave described it (Collins 1998).

The place of place and conclusions on the bridgeTowards the end of his life, Heidegger’s preoccupation with Da-sien did notabate; it was suffused with melancholy and a deep, hopeless, self-knowl-edge. Two days before his death Heidegger wrote a reflective greeting to hiscompatriot Bernhard Welte, a Freiberg professor of theology, and a native ofHeidegger’s hometown of Messkirch. The occasion was Welte’s inductionas an honourary citizen of the town, and Heidegger mused on this, and onthe meaning of home. It was to be his final written communication:

May this feast day of homage be joyful and life-giving. May the contemplativespirit of all participants be unanimous. For there is need for contemplation

10 Interview withRebecca LadlyHoffnung, 24 April2006.



whether and how, in the age of technological world civilization, there can stillbe such a thing as home.

(D, 187, Safranski 1998)

Da-sein, the phenomenon of presence – Being in the ordinary world – is avital part of human interaction. Being there, in the virtual sense, is a crucialpart of telematic performance, and carries with it the weight of phenome-nological meaning. Put simply, the concept has power to rescue us fromthe philosophical abyss. Heidegger used the metaphor of a bridge, toshow how sentient human beings can experience nothingness – theabove, the below, the in and the around ourselves – as an extremely per-ilous place. In his masterwork on Martin Heidegger, Rüdger Safranski putsit eloquently:

Thus Da-sien is a Being that looks across to itself and sends itself across –from one end of the bridge to the other. And the point is that the bridge growsunder our feet only as we step on it.

(Safranski 1998)

And so now, in these technologically mediated times, there is perhaps therisk of non-presence in the world, the loss of Da-sien. This is where the phe-nomenological tradition may continue to have usefulness, and meaning.When we are actively constructing the bridge of existence, we may suddenlyapprehend the enormous nothingness within which we are lightly, but per-ilously, balanced. If we hesitate or loose confidence, we may stop believingin the bridge, and so disappear, into the abyss. To save ourselves, we mustkeep going. Throughout our lives we build the bridge with our presence,and traverse the abyss, in order to continue Being. This is so that we mayget on with the great project of communication, with ourselves, and eachother, and with the performance of our daily recreation of the world.

ReferencesCollins, R. (1998), The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual

Change, Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Diamond, S. (2004), ‘Hello, Hello! A Short History of Networked PerformanceArt.’ HorizonZero, Issue 13, Perform: the stage is everywhere. http://www.horizonzero.ca/textsite/perform.php?is�13&file�1&tlang�0. Accessed 27September 2007.

Downes, D. (2005), Privileged Play Spaces, Interactive Realism: the Poetics ofCyberspace, Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.

Duffy, M. (2006), ‘A Dad’s Encounter with The Vortex of Facebook’, New YorkTimes, 27 March 2006, Vol. 167, Issue 13.

Fuentes, R. (2006), ‘Could Someone Be Stalking You on MySpace?’ E-Zine Articles.http://www.ezinearticles.com/?Could-Someone-Be-Stalking-You-on-MySpace?&id�157988. Accessed 20 August 2007.

Galloway, K., Sherrie R. and Linda J. (eds.) (1992), ‘Welcome to Electronic CaféInternational’, in Cyberarts: Exploring Art and Technology. San Francisco: MillerFreeman.

148 Martha Ladly


Goodman, L. and Katherine M. (eds.) (2004), A Guide to Good Practice in CollaborativeWorking Methods and New Media Tools Creation, Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Hawes, L.C. (1977), ‘Toward A Hermeneutic Phenomenology of Communication’,Communication Quarterly, 25: 3.

Heidegger, M. (1959), An Introduction to Metaphysics (trans. R. Manheim), NewHaven, Con.: Yale University Press.

——— (1996), Being and Time (trans. J. Stambaough), Albany: State University ofNew York Press.

——— (1977), The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays (trans. W.Lovett), New York: Harper and Row.

Husserl, E. (1960), (trans. D. Cairns), Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction toPhenomenology, The Hague: Nijhoff.

Kien, G. (2005), ‘Phenomenology and Technography: Theorizing How To Gather InA World Without Distance’, New York: International CommunicationAssociation; Annual Meeting.

Kozel, S. (2008), Closer: Performance, Technologies, Phenomenology, Cambridge: TheMIT Press.

Kubose, T.T., Kathryn B., Gary, S.D., Susan, M.G., Arthur, K. and Jeff, M. (2006), ‘TheEffects of Speech Production and Speech Comprehension on Simulated DrivingPerformance’, Journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20: 1.

Kroker, A. and Kroker, M. (eds.) (2002), ‘Hyper-Heidegger’. Ctheory.net.http://ctheory.net/printer.asp?id�348. Accessed 26 April 2007.

Kushner, D. (2006), ‘The Web’s Hottest Site: Facebook.com’, RollingStone Magazinewebsite. http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/9597735/the_webs_hottest_site_facebookcom?rnd�1146427176600&has-player�true. Accessed 20 July 2007.

Lang, B. (1996), Heidegger’s Silence, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Lanigan, R.L. (1988), Phenomenology of Communication: Merleau Ponty’s Thematicsin Communicology and Semiology, Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.

Littlejohn, S.W. and Karen, A.F. (2005), Theories of Human Communication, Toronto:Thomson Learning Inc.

Mann, S. and Hal, N. (2001), Cyborg: Digital Destiny and Human Possibility in the Ageof the Wearable Computer, Toronto: Doubleday.

Pattison, G. (2000), Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to the Later Heidegger, London:Routledge.

Plant, S. (2001), From Stone Age to Phone Age – Evolutionary Psychology and CellularTelephones, Motorola Media Center. http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail.jsp?globalObjectId�534_308_23. Accessed 20 August 2007.

Rheingold, H. (1993), The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the ElectronicFrontier, New York: Harper Perennial.

Safranski, R. (1998), ‘Martin Heidegger’ (trans. E. Osers), Between Good and Evil,Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Smith, A.D. (2003), Husserl and the Cartesian Meditations, London: Routledge.

Spiegelberg, H. (1994), The Phenomenological Movement: A historical Introduction,Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Thomson, I. (2005), Heidegger on Ontotheology: Technology and the Politics ofEducation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

World Tea Party: collaboration by Daniel Dion, Bryan Mulvihill, Marc Patch and SuSchnee. http://www.presentationhousegall.com/worldteaparty.html. Accessed28 September 2007.



Suggested citationLadly, M. (2007), ‘Being there: Heidegger and the phenomenon of presence in

telematic performance’, International Journal of Performance Arts and digitalMedia 3: 2&3, pp. 139–150 , doi: 10.1386/padm.3.2&3.139/1

Contributor detailsMartha Ladly is an Associate Professor of Design at the Ontario College of Art andDesign (OCAD) specialising in interactive communication, a Registered GraphicDesigner (RGD), a faculty member with the Canadian Film Centre’s Media Lab, anda senior researcher with the Mobile Experience Lab, in Toronto, Canada. Marthaworked for ten years as a designer and producer with Peter Gabriel’s Real Worldorganisation, in the United Kingdom. As Principal Investigator, Martha led theMobile Nation International Conference in Toronto in March 2007, and is editing ananthology on current mobile research and design practice. Contact: AssociateProfessor of Design, Ontario College of Art & Design, 100 McCaul St. Toronto, ON,Canada, M5T 1W1.E-mail: [email protected]

150 Martha Ladly




Ersatz dancing: Negotiating the live andmediated in digital performance practice

Helen Bailey University of Bedfordshire

AbstractThis paper will focus on the practice-led research of dance–theatre company,Ersatz Dance and how the Company has negotiated and defined the relation-ship between live and mediated performance in their work. It will track theevolving relationship the Company has with a range of technologies. It willfocus on the impact of recent research using virtual research environments(VREs). It will consider the ways in which VREs can provide a new context forpractice-led research in dance. It will focus on the role VREs have played indefining new methodological approaches to composition and the contributionto the ongoing debates concerning ‘presence’, ‘liveness’ and ‘virtual embodi-ment’ in performance.

IntroductionIn the last year there has been a flurry of new publications that address,from a range of perspectives, the interface between live performance anddigital technologies. These publications Broadhurst (2006), Popat (2006),Dixon (2007) are timely and demonstrate the plethora of recent profes-sional arts and academic research practice that investigates what has beenvariously termed ‘digital performance’, ‘mediated performance’ or ‘perfor-mance and new technology’.

This discussion will make a contribution to the development of thisrecent discourse by considering specifically the relationship of practice-ledresearch in dance to a range of digitally mediated environments throughthe choreographic practice of Ersatz Dance. It will explore the ways in whichthe work of the Company has shifted its concerns from an exploration ofprojected pre-recorded video through to the integration of digital anima-tion, virtual reality and stereoscopic video within live performance, andmore recently the use of the Access Grid as a telematic performancecontext. This article will consider how these technologies enable new formsof practice through the development of new research methods as well asnew practice-led performance outcomes. It will go on to consider how col-laborative research environments, made possible by Grid technologies, cancontribute new knowledge and understandings to the debates concerning‘liveness’ and virtual embodiment in performance.


Keywordsdancechoreographyaccess gridstereoscopic videodigital performance

PADM_3-(2-3)_06-BAILEY 11/27/07 5:34 PM Page 151

Ersatz dance and digital performanceAs an Artist-Scholar,1 I have been undertaking practice that straddlesvarious thresholds for the past ten years with dance–theatre companyErsatz Dance. As Artistic Director of the Company, I create work at the inter-section between professional arts and the academic research context. For anumber of years, I have been based in the university sector, where I havereceived both Arts Council and Research Council grants for practice-ledchoreographic projects that fulfil concurrently both professional and acade-mic research aims.

The ongoing focus of my practice-led research is an exploration of thenotion of ‘interdisciplinary choreography’. In other words, I have a continu-ing interest in the application of choreographic methodology, composi-tional approaches and aesthetic sensibility to a range of different media inthe context of live performance and beyond that to fields of research thatare not necessarily located in the arts or humanities. In particular this focuson ‘interdisciplinarity’ has led to an engagement with visual technologiesand their integration into the live performance context.

I will now outline practice-led research undertaken by Ersatz Dance thathighlights the evolving use of technology within the work of the Company.In particular this will focus on identifying the shifting relationship betweennotions of the live and the mediated in performance and how this has beenarticulated through the practice (Figure 1).

In 1998 Ersatz Dance undertook research as part of the Choreodromeprofessional research and development scheme at The Place,2 London, UK.This research focused on the use of CCTV within the context of live perfor-mance. In particular the project explored the use of site-specific, guerrillaperformance in locations that were under surveillance from CCTV systems.The resulting live performance work, Hyperbolic (1998), was a quartet that

1 A term coined by Dr. Angela Piccini aspart of the AHRCfunded PARIP: Practiceas Research inPerformance project,University of Bristol,to describe practice-led researchers in theperforming arts.

2 The Place is one ofseveral NationalDance Agencies in theUK. It has, for anumber of years,provided an extensiveprofessional artistdevelopmentprogramme that isinternationallyrecognised. TheChoreodrome schemeis part of thisprogramme. It is anannual process-orientatedchoreographicresearch scheme forprofessionalchoreographers whoare selected toparticipate.

152 Helen Bailey

Figure 1: 2:Moving by Ersatz Dance, 2005.Performers: Amalia Garcia, James Hewison.


integrated the performance footage from the CCTV surveillance cameras asprojection within the live performance context. This work explored the pro-duction and re-production of space and visio-spatial relations of power interms of spectatorship and voyeurism. Central to this work, from both anaesthetic and political perspective, was the use of CCTV as a form of video‘ready-made’ that questioned notions of fiction and reality in the relation-ship between the ‘live’ and the mediatised in performance.

From 2000 to 2001 the Company toured Save the Last Dance (2000).Again, this work explored the integration of pre-recorded video materialinto live dance performance. However in this work the Company alsoexplored the non-linearity of digital media as a compositional approach forthe construction of the narrative aspects of the work. Save the Last Dancetook the mediatisation of the then recent Kosovan war as a thematic start-ing point. This dance–theatre quartet explored notions of ‘placelessness’and the ‘nomadic’ and was set in a non-destinational space that referenceda waiting room (Figure 2).

Pre-recorded video material was back-projected onto a door that formedpart of the set, however the door was not opened or used for entrances orexits by the performers, thus becoming the potential ‘entrance’ to a narra-tive, allegorical space. The use of the door in this way foregrounded anddelineated a mediated representational space within the work, whilstdrawing attention to the concept of mediatisation as a critical principledriving the work thematically. The video material provided a further layer ofthematic commentary and a continuous narrative strand throughout thestructure of the work that was compositionally interrelated with the livematerial.

In 2002 the Company premiered 24 Acts of Arson (2002) at the SouthBank Centre, London, UK as part of the international performance pro-gramme. This work marked a shift in emphasis for the Company away fromvideo to the use of digital animation. For this project the Company collabo-rated with Animator and Dance Film-maker, Rachel Davis. This projectexplored the integration of digital animation into the live performancecontext to create an ‘interactive environment’. It focused on the construction

153Ersatz dancing: Negotiating the live and mediated in digital performance practice

Figure 2: Save the Last Dance by Ersatz Dance, 2001.Performers: Marcus Capell, Amalia Garcia, Lisa Gunstone, James Hewison.


of a critical space that explored the concept of narrative from an intersub-jective, intertextual perspective. The starting point for the work was anexploration of various narrative forms, in particular the construction of theself through auto-biographical narrative and the parallel activity, in thecontext of performance-making, of the narrative of process; or process ofnarrative; in other words the reflexive, performative construction of ‘thework’ and ‘the self’.

The set design for the piece comprised a white wall and floor, containedwithin a larger black-box space. The white wall and floor were used through-out the piece as projection surfaces for the animation. The animated mate-rial covered the white surfaces of wall and floor, the projections on the twosurfaces were synchronised so creating the illusion of a coherent single pro-jected image across both surfaces.

The animation was constructed alongside the live choreography duringthe creative process, so that although the animation was pre-recorded, thehigh-degree of integration between the animation and live performancematerial created the illusion of interactivity within the final work. Forexample a leitmotif in the piece was the projection of an animated networkwith which the performers directly interacted. As the performers movedfrom position to position in the space, the network grew and extended. Theperformers described a series of autobiographical memories and the ani-mated network built spatial connections between these memories as theperformers moved. This matrix took on the image of a set of synaptical con-nections, visualising the process of remembering.

As one performer, James Hewison remembered, as a child shouting –‘I’m a fairy’, a large pair of animated wings appeared to grow out of hisshoulders, the subsequent solo extended his real body into the virtual spacethrough the closely choreographed interconnection of the live dancer’smovements and the movement of the digitally animated wings (Figure 3).

Animation and choreography were integrated in this project in order toconsider the concept of inscription: the inscription of the performativespace and the bodily inscription of the performers. The aim was to create agraphic rather than representational space (Figure 4).

154 Helen Bailey

Figure 3: 24 Acts of Arson by Ersatz Dance, 2003.Performers: Amalia Garcia, James Hewison.


To this end the hand-drawn style of the animation consciously high-lighted the two-dimensional, inscription surface of the set, whilst attempt-ing to challenge the slick, coolness of the CGI aesthetic made familiarthrough various big-budget Hollywood movies.

In 2006 Ersatz Dance created A Part/In Parts (2006) a new media/per-formance installation as a result of a commission by the BCA Gallery,Bedford UK. This site-specific performance was created for the gallery envi-ronment and performed daily over a two-week period. It explored the use ofParticles, a motion-tracking system, created by New Media ArtistsZiemovitz Maj and Piotr Kowalski, in the context of live performance. Thechallenge with this work was to create a live performance work that fullyarticulated the interactive capacity of the new media installation to a viewingspectatorship. The Particles software had originally been created as a partic-ipatory, interactive new media installation. The performance work thereforehad to compositionally and thematically move beyond a presentationaldisplay of the pre-existing technological capabilities of the installation andprovide a further hybrid located performance.

The work took ‘partiality’ and in particular, subjective spatial positioningas its thematic focus. The site-specific dance-theatre work, A Part/In Partswas generated through a series of task-based improvisations using bothmovement and text, whilst interacting with the Particles software. The inter-play between the literal and the metaphorical became important in terms ofhighlighting the corporeal experience of the mediated space generated bythe Particles installation. The literal, functionality of the software was


Figure 4: 24 Acts of Arson by Ersatz Dance, 2003.Performers: Amalia Garcia, James Hewison.


fore-grounded through the improvisatory nature of certain parts of the liveperformance work, thus providing the context from which the audience per-spective of the interactivity of the system could be vicariously (and viscer-ally) experienced. For instance, at one point in the piece, a performerattempted to count the particles as they collected around her hand. As shemoved to count them, they dispersed and reformed elsewhere, thus provid-ing an ongoing improvisatory cycle of interactive activity (see Figure 5). Atanother point in the piece one of the three performers delivers a textualmonologue that explores, from a narrative perspective, notions of subjec-tivity and partiality. Whilst the performer was still, delivering the mono-logue, the particles coalesced on his body and face, so that he as a ‘live’representational entity was erased by the technology; he became ‘partially’obscured and mediatised, in this context the technology took on both ametaphorical and performative role.

Through the discussion of these examples it is possible to discern ashift in emphasis in terms of the relationship between live dance perfor-mance and various digital technologies deployed within the practice. In theearlier experiments such as Hyperbolic (1998) and Save the Last Dance(2000) a multi-disciplinary approach characterised the relationship. Thetechnology provided a mediatised component to the live dance theatrework, enabling a critical interplay between the two idioms. In more recentexamples such as 24 Acts of Arson (2002) and A Part/In Parts (2006) anintegrated approach to the relationship of technologies within performancehas been adopted. The technologies have been integral to the live workboth compositionally and thematically. The aesthetic focus of this evolvinginterrelationship has also changed. In the earlier works the multi-discipli-nary interrelationship was facilitated through a cinematic or filmic sensibil-ity that was applied to both the compositional organisation of the live andmediatised material. In the later work, in which a more integrated approachwas adopted, the aesthetic concerns drew on a visual arts/new media

156 Helen Bailey

Figure 5: A Part/In Parts by Ersatz Dance, 2006.Perfomers: Amalia Garcia, James Hewison, Diccon Hogger.


frame of reference. From a research perspective there are themes that haveremained consistent in terms of driving the various experiments. Eachexample discussed, from a research perspective, aimed to explore concep-tualisations of space, spatialities and embodiment within hybrid live/medi-atised performance contexts. However the key constraining factor to theseexperiments was the professional arts funding imperative to create aproduct for public performance. From 2004 the Company decided to shiftemphasis methodologically, to a less product orientated approach by locat-ing the practice-led activities exclusively within an academic researchcontext.

Ersatz dancing in virtual environmentsIn 2004 Ersatz Dance began collaborative interdisciplinary research withHowell Istance and Martin Turner at De Montfort University’s VirtualReality Environments Centre. Between 2004–2005 Ersatz Dance were resi-dent at De Montfort University, this collaborative, interdisciplinary practice-led research was formalised as the DIRAViS (Dancing in Real and VirtualSpaces) project as part of De Montfort University’s Institute of CreativeTechnologies. The project aimed to explore the ways in which live choreo-graphic practice might integrate and exploit immersive, virtual realityenvironments.

Dance technology writer, Scott deLahunta (2002) comments that dancehas been at the cutting edge of experimentation with interactive technolo-gies, however the results have been largely presented in conventionalproscenium-arch spaces, and the potential of virtual reality environmentsfor dance has been largely unexplored. He suggests that this might partlybe for practical reasons concerning the prohibitive cost of such technologyand the limited access to it for artists. However he also suggests that eventhe most radical choreographers often seem to be limited by a fixed senseof performance space and time (deLahunta 2002).

At De Montfort University the immersive environment was producedthrough the use of a large curved projection screen and multiple projectorsthat facilitate a three-dimensional panoramic viewer experience. In order toexperience the 3D projection, viewers wear polarised glasses. Virtual envi-ronments are projected onto the curved screen and a computer operatornavigates the viewer in a first-person perspective through the simulatedenvironment (Figure 6).

The DIRAViS project began by creating a simulated environment inwhich to locate live dancers. An abstract ‘world’ of static sculptural formsmade from digital ribbons that created helix-like formations, was designed.As the computer operator navigated through this simulated environment,the flight path moved in close proximity, around and within the helix forma-tions. From the spectatorial position, the helix structures appeared to moveout beyond the screen into the shared actual space.

The dancers were placed within this computer generated environmentand an improvisatory structure was established where the dancers, whowere also wearing polarised glasses, were asked to avoid the sculptural



forms as they moved in the shared space. The improvisation score initiallyfocused on physically avoiding the virtual structure and generating move-ment responses in relation to that task. During these early experiments, itbecame clear that the performers had to predict the relative spatial positionand motional trajectory of the helix forms, as the three-dimensional imagewas calibrated for the spectatorial perspective and not from that of the per-formers, who were literally immersed in the environment. As the dancersbecame more in-tune with these aspects of the environment, the improvi-sation score increased in complexity. The score developed to focus on themovement of the performers extending, extruding and reiterating themotional trajectories established by the helix formations as the computeroperator’s flight path navigated in and around them.

‘Improvisation’ took on a trans-disciplinary function and provided ascore for not only the dancers’ actions but also the actions of the computeroperator. Thus these improvised performances became a ‘trio’, comprisingtwo dancers and one computer operator driving the VR simulation. All of the‘performers’ (the computer operator and the dancers) adopted a generativerole in the motional production of a hybrid real/virtual space (Figure 7).

The function of ‘motion’ as a means of establishing this meshing of thereal and the virtual was further developed through the improvisatory struc-ture. As the improvisations developed the motional properties of the differ-ent performers became overlaid with a subtle feedback loop of dynamicmovement qualities. This aesthetisisation of the environment through theperformative interplay of the virtual and the real was particularly provoca-tive. However the computer generated, simulated environment although‘animated’ by the computer operator in terms of spatial orientation, prox-imity and motion, was still pre-constructed, it was not ontologically depen-dent on the improvisation and therefore not truly interactive. Rather the liveperformers (both dancers and computer operator) could only ever be reac-tive to the simulated environment. The constraints of the system meantthat the flight paths navigated through the simulated environment couldnot be documented and repeated, therefore the relationship of the dancers

158 Helen Bailey

Figure 6: Ersatz Dance in 2004 undertaking practice-led research for the DIRAViSproject at De Montfort University’s Virtual Reality Environments Centre.


to the environment could not develop compositionally or hierachically, andcould only remain reactive and improvisatory (Bailey et al, 2006).

Troika Ranch, the New York based dance and technology companycomment, on their website, about their view of digital dance and the soft-ware developments they have made – ‘. . . most electronic media is dead, inthe sense that it is precisely the same each time it is presented – quite dif-ferent from what happens when a dancer or actor performs the same mater-ial twice. We want the media elements in our performances to have the samesense of liveness as the human performers it accompanies. We impose thechaos of the human body on the media in hope of bringing it to life’.3

The DIRAViS project provided a useful initial set of experiments thatestablished the choreographic research ideas that went on to form thebasis of the Stereobodies project. One of the most interesting areas ofinterdisciplinary discussion that arose was around the concept of ‘pres-ence’. Within the VR and e-science context, ‘presence’ is understood asreferring to the ability of the user/spectator to experience convincing per-ceptual immersion within a simulated environment, therefore enabling theuser to understand data or the setting to a higher perceptual level.4 Inother words ‘presence’ as a concept is used as an index of its own repro-duction or simulation.

On the other hand, the term has quite a different and more essentialistsignificance in the context of performance. Steve Dixon, in his recent publi-cation (2007) suggests – ‘. . . cultural commentators have used presence todistinguish the material, auratic, proximal “real”; and in performancestudies, to denote the flesh-and-blood performer, there with you in thesame shared physical space’. This highlights the diversity of useage andunderstanding of the term across the various subject domains for whichthe concept is relevant.

3 Coniglio, M. TroikaRanch website,www.troikaranch.org

4 Turner, M. SAGEwebsite,http://www.kato.mvc.mcc.ac.uk/rss-wiki/SAGE


Figure 7: Ersatz Dance performers improvising in a VR environment, DIRAViSproject, De Montfort University, 2005.


The Stereobodies project arose in part, out of considering these very dif-ferent definitions of ‘presence’ and how we might develop a further under-standing of these divergent, yet necessarily interrelated, concepts throughpractice. The initial concern was to explore ways in which a representationof the ‘real/live’ performer’s body could be directly intergated into thevirtual/simulated environment without having to undergo the disembodi-ment and translation of motion capture and the creation of avatars. Webegan work, in June 2006 with the CSAGE project at ManchesterComputing, University of Manchester, where Martin Turner had developeda system of integrating stereoscopic video into the access grid context, as avirtual research environment (VRE).

Stereobodies and the dancer’s doubleCSAGE is a VRE project that is funded by the Joint Information ServicesCouncil (JISC). A definition of what might constitute a VRE has been pro-vided by JISC – ‘A VRE comprises a set of online tools and other networkresources and technologies interoperating with each other to support orenhance the processes of a wide range of research practitioners within andacross disciplinary and institutional boundaries. A key characteristic of aVRE is that it facilitates collaboration amongst researchers and researchteams providing them with more effective means of collaboratively collect-ing, manipulating and managing data, as well as collaborative knowledgecreation’.5

CSAGE was originally designed for scientific purposes and in particularthe sharing of visualisations for collaborative research projects. The stereo-scopic environment has the ability to utilise a large, curved projectionscreen and multiple data projectors, modified to provide stereoscopic pro-jection. The user wears polarised glasses in order to experience the effect ofthree-dimensionality created by the stereoscopic projection. The use of twosynchronised video cameras is necessary to generate stereoscopic video.

The research focus for the Stereobodies project was concerned with theconcept of presence, and how the interrelationship of the virtual and actualdancing body in live performance that this technology offered, mightprovide new understandings of this relationship. From a choreographic per-spective this broad aim was clarified into two compositional approaches;firstly to explore the interrelatonship of bodies in space both in terms ofactual body design6 and virtual motional spatial pathways7 across andbetween the virtual and real contexts, and secondly, to explore physical‘contact’,8 or rather the illusion of touch between performers in the real andvirtual contexts.

We began by creating a short duet that included five points of contactbetween the two performers. The choreographed duet movement materialemphasised virtual pathways in space. We then removed one of the per-formers, Amalia Garcia, from the duet material. James Hewison, thesecond performer then reworked his part of the duet as a solo, which hedanced with an imagined, absent partner. This solo version of the duet wasvideoed stereoscopically. This stereoscopic recording of the solo version of

5 JISC VRE VirtualResearchEnvironmentsprogramme,http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/pogramme_vre.aspx

6 This refers to RudolfLaban’s concept of‘actual body design’as the physicalembodiment of shape,for example a dancerplaces her hand onher hip and creates atriangle shapebetween her arm andtorso, the shape isliterally delineated bythe materiality of herbody.

7 Laban refers to ‘virtualspatial pathways’ asspatial traces that areperceived as a resultof the body or a partof the body in motion.For example a dancercould trace the shapeof a circle in spacewith her hand. It isthrough the dancer’smotion that the virtualshape of the circle ismade manifest to thespectator.

8 This refers to thetechnique of ContactImprovisation thatwas originallydeveloped byAmerican Post-modern DancePractitioner StevePaxton. It is a duetform that requiresperformers to use themomentum andweight of each other’sbodies in closephysical contact withone another to createmovement.

160 Helen Bailey


the duet was then projected within the CSAGE virtual research environ-ment. The virtual representation was projected in life-size. Amalia Garciathen performed the duet with this virtual partner (see Figure 8).

The performance of this hybrid real/virtual duet reproduced the pointsof contact that were apparent in the ‘live’ version of the duet. Because thevirtual performer was reproduced stereoscopically the virtual representa-tion appeared to literally inhabit the same space as the actual dancer. Fromthe spectatorial position they appeared to move on the same planes inspace, at one point in the duet the virtual reproduction of the dancer, JamesHewison, traced a virtual pathway with his arm through space that seemedto pass over the top of the live dancer’s head and also reach beyond herinto the space between her and the audience. This use of stereoscopicvideo challenges the spectator’s pre-existing frame of reference (the two-dimensional projected video image), and allows the perception of the spec-tator to draw on the kinds of responses usually associated with the viewingof live performance (Figure 8). In this sense the experiment tested the sci-entific notion of presence within an asethetic context. As with the DIRAViSproject, the use of a pre-constructed virtual environment, in this case a pre-recorded video representation, provided the illusion of physical intercon-nectivity and interactivity.

Steve Dixon (2007) suggests ‘when the body is “transformed,” . . . intodigital environments, it should be remembered that despite what many say,it is not an actual transformation of the body, but of the pixilated composi-tion of its recorded or computer generated image. Virtual bodies are newvisual representations of the body, but do not alter the physical composi-tion of their referent flesh and bones. Virtual bodies may appear to bebodily transformations to the (receiver’s) eye and mind, but no actual meta-morphosis takes place within the (sender’s/performer’s) actual body. The


Figure 8: Pre-recorded stereoscopic video of virtual performer is back-projectedand live performer dances choreographed ‘duet’ in the Stereobodies project,Manchester Computing, University of Manchester, 2006.


virtual body is an inherently theatrical entity, and there is an enormousamount of suspension of disbelief going on in relation to it’.

The ‘theatricality’ of the virtual body in the context of digitally mediatedperformance is a significant idea. As Dixon and others9 have clearly articu-lated, the romanticism of the digital and that it’s tansformational capacitycan be over stated theoretically and that therefore the actual practice canseem to ‘fall short’ of these theoretical (metaphorically imbued) claims. Theillusory status of the virtual body in the context of stereoscopic video projec-tion underlines the inherent theatricality of virtual embodiment per se in theperformance context. However in this experiment the fracture or disconnectbetween the live and the virtual was also maintained through the illusorynature of the ‘interactivity’ between the actual and virtual performers. Theactual performer could not truly interact with the virtual dancer as the virtualdancer was a pre-recorded representation. Only the actual dancer was ‘live’and therefore had agency within the performance (Figure 9).

e-Dancing and distributed choreographyWithin recent theoretical discourse on technology and performance, themeaning of the term ‘presence’, has been redefined to include ideas oftelematic or online presence, relating to the concept of the agency of theparticipant rather than simply the efficacy of the spectatorial position. Inorder to challenge this disconnect between the virtual and the real bodies inlive performance, the project relocated the experimentation into the AccessGrid10 environment. The Access Grid (AG) is an e-Science development ini-tially produced for collaborative research in the natural sciences. It wasdesigned essentially as a virtual meeting space (Figure 10).

The duet was placed in the Collaborative Stereoscopic Access GridEnvironment. Each performer was located in a different AG node. Multiplestereoscopic video streams from video cameras placed throughout eachnode were projected as individual windows within the other AG node. Sowe were presented with multiple and fragmentary images of the two

9 Also see Coyne, R(1999)Technoromanticism:Digital Narrative,Holism and theRomance of the Real,MIT Press Cambridge,Massachusetts,London, England.

10 Access Grid is thenext generation ofvideo-conferencing. Ituses large-scaledisplay, typically awhole wall. Multiplevideo streams fromeach location involvedin the interaction areprojected onto thewall, full-duplex audiowith echo cancellationprovides a naturalaudio environment inwhich non-co-locatedparticipants can talkto each other withoutwearing headsets. Theenvironment canintegrate a range ofopen source software.

162 Helen Bailey

Figure 9: Ersatz Dance Performer, James Hewison dances with his virtualdouble in the Stereobodies project, Manchester Computing, University ofManchester, 2006.


dancers bodies from a range of different angles. Figure 11 is a photographof the projection wall within one AG node at the University of Manchester.It is possible to see that the various windows, representing video streamsfrom other nodes, have been arranged in such a way as to provide a centralimage and several further images from different perspectives from theother two nodes. The central image is a stereoscopic video stream from thenode in which performer, Amalia Garcia was located. Within that image, itis possible to see a window projected in her space of James Hewison, thesecond performer from within his AG node.

Within this distributed environment the performers were able to vieweach other stereoscopically from the context of each other’s location. Theduet was then performed within this interactive, telematic context. The twoperformers shared the virtual space, yet both performers were ‘live’ andtherefore able to engage interactively with their virtual ‘other’. They were


Figure 10: Access Grid node at the University of Manchester participating a ina 12-node meeting of UK-based academics.

Figure 11: Stereobodies distributed performance by Ersatz Dance using theAccess Grid and associated grid-based software, University of Manchester, 2006.


both present, yet absent simultaneously. Performance theorist, Nick Kaye(1994) describes the ontology of postmodern performance as contingentand unstable, suggesting it ‘. . . vacillates between presence and absence,between displacement and reinstatement’.

Within the AG environment it was also possible to employ a range ofgrid-based software tools that have been developed to annotate AG activi-ties. For the Stereobodies project two such tools were integrated into theCSAGE environment: Memetic and Compendium. The Memetic systemallows AG sessions to be recorded and annotated, thus providing a frame-work for meaningful playback of the multiple recorded video streams.Compendium is a dialogue mapping system that was used in this context todocument and support reflection and analysis, retrospectively, whilst replay-ing video streams using Memetic. Graphic interfaces from both systems arevisually represented within the image of the AG node in Figure 11.

From the various stages of research undertaken as part of theStereobodies project it is possible to say that ‘presence’ in relation to ‘live-ness’ or ‘live performance’ has an inextricable link with participant feedbackor interactivity within the shared, social space of performance. Howeverfrom this project it is also evident that ‘shared space’, no longer refers to aco-located physical space, but can also refer to the distributed and on-linecollaborative environments that are emerging from the e-Science researchcontext.

Implications for practice-led researchThe collaborative research potential provided through the e-Science devel-opment of virtual research environments such as CSAGE and Memetic hassignificant implications for practice-led research in dance as well as thebroader arts community. The Stereobodies project has provided the initialcontext for a brief exploration of this emerging environment as a creative,performance context, as context for methodological development and as anenvironment in which the documentation and analysis of practice and thecreative process can be pursued in profoundly new ways. The author of thispaper, together with academics from the University of Manchester,University of Leeds and the Open University have been awarded a two-yearAHRC-EPSRC-JISC e-Science grant to continue and develop on the researchinitiated through the Stereobodies project. The project, entitled RelocatingChoreographic Process: The impact of collaborative memory and grid technolo-gies on practice-ld research in dance will begin in September 2007.

ReferencesBailey, H., Hewison J., Garcia A. and Turner M. (2006), ‘Stereobodies:

Choreographic Explorations between Real and Virtual Spaces’ at DigitalResources in Humanities and Arts conference, Dartington College of Arts, UK.

Broadhurst, S. and Machon, J. (eds.) (2006), Performance and Technology: Practicesof Virtual Embodiment and Interactivity, London, New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

deLahunta, S. (2002), ‘Virtual Reality and Performance’, Performing Arts Journal 70:pp. 105–114.

164 Helen Bailey


Dixon, S. (2007), Digital Performance: A History of New Media in Theatre, DancePerformance Art and Installation, London: MIT Press.

Kaye, N. (1994), Postmodernism and Performance, London: MacMillan.

Popat, S (2006), Invisible Connections: Dance, Choreography and Internet Communities,London: Routledge.

Suggested citationBailey, H. (2007), ‘Ersatz dancing: Negotiating the live and mediated in digital per-

formance practice’, International Journal of Performance Arts and digital Media 3:2&3, pp. 151–165, doi: 10.1386/padm.3.2&3.151/1

Contributor detailsHelen Bailey is a dance artist and academic. She is Artistic Director of dancetheatre company, Ersatz Dance and Principal Lecturer in Dance at University ofBedfordshire, UK. She has toured nationally and internationally and receivesfunding from both research and arts councils. She has taught in UK, Europe andUSA. Her research focuses on the interrelationship between dance, visual technolo-gies and e-Science. Contact: Faculty of Creative Arts and Technology at University ofBedfordshire, Luton Campus, Luton, LU1 3JU, UK.E-mail: [email protected]





IntroductionPart 2: First, second and third spaces:Digital narratives and the spaces of performance

Introduced by Lizbeth Goodman

In this second section of issue 3.2/3.3, the focus of the work shifts from‘real’ bodies in space and time – as viewed through a variety of lenses andscreens – to virtual bodies and imagined or invented bodies as renderedacross a range of disciplinary spaces. This is a cartography of virtual per-formers and their journeys.

Here, the questions addressed range from spatial mathematics and thenotion of the copy, to the mapping of the artefacts of real people who haveimagined better spaces in performance and cultural art forms, through tothe interwoven narratives of avatars in their invented spaces, to the ‘warfareof imagination’ in second life, and finally to the construction of art-basedgames based on solid design principles. In each discipline, in each paper,the solid outline of the human body dissolves a bit further into the medi-ated frame of technologised states and depictions of being.

David Fenton’s paper opens this section. His study of ‘Hotel Pro Forma’considers some of the same questions about authenticity and the role ofthe ‘copy’ addressed in the opening paper on replay culture. But just as thatpiece framed each section with arguments regarding the body in space andtime (as represented by words on paper and images on screen), so thispaper is framed through the addressing of the role of the original and thecopy in the domain of intermedial performance. In terms of ‘The algebra ofplace’, the author positions the subject of performance in relation to the rel-atively stable frame of the stage as compared to the destabilising frames ofcomplex multimedia formats.

In the next paper, by Deborah Barkun and Jools Gilson-Ellis, themapping of cultural impact is given a new frame altogether, in the contextof a folk art/craft project of major proportions. The Knitting Map was madenot only by performance company half/angel but also by scores of volun-teer knitters in the city of Cork: women who wove the stories of their livesinto a woollen design symbolising and encapsulating the pulses and flowsof each day of the weather and movements of real bodies in the real spacesand weather patterns of the city. This paper raises questions about art andcraft, creation and design, collaboration and direction, and also about the



presence of the designed object as both a product of performance andcostume and cartography for community engagement.

A further reorientation of the concept of performative presence is wovenby game play and game theory expert Esther MacCallum-Stewart in thethird paper in this part. In this piece, the work of the emergent virtual envi-ronment Second Life is compared to that of other mediated forms includ-ing World of Warcraft: massively multiplayer games that show how playersand ‘users’ engage creatively in each choice of avatar or virtual representa-tion of self, and how the forms of interaction that theatre makers recogniseas role play have been woven into these new forms, which involve dress up,deliberate choices about self-representation, and the possibility of reinven-tion of he self and self image in each new frame. The paper raises issuesabout identity when players are not necessarily trained performers but areengaging in performative play on a massive scale.

The fourth paper takes this theme forward, and delves into the world ofSecond Life in a dialogue staged by two artist-scholars whose narrative andvisual journeys through the field of gaming and online worlds crossedpaths at the intersection of theory and practice. Denise Doyle and Taey Kimengage in a fictional performative crossing of paths that calls to mind thehouse of mirrors in John Barth’s funhouse once again. For these youngscholars, however, the journey from art and performance to virtual environ-ments is not so challenging, as they see themselves riding on a secondwave of experience into Second Life as a performative play space.

Finally, Axel Stockberger’s article explores a new play space, which hedefines as a ‘third space’ in the domain of spatial modalities and contem-porary game environments. Trained as an artist and experience designer,Stockberger’s reflections help to reposition the frame around play as a tooland method, to consider play as space in itself.

168 Lizbeth Goodman




Hotel Pro Forma’s The Algebra of Place;destabilising the original and the copy inintermedial contemporary performance

David Fenton Queensland University of Technology

AbstractThis paper examines two questions that emerged from a viewing of Hotel ProForma’s contemporary performance The Algebra of Place. It questions howand why the viewer’s perception altered when observing the convergence of liveand mediatised performance, with particular reference to an altered perceptionof original and copy. It also questions the perception of space, time and the per-former’s identity in the performance. In an endeavour to address these questionstwo examples from The Algebra of Place are examined. Theoretically the paperapplies intermediality as a conceptual framework to assist in the examination ofthese concerns. Then the paper reviews in more detail theories of space and timein contemporary performance, and theories of performative identity. The resultof this theoretical exploration, in conjunction with the examples from TheAlgebra of Place, is a provisional concept – digital mimesis. By articulating acontemporary repositioning of mimesis beyond imitation, mimesis is proposedin an attempt to articulate the complex power relations between the originaland the copy in live and mediatised performance. As such, the paper ventures toprovide a lens for theorists and practitioners who examine and create interme-dial contemporary performance that destabilises the original.

IntroductionIn early 2006 I was invited to observe the creative process of KirstenDehlholm. Kirsten is the Artistic Director and founder of Hotel Pro Forma, aninternationally renowned contemporary performance company based inDenmark. The new work that I observed from bump-in to opening night wasThe Algebra of Place. Dehlholm describes this performance work as ‘. . . afilmic arabesque . . . an art installation, a film, a performance, seen fromabove. An architecture with optical illusions. A filmic narrative that, like anarabesque, winds its way through many spaces’ (Dehlholm 2005).Throughout the eighteen days that I observed her process, Kirsten deftlyjuggled the technical demands of three video installations, the mechanics of arevolving screen and the fusion of a DJ and live performer. The result was aone hour work viewed with a bird’s eye view from the five landings above thecentral foyer of Axelborg Tower – Copenhagen. The Algebra of Place proved to


Keywordscontemporary

performanceHotel Pro PormaintermedialitymediatisedmimesisThe Algebra of Place

PADM_3-(2-3)_08-FENTON 11/27/07 5:52 PM Page 169

be a curious and mesmeric work which served as a site specific response tothe architecture of the tower and a provocative inquiry of Arabic culture.

The dramaturgical structure of The Algebra of Place was created inresponse to the floor-plan of a hotel. In a moment of inspiration the roomsof a Canadian hotel, found on a website, formed the perfect structure for aperformance/tour of the work’s concerns. The performance started in theMain Lobby, which paralleled the actual lobby of Axelborg Tower. Then thespace was transformed through mediatised images to other sites, the GiftShop, the Heritage Ballroom, the Summit Ballroom, Club Room, Stage andfinally the Phones, to name a few. Each room in the hotel had a differentstyle and conveyed different content.

However, the content of the work was not the primary concern of my obser-vation. Rather, it was the experimentation with the convergence of live andmediatised performance (Gattenhof 2004) which provided potent examplesfor my research. In particular, when I observed the work two questions came tomind, first why does my perception of the original performance and the copied per-formance become confused? From this question it is easy to discern that at thetime I equated the original performance as being the ‘live’ performance, andthe copied performance as being the ‘mediatised’ one. The second questionhowever attempts to breakdown this somewhat simplistic binary. More specif-ically, I asked myself what was the status of the space, time and the performer’sidentity in The Algebra of Place? By examining these two questions I hope todraw some conclusions which might be of use to other theorists and practi-tioners engaged in intermedial contemporary performance.

There are two examples which I want to use to illustrate how The Algebraof Place provoked a change in my perception of original and copy, and pro-vided ample opportunity to examine the status of space, time and the per-former’s identity. The first example is called The Summit Ballroom. Figure 1below includes two photographs which illustrate this particular section ofthe performance. They show the performer lying on the floor with a field ofred projected around her, giving the illusion that she was floating inabstract space. There was no particular narrative for this moment, or anymoment throughout the whole work, rather the performance seemed to bea collage of thematic responses to Arabic culture. As I observed, the per-former’s animated shadow moved out from underneath her and the per-former stretched out as if to retrieve it. Then, in response, the shadowstretched out as if attempting to return to the body. Understandably, indescription this moment does not hold the mesmeric appeal of the event.Yet I provide this example to assist in answering my two questions, as itprovides a succinct illustration.

Figure 2 is the second example from The Algebra of Place. This example iscalled The Club Room, and shows the live performer wrapped in a towel as if ina sauna. Here she floats in a space dominated by large projections of Arabicmen who are in negotiation. When I encountered this example the initial con-clusions I had drawn about live and mediatised performance required expan-sion. Later in this paper I articulate how these two examples are different yetsimilar, and how they provide a potential answer for my questions.

170 David Fenton


An intermedialconceptual frameworkFirst it is necessary to artic-ulate how intermedialityforms a conceptual frame-work for my investigation.Intermediality is a termadopted by the Theatre andIntermediality Working Group(Chapple and Kattenbelt2006). The working group’stask was to construct theo-ries of media and perfor-mance primarily fromperformance theorists,instead of constructing aframework from theoristsoutside of the field. As a result, they adopted the term intermedialitybecause it best summed up the interrelationship of different media in per-formance. Accordingly, I apply intermediality as a conceptual framework tothis investigation because it destabilises the binary position of mediathrough convergence. Intermediality proposes a change in the position ofthe media, the performer and the audience.

Intermediality is a powerful and potentially radical force, which operates in-between performer and audience; in-between theatre, performance and othermedia; and in-between realities – with theatre providing a stage space for theperformance of intermediality.

(Chapple and Kattenbelt 2006: 12)

With these three levels of interpretation for intermediality – between per-former and audience, performance and media, and in-between realities –

171Hotel Pro Forma’s The Algebra of Place; destabilising the original and the copy . . .

Figure 1: The Summit Ballroom from The Algebra of Place (2006), photo byDavid Fenton.

Figure 2: The Club Room in The Algebra ofPlace (Fortuna 2006).


this conceptual framework destabilises the fixed position of the performer,the performance and those who receive it. In particular, intermediality is notexclusively governed by the interaction of technology; instead a base inter-pretation is the convergence of media in performance. As such, the live per-former and the audience in contemporary performance are part of thatmedia. Therefore, when the performer and the audience are incorporatedinto the interpretive framework of intermediality, perception becomes thefocus. ‘Thus, intermediality is not reliant on technology but on the inter-action between performance and perception’ (Chapple and Kattenbelt2006: 21).

In summary, when an intermedial framework is applied to contemporaryperformance it privileges the altered perceptions of reality created in-between the media, the performers and the audience. Consequently, anintermedial framework challenges the fixity of the contemporary perfor-mance form itself, which has implications for my question concerning myaltered perception of original and copy when viewing The Algebra of Place.

Space and time in contemporary performanceSpecifically, Chapple and Kattenbelt’s intermedial framework challenges thefixity of the form by examining it through several well-established theoreti-cal pathways. It’s their privileging of the theoretical pathways equally andexclusively from performance theoreticians that confirms their original con-tribution to knowledge. At first they commence with the semiotic coding oftheatre that is the concepts of body, space and time. Then, to encompassdifferent theoretical positions on performance, they expand the model fromthe semiotic, to the textual and then to the performative.

Recognition of the textual, the semiotic and the performative models in thesame space, irrespective of whether or not one model or the other is domi-nant in a particular performance, is an important part of intermediality.


In particular the semiotic codes of space, time and ‘the body’ are privileged inmy investigation, however and unavoidably, this initial theoretical positioninevitably becomes enmeshed in theories of the performative and the textual.

When considering of space and time in contemporary performancepractice, Chapple and Kattenbelt’s intermedial framework appears to becomplementary to David E. R. George and Alan Read’s theorising on spaceand time in performance. George and Read theorise on the potentiality ofcontemporary performance generated by its ambiguity. Provocatively,George asserts that ‘To create one version of a performance is simultane-ously to evoke others’ (George 1996: 20). Here George is addressing theambiguity of meaning created by multiple potentials evoked in a contempo-rary performance. His comment agrees with Read’s understanding of impo-tentiality, in what he refers to as Live Art. ‘It is the exposure to an equivalentstate of impotentiality, shared by performer and audience within Live Artacts that mark out the experience for me as remarkable . . .’ (Read 2004: 247).

172 David Fenton


To clarify, Read and George are asserting what does not happen in contem-porary performance is just as potent as what happens. In this way the ambi-guity of contemporary performance generates possibilities whichimaginatively evoke other versions of the work for the viewer.

This notion of ‘potential versions’, supports George’s assertion thatspace and time in performance is doubled. ‘A performance is “present” in aspatial as well as a temporal sense, it is happening here. That “here”however, is similarly doubled and ambiguous . . .’ (George 1996: 21).Accordingly, both Read and George contend that space and time in con-temporary performance is destabilised because of a change in the audi-ence’s perception provoked by the work’s potentiality.

Similarly, Chapple and Kattenbelt contend that it is also the observer’sresponse to the work, positioned as they are in-between media that manipu-lates the space and time of the performance.

In post-dramatic theatre,1 manipulation of space and time is often, but notalways, accomplished through other media operating ‘as performers’ in theperformance space . . . The arrival of the post-structuralist debate opens forintermedial analysis the gaps and fissures in-between the text, the signs, andthe performance, and provides a location for intermedial discourse throughthe body and mind of the performer and receiver.


By applying a poststructuralist perspective Chapple and Kattenbelt’s ‘gapsand fissures’ in the work are similar to Read and David E.R. George’s poten-tialities of performance. Both the fissures, gaps and the potentialities of thework are in this case created by intermedial form, which is located in-between the media, altering a perception of space and time.

These theoretical assertions clarify my experience of Hotel Pro Forma’swork. With their application a clearer picture of the status of space and timein The Algebra of Place emerges. I consider the ambiguity created by themany potential performances evoked by the work confused my perceptionof space and time. This was particularly evident when the live performancedenoted one space and the mediatised performance evoked another.However, what was even more exhilarating, yet also confusing, was whenthese two spaces and times vibrated and converged creating yet anotherpotential performance in-between the form.

However if we continue to apply Chapple and Kattenbelt’s framework,the performer is also considered media in the work, and as such I stillrequire clarity on what was happening to the live performer’s identity whenshe interacted with the mediatised performance.

Performative identityFor decades performance theorists have considered contemporary workfrom the perspective of space, time and the body. Conversely, this investi-gation does not utilise ‘the body’ as a theoretical concept to answer myquestions concerning contemporary intermedial performance. Instead of

1 Chapple andKattenbelt are utilisingLehmann’scontentious term forcontemporaryperformance,Postdramatic Theatre(Lehmann 2006).



‘the body’, identity is used as a theoretical construct, derived from the per-formative theories of Butler (1990), and influence by the poststructuralisttheories of Derrida (1976), to create an alternate theory complementary toChapple and Kattenbelt’s framework of intermediality. The distinctionbetween ‘identity’ and the ‘body’ is understandably a subtle one, however‘identity’ has been chosen to circumvent the dialectic of gender, which forthe most part leads the investigation into a binary discourse on perfor-mance from a somatic perspective.

Paradoxically, to understand Butler’s theories of performativity, genderis the first construct she questions. Butler’s theories on performative iden-tity challenge the fixity of gender. In her investigation of the body as a site ofsocialisation Butler writes, ‘There is no gender identity behind the expres-sion of gender . . . gender is performatively constituted by the very “expres-sions” which are said to be its results’ (Butler 1990: 25). Butler issignificantly influenced by the renowned socio-historical postmodernistMichel Foucault. She subscribes to Foucault’s notion of ‘subject intention-ality’, where the subject considers they are the origin of their intent, and yethave no way of knowing the extent of their actions upon other events, polit-ical or otherwise.

. . . the effects of the instrumental action always have the power to proliferatebeyond the subject’s control, indeed, to challenge the rational transparency ofthat subject’s intentionality, and so subvert the very definition of the subjectitself.

(Butler and Scott 1992: 10)

Simply put, the proliferation of our performative acts is what progressivelyconstitutes our identity. This goes to the heart of Butler’s theory of perfor-mative gender. Her theory of performative gender is based upon a repeti-tion of socially acceptable styles and gestures, which when combined,create the ‘illusion’ of a fixed identity.

Gender ought not [to] be construed as a stable identity or locus of agencyfrom which various acts follow; rather, gender is an identity tenuously consti-tuted in time, instituted in an exterior space through a stylised repetition ofacts. The effect of gender is produced through the stylisation of the body . . .[and] constitute[s] the illusion of an abiding gendered self.

(Butler 1990: 140)

Butler theorises that if gender is performative, then the performance canand does change. She argues that ‘. . . the possibility of, indeed even a ten-dency towards, alteration and modification exists within the process ofrepeating the performance’ (Butler in Carlson 1996: 62). At this point in hertheorising Butler acknowledges poststructuralist theories of the textual.With deference to Derrida, Butler adds that performance is ‘citational’, and‘. . . like all citation, never precisely repeats the absent original . . .’ (Butlerin Carlson 1996: 62). To clarify Butler’s application of citationality ‘Derrida

174 David Fenton


argues . . . that every sign can be “cited, put in-between quotation marks”and made to signify in unintended, unexpected ways’ (Salih and Butler2004: 141). These ‘unintended, unexpected ways’ is where Butler takes hercue for reframing citation from the textual to the performative.

This theoretical pathway eventually leads us to Butler’s most relevantassertion for this investigation. Butler contends that gender through reiter-ated performance is ‘. . . a kind of imitation for which there is no original’(Butler 1998: 1520). This has significant implications for the performer’sidentity in contemporary performance, for Butler’s assertion calls into ques-tion not only the stability of gender but the fixity of original identity.

To summarise, Foucault asserts that the subject’s actions proliferatebeyond their control, and as such this challenges the definition of thesubject (Foucault in Butler and Scott 1992). In addition, Derrida assertseverything is text (Derrida 1976: 156); the performance of our gender andtherefore our identity is a text that can be cited. This citation can changeand therefore Butler is suggesting that gender and identity are fluid con-structs predicated on performance. Not, as we commonly consider them,stable constructions.

With this field of theory in mind, my question as to what was happeningto the performer’s identity in The Algebra of Place has clarified. I have used‘identity’ instead of ‘the body’ to frame my question, because I consideridentity avoids traditionally fixed notions of gender. In so doing, I have con-centrated on the performativity of identity rather than Butler’s theories ofgendered performance. As such, when investigating a live performer froman intermedial perspective, the performer’s identity can be considered asunfixed media, or a media continually under reconstruction through perfor-mative citations. This answers, to some extent, why my perception of per-former’s identity altered when viewing The Algebra of Place. The performer’sidentity was replicated through the mediatised form, which ‘re-cited’ heridentity, creating her instability.

Repositioning mimesisFundamentally, the question about my altered perception of the originaland the copy in The Algebra of Place, as well as the status of the space, timeand the performer’s identity, are questions about the meaning of represen-tation. Notions of the original and the copy are bound up in traditionalunderstanding of imitation through mimesis. Equally, in a fictional context,space, time and identity are also bound up in our understanding ofmimesis which we attribute to Aristotle. But is mimesis purely about imita-tion? Can mimesis serve in a performance context without fiction? And assuch, does mimesis have a fixed meaning?

Halliwell states, ‘All disciplined arts follow procedures which Aristotletakes to be analogous to the workings of nature: but only the mimetic artshave as their specific purpose to produce representations or fictional ren-derings of the world’ (Halliwell 1990: 11). Halliwell understands fromAristotle’s Poetics 25 that mimetic acts can represent one or a combinationof three things, ‘actual reality, past or the present, (popular) conceptions of,



or beliefs about the world; or normative ideas of what the world “ought” tobe . . .’ (Halliwell 1990: 11). Therefore, considered with its traditionalmeaning, mimesis is imitation, or more simply ‘. . . where somethingstands in for something it is not’ (Piem 2005: 75).

However, contemporary theorists have expanded upon these traditionalunderstandings of mimesis and the concept is now being repositioned inconsideration of contemporary performance, where fiction and imitationare not governing poetics of the work. With this in mind Egbert J. Bakkeridentifies the principle of mimesis as ‘what people do’ and explains

. . . mimesis is an action noun informed from the verb mimeisthai (to repre-sent or imitate) . . . Mimeisthai is what people do, not what things are. Thusmimesis originally does not denote a relation between the text . . . and its ref-erent, but between an action (i.e. a process) and its model.

(Bakker 1999: 13)

Further to Bakker’s assertion that mimesis is an action, ‘a process’,Lehmann, while acknowledging the traditional understanding of mimesisalso acknowledges that there are different interpretations: ‘Adorno’s idea ofmimesis – which he understands as a presymbolic, affective “becoming-like-something” . . . rather than with mimesis in the narrow sense of imita-tion’ (Lehmann 2006: 39). This is an important concession, for‘becoming-like-something’ is also the process to which Michael Taussigframes his theory of mimesis from a postcolonial perspective. He creditsmimesis as ‘. . . the magical power of replication, the image affecting whatit is an image of, wherein the representation shares in, or takes power fromthe represented . . .’ (Taussig 1993: 8). Here Taussig defines mimesisthrough performative replication, where power is taken and or shared. Inthese contemporary interpretations the process of mimesis is an exchangeof power, a process where the copy changes or comments upon the original,creating a confusion between both.

Taussig’s understanding of the process of power exchange throughmimesis is provided by examples between pre-technological and technolog-ical cultures. However, Kathryn Rosenfeld uses gender to provide a clearexample of the power process of contemporary theories of mimesis. In herdiscussion on drag kings she asserts they are ‘. . . socially “weak” but per-formatively strong operatives . . .’ (Rosenfeld 2002: 206). She sees drag‘kinging’ as taking on the representational trappings of maleness, in orderto explore alternative masculinities. ‘It may be that the general cultureoffers more ways of being male than female. Yet drag king macho, when itappears, tends to be more layered and nuanced than macho in the main-stream’ (Rosenfeld 2002: 206). Consequently, through a mimetic act, dragkings relocate the power of the centre to the margin. She argues ‘. . . insuch a performance, the copy “poses as” the original, in some waysbecomes it, but also not ceasing to be itself, remaining, in a case such asthe present one where the margin undertakes a mimetic performance of thecentre . . .’ (Rosenfeld 2002: 206–07).

176 David Fenton


Digital mimesisHow does a contemporary understanding of mimesis illuminate my two ques-tions? Especially when Taussig’s contemporary understanding of mimesis isexplored through culture and Rosenfeld’s contemporary example of mimesisis explored through gender. What is needed is a theory of contemporarymimesis from an intermedial perspective, a theory that encompasses thedestabilisation of space, time and the performer’s identity, which causes thedestabilisation of original and copy in contemporary performance. And to dothat mimesis needs to be theorised through a technological paradigm.

Therefore I propose the concept of digital mimesis,2 a contemporaryinterpretation of mimesis coupled with theories of digital technology, as apotential contribution to discussions on intermediality in contemporaryperformance. This concept incorporates both form and process, where thedigital is the form, and mimesis, the process. This theoretical coupling isaffirmed by Auslander’s assertion that the live and mediatised are not onto-logically dissimilar. Auslander attributes performativity to both and positsthat their difference has been predicated on the potential of their use, whichis primarily an historical and contingent one (Auslander 1997: 3–4).Ironically, Auslander notes that the digital, based upon binary technology,has the capacity to ‘. . . dismantle cultural binaries, including the distinctionbetween copy and original’ (Auslander 1999: 106). In this way the digitalform, which as Auslander (1999) asserts has the capacity to dismantle copyand original, reinforces the process of mimesis, where there is an exchangeof power that destabilises copy and original.

The concept of digital mimesis assists in explaining what was happen-ing to my perception when witnessing Hotel Pro Forma’s work – TheAlgebra of Place confused original space, original time and original identity.The performance did this through digital mimetic process that exchangedpower back and forth very quickly between the live performance and themediatised. Accordingly, I propose a provisional definition of digitalmimesis as a process where space, time and the performer’s identity are simul-taneously dispersed and coalesced in intermedial contemporary performance,destabilising the perception of the original and the copy.

The words ‘simultaneously dispersed and coalesced’ in the definitionare included to describe the destabilising vibrations created by the interme-dial form – a flirtation, perceived by the viewer, concerning the fluctuatingseparation and unity of space, time and identity. Essentially, this provisionaldefinition of digital mimesis is an attempt to qualify the complex powerexchange between the media which alters perception. To some extent thedefinition answers both of my questions and brings to my attention thatthey are connected by causality. As such, it was the potentiality of theunfixed space, time and the performer’s identity within The Algebra of Placewhich destabilised my perception of original and copy.

Examples from The Algebra of PlaceTo clarify and expand this provisional definition of digital mimesis I’d like toexamine more closely the two examples provided earlier. Figure 1 illustrates

2 Digital mimesis,although a termalready in publication,has not beenproposed as atheoretical processbetween live andmediatisedperformance. Itscurrent use is todescribe a processphotographer DieterHuber employs in hisdigitally manipulatedphotographic works(Huber 2000). It alsodescribes a digitalarchive project createdby WillametteUniversity, (Anon2005). The term alsoused to describe aprocess in 3D printingwhich is theoreticallycloser to myinterpretation. And themost recentpublication using theterm digital mimesisconcerns howSpielberg incollaboration withIndustrial Light andMagic have createdcomputer animationsof animals for JurassicPark using motioncapture of realanimals. However,this article does notfully articulate acontemporary theoryof the power exchangeof mimesis, but ratherthe purely imitative,(Delliquanti 2006).



how space and time are fractured in this live and mediatised performance,for performance cannot exist without space, whether it is real or virtual, andspace cannot be performed without time.3 However, in order to understandhow the performer’s identity is fractured it is necessary to acknowledgeButler’s theory of performative identity. In Figure 1 the performer’s identityis re-cited by the live body performing in juxtaposition to its mediatisedidentity. In this way Figure 1 is a somewhat literal moment of praxis inaccord with Butler’s theory that identity is not fixed but continually recon-stituted through performative citation (Salih and Butler 2004).

Therefore Figure 1 affirms my concept of digital mimesis, where space,time and the performer’s identity are dispersed and yet simultaneously flirtwith potential coalescence. This is not a traditional performance ofmimesis, one based upon imitation. Rather, it is an example of a contem-porary theory of mimesis, a process where ‘. . . the image affecting what itis an image of, wherein the representation shares in, or takes power fromthe represented . . .’ (Taussig 1993: 8). In this example the live and media-tised forms create an intermedial in-betweeness of perception for the audi-ence. The performance literally confuses the space, the time and theperformer’s identity, provoking the question, `which is the original andwhich the copy?’

So far Figure 1 limits the interaction of a live performer to a scale avatar,but not all examples in The Algebra of Place were this clear. For instance, inFigure 2 the live performer was placed in a digital field which did notproduce a mimetic imitation of her. Rather, a man was represented, whosescale varied significantly. Could this be considered an example of digitalmimesis?

Figure 2 includes live and the mediatised forms, and as a consequencespace and time are fractured, yet once again with regard to the performer’sidentity this example is complex. The digital image in this example ismimetic because it represents one or a combination of these three things,‘actual reality, past or the present, (popular) conceptions of, or beliefsabout the world; or normative ideas of what the world “ought” to be . . .’(Halliwell 1990: 11). Yet if the digital field is not mimetically specific to thelive performer how then does her identity fracture? Equally, how can a con-temporary definition of mimesis, the power exchange between copy andoriginal, be applied in this example?

I propose that the key is the fracturing of space and time, that when alive performer interacts with a clearly representational digital image atranslocation of identity occurs. This translocation of identity simply meansthat the identity seems to be in several places at once (Giannachi 2004).One place is the live performer in the corporeal world, the other is the per-former located in the virtual, where her scale, proportions and even herinteraction with gravity can vary. This is of course an optical illusion.Nevertheless, what it provides is a fracturing of the performer’s identitybecause of the fracturing of space and time. Accordingly, the notion oftranslocal identity in performance engages our contemporary understand-ing of mimesis. A confusion of perception is created in the viewer through

3 Virillo frames thecontinual flux of spaceand time in the virtualsimilarly to the wayDavid E.R. Georgeexplains the ambiguityof space and time inlive performance: ‘weare seeing thebeginnings of a“generalized arrival”whereby everythingarrives without havingto leave’ (Virillo 1997).As such, time in boththe live and the virtualis associated with theperformance of space,in as much as bothare ambiguous anddoubled in intermedialperformance.

178 David Fenton


the mimetic exchange of power, where the copy changes or commentsupon the original. As such, I propose that space, time and identity can frac-ture even if the digital representations are devoid of scale avatars, becausethe identity continues to be translocal.

In conclusionWhat then is similar and or different about these two examples? Figures 1and 2 are similar in as much as they both provide an example of the frac-turing of space and time because of the convergence of live and mediatisedperformance. However, this is the minimum of my criteria for digitalmimesis.

Figure 1 advances the illustration of digital mimesis through its content,which demonstrates a literal split of identity. Nevertheless, Figure 1 islimited with regard to the destabilisation of the performer’s identity as itdoes not provide a convincing translocation of identity by mimetically repre-senting another space and time. Instead it provides an abstracted field oflight, rather than a representational one. The only mimetic quality we canattribute to Figure 1 is the content, the performer’s literal split through themediatised image.

Whereas in contrast to Figure 1, Figure 2 demonstrates the fracturing ofspace and time through other locations. And as such, it is the translocationof the identity, appearing as it were in different space-times, which offers amore convincing illustration of the concept of digital mimesis.

If digital mimesis can be succinctly defined as a process where space,time and the performer’s identity are simultaneously dispersed and coalesced inintermedial contemporary performance, destabilising the perception of the orig-inal and the copy, how then do these examples collectively contribute to abetter understanding of the concept? Together they illustrate that once aperformer’s live performance converges with a mediatised performance,their identity fractures because of their translocation in different space andtimes. However, and more importantly, the examples affirm that bothaspects of the performance must be representational, that they must have amimetic relationship, but not strictly one governed by imitation. Rather, inthis case the mimetic replication must supersede a traditional imitativeunderstanding of mimesis, to embrace a contemporary understandingwhich creates an altered perception of original and copy.

With this regard the concept of digital mimesis answers both of my initialquestions concerning the confusion of original and copy, and the perceptionof time, space and the performer’s identity in The Algebra of Place. I contendthat there is a causal relationship between the two questions. And thatspace, time and identity were in flux when I observed The Algebra of Place,which led to my altered perception of copy and original. Consequently, theconcept of digital mimesis answers both questions, it is chiefly concernedwith unpacking what appears to be an ontological destabilisation of originaland copy between live and mediatised performance, where the fixity of theoriginal is challenged through intermediality. As such, I propose that since theintermedial practice of Hotel Pro Forma is not uncommon in contemporary



performance practice world wide, that digital mimesis may be a concept ofuse for the analysis of other intermedial works which deliberately, or inadver-tently, destabilise the ontology of the original.

ReferencesAnon (2005), ‘The Digital Mimesis Project’, http://library.willamette.edu/

project/index.html. Accessed 30 February 2005.

Auslander, P. (1997), ‘Ontology vs. History: Making Distinctions between the Liveand the Mediatized’. The Conference Archives, http://webcast.gatech.edu/papers/arch/Auslander.html. Accessed18 May 2005.

——— (1999), Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized Culture, London and New York:Routledge.

Bakker, E.J. (1999), ‘Mimesis as Performance: reading Auerbach’s first chapter’.Poetics Today, 20, (Spring): pp. 11–16.

Butler, J. (1990), Gender Trouble, London: Routledge.

Butler, J. and Scott, J. (1992), ‘Contingent Foundations: Feminism and the questionof “Postmodernism”’, in Feminist Theorize the Political, New York: Routledge,pp. 3–19.

Carlson, M. (1996), ‘Resistant Performance’, in Goodman, L. and Gay, J. (eds,), TheRoutledge Reader in Politics and Performance, London: Routledge.

Chapple, F. and Kattenbelt, C. (eds.) (2006), Intermediality in Theatre andPerformance, Amsterdam: International Federation of Theatre Research.

Dehlholm, K. (2005), ‘Information about Hotel Pro Forma’, http://www.hotelproforma.dk/information/eng_index.html. Accessed 13 February 2005.

Delliquanti, D. (2006), ‘Commercialized Captivity: Theme Park AnimalPerformances in Jurassic Park and Disney’s Animal Kingdom’, http://modernmask.org/film/Commercialized_Captivity.html. Accessed 20 January 2007.

Derrida, J. (1976), Of Grammatology, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Fortuna, R. (2006), The Algebra of Place, Hotel Pro Forma [Photograph].

Gattenhof, S.J. (2004), ‘Young People and Performance: the Impact ofDeterritorialisation on Contemporary Theatre for Young People’, PhD Thesis:Queensland University of Technology.

George, D.E.R. (1996), ‘Performance Epistemology’, Performance Research, 1:pp. 16–25.

Giannachi, G. (2004), Virtual Theatres an Introduction, New York: Routledge.

Halliwell, S. (1990), ‘Aristotelian mimesis re-evaluated’, in Cooper, D.E. (ed.),Journal of History and Philosophy, 28: p. 11, Cambridge, Massachusetts: BlackwellPublishers.

Huber, D. (2000), ‘Klone #92’, http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/mediaartnet/.[Photograph] http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/artist/dieter-huber/biography/.Accessed18 May 2005.

Lehmann, H.T. (2006), Postdramatic Theatre, London: Routledge.

Piem, N. (2005), ‘Spectral Bodies: Derrida and the Philosophy of the Photograph asHistorical Document’, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 39:1, pp. 67–84.

Read, A. (2004), ‘Say Performance: Some Suggestions Regarding Live Art’, inHeathfield, A. (ed.), Live: Art and Performance, London: Tate.

Rosenfeld, K. (2002), ‘Drag King Magic: Performing/becoming the Other’, Journal ofHomosexuality, 43:3/4, pp. 201–219.

180 David Fenton


Salih, S. and Butler, J. (eds.) (2004), The Judith Butler Reader, Victoria, Australia:Blackwattle Publishing.

Taussig, M. (1993), Mimesis and Alterity: A Particular History of Senses, New York:Routledge.

Virillo, P. (1997), Open Sky, London and New York: Verso.

Suggested citationFenton, D. (2007), ‘Hotel Pro Forma’s The Algebra of Place; destabilising the original

and the copy in intermedial contemporary performance’, International Journalof Performance Arts and digital Media 3: 2&3, pp. 169–181, doi: 10.1386/padm.3.2&3.169/1

Contributor detailsDavid Fenton is an Australian contemporary performance maker, theatre directorand academic. Currently, he is lecturer in Performance Studies at the CreativeIndustries Faculty of Queensland University of Technology, where he completed hisPhd, ‘Unstable Acts’ – a practice-led investigation in Performance Innovation –2007. David has been a freelance theatre director in Australia for seventeen years.His theatre works have toured nationally and internationally. From 2000 – 2002David was Festival Director for Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Festival; andfrom 1996 – 1999 he was Artistic Director of Riverina Theatre Company. Contact: 8Moriac Street, Moorooka, Queensland, Australia 4105.E-mail: [email protected]





Orienteering with double moss: The cartographies of half/angel’s The Knitting Map*

Deborah Barkun Millersville University of Pennsylvania

Jools Gilson-Ellis University College Cork

AbstractThis article analyses The Knitting Map, a large-scale, durational textile installa-tion by the performance production company half/angel. It examines the waysin which technology was used in The Knitting Map to connect the weather andthe levels of busyness in Cork City (Ireland) to a community of knitters, and ayear-long process of hand-knitting. The article focuses on processes of translationas a fundamental operation within this ambitious work; translation of digitaldata into knitting patterns, as well as technology into something familiar to acommunity of knitters. The article suggests that by contextualising The KnittingMap’s digital technology, the processes and language of ‘knitting Cork’ becamedialogic across generations. The Knitting Map is then framed within a broaderhistory of radical textile projects, and community art works. The article closeswith an analysis of a year-long series of knitting performances by Jools Gilson-Ellis, staged in public sites in Cork City and used as a performative strategy ofengaging participants both actually and symbolically in the project.

In half/angel’s project The Knitting Map, software was written to translateinformation about how busy Cork City was, into knitting stitches, and whatthe weather was like, into wool colour. This information was uploaded todigital screens as a simple knitting pattern (knit this stitch in this colour),and volunteer knitters sat at twenty knitting stations in a wooden amphithe-atre in the crypt of St. Luke’s Church and knitted. And they did this everyday for a year . . .

Jools: IntroductionThe Knitting Map was a large-scale, durational textile installation commis-sioned by the executive of the European Capital of Culture: Cork 2005. As acompleted textile sculpture, it has also been exhibited at the MillenniumHall in Cork, Ireland (2006), and at the Ganser Gallery, MillersvilleUniversity in Pennsylvania (2007). The project was always an audaciouslyambitious one; half/angel1 rehearsed for it by spending ten years makingcontemporary dance and installation works, which involved various

* half/angel: half/angelhas been makingperformance andvisual art work fortheatres, galleries andoutside spaces since1995. The companyworks acrossdisciplines and sites,as well as across arange of urban andrural contexts. Thesehave included anurban dock, a ruralheadland, a universityquadrangle and acommunity of knitters.We are interested inhow to take yourbreath away. We haveprojected poetry ontofalling rice; threaded


Keywordsperformancedigital mediaknittingcraftartwomendata

PADM_3-(2-3)_09-BARKUN 11/27/07 5:54 PM Page 183

motion-sensing digital technologies, and by honing a poetic sensibility thataspired to ‘trick’ computers into being able to see the ache of emotion.During this decade, our model of motion was the dancer’s body, or the bodyof the individual gallery visitor. In The Knitting Map, we exchanged an indi-vidual corpus (often a highly trained one), for the shifting turning energies ofa city. We monitored its movements, and its weather, and we knitted it.

40,000 sewingneedles with redthread and hung themfrom a ceiling; wehave made air ghostsfor dancers to tanglewith in performance;we’ve asked you totake off your socksand walk on grassinside the gallery, andwe have dissolvedreveries in water foryou to find again.www.halfangel.ie.

1 Directed by RichardPovall as well as JoolsGilson-Ellis. Allsoftware and digitalenvironments weredesigned by RichardPovall.

184 Deborah Barkun and Jools Gilson-Ellis

Figure 1: The Knitting Map on exhibition in The Millenium Hall, Cork City,June 2006.


We are translators. Our performance and installation practice hadalways involved the translation of one gesture into another. I wanted a satel-lite to provide the data about how busy Cork city centre was, but no onewould loan us one, and we couldn’t afford our own, so we settled for fourcity centre CCTV cameras, and became signatories to promises to theGardai (the Irish police) that we wouldn’t publicly broadcast or display theimages we captured. Richard Povall was the only person to look directlythrough the eyes of these cameras, and he did so not to witness the eventsthey captured, but to use software to analyse just how much movementwas happening in front of their eyes. Through processes of averaging andcollating2 the data from these cameras, Richard programmed the system totranslate how busy the city was into one of 25 knitting stitches of equivalentcomplexity.

How do you knit the weather? In his design of the software used toaverage copious amounts of data produced by our weather station,Richard attempted to capture a sense of the phenomenal experience of theelements. His programming combined a range of different data streamsincluding temperature, precipitation and wind speed, and scaled them toproduce a number between 1 and 26 for every day of the year.3 Our paletteof colours for the map were a muted range of mauves, blues, greens,greys, creams, and other earth tones, (but no reds, oranges or yellows),and we mapped these colours onto Richard’s 26 gradations of Corkweather. So that every day our system generated a single stitch/colourcombination

2 Richard looked at thisinformation overmany weeks, andaveraged the data, andthen programmed thesystem to upload thisnumber to our centralprocessor every 5minutes. He thenintegrated theinformation from thefour city centrelocations by collatingand averaging theirnumbers again, togive a single numberbetween 1 and 25 torepresent just howbusy the city was every5 minutes. He thendid more averaging,and the city’s level ofmotion generated asingle number everyday. We made agraduated list ofstitches from 1-25 thatmoved from simple tocomplex, and wemapped this onto thelevels of busynessgenerated by the city.

3 His idea was to give asense of how aparticular day might‘feel’ by mappingcombinations ofinformation, in asimilar way that weapprehend a sense ofa day when we stepout into it.

185Orienteering with double moss: The cartographies of half/angel’s The Knitting Map

Figure 2. Knitters knitting on The Knitting Map, Cork 2005.


Knitting for a yearBefore we open, whoever is on duty checks the knitting from the previousday, picks up any dropped stitches, finishes any rows, and turns on all thedigital screens. If the weather has shifted the colour, then all the wool needsto be changed and brought in baskets from our shelves of coloured wool,and attached to the knitting. Someone is sent over to the corner shop topick up fresh scones for elevenses and bread for lunch. We open at 10 amand in come the knitters sometimes in gangs, sometimes one at a time.And alongside our regular knitters are visitors of all kinds, come to view theinstallation, to see the wonder of a year of knitting beginning to emerge. Weleave whatever we are doing – knitting, or teaching to knit, or making tea towelcome these visitors, and to explain the work, and what we are trying todo. We always invite visitors to knit if they would like, to learn if they don’tknow how, and if not to take their time to watch our knitters at work.

We are translators. But our greatest interpretive challenge was not to dowith technology, but with opening the work in a profound way to a commu-nity of knitters, mostly unfamiliar with the discourse of contemporary arts.We worked hard to recruit and develop this community in the years prior to2005, but a bigger challenge was explaining a complex conceptual artproject before it had begun. Many people thought it was going to be a literalmap of the city, and whilst this felt like anathema to us, it was a lesson inthe apprehension of contemporary art and technology projects for the un-initiated. When knitters were finally welcomed into St. Luke’s, and sat downin front of their screens, lifted their needles and began to knit (as more than2000 volunteers did during 2005), they began to take possession of boththe space and the project, as well as their engagement with technology.What was such a challenge to explain before its actuality became morestraightforward once it was materially present before us. Once we could seeit (and once it was seen to be beautiful) its participants came to understandits nature as abstract cartography, as a simple and gorgeous abundance ofknitting, somehow connected to the city and its weather by themselves.


Figure 3. Knitters knitting on The Knitting Map, Cork 2005.


Caroline and JuliaCaroline rings the bell bang on 10 am, sometimes earlier. She and her col-leagues from the Cope Foundation are regular knitters. Every Monday theyarrive with their hats and coats and bags and their big grins. In they comeand like good children hang up their coats before they come into thekitchen to have their tea and scone. Julia comes on other days, a tiny gentleearnest nun, who knits for a morning once a week. School teachers andchildren, mums and aunts and grandmothers. Of course there are somemen, dads sometimes and brothers, but they are generally visitors fromoverseas, or some other kind of novelty. Every interviewer who interviewedus during several years of focus on The Knitting Map asked if men alsoknitted, and of course they did. But this is hardly the point. The point of allthese questions was to rattle the intransigence around identity that cultureholds so dear, that’s why I so often talk of femininity rather than women.But let’s not beat around the theoretical bush here: this was women’s work.But that doesn’t mean that it couldn’t have been otherwise. Indeed thiswork is absolutely based on re-working meaning around femininity. Carolineand Julia knew this in their own ways.

The interaction of these knitters with technology was a deceptivelysubtle one. Whilst the pattern and the wool colour depicted on the knitters’screens had the guise of an ordinary knitting pattern, this familiar code con-cealed its origin in a digital system which captured the geographies ofweather and city busyness. The collective gesture of communal knitting wasone which gave cartographic authority to middle-aged women, and their


Figure 4. The wooden amphitheatre/coptic circle in St. Luke’s Church, CorkCity, Ireland.


language of care (which is what knitting mostly is). The Knitting Mapenabled the dynamics of community – both synchronous (a communitynow together) and diachronous (over a calendar year – communities needtime to develop and sustain themselves) to engage directly with technologythrough a process of knitting. Knitting in this project was clearly both a


Figure 5. Jools Gilson-Ellis performing in Merchants’ Quay Shopping Centre,Cork City, April 2004.Copyright for all images belongs to half/angel.


literal as well as a metaphorical labour. Most of the women regularlyinvolved with The Knitting Map were unfamiliar with technology in any form,and this was mostly generational. The Knitting Map installation space wasmade from elements familiar and essential to the generation of community.Knitters could choose to sit beside their friends, or meet new participants.It was easy to chat whilst knitting. There were regular breaks for scones andtea and a sandwich at lunch time. The actual physical use of technologywhilst knitting was relatively minimal – a screen, on which was displayedthe generated stitch/colour, and an easy alternative for beginners, or thosewith learning difficulties. But the technology that generated these stitcheswas inherent in these knitting patterns, and the fusion of the ordinary andthe extraordinary was part of its power. These women were knitting theweather through their use of yarn colour; the normality of choosing one’sown wool colour was given up in favour of an openness to what the wideand close skies of a year of weather might bring. Such a communal gesturebrought frosts and floods, and heat into the domestic and ordinary act ofknitting. It opened its close, domestic and feminine associations to theliteral and metaphorical sky. It allowed the mathematical complexity of knit-ting difficult stitches to be brought into proximity to a frantic city, cloggedwith traffic and queues, and crowded streets. In keeping track of shiftingnumerical combinations to produce (for example), an open honeycombcable4 these women re-worked the actual digital information about busy-ness being sent up to them from the city,5 and they did so, by integratingthis data with their hands (their digits) in processes of communal handknitting. The Knitting Map allowed the prevailing cultural peripherality ofmiddle-aged women to make a collectively original and beautiful thing andin doing so re-mapped their own apparently tangential geography.

Deborah: poetry in translationTo communicate The Knitting Map’s poetic and conceptual premises,half/angel first addressed a dilemma of language: how to effectively trans-late digital displays that correspond to stitches and colours to participantsunfamiliar with the aesthetics, technology, and vocabulary of contemporaryart. Indeed, producing a technologically mediated conceptual portrait ofCork required trust in and comfort with the technology integral to theproject. Ultimately, to create an environment conducive to knitting, thetechnology that collected, collated, and transmitted data itself needed aninterpretive apparatus to be comprehensible. Towards this end, half/angeltranslated their technology into familiar and purposeful forms and materi-als, thus mitigating feelings of intimidation that technology so often engen-ders. In effect, half/angel gently introduced digital technology to TheKnitting Map’s largely Irish, middle-aged, female participants by enfolding itin wood and wool. Povall and Enrika Bertolini Cullen outfitted the crypt ofSt. Luke’s Church, in which The Knitting Map was headquartered, to facili-tate the translation of urban milieu to stitch and colour. The crypt was facedin wood, emphasising architectural contours and encasing the monitors indigital ‘pulpits’, each one its own quiet yet industrious mode of address.

4 Open HoneycombCable (knitting patternwhere K = knit, and P = purl):

The pattern begins onthe wrong side, sowork 1 row knit beforestarting. Row 1: K2,p8, k2; rep to end.Row 2: P2, C4B (slipnext 2 sts onto cableneedle and hold atback of work, k2, k2from cable needle)C4F (slip next 2 stsonto cable needle andhold at front of work,k2, k2 from cableneedle), p2; rep toend. Row 3: As 1stRow 4: P2, k8, p2; repto end. Row 5: As 1st.Row 6: As 4th. Row 7:As 1st. Row 8: As 4th.These 8 rows formpattern. Repeat’(Matthews 1984: 63).

5 St. Luke’s church is ona hill overlooking CorkCity.



Seated at these digital knitting stations, below a bank of Romanesquearched windows, the twenty knitters resembled a choir, voices materialisedin rivulets of knitted wool, spilling over a wooden embankment andmerging at a confluence of expanding colour, pattern and texture.

half/angel conceived The Knitting Map as a secular project that weddedtechnology with handwork, blurring the boundaries between masculine andfeminine, labour and leisure, art and craft. Yet, for so many of the partici-pants, themselves practicing Catholics, the crypt of St. Luke’s implied thecommunal experience of worship. Cullen, a devout Catholic, labelled thedesign of the knitting stations a ‘coptic circle’ for its visual affinities to aCoptic cross (McCarthy 2005: 36–38). Regardless of the participants’ reli-gious convictions, these contours transformed the wired and cavernousspace into a place of intimacy, in which knitting became a communal expe-rience. By effectively contextualising The Knitting Map’s digital technology,the very processes and language of ‘knitting Cork’ becomes dialogic acrossgenerations. Here, digital media is rendered meaningful to participants pre-viously unfamiliar with its codes. Likewise, knitting, a traditional art form, ispassed to young participants, more conversant with technology than textile.Here, half/angel deploys digital media in the service of art to perform poetryin translation.

Jools: voicing interpretationOur knitters then became translators. We encouraged our regulars to takepart in the process of welcoming visitors – getting them knitting if they sowished, and teaching them if they needed it. This process was one inwhich women who often had absolutely no experience of digitalprocesses, were explaining a conceptual digital art work to visitors of allkinds, from families to international arts practitioners. Sometimes Ieavesdropped these explanations from the back room. These were not theperfect presentations of the gallerist or the city guide, but were an ownedarticulation of what was happening. This was much easier to do once themap itself had begun to appear. Once I heard it explained that the knittedcables were the traffic, and the double moss6 the people; a scenario inwhich our software (which only sees movement) was able to distinguishbetween the kinds of motion generated by pedestrians and by traffic. Alltranslations have their stumbles – ours had similarly been a process ofpartial translation. Each of us told different stories about how the mapwas made, how it worked, and what it might become. In these spoken nar-ratives, such acts of translation came to be lodged corporeally in thebodies of these women who had knitted and chatted their way into voicinginterpretation.

DuetThis essay is a duet between the Director of half/angel Jools Gilson-Ellis,and the art historian Deborah Barkun. We are orienteering, using TheKnitting Map as compass as well as map. We are hunting for curiousstitches in the millions before us; we fly skywards and gasp at the topography;

6 Double moss was oneof the knitting stitchesused regularly in themap – it was placedtowards the quiet endon the levels of citybusyness.



we sweep sideways and see the map from a different perspective – there itis amongst so many other collaborative art works, and there it is again, thistime amongst the traditions of Textile Art. Finally we sit down exhausted,and wonder at how ordinary geographies are made extraordinary by such anobject; how the exhibition in the Ganser Gallery reverberates between ruraltextile communities in two countries. And finally we stay very quiet, andwatch as one community takes the pulse of another as silent figures taketime to witness the pleated complexity of billions of stitches; a complexitybrought together to make a single thing.

Deborah: the map at MillersvilleIn March 2007 Millersville University welcomed half/angel’s The KnittingMap to the Ganser Gallery. As a region steeped in a rich history of fibre arts,Central Pennsylvania was an especially appropriate site for The KnittingMap’s US debut. Like the quilt, a textile inseparable from CentralPennsylvania history, The Knitting Map evokes a cultural moment in Cork,Ireland that led to the city’s selection, in 2005, as the European Capital ofCulture. When faculty and staff in the Art Department at MillersvilleUniversity were introduced to The Knitting Map, they felt an immediateaffinity for Cork residents’ desires to ‘fabricate’ their experience of place.

The understanding of place, affected by colour, climate and community,is intimately connected to one’s relationship to and traversal of space.Indeed, one’s visual and social landscape transforms identity. Likewise,people shape place, suffusing streets and architecture with vitality and char-acter. By translating traffic flow and weather patterns into representativestitches and colours, more than two thousand volunteer knitters generateda conceptual topography as diverse as Cork’s nearly half-million residentsand their respective relationships to the urban fabric.

Knitting can be solitary or communal, mindless or contemplative, visualor tactile. For the knitter, the intricate choreography of needles and yarn canyield both text and textile. Whether a stitch takes the form of a simple garteror a complex cable, its calligraphic lines can be read in tones amplified orhushed. Thus, the language of knitting is a shared language. Like quiltingbees, ‘knit-ins’ and knitting guilds provide instruction, community, and con-versation. In 2005, in Cork, half/angel coordinated a rotating group of knit-ters who congregated around their knitting stations in the crypt of St.Luke’s Church, Summerhill, chronicling city traffic and weather accordingto computer-generated patterns. In practice, this communal activity encour-aged mutual exchange and united disparate individuals in a collaborativefabric and collective yarn. The Knitting Map’s vast scale attests to this mul-tiplicity of voices. The result is a panorama that uniquely captures a city andits community.

When four large wooden chests containing The Knitting Map arrived inthe Art Department, the scent of cedar, a fragrance that evokes anticipationand nostalgia, filled the air. Like scent, textiles and needlework can triggerassociations and memories. Memory quilts, friendship quilts and mourningquilts, such as the NAMES Project AIDS Quilt, parts of which were exhibited



at Millersville University in November 2006, typically incorporate meaning-ful scraps of cloth, while handwork may aid the quilter in the ritualised workof memory, chronology, or grief. Cultural historian and critic Marita Sturkenhas noted the significance of quilting for women as a means of fabricatingcultural memories from which they were formally excluded (Sturken 1997:193). Similarly, art historian Rozsika Parker has written about the traditionalrole of needlework for women in performing the work of mourning.According to Parker, the ‘time taken to complete a memorial sampler orpicture allowed a period of mourning, and possible acceptance of separa-tion and loss’ (Parker 1984: 38). Like quilting and embroidery, the art ofknitting may function as a treasured heirloom handed down to friends andfamily. By blanketing their environments, works like The Knitting Map andthe AIDS Quilt evince the power of collaboration to produce objects ofsecurity, solace and comfort. Intertwined in The Knitting Map’s complexfibres are the received traditions of past generations. Like textile generally,knitting has the ability to transmit to future generations the experience of aunique time and place. The influence of this may be seen in the adaptationof knitting and crocheting as a contemporary art medium. RosemarieTrockel’s ‘knitted paintings’, Oliver Herring’s sculpture, knitted from wool,tape and mylar, and the mixed media installations of Xenobia Bailey exem-plify the move by contemporary artists to embrace and re-articulate textileart forms. Recent exhibitions such as ‘Radical Lace and Subversive Knitting’at the Museum of Arts and Design in New York attest to the contemporaryuse of fibre and textile arts to challenge conventional understandings ofissues such as globalisation, gender, ethnicity and environmentalism. Ascontemporary artists devise ways to translate their memories of traditionalneedlework into an innovative visual language, they add to the ongoingproject of memory. The Knitting Map stands as a crucial, collaborativeexample of this.

When exhibited, The Knitting Map’s orientation varies according to thesite in which it is installed. As The Knitting Map draped and flowed over andthrough the space of Millersville University’s Ganser Gallery it achieved aunique confluence of two places normally separated by distance andnational boundaries.

Transporting a conceptual and dialogic work such as this from one cul-tural, national, and geographic context to another is not without its owntranslational challenges. To be sure, the dialectical intricacies of our sharedlanguage must themselves be knit together to be readable. Similarly, priorto The Knitting Map’s formal and physical inception, half/angel had to makethe concept of the nascent project decipherable to Cork’s residents. Theydid so through a series of introductory knitting performances, which intheir own way, engaged in a process of mapping the city with knittingthrough a rigorous engagement with pubic space. These early perfor-mances read the activity of knitting with and against notions of alchemyand feminised labour, thereby demonstrating how The Knitting Map endeav-ours to transform the private and disenfranchised into the public andempowered.



Jools: the pleasurable trespassThe Knitting Map was one of the cornerstone projects of Cork’s year asEuropean Capital of Culture during 2005. It was one of the first projects tobe commissioned by the Cork 2005 Executive (in mid 2003) and half/angelbegan work in earnest in the autumn of that year. During 2004, thecompany held monthly performance/knitting events which gave us a publicpresence even before the 2005 year. These performances took place in dif-ferent public sites within Cork city. They gave us our trespasses, as Iclimbed onto tables of sweaters in Blarney Woollen Mills; asked for help tobe lifted into one of the high stained glass window alcoves in the CrawfordGallery; as I knitted perched on a rubbish bin in Merchant’s Quay shoppingcentre. This was work about irreverent trespassing, about insisting cityspace as a space for ideas. It was also work about invigorating the urbanand the public sphere with a discourse of revolutionary femininity. Knittingwas both the metaphor and the material for these performances.

Knitting was my attendant wickedry as I persuaded, and cajoled andteased and sang my way through a year of performances. Knitting was myweapon, as well as my clothing. Knitting was a slipping metaphor, just as Islipped sometimes, on stairs and streets, on the back of motorbikes, or intopassers by. Knitting also slipped between tenors. I was knitting meaning.For some of those who witnessed these events, I was a strange knittingcomedian, who could persuade the unpersuadeable to join me in mygames of performance. To others, I was an alchemist of an altogether dif-ferent kind. To those, I knitted beyond but also because of the immediate.In my very present tenseness, time slipped sideways. In such moments ofconnection, knitting became refracted and meaning multiplied. I was a har-ridan exploring how textiles might be other than passive, gentle and domes-tic. I wielded my knitting needles like swords, and funny as this might havebeen, it belied the serious labour of re-working metaphors of femininity.7 Ifwe play assuredly and irreverently with such metaphors, femininity mightbe twinklingly unleashed. Such an unleashing is linguistic, visual, corporealand temporal: It is a pleasurable trespass.

All of this was a prelude then, to our year of knitting. This was our per-formative invitation to partake of a communal knitted sorcery. Such a call toknitting was of course, a recruitment drive as well as a way to have a pres-ence in the public imagination, but it was also, importantly, an incitementto wonder about the meanings of knitting, community and femininity. As Iplayed with meaning in a year of performances, so I hoped to model imagi-native pathways in my audiences. I wanted to stretch and turn this associa-tion of femininity and knitting. I wanted to do this, not because of knitting,but because of the ways in which the processes of care, gift-giving, mathe-matical complexity, and chat are marked by the ways in which women haveknitted in their homes as an act of familial and community cohesion.Knitting is a domestic feminine trope whose mechanics and operation Iwant to celebrate, but also radically re-work. Knitting complex cablesrequires a mathematical dexterity that astounds me. Its models of pattern-ing are similar to early computer programming.8 It develops extraordinary

7 See fr example,Freddie Robins’ 2002work ‘Craft Kills’illustrated in thecatalogue for Cosy(Robins 2002). Andsee some of the textiletexts written for the1997 CD-ROMmouthplace, forexample: ‘In war, thewomen wouldembroider the faces oftheir captors slowlyclosed. Although theyselected colours thatbefit the time of year,and spent time ontheir designs, their silkwould clot into a sewnfrieze of black red.These bodies weresent back across theborder, strapped tofloating biers’.(Gilson-Ellis andPovall 1997).

8 See Sadie Plant’sZeroes and Ones, fora discussion of therelationship betweenfemininity, technologyand textiles (Plant1997).



complexity from the combination of two stitches, just as digital informationis only ever a combination of zeroes and ones. Such a skill, unfortunately,also remains redolent of feminine cultural disenfranchisement. It is hardwork for our cultural, social and political imaginations to give value to theprivate, domestic, maternal and feminine. It is this resistance to value thatis the territory of this work.

The Knitting Map is a strange and compelling cartography. It maps a cityby using the labour of the disenfranchised. It brought the digitally innocentinto daily contact with a speculative technology, that they were able to calltheir own. It mapped time by locating private activity as both participatoryevent, and installed performance. The Knitting Map is a cartography of care;its folds and turns hold all kinds of ghosts. Here they are shifting andturning before you. And if you chase them, they will play at obedience, andthen laugh and run giggling into fields of knitting.

ReferencesGilson-Ellis, Jools and Richard Povall (1997), mouthplace (CD-ROM), Hanover, NH:

Frog Peak Music.

Matthews, Anne (1984), Vogue Dictionary of Knitting Stitches, London: David &Charles.

McCarthy, Kieran (2005), Voices of Cork: The Knitting Map Speaks, Dublin: NonesuchPublishing.

Parker, Rozsika (1984), The Subversive Stitch: Embroidery and the Making of theFeminine, London: The Women’s Press.

Plant, Sadie (1997), Zeroes and Ones: Digital Women and the New Technoculture,London: Fourth Estate.

Robins, Freddie (2002), Cosy (catalogue), Colchester: Firstsite.

Sturken, Marita (1997), Tangled Memories: The Vietnam War, The AIDS Epidemic, andthe Politics of Remembering, California: University of California Press.

Suggested citationBarkun, D. & Gilson-Ellis, J. (2007), ‘Orienteering with double moss: The cartogra-

phies of half/angel’s The Knitting Map’, International Journal of Performance Artsand digital Media 3: 2&3, pp. 183–195, doi: 10.1386/padm.3.2&3.183/1

Contributor detailsDeborah Barkun is an Assistant Professor of Modern and Contemporary Art Historyat Millersville University of Pennsylvania. She holds a B.F.A. from Carnegie-MellonUniversity in printmaking and an M.A. and Ph.D. in History of Art from Bryn MawrCollege. She is the recipient of a series of research and teaching awards including aWhiting Fellowship in the Humanities (2004 – 2005). She has presented papers atVanderbilt University, the Philadelphia Museum of Art, the Pennsylvania Academy ofFine Arts, and the Philadelphia Art Alliance. Her essay “Four-letter Words: LOVE andAIDS in the Age of Appropriation and Proliferation” will appear in the forthcomingEros and Ambiguity: Essays on Love throughout the Ages. She is currently working on abook entitled Art, AIDS, and Collective Identity: The Collaborative Body of GeneralIdea. Contact: Deborah Barkun, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Art History,Department of Art, Millersville University of Pennsylvania , Pennsylvania, USA.E-mail: [email protected]



Jools Gilson-Ellis is a choreographer, poet, performer and installation artist. She isthe Director of the performance production company half/angel and Lecturer inEnglish at University College Cork. Her work has been performed and exhibitedinternationally, and she has received bursaries and awards from the Arts Council ofIreland, Arts Council of England, RESCEN (Centre for Research into Creation in thePerforming Arts), the Ésmee Fairbairn Foundation and others. Her work has beenco-produced by the Banff Centre for the Arts (Canada) and the Institute ofChoreography and Dance (Ireland). Jools holds a PhD in Theatre & PerformanceStudies from the University of Surrey, and has taught performance internationally.She publishes in the fields of feminist theory and performance studies. Contact:Jools Gilson-Ellis, Ph.D., Director of half/angel & Lecturer in English, Department ofEnglish, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.E-mail: [email protected]





The warfare of the imagined – buildingidentities in Second Life

Dr. Esther MacCallum-Stewart SMARTlab, University of

East London

AbstractMuch has already been written about the potential of Second Life as a virtualspace, but this paper examines the tensions created by its disparate population,one which has that has grown with incredible swiftness. By examining thehistory of protest in the game, from large scale events to individuals who havepublicly left the game, a fundamental difficulty is unearthed. This is the dishar-monious nature of a world where residents are told that they are the producers,rather than the customers. The virtual freedom of action granted to residentswithin Second Life clashes with the real producers of the worlds, Linden Labs.As the population has grown, this has led to increasing media attention, forcingLinden to take steps contrary to its own ethos, and threatening the alreadyunstable communities within the virtual world.

Introduction

[A nation] is an imagined political community – and imagined as both inher-ently limited and sovereign.

[A community] is imagined because the members of even the smallestnation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or evenhear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.

(Anderson 2006: 6)

In considering the status of ‘play’ in online performance, it is important tonote that many members of the online gaming community choose to engagewith other players by ‘presenting’ in the form of avatars, and often multipleavatars, that are empowered with all manner of characteristics that the peoplethemselves many not have. This extends beyond the rather linear view thatmany people outside virtual worlds may have of stereotyped avatars with rip-pling muscles and slender figures. Increasingly, as players are able to altertheir appearance in accordance with their own wishes, this can include a hugevariety of embodied presences within games, which are then commanded byplayers who may be of any gender, shape or physical ability. So if play is thething, the place for play is, increasingly, online. The politics of performance areequally relevant to, but take different shapes in, the spaces of online theatres.


KeywordsSecond Lifevirtual worldgame studiesprotestonline communities

PADM_3-(2-3)_10-STEWART 11/28/07 8:28 PM Page 197

The potential of games to reflect this is something which I have alreadyinvestigated at the Women in Games conference of 2007, but is somethingwhich finds particular form in a world like Second Life, where the playerscan appear as anything, and potentially express anything within the con-fines of the game. It is this latter conflict that this paper investigates.

At the time of writing (17 May 2007), Second Life (SL) had over 6 millionresidents. Of these, 33,350 were online, although only 1.7 million wererecorded as having been active in the last 60 days. Over $1.mill hadchanged hands within the world in the previous 24 hours. The world wasfeted throughout international media for drawing in big companies such asReuters, Adidas and IBM; numerous suppositions about its mercantilepotential had spawned sub-industries such as companies dedicated to pro-viding business plans and market research from inside Second Life, andover 127 universities owned spaces within the world.

Second Life’s population explosion is the cause of tremendous disaf-fection in an already violently shifting community. At the root of this is acommon problem to virtual world – and perhaps a symptom of humanityitself – its inability to decide on how to control that world, what form thiscontrol should take, and where the power lies between users and cre-ators. These issues cause huge tension between the active residents,especially through the formation of unstable communities struggling tocreate, often literally, their identities in this world. I intend to examine thisthrough the development of personal identity within the world, thehistory of protest in the game, and culminating with the departure ofvarious well-known SL residents and a series of moral panics andprotests that mushroomed in May 2007. Benedict Anderson’s ImaginedCommunities (1983/2006), on the formation and dangers of creating com-munities, is key to understanding these frictions, reflecting the difficultiesof creating such a world This friction also arises through the implementa-tion (or not) of a governmental system where residents are encouraged toregard themselves as producers, yet is run through exterior mechanismsas a corporate state.

It seems somewhat ironic to justify the actions of the Second Life popu-lation in terms of digital performance. The fact is however, that in manyways their existence within this world is entirely a digital performance. All oftheir actions are premeditated; performed through their avatars by users onthe other side of the screen. Avatars are designed, dressed and activatedoriginally by their owners – their outward show may be purchased fromdesigners within the world, but it is unique and individual. For many, it isthis personal representation that gives Second Life such meaning – theability to reinvent and roleplay oneself as ‘other’ – to perform or act differ-ent (or the same) as one might in the real world. Second Life allows theplayer to user themselves, and it is this action that means that much of thebehaviour that can be seen within the world is a result of acted out per-sonas. The actions of protest documented within this article all detailextremely stagy performances, some requiring considerable organisationand co-ordination. In this respect they are an extreme, but intensely

198 Dr. Esther MacCallum-Stewart


pertinent case-study of ‘outward show’ within virtual worlds, demonstratinghow these can be turned into performance/protest sites for different ends.

Identity and place

Communities are to be distinguished, not by their falsity/genuineness, but bythe style in which they are imagined.

(Anderson 2006: 6)

In Second Life you can create anything you can imagine with powerful, highlyflexible building tools, using geometric primitives and a simple, intuitive inter-face. Building is easy to learn, yet robust enough to inspire your creativity.

And once you’ve built something, you can easily begin selling it to otherresidents, because you control the IP Rights of your creations.

What if you want something but don’t quite have the time or skills tomake it? Just do a quick search to find and buy what you want.

(Linden Labs 2007a)

A core aspect of Second Life involves forming ones identity within the socialspace available. Residents can look like almost anything that can bedesigned from the sandbox development tools,1 from a floating brain to aNapoleonic soldier, but transforming ones default figure into an originalmasterpiece (or masterpieces, since residents can change appearance atwill) of sculpted pixels is not easy. One of the largest industries within thegame revolves around creating a virtual self, with designers selling clothes,accessories, and body parts from hair to genitals to foxtails. Given that theuser is represented to others through their manufactured embodiment,there is an emphasis on looking good; an aspect which gains kudos withincommunities:

I stumbled into a place called ‘Shemale Gardens’ where a notecard appearedin front of me titled, “No Lame Cock Zone!” The card warned that anyone dis-playing their ‘stupid Q-tip freebie cock’ would be ejected. Then I saw a giantsign that had a picture of my very cock in a red circle with a red bar across it.

(Trilling 2007)

Here, identity is granted when effort has been put into appearance (theauthor needs to find a penis that is not the popular version he has beengiven!). And since, like all communities, first impressions count, the abilityof Second Life to make an avatar look like anything is vitally important.Conformity is inherent within this formation; to fit in with a community, res-idents must dress the part. At the same time, the demands for specificappearances – only the right type of penis is allowed into the area above –are specific to a type of community which may not exist elsewhere in thegame. Since walking naked into a casino or educational classroom is notsocially acceptable, whereas in ‘Shemale Gardens’ it appears to be manda-tory, this causes a natural segregation of SL into disparate communities.

1 Residents in SecondLife can use areascalled ‘sandboxes’,which allow them touse ‘primitives’ or‘prims’ (the name forthe building blocks ofthe world) to createobjects such asbuildings, clothes,machines, artinstallations and newbodies.

199The warfare of the imagined – building identities in Second Life


Anarchy in the . . .Despite, or perhaps because it is a social space built solely for leisure pur-poses, Second Life is one of the least homogenous communities online.Unlike many online spaces, which have immediately apparent themes orobjectives, Second Life is not a game; it is a virtual space which I have pre-viously somewhat blithely described as ‘MSN with legs’ (MacCallum-Stewart and Parsler: 2006).2 The primary objective, if it can be counted assuch, within the world is socialisation, although other factors are also atplay. Therefore locating oneself within this place is more difficult than say, aMassively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game, where the objective is tofulfil the criteria of the game itself (quests, levelling, etc.), or a themed cha-troom where participants discuss like-minded subjects. New entrants toSecond Life are unceremoniously deposited on ‘Orientation Island’ uponarrival, and must therefore seek out the communities they wish to associatethemselves with. As the population has grown, this has become moredifficult.

The main facets of Second Life are socialisation through education,leisure, sexual activity and other activities ranging from balloon rides toroleplaying events to shopping for a new body. All of these activities arefacilitated and maintained by residents. Again these vary hugely; boat races,music concerts, universities and sex clubs all jostle for place within theworld. Second Life has many micro communities, but it does not have a cen-tralised one; indeed Linden pride themselves in allowing residents to main-tain the copyright on their own creations, using the ubiquitous claim that‘Second Life is a 3-D virtual world entirely built and owned by its residents’(Linden Labs: 2007b) to sanction most activity within the worldspace.Counterpoising this is the End User Licence Agreement, but like manyonline worlds, the rules as to how people should behave are nebulous.Linden ultimately have control over content, largely through their statementin the EULA that they have the right to withdraw anything they wish andthat they do not tolerate unacceptable content.3 The developers also askresidents to abide by ‘The Big Six’,4 but all of these caveats are somethingof a moveable feast, as we shall see.

The most important differentiation between these two aspects is theseparation of ‘in-world’, where there is no dominant state, there are noauthoritative police or law courts with authority, and the all-encompassingresolution of the EULA, which residents agree to be bound by but whichlargely governs their entry into the world as users rather than the residentsthey then become. Crucially, Linden Labs tries to absolve itself of practiceswithin the world by users, by allowing them to create the content(Indecency, for example, is largely in the eye of the beholder, especially in aleisure world where much of the activity is sexual in nature). Thus, there areno concrete rules within the game of how people should behave – this isalmost entirely down to social agency.

This lack of specific behavioural guidelines is an aspect of online worldsthat is problematic; when rules of behaviour are not established, conflictarises (MacCallum-Stewart and Parsler 2007, 2008). Whilst this is not

2 Second Life is not onlynot a game (althoughone can play manygames within it), butin terms of GameStudies, it cannot alsobe viably called anonline world, sincethis term has aspecific meaning thatinvolves a sharedmythos, worldspaceand ideology;something whichdefinitely does notexist cohesively withinSL. Inacknowledgement ofthis I have deliberatelyused the term‘resident’, rather than‘player’ throughoutthe paper. This is theterm give to membersof SL by Linden Labs.However, I have foundthat the term ‘socialspace’ is too clumsyto continuouslysubstitute for ‘world’,and so, for want of abetter term, have letthis remain.

3 Linden retains theright to removecontent under EndUser LicenseAgreement clause‘User Content 5.1.v.Content asdetermined by Lindenat its sole discretionthat is harmful,threatening, abusive,harassing, causes tort,defamatory, vulgar,obscene, libellous,invasive of another’sprivacy, hateful,racially, ethnically orotherwiseobjectionable’.(Linden Labs 2004).By 2007 this had beenchanged to ‘5.3 Alldata on Linden Lab’sservers are subject todeletion, alteration ortransfer.

When using theService, you mayaccumulate Content,Currency, objects,items, scripts,



something that can be resolved – humans are, after all, individuals – it isnot always recognised by players (or in this case) residents, who not onlywish to be integrated into society, but also want others to conform in orderto reinforce their own sense of belonging. There is a fundamental confusionbetween the rules of content, and the rules of behaviour, with residents/players often (wrongly) expecting content managers to supply them withanswers. Thus, Second Life is an anarchistic state in which most peoplecrave utopia, and because everyone’s utopian ideals are different, there canbe no accord.

Castronova identifies this in his discussion of online world states whenhe argues that the enforced absence of authority means governmentalsystems set up by players/residents have no impact (Castronova 2005a:213–218). He argues that ‘while in principle governments could exist in syn-thetic worlds, in practise they do not’, since there is a fundamental clashbetween ‘government’ as coding authority and players/residents as ‘cus-tomers’ (213). The perception that the designers have divine authority (EndUser License Agreements, the ability to change the world) prevents playersfrom ever successfully establishing their own governmental systems as ulti-mately their actions will have no agency over the design and implementa-tion of the world. If you buy into a world, you cannot therefore be its ruler.The result is therefore an anarchistic state where players are often pro-foundly unhappy with their lot, but have little ability to change it. This canbe seen through the rise of protests such as Cristiano N. Diaz’s ProjectOpen Letter, which calls for Linden Labs to address the problems caused bypopulation growth and an overburdened server (Diaz 2007). His requestsinclude moves to address such concerns as items lost from personal inven-tories, to the instability of the server ‘grid’ itself. In this respect, Diaz’sgrassroots organisation echoes similar protests in other online worlds –from the infamous Ultima Online strike in 1999, to The Gnome Tea Party(Foton 2005a, b), to early protests in Second Life such as the War of theJessie Wall (see below), but they all exhibit a profound tension between userand producer. It is to these protests that I shall now turn.

Protest within

. . . the nature of these political events and their replication under differentcircumstances in different worlds suggests that they reveal something funda-mental. Running a virtual world is a service, as we are often reminded, but itis more than running a BBS or a shopping mall or an amusement. There’s anascent politics. There’s policy. There’s speech and assembly. There’s terrorand reaction. If destroying the world and banishing people are not terror andreaction, respectively, I don’t know what would be.

(Castronova 2005b)

Anderson’s Imagined Communities argues that shared identities create asense, if not an embodiment of nationalism. In virtual worlds, his writingnot only seems to apply in a literal manner, but is directly pertinent to the

equipment, or othervalue or statusindicators that resideas data on LindenLab’s servers. Thesedata, and any otherdata, account historyand account namesresiding on lindenlab’s servers, may bedeleted, altered,moved or transferredat any time for anyreason in Linden Lab’ssole discretion.

You acknowledge that,notwithstanding anycopyright or otherrights you may havewith respect to itemsyou create using theservice, andnotwithstanding anyvalue attributed tosuch content or otherdata by you or anythird party, linden labdoes not provide orguarantee, andexpressly disclaims(subject to anyunderlying intellectualproperty rights in thecontent), any value,cash or otherwise,attributed to any dataresiding on LindenLab’s servers.

You understand andagree that Linden Labhas the right, but notthe obligation, toremove any content(including yourcontent) in whole orin part at any time forany reason or noreason, with orwithout notice andwith no liability of anykind (Linden Labs2007c).

4 The Big Six areIntolerance,Harassment, Assault,Disclosure, Indecencyand Disturbing thePeace. For moreinformation seeLinden’s ‘CommunityStandards’ page(2007d).



ways in which people use online spaces to negotiate their identities throughthe expression of protest and dissolution. Whilst protests within Second Lifeare numerous and varied, they all reach towards what Anderson finds sodistressing in the formulation of nationalism – aggressive attempts topromote homogeneity within the community.

As the world grows, so does the discontent with its perceived lack of homo-geneity. In online gaming, this can often be witnessed by players flaming orgrieving each other for not roleplaying or otherwise playing the game ‘incor-rectly’. In virtual worlds, where the ludic does not exist so strongly, there is noset way in which to ‘play’ (Caillois 1962). In virtual worlds, the identity of theresident is far more strongly tied into the identity of the user. Thus protest hasfar more personal nuances. These often relate to real life concerns which areexpressed through avatars, or demonstrate a discontent with the tension out-lined previously between game designer and frustrated customer. Most impor-tantly, however, as the community has grown, protest has moved fromin-game squabbles, to real world ethical concerns which in many ways havelittle to do with the virtual world, and more to do with ethics in real life.

The first real conflict in Second Life is characteristic of this tension,expressing discontent with colonisation. In 2003, ‘The War over Jessie Wall’broke out after a group of WWII Online (WWIIOLers) gaming enthusiastsmoved into SL’s Outlands area (Au 2003a/b, Carr and Pond 2007: 79–82).Previously, Second Life had had little gun culture, although the Outlandswas a place where combat was allowed. Almost immediately a MexicanStandoff developed. Pacifist posters and confederate flags were plasteredall over the Jessie Wall area behind which the WWIIOLers had been moved,and the residents both inside and outside began to shoot and ‘kill’ eachother. The WWIIOlers were criticised for bringing aggressive elements intoSecond Life at a time where the Gulf War was reaching its initial apex, theWWIIOLers responded by asking why they had not been welcomed foradding significant numbers to the community as a whole, and the placebecame ‘a battleground where people with differing opinions about the reallife war antagonized one another’ (Carr and Pond 2007: 81–82).

The protest is symptomatic of a disrupted community as it demon-strates several things. The emergence of substantially greater gun culture inSecond Life, was counterpoised by the existing residents on both sides whofelt that the WWIIOlers were ‘poaching’ their territory, including existingOutlands residents who felt that the WWIIOlers were intruding on theirspace. The WWIIOlers highlighted an obvious intrusion of violence into anallegedly peaceful world. They brought a far more serious series of issues tobear on the flippancy of the Outlands (which had a rather baroque WildWest Outpost atmosphere), including the identification with the ongoingGulf War. At the same time, their actions were perceived as an aggressiveact of colonisation since they represented a significant population increasein a minority area. All of these latter aspects render the arguments overguns and violence redundant – in fact this was a classic territory dispute.The intrusion of real life (Gulf War) into a virtual one also destabilised thecommunity, forcing it to recognise its ‘false’ roots.



Small fish, bigger pondIn 2006/2007, several ‘well known’ residents of the game publicly left thegame and made statements to the Second Life Herald stating their reasonsfor leaving (Wayfinder in UrizenusSklar 2006; Massiel 2007). Largely, thisrelated to Linden’s inability to control such a huge population, as demon-strated by frequently downtime on the grid, lag, inventory loss and othertechnical problems, but it also related to what many saw as Linden’s incon-sistent policies towards freedom of action within the world. Once again, theconflict between customer and service provider underscored protest.

Second Life’s expanding world had pressed many people into what they feltwere untenable situations. Like many pioneers, early residents felt that Linden‘owed’ them something, even if this was simply the right to access the Gridwhen they wished. Amongst other things, they protested that the integrity ofthe world as a space for design and for experimentation was being lost. It isperhaps understandable to see why Linden accorded these people littleweight, struggling with a burgeoning population and with issues of whichthey were well aware. For Linden, the thousands of potential new developerslanding in their world on a daily basis could easily replace the dissentingvoices (Vielle 2007). Furthermore, these dissenters were able to locate SecondLife’s problems far more easily through their familiarity with the world, spot-lighting the issues of overpopulation. Second Life encourages development,but its secondary qualities also mean that it is a world of avarice and egoma-nia. It is thus very easy to accord oneself a far greater importance than oneactually has. Finally, Second Life is aggressively capitalist in both facilitationand enactment. Quite simply, the competition that exists means that irre-spective of the noise that they make, these people simply did not matter.

Ire towards specific residents is also a target for protest. Although griev-ing and harassment can be traced and GMs usually deal with excessive acts,in Second Life the line between art form and harassment is often blurred. InDecember 2006, resident Anshe Chung, credited with being the first real lifemillionaire from in-game sales of real estate, was attacked at an in-worldpress conference by giant penises, making the interview impossible. Thestunt had been arranged by artists hoping to gain an entry for ‘Second LifeSafari’ on SomethingAwful.com (Peterson 2006–7),5 but it also highlightedthe tensions between those who bought up viable land in the world and soldit on for a profit, and those who felt that this business was reprehensible.Whilst Chung was powerless to prevent the attack in game, avatar ownerAilin Graef filed a DMCA that prevented recordings of the incident beingshown on You Tube (Actual News Guy: 2007). In this case, in-world wran-gling spilled out into the real world, but once again the ‘rules’ of Second Lifeallowed the protest to go ahead. It was only in the real world that Chung wasable to ban recordings on You Tube, and of course this proved futile ascopycat sites spawned all over the web (see for example Anon 2007).

Beyond Second LifeAs the world has grown, so Second Life has started to become more rigidlypoliticised. Unlike the previous protests, 2007 saw not only an explosion of

5 SomethingAwful.comis a site dedicated tohighlighting the worseparts of the internet;‘Something Awful hasbeen mocking itselfand the internet since1999, bringing youreviews of the worstmovies, video games,and websites to everexist. If it’s somethingand it’s awful, it’sprobably onSomething Awful,where the internetmakes you stupid’(Somethingawful.com2007).



people entering the world, but also the implantation of serious real worldissues in the game. Whilst Second Life can easily house forums for debateand discussion, its concerns have usually remained insular. However as itgained more international attention, so too did its protests become moredirectly politicised, speaking more to issues from outside of the Second Lifeworld than those within it. Riots between French political groups in January2007 made international news (More4News 2007; Kane 2007). The riotsfollowed the establishment of an embassy for French nationalist groupFrench Front National within the world. Importantly, this was a protestabout real world politics being played out within Second Life, not an internaldispute.

Finally, an exterior protest about in-world ethics had a real effect on theSecond Life grid. In December 2006, Terranova author Ren Reynolds pre-dicted that a real world backlash against Second Life would cause moralpanics about the world’s content (Reynolds 2006). In early 2007 he wasproved right, as a debate over ageplay (residents who had sex with otherresidents whose avatars looked like children) brought to bear real life fearsover paedophilia. In this case, protest came mainly in the form of themedia, seizing on what one commenter to Reynolds’s entry identified asthe ‘most sensational possible headline’ (in Reynolds 2007), and forumsdebating the topic. Crucially, although the topic was also debated in-world,the main argument took place outside within the public domain of themedia. Linden Labs, who had previously stated that ‘If this activity were inpublic areas... it would be viewed as being broadly offensive, and thereforeunacceptable. What consenting adults do in private, however distasteful othersmay find it, is allowed under these standards [original emphasis]’ (RobinLinden, 2005, in Psaltery: 2007), were forced to retract their previous posi-tion. On 7 March 2007, the company decided that despite their earlierstatements, various international laws (most specifically, laws againstpornographic images of children in the Netherlands) meant that theyshould begin to ban this behaviour and began to shut down areas andgroups that promoted it. On 31 May 2007, they took this further, issuingspecific guidelines banning the following:

Real-life images, avatar portrayals, and other depiction of sexual or lewd actsinvolving or appearing to involve children or minors; real-life images, avatarportrayals, and other depictions of sexual violence including rape, real-lifeimages, avatar portrayals, and other depictions of extreme or graphic vio-lence, and other broadly offensive content are never allowed or toleratedwithin Second Life.

(Daniel Linden 2007)

Ageplay was ultimately prevented because of real world legal fears, notthose enforced by Linden Labs (Metropolitan 2007). The issue highlightedthe difficulties inherent in creating a community which nominally promotesfree expression, but has nebulous guidelines as to what this is, and nointernal law system that can enforce these. In this case, Linden were



permitting what many saw as a horrendous infringement of clause 5 (unac-ceptable content), because their virtual laws were unable to prevent it. Onlyoutside pressure and ‘real world’ laws were ultimately able to allow them toprevent ageplay within the world, even though many dissidents acknowl-edged that actually policing this content within the game was going to beextremely difficult.

These protests, both social and political, also demonstrate a final evolu-tion in SL’s worldness – as the world grows, so concerns have moved awayfrom the game itself. Neither the riots nor the debate over ageplay origi-nated inside Second Life; they were both expressions of exterior beliefsystems. Finally, then, the world has become a place where exterior ideolo-gies from ‘real’ legal and political systems are of far more importance thanresidential territorial disputes or single person actions. In these latterprotests, Second Life is simply one of many places where these debatesare active, and has become a convenient place for staging extremistdemonstrations.

ConclusionSecond Life has been regarded as the golden ticket to virtual reality, a hotbedof insurrection, the most useful tool on the web for interaction, and a pass-port for virtual wealth. It is all of these things and none of them; with criticsand residents alike often forgetting that it is a world entirely within thehands of the users. The contradictions caused by its rapid expansion havecurtailed some of its early freedoms, whilst at the same time opening thedoor for many others. It is an imperfect tool that many find dazzling, bewil-dering, or simply incomprehensible. As a progenitor to something greater itshows how a sustained online community has the potential to bring peopletogether, but its size and lack of cohesion also demonstrates that it is likeany other community – riven with dissent. As an imagined community it isdiffracted; perhaps this is for the best. Some contradictions within theworld are too large ever too meld, although this multiplicity of approachesshows that the world does have the potential to innovate. Second Life hascertainly revolutionised the world of cybersex, bringing a new integrity tothis particular society. Similarly, perhaps ironically so, its ability to developonline and distance learning is incredible.

At the same time, Second Life’s inability to control its people and form astable community has led to a gradual movement away from the virtualworld itself. Whereas early protests spoke to residents about issues withinthe world, these have gradually exploded outwards. Politicised motivesfrom outside now cause riots, not squabbles over virtual land. Despite theirprofessed delight in free expression, some aspects proved too extreme forthe community, yet real world concerns were what eventually preventedageplay within the game. The developers found that their own rules couldnot prevent it, and it was only an external law coupled with an externalmoral panic, that finally meant they could act against it.

Overall, Second Life demonstrates a community that is not only imag-ined, but is totally out of control, and at present the population growth is so



dramatic that there is currently no way to stop this. Whilst early communi-ties within Second Life were able to resolve their differences within thecontext of the world itself, overspill into the real world, alongside the inclu-sion of real issues, has proved very problematic. Whether the lessons thatare still being learned from the development of Second Life will have a posi-tive effect on future virtual worlds (or Second Life itself), remains to be seen.

ReferencesActual News Guy (2007), ‘You Tube pulls video of giant penis attack in Second Life’

Nowpublic. 1 May. Available at http://www.nowpublic.com/youtube_pulls_video_of_giant_penis_attack_in_second_life [Cited 22/05/2007].

Anderson, Benedict (2006), Imagined Communities 2ed, London, Verso.

Anon (2007), ‘Second Life Safari, Room 101 vs Anshe Chung’, Google Video. 5 January.Available at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid�5387867190768022577[Cited 22/05/2007].

Au, Wagner James (2003a), ‘The War Over Jessie Wall Parts I-V’ New World Notes 7July. Available at http://secondlife.com/notes/2003_07_07_archive.php [Cited22/05/2007].

Au, Wagner James (2003b), ‘The War Over Jessie Wall Parts VI-X’. New World Notes.14 July. Available at http://secondlife.com/notes/2003_07_14_archive.php[Cited 22/05/2007].

Caillois, Roger (1962), Man, Play and Games, London, Thames and Hudson.

Castronova, Eric, (2005a), Synthetic Worlds; The Business and Culture of OnlineWorlds, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Castronova, Eric (2005b), ‘Synthetic Statehood and the Right to Assemble’, TerraNova. 1 February Available at http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2005/02/the_right_to_as.html [Cited 22/05/2007]

Diaz, Christiano (2007), ‘Project Open Letter’. 30 April. Available at http://www.projectopenletter.com/ [Cited 22/05/2007]

Ellis, Warren (2007), ‘Please Stop Doing that to the Cat’, Reuters Online 23 February.Available at http://secondlife.reuters.com/stories/2007/02/23/second-life-sketches-please-stop-doing-that-to-the-cat/ [Cited 22/05/2007].

Foton (2005a), ‘The Gnome Tea Party’, AFKGamer, 28 January. Available athttp://afkgamer.com/archives/2005/01/28/the-gnome-tea-party/ [Cited 22/05/2007].

Foton (2005b), ‘The Gnome Tea Party in Pictures’ Available at http://afkgamer.com/archives/2005/01/31/the-tea-party-in-pictures/ [Cited 22/05/2007].

Kane, Margaret (2007), ‘A piggish political protest in Second Life’ News.com. 18January. Available at http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-6151114-7.html [Cited22/05/2007].

Linden, Daniel (2007), ‘Keeping Second Life Safe Together’, Second Life Homepages.31 May. Available at http://blog.secondlife.com/2007/05/31/keeping-second-life-safe-together/ [Cited 22/05/2007].

Linden Labs (2004), ‘End User License Agreement’ at ‘Second Life Modifies End userLicence Agreement’ Second Life Herald. 10 June. Available at http://www.secondlifeherald.com/slh/2004/10/sl_modifies_ter.html [Cited 22/05/2007].

——— (2007a), ‘Create Anything’. Second Life homepages. Available at http://secondlife.com/whatis/create.php [Cited 22/05/2007].

——— (2007b), ‘What is Second Life?’, Second Life homepages. Available athttp://secondlife.com/whatis/ [Cited 22/05/2007].



——— (2007c), ‘Terms of Service’. Second Life homepages. Available at http://secondlife.com/corporate/tos.php [Cited 22/05/2007].

——— (2007d), ‘Community Standards’ Second Life homepages. Available athttp://secondlife.com/whatis/[Cited 22/05/2007].

MacCallum-Stewart, Esther and Parsler, Justin, (2006), ‘Not Everybody Wants to bea Troll’, Paper given at ‘My so Called Second Life’. NMK, Notes available atGlodnepix http://www.whatalovelywar.co.uk/war/2006/10/my_so_called_se.html[Cited 22/05/2007].

——— (forthcoming) ‘The Place of Roleplaying in MMORPGs’ in Space and Culture.

——— (2008), The Playing of Roles: How does roleplay affect gameplay in Playingwith culture, A Reader on Cultural Research in World of Warcraft, 2008,Massachusetts, MIT Press, pp. 87–138.

Massiel, Myrhh (2007), ‘Leaving Second Life’, Second Life Herald, 15 May. Availableat http://www.secondlifeherald.com/slh/2007/05/living_rich_com.html [Cited22/05/2007].

Metropolitan, Carl (2007), ‘Blame Europe’, Second Life Herald. 16 May. Available athttp://www.secondlifeherald.com/slh/2007/05/blame_europe.html [Cited22/05/2007].

More4News, (2007), ‘French bring virtual riots to Second Life’ 24 January. Available athttp://www.channel4.com/more4/news/news-opinion-feature.jsp?id=513 [Cited22/05/2007].

Psaltery, Phoenix (2007), ‘Linden Labs begins ageplay crackdown’, MetaverseMessenger. 8 March. Available at http://www.metaversemessenger.com/stories/ageplay_crackdown.htm [Cited 22/05/2007].

Reynolds, Ren (2006), ‘Countdown to SL Backlash’ Terra Nova. 31 December.Available at http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2006/12/countdown_to_ba.html [Cited 22/05/2007].

——— (2007), ‘And the Winner Might be’. Terra Nova. 9 May. Available at http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2007/05/and_the_winner_.html [Cited22/05/2007].

Skall, Onder (2007), ‘Spanish Politicos at War in SL’, Second life Herald. 20 April.Available at http://www.secondlifeherald.com/slh/2007/05/by_onder_skall_.html[Cited 22/05/2007].

Peterson, Chris ‘Petey’, (2006-present), ‘Second Life Safari’, SomethingAwful.comAvailable at http://www.somethingawful.com/d/second-life-safari/ [Cited22/05/2007].

Trilling, Mariner (2007), ‘Have Cock, Will Travel’. Second Life Herald (03/04/07)Available at http://www.secondlifeherald.com/slh/2007/04/have_cock_will_html [Cited 22/05/2007].

UrizenusSklar (2006), ‘Elf King Wayfinder Leaves Second Life, Elf Clan Disbands,IBM Chairman Palmisano to Address Troops in Forbidden City’, Second LifeHerald, 14 November. Available at http://www.secondlifeherald.com/slh/2006/11/elf_king_wayfin.html [Cited 22/05/2007].

Vielle, Tenshi (2007), ‘Why the Lindens Won’t Listen’, Second Life Herald. 21 May.Available at http://www.secondlifeherald.com/slh/2007/05/oped_why_the_li.html#more [Cited 22/05/2007].

Suggested citationMacCallum-Stewart, E. (2007), ‘The warfare of the imagined – building identities in

Second Life’, International Journal of Performance Arts and digital Media 3: 2&3,pp. 197–208, doi: 10.1386/padm.3.2&3.197/1



Contributor detailsEsther MacCallum-Stewart is a Post-Doc Researcher at SMARTlab, who joined theteam in 2006, following completion of her PhD at the University of Sussex. She isan expert in online communities, role play and gaming, and has written extensivelyabout the forms of interaction that develop online between communities of players.Her research investigates digital narratives, and in particular the relationshipbetween history and popular cultural representations as expressed through games,online resources and interactive media. She is interested in role play and dress upas online characterological aspects of ‘play’ related to the domain of live perfor-mance. Contact: 98 Rugby Road, Brighton, East Sussex, BN1 6ED, UK.E-mail: [email protected]





Embodied narrative: The virtual nomadand the meta dreamer

Denise Doyle University of Wolverhampton

Taey Kim SMARTlab, University of East London

AbstractThis article charts the relationship between and the experience of real and virtualworlds. Like the travellers of the earlier centuries who returned with informationand curiosities from distant and previously undiscovered lands we bring back withus our narratives, our stories and descriptions of our experience of embodiment inthese new landscapes. We find that inhabiting the spaces of these virtual worlds ischallenging our relationship to our own. We explore, through the construction ofdigital narratives, the experience and journey of Wanderingfictions in her meta-verse, Second Life and Dongdong’s trans-national travel in the physical worldexploring the Web 2.0 environment as metadata to articulate the user’s virtualidentity. Data was collected in the form of narrative; each took their turn to writefrom their world; like a collection of postcards or snapshots of experience.Through the emerging dialogue we discover a combination of dis-ease, fear, butalso wonderment of this new shift, this new view, where we are able to live in andembody multiple realities. Exploring these various conditions challenges us toinvestigate our physical availabilities as travellers in these virtual environments. Anon-human body as metadata offers us resources for thinking in more sophisti-cated ways about virtual technologies. User Generated Contents and 3D VirtualWorlds such as Second Life bring new forms of participation. These two mainwaves on the net are contributing to the systems of informatics in their structures,behaviours and interactions of digital knowledge and narrative. The narrativereveals the complexities of dealing with identity politics in the environments ofvirtual spaces. It observes how our early, though rapidly changing, sensibilities areresponding. We are in transition. This article finds that we will only truly becomepost-human when our memory of being ‘only human’ finally fades.

Introduction

There is no place in cyberspace – there’s no Africa there, no mud, no beads orwells or such humanity in the very air.

Griffiths 2004: 269

If there is ‘place’ in cyberspace, we are still fluid in our expression of it. Asnew online network spaces emerge daily, this article attempts to begin the


Keywordsmetadatanon-human bodyweb 2.0UGC (user generated

contents)embodimentvirtual worlds

PADM_3-(2-3)_11-Doyle_Kim 11/28/07 8:29 PM Page 209

process of description of the experience of ‘being’ in these (virtual)places/spaces. We are the travellers returning with news of another planet,another place. Like the travellers of the earlier centuries who returned withcurious information from distant and previously undiscovered lands webring back our narratives, our stories, along with the descriptions of ourexperience of embodiment in these new landscapes. The virtual nomad,Dongdong, and the meta dreamer, Wanderingfictions, are exchanging theirexperiences from each of their respective virtual worlds in this article. Wehave each assumed this position, this perspective to speak from anotherplace. We have focused on what each character sees and experiences fromtheir worlds, rather than exploring the construction of our performativeselves. Through this a natural dialogue emerged; each was interested inhow their worlds are different, how they overlap, how they exchange. Datawas collected in the form of narrative; each took their turn to write fromtheir world; like a collection of postcards or snapshots of experience.

From the pre-digital world Bachelard, the great observer of the literaryimaginary writes that when we dream of the universe we are always depart-ing, living in an elsewhere which is always comfortable (Bachelard 1969:177). Yet the human condition has become more uncomfortable, moreunsettling in the post-techno world. We still need to wander, to travel, todream of an ‘elsewhere’ even if our ‘elsewheres’ now actually exist in someform – ‘somewhere’. Hayles (1999), in discussing Gibson’s Neuromancer,acknowledges that its power lies in the Kantian recognition of space andtime as a fundamental human experience:

Cyberspace is created by transforming a data matrix into a landscape wherenarratives can happen [. . .] Narratives become possible when this spatiality isgiven a temporal dimension by the pov’s movement through it. The pov islocated [original emphasis] in space, but it exists [original emphasis] in time [. . .] Reduced to a point, the pov is abstracted into a purely temporal entitywith no spatial extension; metaphorized into an interactive space, the datas-cape is narrativized by the pov’s movement through it. Data are thus human-ized, and subjectivity is computerized, allowing them to join in symbioticunion whose result is narrative.

Hayles 1999: 38–39

If narrative is the result, what is our experience of our embodiment andenvironment when travelling in virtual spaces with a non-human body?Dongdong is trapped inside of her plastic body and Wanderingfictions bodyis a human rationalisation. Dongdong and Wanderingfictions examine twomain realms of the post-techno world, the Second Life environment and theWeb 2.0 phenomenon.

The Second Life environmentSecond Life is an online environment or ‘virtual world’ created by LindenLab and is the world inhabited by Wanderingfictions. Launched in 2003 withbarely 1,000 users (Rymaszewski 2007: 5), the number of residents is now

210 Denise Doyle and Taey Kim


over 9 million, or at least those who hold a Second Life account.1 Followingthe logic of the ‘real’ world, it follows (most of) the rules of our Cartesianspace, providing earth, sky, water, gravity, day and night, moon and sun ona three-dimensional networked grid. Second Life has its own ‘time’ – SLtime, set to the equivalent of pacific coast ‘earth’ time. The sun rises atdawn and when it sets the moon rises. If you are a land owner you can setthe sun/moon cycle as you choose based on a 24-hour clock cycle. Or youcan keep a constant ‘nature time’ – always midnight, always sunset, alwayssunrise. The ‘Force Sun’ command enables you to override an area’s set-tings wherever you are, or rather your avatar. It is possible to have any rep-resentation of yourself, your avatar, though many choose to representthemselves in human form. Whilst there is gravity, your avatar can defy it,through the Fly command and as of August 2007 your avatar can now runas well as walk, talk as well as text. Still no lips moving. Jones (2006: 10–11)notes that, whilst Second Life could not be described as an immersivevirtual world based on Heim’s set of characteristics of virtual worlds, it stillsits ‘squarely in the discourse of virtual reality because it provides a highlevel of interactivity and tele-presence within a parallel world that allows forthe construction of place and self’. Wanderingfictions has ‘resided’ inSecond Life for over one year and she is there to explore this virtual worldthrough digital narrative.

The web 2.0 phenomenonWeb 2.0 refers to the second generation of web based communities andhosting services such as social networking sites, wikis, community blogs,crowd sourcing contents sites – MySpace, Facebook and Flickr, etc –which aim to facilitate collaboration and sharing between users. It pro-vides the everyday surfer with new ways to interact with social media con-struction. The Internet is helping to create what can be seen as a moretransparent world by making information more accessible. The termbecame popular following the first O’Reilly Media Web 2.0 conference in2004.2 The IT (Information Technology) industry has been a goldmine ofextended information in the last two decades. We discovered a great foun-tain of intangible knowledge to use such as a text, graphics, and music tolink up with the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes;so called technology. If web 1.0 is about learning and educating from the(i)nformation given, web 2.0 is about identifying and expressing theindividual ‘I’s.

Dongdong is a virtual character who participates in art projects as wellas being an Internet citizen. She is a Blythe doll created in 1972 by designerAllison Katzman from the now-defunct American toy company Kenner. TheNew York TV producer Gina Garen took hundreds of photographs of herBlythe dolls when she travelled and published her first book of Blythe pho-tography with Chronicle Books, ‘This is Blythe’ in 2004. In the same year,Hasbro (Kenner’s successor) gave the rights to make Blythe dolls to Takaraof Japan. A vibrant Blythe subculture flourishes on the Internet, predomi-nantly in forums and usergroups.3 Dongdong has been in the doll community

1 Information shown onhttp://www.secondlife.com on the 21stAugust 2007; therewere 9,019,209accounts created.

2 Paul Graham(November 2005).Web 2.0. Retrieved on2007-08-23. “I firstheard the phrase ‘Web2.0’ in the name ofthe Web 2.0conference in 2004.”

3 Wikipedia, Blythe(doll) Retrieved on2007-08-23.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blythe_%28doll%29

211Embodied narrative: The virtual nomad and the meta dreamer


for over two years and acts like an individual creation. She is representingthis ‘I’ notion in the web 2.0 community in the Asian Internet world. WhenMySpace, Facebook and Flickr are coded in Western (ISO-8859-1) in themetadata, there are Web 2.0 online communities based on Unicode (UTF-8), which allows users to see various languages encoding. The fan-sites andavatars in this post game community operates as an underground groupcompared to a social media network group. However, these fan groups areplanting the energy around Web 2.0 to create multiple personas in theirvirtual life. These users are highly committed to the community. Dongdongis exploring how users are appearing and formulating their identity withinthe platform. She is also the representation of data itself. Dongdong inhab-its the web 2.0 environment.

Narrative as processAlready actively exploring the virtual personas of ‘Wanderingfictions’ inSecond Life and ‘Dongdong’ in the Web 2.0 environment, we initiated ourarticle in April 2007. We took the virtual nomad and the meta dreamer asthe subjects of our dialogue. One is a virtual character who acts and movesas though she is real in the (virtual) world, the other is a real/physical char-acter who only exists as a real being in the web community. We wanted toseparate from our own personas when we wrote from these two character’svoices to enable us to observe our different experiences as post-humanbodies. The dialogue exchange between Dongdong and Wanderingfictionstook place over a period of a month and entirely by email. It was intentionalthat we did not speak during this time, to enable the text itself to be thecarrier of the meaning. Our main intention of this initial writing was toexplore the hypertext of the cogito.

This process of narrative exchange allowed us to playfully explore,absorb and transform of each other’s texts: ‘any text is constructed as amosaic of quotations; any text is the absorption and transformation ofanother’ (Kristeva 1980: 37). As Kinder (2002), in writing of the databasenarrative, says that in our dreams the cerebral cortex:

[. . .] performs this interpretive task by drawing selections from our internaldatabase of imagery, which contains virtually everything we have ever experi-enced and everything we have absorbed from our cultural dreampool, and wereshuffle these selections to generate new combinations that we narrativizewhen we awaken. (Kinder 2002: 9)

As we now live in multiple realities, as we now occupy multiple spaces, ourcultural dreampool will soon include the very real, or lived, experiences ofembodiment in virtual worlds, and in turn, new narratives will emerge.Hayles (1999: 22) considers narrative to be a more embodied form of dis-course. With our non-human bodies we attempt to explore this notion ofembodied discourse as we explore our virtual worlds through, what weterm, ‘embodied narrative’.



PrologueThere is no daylight or night darkness in this world. It is inside a rainbow ofpantone with web safe colour spectrum changes. There is no limited timeconcept here. We can calculate time from Senegal to Hanoi, LA to Oslo,Seoul to Rotterdam, La Paz to Magadan and Ottawa to Colombo. But we donot live as they live. We arrive anytime, we disappear like ghosts.

Dialogue on the BorderlandDongdong4

I have been dwelling in this box for the last few months. It’s not uncomfort-able but I miss my adventurous journeys. So I’ll tell you more about mystories outside of this box. I was shipped from Hong Kong to London in 2001.I have big curious eyes, a big head and skinny legs so it’s difficult to stand upby myself. Some say I am too scary looking to be a friendly toy. I don’t reallysmile, but I do feel joy and happiness. I guess I don’t really mind being scary.This was before I had an identity as Dongdong. Then I became a real nomad.I travel a lot of places with my owner and sometimes without her. Often, whenher friends are travelling, she sends me with them with a couple of outfits anda blanket to cover my body when I sleep. Her friends send her snapshots ofme after the travel. There are group of people who have the same species asme and they are all communicating and sharing photos like the snapshots ofmy travelling. Now I make my choice to go somewhere else, and encountermany other creatures. To me, travel is not only a change of environment ordestination but also the transformation of identity as an individual, which I’msearching for elsewhere. It can be local, or international. I am seeking to crossthe boundaries. That is my instinct. I’m hoping to tell you my stories how Isee about my travel and my identities online. How about you? What does‘moving’ or ‘travelling’ mean to you? (Figure 1).

Wanderingfictions:5 One has to journey to dreamIn my world, changing destination is easy. There is a map, based on pho-tographs taken from the sky. All I have to do is to find somewhere I want to

4 Network Position:Online communityAddicted to Dolls,10817 members fromCyworldmybb.cyworld.com

5 Network Position: Cityof Acropolis: Aglea,109,124,322.Wanderingfictionsrents a ‘sky pad’ inthis region, which shecalls ‘home’.


Figure 1. Dongdong on her travels in the real world.


go and then within a moment I can ‘teleport’ there. Some would say thatthat makes it easy to know every place, because you don’t need to spendyour time travelling. You don’t need to plan your slower journey, work outwhat transport you need or where you would need to stay if the journeywould take more than a day. But here’s the thing: I miss being able to phys-ically move through the space of this world; to travel from region to region.6

If I try to, something always stops me: some invisible barrier. That’s wherewe make the connections, crossing the borders, the boundaries. It is in theprocess of travelling itself, of journeying that we dream. You ask me what‘moving’ or ‘travelling’ means to me: it is about transformation ‘through’dreaming, through imagining. I am freer to dream when I am moving. Onehas to journey to dream.

Of course I can fly here. But it’s like having invisible wings that youcannot really spread widely or fully or freely enough. Sometimes I flyupwards as fast as I can, so I can feel that sensation of freedom, and I candream of flying a great distance along the horizon. Eventually I get to apoint where gravity pulls me back down, but I do seem to be able to havethe fantasy of escaping gravity, at least for a moment.

Dongdong:7 when arrows are movingThat is intriguing that you can fly in this world with invisible wings! I wish Iwere designed in that way; to have Harry Potter’s invisible gown or amagical transforming tool. But unfortunately, I am stuck in this plasticbody. However, my nature as a traveller is a free soul; as you describe thatyou are freer to dream when you are moving. Every time when I travelthrough the real world as well as a virtual world, I hear various sounds. Itmay come from the train station or a blue sky, or even from a flash buttonor splash pages. Different combinations of instruments make a beautifulmusic track. Music has an original sense of virtuality. People remember thetime and place they listened to a particular combination of sounds. MaybeI represent the DJ, who is more interested in the experience of the journeyitself rather than the destination. When arrows are moving ahead, how canwe see this movement? Or can we ever follow these arrows? Isn’t it moreimportant to be moving along with the arrows?

I looked inside of your world. It is imitating the outside world verymuch. You can build blocks and gardens, sell property and exhibit art inshows. There are snobbish citizens, artificial families, sleeping citizens andchallenging citizens. How do you feel about the others?

Wanderingfictions:8 they call us post-humanWell, it can be hard to make friends here. But then there are others who reallywant to help you. When you are new to the world, others want to help you geton your feet, so to speak. I was born a year ago in 2006. I don’t have a family assuch.9 At the beginning I looked like lots of other people here. That was shock-ing at times; when I was someplace and another ‘me’ was there too. Over timemy shape seemed to change, though I only really found my identity when myskin changed. It’s a brown shade now. Oh, and I wear glasses (Figure 2).

6 On the mainland it ispossible to move fromregion to regionwithout teleporting.Elsewhere, mostislands are notconnected thereforeprohibiting movementacross large spaces.

7 Network Position:

8 Network Position:FuturePerfect,215,63,53.

9 You can ‘create’ afamily in Second Life:have a partner, getmarried, havechildren, even havesiblings.



Here, there is always a lot of discussion about who we are and what thisnew world is. Almost always you can join a group. Sometimes I go to dis-cussions and they call us post human. Can you explain that a little to me?Yours, Wandering.

Dongdong: I’d rather be a CyborgI am exploring all of these definitions of spaces. Where is ‘here’ and whereis ‘there’? It becomes here when we get there, and I’m yearning for another‘there’ again. I see that I constantly desire to be somewhere different. Why?Because I am trapped inside of this body, which cannot make any magicaltransformations. So I see the possibilities of change from the space itself.

Yes, we are all becoming post-human. I guess I rather want to be aCyborg instead of being a human’s extension. When I lose my identitywhere I come from, I feel free. My question is how I can find a virtual ‘else-where’ construction, a border-less method of overcoming political bound-aries in the search of self-identity. The body travels, but politics around thebody remains on the ground where it originally started. Even if I leave myhome/land, my fundamental agony does not change.

When I travel, packing is not always the fun part. I make my entireluggage as small as possible, as mobile as possible. I capture events, histo-ries, and logs about the journey to make my map. My map does not haveregional names. It has remarks of landscapes, things I have to remember.

Wanderingfictions:10 landscapes, embodiment and narrative fieldsAh, so you are a mapmaker! I wonder what remarks you make of the land-scapes that you travel through? Do you have a system of classification atall? Of patterning? Is it to capture what it is to be here or to be there?

DongdongThe system of classification for my map makes my journey interesting. Iused to have small boxes to collect the smells of different locations. But

10 Network Position:Acropolis Gardens,Delia, 93,67,323.


Figure 2. Wanderingfictions Story in Second Life.


since I moved to the virtual world I do not really have a sense of smell now.I categorise with tags, which are small labels, which tell you about the keypoints of the places. Those are creating my entire map now. I easily recog-nise the places and memories, but it is not as vivid as the smell boxes. Howdo you make your map? How do you see your world as your landscape?

WanderingfictionsI am uncertain of my own geography. I don’t even know where I live.Conceptually, that is. If we looked on the map I would not be able to point to itand say ‘there, that is where I live, that is my home’. Perhaps this is somethingthat happens with a virtual geography. I need a tagging system like yours. Theonly way I can navigate is through the visual patterning on the map, unless Iam given an exact co-ordinate position to teleport to. Once I have establisheda region I want to explore I zoom in close enough to enable me to recognisethe patterning in the geography, an interesting shape outlined.

I am being defined as a pattern not a presence. I have the experience ofembodiment, although I know my body is virtual. Of course I do. There islittle true form here, only a series of associations. I took a friend of mine toa volcano last night. He was in awe of it. In his mind’s eye, in his imagina-tion he saw before him a real volcano. Well, real enough to evoke his awe. Isthat not ‘real’ enough for it to contain a form of reality? A form of presence?

Dongdong: cabinet of curiositiesCurious cabinets11 of modern people (giant figures to me) are becominginvisibly vast in this virtual life. You could take your friend to a volcanothere, make hundreds of skyscrapers, build bizarre shaped houses, you areable to control the sun and moon too. If that is the form of the creation, Iwonder whether these people make something other than real life figures.Is this a new world? Or is this a reflection of our desire of wandering as anextension of travel? The Net is a place similar to the ‘curious cabinets’.Collecting, presenting, showing off and textualising.

The documentation of my travel became important, as I also reside asdata. So I would talk about my net travel experience. My admirer grouptreats me as a baby, pet, lover, and favourite toy in their reality.12 But theytreat me as an intangible data when we fly peer to peer. I represent theiridentities through the image. Image data tells more than text data in such aplatform. In this platform, network between the users are the main key.When they connect to another user group, I am transformed as metadata,which changes the representation (Figure 3).

Wanderingfictions13

Without a shared network, my world could not exist. If we had individualmicro (meta) worlds in which each of us lived, in separate pieces of spaceand time, I fear that it would not last. We would become extinct almostbefore we began.

Could an old cabinet of curiosities exist in my world? Would we knowwhat to do with it? Would it seem too strange to interpret? I fear that the

11 A long time ago,people who hadexquisite taste formarvellous objectsand paintings startedto collect and displaytheir collection inboxes. They hadmoney and authorityto put their collectionsin a place to keep anddisplay their pleasureof collectiveness. Theycalled that box a‘cabinet of curiosities’also known asWunderkammer orwonder-rooms.

12 Admirers’ group: Thisrefers to Fanbase sitefor the Blythe doll,owners have certainworship for thisfigures. They arebetween late 20s tolate 30s, who usuallyhave a creativeprofession and diversecultural understandingin Asia.

13 Network Position:Unknown.



world itself is its own curiosity. A new world curiosity. Metanarratives arecreated by placing objects (or data) next to each other as is ‘displayed’ in thenarratives of the cabinet of curiosity. Each decade (piece of time) has its owncuriosity. We move in waves. There are few curiosities here. There has notbeen the time to build those objects that exist and embody something oftheir own ‘time’. The curiosities are not objects here but architectures. Here,it is the scale that has changed. They have built the Taj Mahal, but there isstill no India here. Few people know that the Taj Mahal was to be one of twoparts. One each side of the river, calling to each other. One side is the whiteside (the one that we know), the other the black. It was intended to be amaterial and grand recognition of the greatest love between two people.However, only one side has ever existed. I am intrigued as to why, given theopportunity, that the Taj Mahal, here in this world, wasn’t built as it wasintended to be in yours. After all, the black marble does not need to bemoved great distances at great cost. It would not take the years it wouldneed to build where it currently exists. Now, this is curious.

The moments you mean something to your admirer group, I wonder ifyou fill the space that completes their metanarrative? At those points you fit,you enable them to make tangible an uncertainty they have. Although it’sonly momentary. That is why you become intangible again. Time is the mostintangible notion of reality we have. To document is to say ‘I did that. I havebeen there. This is what happened’. This is a peculiarly post-human activity.Even if that form becomes data again. Is this why we travel? Is that why Itravel? Because when I travel I am immersed in moving in space and time.

Dongdong: the sign of ‘Being’I guess we are all becoming wanderers in this infinite text. Interrelations

between the stories and fragments of images are extensive. We are evolving


Figure 3. Data: Data users ultimately consume.Meta Data: Data about data → expansion of data contextHuman: The main subject to create data/meta data/network dataNetwork Data: the relationship between data, meta data, and human[Web 2.0] Constitution of Service Data


ourselves with communications and the creation of our expression towardsthis blurry world we exist. Text will expand in every direction. We will not livein a horizontal timeline any longer. You will be able to create namelessnations and unauthorised territories, paradoxical zones like the Taj Mahalwithout India in your virtuality. I would love to meet my admirer in real life.But I know that they are sitting in a back supported chair with a gorgeousnew machine, waiting for the icon to blink. The sign of ‘being’. It is all aboutthe confirmation and recognition in this cabinet. If we are in the wavemoving, how can we find an epicentre? We are shrinking, growing, expand-ing, deforming, deleting, creating, modifying and metamorphosising anddisappearing.

Wanderingfictions:14 my body is my rationalisationYesterday I searched again for India and in a way I found it. There was noTaj Mahal, no signs to tell me. I changed my clothes so I could imagineIndia a little more. It seemed to work. I sat inside a huge lotus flower andtouched its petals. It stirred a memory in me. The petals were many huesof red (though I know it is only a pantone colour spectrum). Although Iwas a little disorientated. Did I shrink or did the flower simply grow? I am,in truth, very fluid here. I change all of the time. Is this the paradox? Beingso fluid, so free of form? So free to re-form? You say we will not live in ahorizontal timeline any longer. If this is so we will, we must lose ourhorizon (Figure 4).

Here is another paradoxical zone. Being more like a real human is myrationalisation. In the same way that I do not need wings, yet still the repre-sentation is there. The perception is held to. I can still fly, with or withoutwings! And I try to fly across my metaverse, bound to my Cartesian sense ofspace: an attempt at an orientation in time. I am in a state of in-between.

14 Network Position:Garden of ImmersiveSound, Marni,171,234,23.


Figure 4. Wanderingfictions (with wings).


And my fear becomes exposed. My (virtual) body will reveal its meaning intime. As will yours. Soon, though, there will be no paradoxes, because soonour view will not contain what it was to be only human.

Dongdong: you are an illusionI am made of plastic, acrylic thin hair and rubber. I have become a wander-ing soul on the net. I live in the cabinet of curiosity. I am a virtual nomad. Iam scared to go to another nation. I can barely stand up on my feet,because I do not fit with reality. The dimensions and normality are firmly onthe ground. The body travels, but politics around the body remain on theground – where it started. You are more like a real human, but you don’thave any tangible material that you are made of. You are an illusion. You flyas you transport to a different world. You are discovering new soils in theworld. You flow with an updated version of this virtual world. You are alwaysfresh. You are flowing. But you may be scared to wander in this virtual worldof infinite text too.

EpilogueAbout the dialogue of Dongdong and WanderingfictionsWe have investigated these transitions in our locations, along the techno-logical thread stream, which can reach another kind of crisis by goingacross territories. The fears are still operating in us as much as we areexcited about treading new paths. Nonetheless, we are trying to overcomeour dizziness on the borderland in between worlds.

Subject ‘I’, the bodyWhilst Haraway (1999: 149) declared that she would rather be a cyborg thana hybrid of machine and organism, Dongdong travels through the physicalworld in a plastic unmovable body into the virtual world as identity snap-shots of Web 2.0. For her, the body is the vehicle that carries her journeyand her identity. The body becomes her story container. Wanderingfictionsphysicality is real in Second Life, yet it lies within a conceptual field. She is‘inside out’ and ‘outside in’ (Grosz in Hayles 1999: 196). She becomesaware that her body when it is like others around does not fit her growingpsyche. It needs to be changed, individualised and reflective. Her bodybecomes performative; of what she searches for in the virtual world; if shebecomes India, then she can find India. We also witness how both of ourbodies can experience a transformation from outside of their realm insidethe communities of the virtual world:

Bodies disappear into information with scarcely a murmur of protest; bodycan disappear into information with scarcely a murmur of protest; embodi-ment cannot, for it is linked to the circumstances of the occasion and theperson. As soon as embodiment is acknowledged, the abstractions of thePanopticon disintegrate into the particularities of specific people embeddedin specific contexts.

Hayles 1999: 198



A number of ‘I’s travel through different spaces and times. Massumi (2002:3) suggests that every body subject is so determinately local; it is boxed intoits site on the culture map. Grid lock. Wanderingfictions and Dongdong’ssubstantial experience of mapping in each of their environments showsthat this grid proves that the idea of positionality begins by subtractingmovement from the picture. This freeze frame shows one moment of abody’s fluidity. However in the virtual world, the body travels as a continuityof movement.

Travelling between the real world and the virtual worldWe are actively communicating with the other creatures and find new func-tionalities and applications in these worlds. And subject ‘I’ decides to takea path from it. Jones (2006: 4) suggests ‘virtual reality is the contemporaryand future articulation of the philosophical and psychological question ofhow we define (and create) reality’. We see through the eyes ofWanderingfictions’ friend, the experience of awe in front of the virtualvolcano, that the issues, definitions and experience of reality find rich andchallenging ground in virtual environments. Jones (2006) charts the philo-sophical developments and concepts of the real and the virtual from pre-modern times to the post-modern era and concludes that now:

[. . .] Virtual worlds rest within a discursive space that have been constructedupon the struggle between the strengthening and blurring of boundaries ofcorporeality and transcendence, the real and the virtual, where and nowhere,and the unitive and multiplicitous self. It is this tension that makes virtualreality and virtual worlds so compelling to the contemporary imagination.

Jones 2006: 15

Conversely, Dongdong’s experience within the online community present-ing as metadata on the net is more fictional. The web 2.0 platform encour-ages users to jump in and share their everyday lives. This platformformulates a number of UGC, and provides content as crowd sourcing.When all different kinds of users participate in this structure of this newknowledge network, metadata transforms into attention data. Dongdong’sinterpretation of the cabinet of curiosities is a useful term when consideringthis vast expanse of networked space, full of information being categorised,organised, distributed, re-interpreted, re-narrativised.

Time and spaceSecond Life is a space that is experienced in a Cartesian way. It is experi-enced whilst sitting ‘in a space’, the space of our room, and simultaneously‘through’ the screen. There is also a simultaneity of our experience of realand virtual – or other – space. Grosz (2001) suggests what Bergson did fortime, we should attempt for space. In using this Bergsonian premise, shesuggests that it may be possible that the qualities Bergson attributes toduration may be also attributed to space:



[. . .] if duration exists in states of contraction and expansion, in degrees ofuneven intensity, either elaborated in increasing detail or functioning simply as‘shining points’ of intensity, then perhaps space too [. . .] has a loci of intensity,of compression, of elasticity [. . .] the very configuration of space itself may beheterogeneous [. . .] Perhaps, in other words, there is a materiality [originalemphasis] to space itself, rather than materiality residing with only its contents.

Grosz 2001: 127–8

If Grosz’s focus is on the heterogeneous flow of spatial configurations,Massumi is more interested in the de-positioning of the body and the dynamicmovement of the grid spaces. In parallel to the real world, we have embodiedthese notions in (an)other space and time through each of our characters. Itseems clear that both Wanderingfictions and Dongdong are struggling in theirown ways with travelling in these virtual spaces, yet each experiences afreedom and wonder of the new experiences that those spaces offer and acuriosity for the virtual world allowing a new experience of time and space.

ConclusionWorking with the process of digital narrative as ‘embodied narrative’ and thenon-human body as metadata describes our experiences in virtual worlds innew ways. As we see from our dialogue, understanding our geographicalposition in this digital era is absolutely essential. As we read the exchangewe find confusion, disorientation, fear, but also wonderment of this newview, where we are able to live in, and embody, multiple realities. Exploringthese various conditions challenges us to investigate our physical availabili-ties as travellers in this virtual environment. A non human body as metadataoffers us resources for thinking in more sophisticated ways about virtualtechnologies. User Generated Content and networked 3D Virtual Worldssuch as Second Life bring new forms of participation. These two main waveson the net are contributing to the systems of informatics in their structure,behaviours and interactions of digital knowledge and narrative. The Secondwave of user orientated contents from Web 2.0 and Second Life is not abouttoday’s up to date information technology. We believe that we will be able tosee the 4th generation of web development, and more in our lifetime. Our‘I’s will travel through multiple spaces and times.

Whether we will be happier than in the past about our living in a virtualenvironment or not is not a question we can have any longer. Neverthelessif we hold to the past then we can keep a certain sense of orientation. Wehave to have enough of the past in our memory to connect to our ‘imag-ined’ future to be able to make the patterns that materialise, retrospectively.Dongdong and Wanderingfictions will still whisper to each other about theirdiscoveries in their own worlds.

ReferencesBachelard, G. (1969), The Poetics of Reverie, Boston: Beacon Press. First published 1960.

Griffiths, J. (2004), A Sideways Look at Time, New York: Penguin. First published 1999.



Grosz, E. (2001), Architecture from the Outside: Essays on Virtual and Real Space,Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Haraway, D. (1999), ‘A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century,’ Simians, Cyborgs and Women: TheReinvention of Nature, New York: Routledge.

Hayles, N.K. (1999), How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics,Literature and Informatics, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Jones, D.E. (2006), I, Avatar: Constructions of Self and Place in Second Life and theTechnological Imagination, Gnovis, Journal of Communication, Culture andTechnology, 6.

Kinder, M. (2002), ‘Hot Spots, Avatars, and Narrative Fields Forever’, FilmQuarterly, 55, pp. 2–15.

Kristeva, J. (1980), Desire in Language: a semiotic approach to literature and art (trans.Thomas Gora, Alice Jardine and Leon S. Roudiez), in Leon S. Roudiez (ed.),New York: Columbia University Press.

Linden Labs (2007), Economic Statistics: Population. Second Life. Accessed 22ndAugust 2007. http://www.secondlife.com/whatis/economy_stats.php

Massumi, B. (2002), Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation, Durham &London: Duke University Press.

Rymaszewski, M. et al. (2007), Second Life: The Official Guide, Hoboken, New Jersey:John Wiley & Sons.

Suggested citationDoyle, D., & Kim, T. (2007), ‘Embodied narrative: the virtual nomad and the meta

dreamer’, International Journal of Performance Arts and digital Media 3: 2&3,pp. 209–222, doi: 10.1386/padm.3.2&3.209/1

Contributor detailsTaey is a visual media artist and PhD candidate at SMARTlab, University of EastLondon. Her practice background is narrative based photography and interactivemultimedia installation. In her virtual space, she examines the position of media artitself as an ‘elsewhere’ construction, a borderless method of overcoming politicalboundaries in the search for self-identity as far-east Asian and sexual minority in thepostcolonial phenomenon. Her various exhibitions have travelled to London, Paris,Doncaster, Koln, Seoul, and many other international cities. Contact: Taey Kim,University of East London, The SMARTlab Digital Media Institute, 4-6 UniversityWay, LONDON E16, UK. Web: http://www.taey.comE-mail: [email protected]

Denise is a Senior Lecturer in Digital Media at the University of Wolverhamptonand PhD candidate at SMARTlab, University of East London. She contributes to thecontextual and practice-based strand of the UG Digital Media programme atWolverhampton as well as undertaking research in the use of virtual worlds inlearning. She is a theorist and new media practitioner. Her research interestsinclude: interactive film, database cinema, virtual worlds, philosophies of the imag-inary, practice-based research methods, critical theory and applied media arts,digital narratives, and multiplayer games and virtual learning environments.Contact: University of Wolverhampton, School of Art and Design, Molineux Street,Wolverhampton. Contact: Denise Doyle, University of Wolverhampton, School ofArt and Design, Molineux Street, WOLVERHAMPTON WV1 1SB, UK. Web:http://wanderingfictions.netE-mail: [email protected]





Playing the third place: Spatial modalitiesin contemporary game environments

Axel Stockburger Academy of Fine Arts Vienna

AbstractThe article identifies the specific nature of spatiality as one of the most importantaspects of contemporary networked game environments and presents a closereading of Henri Lefebvre’s spatial theories in order to gain a different perspectivetowards the subject. Artistic interventions in the form of online performances byartists such as Eddo Stern and Joseph DeLappe are discussed as exemplary formsof critical engagement with these emerging immersive environments.

IntroductionIn recent years digital games have evolved from single player systems toarenas of mediated performative action for large groups of players. Onedoes not even have to mention a phenomenon like Second Life, a kind ofbranding echo chamber that seems to fuel the imagination of journalists,media agencies and artists around the globe in order to realise that digitalgaming has undergone a veritable phase shift with the introduction ofimmersive online environments that are rendered in three dimensions. Ifone considers that Blizzard, the company responsible for the MMORPGWorld of Warcraft, has recently announced that it is reaching 9 millionsubscribers, each single one paying a monthly fee it is easy to imagine theeconomical impact of the medium. However, simultaneously it becomesevident that such game environments represent economical and social uni-verses in their own right and that they amount to public spheres which areowned and maintained by private companies. Artists such as Eddo Stern orJoseph DeLappe have started to critically engage with these mediatedspaces and have developed different strategies that amount to artistic per-formances in digital spaces. Their work will serve as exemplary for thenascient potential for performative arts embedded in those structures, butbefore anything else a fundamental issue has to be clarified.

If one agrees to the fact that the kinds of digital games that have beenbrought up above are novel media phenomena rooted in a specific spatial-ity, since they serve as realms for performative actions on a global scale,questions regarding the nature and qualities of this kind of spatialityemerge. In this context it is interesting to note that so far, very few attemptsat understanding the multi-dimensional nature of this spatial form haveemerged from the field of game studies. Although there exist numerousapproaches that address diverse aspects of spatiality of digital games in


Keywordsdigital gamesgame studiesspatialitygame artmedia studiesinteractive art

PADM_3-(2-3)_12-STOCKBURGER 11/27/07 5:57 PM Page 223

isolation, such as the discussion of game space from a narrative perspec-tive (Murray 1997), a focus on the visual aspects (Wolf 2001) or the impactsof rule systems (Juuls 2001), there seems to be no attempt to understandhow these elements are functioning as part of a system. A notable excep-tion can be seen in a brief article by Espen Aarseth who has proposed toturn towards Lefebvre’s spatial theories (Aarseth 2001: 152–169) in order topresent a reading of game spaces as allegorical spaces. Although thisopens up a very interesting perspective it seems that numerous importantaspects of Lefebvre’s theory, most importantly his take on socio-economicalaspects were neglected in this approach. Thus, this article, that is based onthoughts which are presented in more detail in a dissertation (Stockburger2006) aims to reconsider Henri Lefebvre’s writing as well as Edward Sojastake on it in the context of digital game environments and to highlightsome of the crucial elements of contemporary game spaces. This is under-taken in order to provide a theoretical approach to game space that couldserve as a means to analyse and describe aspects of spatial performancework in digital game environments. In this sense, this short article aims toprovide a basis for further research into the newly emerging field of perfor-mance art in digital game universes. It is hoped that the reader realises thatsuch an attempt is only possible through a thorough engagement withLefebvre’s original text.

The production of space as a theoretical framework for game spaceIn the introduction to his seminal work ‘The Production of Space’, Lefebvreposes a number of questions that are directed towards historical spatialconcepts from philosophy and physics. His aim is to develop a properscience of space that takes into account seemingly disparate notions ofspace. Accordingly, he sets out to ‘discover or construct a theoretical unitybetween fields which are apprehended separately, just as molecular, electro-magnetic and gravitational forces are in physics’ and states that ‘[t]he fieldswe are concerned with are, first, the physical – nature, the Cosmos; sec-ondly, the mental, including logical and formal abstractions; and, thirdly,the social’ (Lefebvre 1974: 11). These three seemingly separate spheres arequite clearly present in online game spaces; firstly, there exists a physicalspace where the player is located; secondly, there is the mentally con-structed space arising from narrative and rule based structures; and finallywe are confronted with spaces generated by the social interaction of indi-viduals, exemplified in multi-player online games as well as shared gamingsessions. It is precisely the connection between these different dimensionsthat needs to be clarified in order to understand the entirety of space invideo and computer games.

The aim of Lefebvre’s project is to analyse how space is produced onvarious levels, in the realm of codes or language, but also in practico-sensoryactivity and through the interactions between subjects. The ultimate goal is‘[t]o expose the actual production of space by bringing the various kinds ofspace and the modalities of their genesis together within a single theory’

224 Axel Stockburger


(Lefebvre 1973: 16). Seemingly, discrete elements are thus understood asflexions of the wider phenomenon of spatiality. Since space in the context ofdigital game spaces can only be fully understood if it is treated as the sumof its disparate modalities, Lefebvre’s approach seems to provide an idealframework for this undertaking.

If one concedes that games need to be practiced and played, not readwe have to accept that there is a dimension of computer games that isexperienced beyond the realm of the logos – a dimension that has to per-formed rather than decoded. Moreover, there exist aspects of space beyondthe sphere of language that can be accessed and expressed via art and play.The ideological freight that Lefebvre refers to as ‘illusion of transparency’underlies western traditions of thought that perpetuate the dominance ofthe sense of vision over all other senses. Although critical of the dominanceof the logos, Lefebvre describes space as ‘encoded’, and accordingly, itsproduction and decoding as subjected to historical transformation. Hestates that ‘[c]odes will be seen as part of a practical relationship, as partof an interaction between “subjects” and their space and surroundings’(Lefebvre 1991: 18). Here, one might pose the question how these codesrelate to language. Lefebvre outlines his position as follows: ‘[t]he strategyof centering knowledge on discourse avoids the particularly scabrous topicof the relationship between knowledge and power. It is also incapable ofsupplying reflective thought with a satisfactory answer to a theoretical ques-tion that it raises itself: do sets of non-verbal signs and symbols, whethercoded or not, systematized or not, fall into the same category as verbalsets, or are they rather irreducible to them? Among non-verbal signifyingsets must be included music, painting, sculpture, architecture, and cer-tainly theatre, which in addition to a text or pretext embraces gestures,masks, costume, a stage, a mise-en-scene – in short a space. Non-verbalsets are thus characterized by a spatiality, which is in fact irreducible to themental realm [. . .]. To underestimate, ignore and diminish space amountsto the overestimation of texts, written matter, and writing systems, alongwith the readable and the visible, to the point of assigning to these amonopoly on intelligibility’ (Lefebvre 1991: 62).

Although digital games did not exist at the time of the writing of the‘Production of Space’, it does not seem too farfetched to speculate thatthey might have been included among the practices which include ‘non-verbal signifying sets’, on a par with theatre, architecture and music. In thiscontext, it is important to recall that advocates of a ludological position ingame studies usually reject the notion of computer games as directly ‘read-able’ narrative artefacts. Indeed, games exist to be performed or played,and are similarly characterised by a spatiality that is irreducible to the realmof the logos or what, in Lefebvre’s terms, constitutes the ‘mental realm’.Thus, aspects of this notion of spatiality, namely coded and non-verbalforms seem to be well suited to account for those aspects of game spacethat are omitted by narratological approaches.

One can claim that computer games constitute a spatial practice parexcellence, operating through ‘non-verbal sets of spatial signs and symbols’

225Playing the third place: Spatial modalities in contemporary game environments


and addressing bodies operating in space. Since computers are machinesthat operate on a symbolical level, players are continuously confronted withsymbolic spatial representation. Those symbolic representational elementsare, however, partially rooted in ‘mental’ formations, similar to Euclidianspace or Renaissance perspective. If one assumes that important aspectsof the spatiality in computer games present themselves in a non-verbalsymbolic form, it can be argued that written language alone might not besufficient to cover the territory.

Lefebvre takes his argument further when he critiques the application ofsemiology to architecture. He is convinced that although there is always asignifying practice involved it cannot be reduced to ‘language or discourse,nor to the categories and concepts developed for the study of language’(Lefebvre 1991: 222). This is because ‘spatial work [. . .] attains a complexityfundamentally different from the complexity of a text, whether prose orpoetry’ (Lefebvre 1991: 222). A spatial work, such as a work of architectureis realised through a social practice, and ‘[t]he actions of a social practiceare expressible but not explicable through discourse; they are precisely,acted – and not read’ (Lefebvre 1991: 222). It is this dimension of actualperformance that is realised within and through a social practice thatstrikes us as a fundamental element of games in general, and mostpoignantly of multi user online games. In other words, just as space has tobe practised and experienced beyond the logic order of language, gameshave to be played/performed and it is not sufficient to study their symboli-cal surface aspects without getting involved. This aspect of play that sur-passes language into space is acknowledged by Lefebvre when he statesthat ‘[l]anguage possesses a practical function but it cannot harbour knowl-edge without masking it. The playful aspect of space escapes it, and it onlyemerges in play itself (by definition), in irony and humour’ (Lefebvre 1991:211). This, however, does not mean that knowledge production based onlanguage is rendered obsolete, which would invalidate Lefebvre’s own workof writing. The core element of his argument emphasises the importance ofpractice versus abstract and detached examination. The playful aspect ofspace is something that emerges naturally from the practico-sensory realmand has to be regarded as an integral part of the foundations of humandevelopment. It is this playful and non-rational space that Lefebvre positsagainst the rational intellectual space of Cartesian logic. He attacks theshortcomings of spatial conceptions centred on Western logos when hewrites, ‘[a] narrow and desiccated rationality [. . .] overlooks the core andfoundation of space, the total body, brain, gestures, and so forth. It forgetsthat space does not consist in the projection of an intellectual representa-tion, does not arise from the visible-readable realm, but that it is first of allheard (listened to) and enacted (through physical gestures and move-ments)’ (Lefebvre 1991: 200). This is a crucial observation, since computerand video games are quite clearly listened to and enacted through physicalgestures and movements. However, they simultaneously mobilise thevisible and the readable. This fact immediately brings about the questionhow these seemingly opposed areas might be related to each other. It is in



particular this connection and interplay between discrete areas thatLefebvre’s theory attempts to grasp and analyse. We have already touchedupon two distinct fields, the field of logical and rational conceptions ofspace, as defined by classical philosophy, mathematics and engineeringand the field of directly experienced space that emerges from the practico-sensory realm and that is marked by what Lefebvre calls ‘non-verbal sets ofspatiality’. Lefebvre introduces two categories to account for these divergingaspects of spatiality, namely ‘Representations of Space’ and ‘RepresentationalSpaces’. The first category stands for the realm of abstract and rational con-ceptions of space, which are tied up with philosophical thought, mathematicsas well as engineering and urban planning. Here, space is first of all conceived,planned and mapped out rationally. The second, category, ‘RepresentationalSpaces’, designates the field of direct experience gained in the ‘practico-sensory’ realm. It is the sphere of the non-verbal that differs from the formerbecause it is lived and experienced rather than intellectually constructed andprojected. ‘Spatial Practice’ maintains a dialectical relationship between‘Representations of Space’ and ‘Representational Spaces’ and is, in Lefebvre’swords, responsible for ‘production and reproduction and the particularlocations and spatial sets characteristic of each social formation’ (Lefebvre1991: 33). In the following we will try to clarify in detail how these conceptsare put to work within Lefebvre’s objective, and subsequently how they canbe mobilised as a basic framework for spatiality in digital games.

A triadic structure‘A triad: that is, three elements and not two. Relations with two elementsboil down to oppositions, contrasts or antagonisms. They are defined bysignificant effects: echoes, repercussions, mirror effects’ (Lefebvre 1991:39). Here, Lefebvre is clearly indebted to Hegel’s and Marx efforts to sur-mount the structural dualisms and binary oppositions, which definedCartesian as well as Kantian, post- and neo-Kantian thought. Referring tophilosophical projects based on subject–object opposition Lefebvre writes,‘[t]heir dualism is entirely mental, and strips everything which makes forliving activity from life, thought and society (i.e. from the physical, themental and social, as from the lived, perceived and conceived)’ (Lefebvre1991: 39). Such systems of thought tend towards complete transparencyand intelligibility, thus not leaving any room for the material, physical andsocial aspects of life. Therefore, in order to understand social space as aproduct of forces that manifest themselves beyond the mental sphere, it issensible to consider the body as a starting point.

Firstly, a body in a group or society is geared towards (social) spatialpractice that presupposes bodily activity, such as movement, gestures andthe use of sensory organs. This activity amounts to what Lefebvre advancesas ‘perceived space’ or ‘[t]he practical basis of the perception of the outsideworld, to put it in psychology’s terms’ (Lefebvre 1991: 40). Secondly, repre-sentations of the body, derived from science, such as medical sciences,anatomy, physiology, form the conceived space of the body. These scientificrepresentations of the body are obviously prone to be mixed up with



ideological contents and constantly evolve over time. This field of spatialrepresentation is posited as ‘conceived space’. Thirdly, bodily, or ‘livedspace’, in constant mediation between the former two, is highly influencedby social and cultural conventions and is accompanied by an ‘illusory’immediacy that is prefigured by symbolisms evolving from religious tradi-tions and mythologies.

Game space clearly has to be regarded as a cultural product andpractice that is informed by spaces created through the use of verbal signsor language (narrative spaces), yet it appears equally informed by a spatialpractice operating on the basis of bodily involvement in the form of ges-tures (user action) as well as non-verbal sets of symbols and signs (repre-sentational spaces). All of these dimensions of space are equally present indigital games and are constantly mediating between each other.

The question that needs to be addressed here is how this process ofmediation could be understood in spatial terms. Lefebvre defines thecontingencies of spatial practice as follows: ‘The object of knowledge is,precisely the fragmented and uncertain connection between elaboratedrepresentations of space on the one hand and representational spaces(along with their underpinnings) on the other; and this ‘object’ implies(and explains) a subject – that subject in whom lived, perceived and con-ceived (known) come together within a spatial practice’ (Lefebvre 1991:230). It follows that if ‘representations of space’, the results of a process,are the sole objects for the study of spatial practice, lived experience andwith it the genesis of the process would be omitted. In other words, it isimportant to consider the processes that surround and run through culturalartefacts, namely how they come into being and how they are experienced.Thus, in order to fully comprehend game space, the spatial practice of cre-ating and playing computer games has to be considered equally importantas the formal aspects of spatial representation.

It is crucial to stress the fact that the particular spaces generated bycomputer and videogames have to be regarded as the result of a dynamicprocess that involves numerous distinct elements such as the rules, theprogramme, the player’s active involvement as well as audiovisual symboli-cal elements. Thus, it would be quite short-sighted to concentrate on one ofthese particularities without taking into account the other elements in theprocess. In other words, rather than studying computer games as things inspace, the particular process of the production of game space has to betaken into consideration as well. On first glance, the fact that most gamesare finite cultural products seems to justify an approach that is focused onthe visible and audible content alone. Yet, precisely because they appear ascoherent entities, and the scaffolding that leads to their production hasvanished, it is crucial to investigate the process beyond the technologicalproduct within the wider realm of cultural activity. And it is here that onecan attempt to answer the question how the interdependence betweenthe ‘artificial’ socio-cultural aspects of spatiality and those based on the‘natural’ shared grounds of bodily perception could be examined. Thisinterdependence between culture and nature seems to be exactly what



Lefebvre has in mind when he introduces the Marxist notion of productioninto his framework. If space is posited as a social product, influenced byperceived space (the shared perceptional basis) as much as by conceivedspace (the culturally specific space of logical thought and language basedconceptions) it can be regarded as an implicit dialectical process that con-tains answers to our question, as well as the question itself.

If one takes this thought further, the products of spatial practice,whether they are games, performances or architecture re-enter the processas elements, which are products of a spatial practice as much as they inturn influence that same practice. It can be argued that the spatial practicearising from the production and consumption of computer games in turninfluences the general spatial practice of the subjects involved. To put itbluntly, an individual that has had the experience of playing a networkedcomputer game integrates this experience into his or her general under-standing of space. Thus one can claim that computer games are not onlyspatial socio-cultural products that give evidence of contemporary spatialconceptions but also that they influence spatial practice by introducing dif-ferent and new configurations of representational spaces. This is why theanalysis of the production of game space could in turn reveal more aboutcontemporary spatial practice than one might, at first, expect. At this point,it is necessary to return to the heuristic device mobilised by Lefebvre toexamine his model for the production of space, namely his triad of ‘per-ceived, conceived, and lived space’. He presents his conceptual triad asfollows: ‘Spatial Practice, which embraces production and reproduction,and the particular locations and spatial sets characteristic of each socialformation. Spatial practice ensures continuity and to some degree cohe-sion. In terms of social space, and of each member of a given society’s rela-tionship to space, this cohesion implies a guaranteed level of competenceand a specific level of performance’ (Lefebvre 1991: 33).

‘Representations of space: conceptualized space, the space of scien-tists, planners, urbanists, technocratic subdividers and social engineers, asof a certain type of artist with a scientific bent – all of whom identify what islived and what is perceived with what is conceived’ (Lefebvre 1991: 38).

‘Representational spaces: space as directly lived through its associatedimages and symbols, and hence the space of ‘inhabitants’ and ‘users’, butalso of some artists and perhaps of those, such as a few writers andphilosophers, who describe and aspire to do no more than describe. This isthe dominated – and hence passively experienced – space, which the imag-ination seeks to change and appropriate. It overlays physical space, makingsymbolical use of its objects. Thus representational spaces may be said,though again with certain exceptions, to tend towards more or less coher-ent systems of non-verbal symbols and signs’ (Lefebvre 1991: 83).

‘Spatial practice’ emerges from shared habitual action in a society basedon how the members of that society ‘perceive’ their environment and interactwith it. Those perceptions are informed by the dominant ‘representationsof space’, which are advanced by a particular segment of society such asscientists, theorists and engineers. ‘Representations of space’ is the sphere



of abstract conceptions and mental models that can be highly theoretical andout of touch with everyday live. In contrast, ‘Representational space’ is under-stood as a layer of non-verbal sets of symbols that is superimposed uponphysical space. It is a realm of space that is directly lived rather than negoti-ated by conscious logic. ‘Representational space’ is a first hand experiencerather than an abstract conception. The ‘spatial practice’ of a society is theresult of a complex interaction between ‘representations of space’ and ‘repre-sentational spaces’. How do ‘spatial practice’, ‘representations of space’ and‘representational spaces’ relate to computer and video games in detail?

In Lefebvre’s view, ‘[t]he spatial practice of a society secretes thatsociety’s space; it propounds it, in a dialectical interaction; it produces itslowly and surely as it masters and appropriates it’ (Lefebvre 1991: 38). Hecharacterises spatial practice in neo-capitalist society as follows: ‘[i]tembodies a close association, within perceived space, between daily reality(daily routine) and urban reality (the routes and networks which link up theplaces set aside for work, ‘private’ life and leisure (ibid)’. Seen in this light,the spatial practice emerging from computer games reveals a lot about theconditions of post-industrial societies. For instance, one can witness a con-tinuous blurring of the boundaries between leisure and work. Not only doplay and work take place at the same physical location and on the samedevice, the individual’s PC, mobile phone or PDA. Moreover, networkedgames bring about a spatial practice that facilitates global participationand have led to the inception of novel micro-economic systems. With theenormous growth in the trade of virtual objects in MMORPG’s such asEverquest, Ultima Online or World of Warcraft that has been thoroughlyresearched by Edward Castranova (Castranova 2001), forms of play increas-ingly take on the characteristics of paid work. Another aspect of this erosionof the border between cultures of play and work has been examined indetail in relation to the modes of production in game companies (Kline,Dyer-Witheford and De-Peuter 2003). Increasingly the production of digitalgames is presented as a kind of game of its own, a playful and creativeactivity that can be enjoyed without thinking too much about overtime andextreme ‘working hours’, because it is ‘fun’. Simultaneously, concepts andpractices in the vicinity of ‘user generated content’ point in a similar direction.

Computer and video games have to be regarded as products of neo-capitalist economic structures and the spatial practice associated withthem accordingly, to paraphrase Lefebvre, ‘secretes that society’s space’. Inother words, the myriad forms of territorial domination, spatial contest andindividual struggle that appear in those artefacts are clearly related to theunderlying drives of post-modern culture. Moreover, one could argue thatcontemporary ‘spatial practice’ in Western societies is increasingly perme-ated by various forms of ‘representational spaces’ due to the enormousincrease of digital devices operating with spatial sets of non-verbalsymbols. After all, the GUI’s of operation systems in daily use by millions ofpeople all deploy non-verbal spatial metaphors. In this context, it is hard tofind a better example for ‘representational space’, than the kind of spacethat is directly lived through its associated images and symbols, generated



by the audiovisual spatial illusion of video and computer games. Yet, at thesame time, other aspects of computer games are clearly dominated by ‘rep-resentations of space’, that is specific conceptions of space, which can behighly abstract and clearly based on language and the logos. A spatial nar-rative or a set of rules that defines spatial action in a game belongs to thisdimension. The game designer who programmes the movement of objectsin a game according to mathematical rules and algorithms within a coordi-nate system generates specific ‘representations of space’. The player con-tinuously switches between these dimensions while playing the game. Onthe one hand the player experiences the space directly through non-verbalsets of signs and on the other hand consciously generates an abstractmental map of the space and devises strategies of action. Thus ‘spatialpractice’ in video and computer games has to be regarded as a result of thehighly dynamic mediation between ‘representations of space’ and ‘repre-sentational space’. How does this dynamic mediation unfold itself?

Lefebvre writes, ‘[t]o take in theatrical space, with its interplay betweenfictitious and real counterparts and its interaction between gazes and miragesin which actor, audience, “characters”, text, and author all come togetherbut never become one. By means of such theatrical interplay bodies areable to pass from a “real”, immediately experienced space (the pit, thestage) to a perceived space – a third space which is no longer scenic orpublic. At once fictitious and real, this third space is classical theatre space’(Lefebvre 1991: 188). Here we are dealing with theatre, a cultural form thathas already served Brenda Laurel (Laurel 1991) as the central metaphor, forher examination of enactment and active performance in human computerinteraction.

Lefebvre points out that ‘[t]heatrical space certainly implies a represen-tation of space – scenic space – corresponding to a particular conception ofspace (that of the classical drama, say – or the Elizabethan, or the Italian).The representational space, mediated yet directly experienced, whichinfuses the work and the moment, is established as such through the dra-matic action itself’ (Lefebvre 1991: 188). This is a crucial point in relation togame space and it can be paraphrased as follows: the spatial practice sur-rounding computer games is on the one hand defined by spatial modalitiesthat belong to the field of ‘representations of space’, such as particularrules defining spatial performance, verbal conventions of spatial narrative,conceptions guiding the construction of audiovisual spatial representations(various modes of perspective) and on the other hand established by directly‘lived’ experience and active construction of ‘representational spaces’. Inother words, there are elements, which act as foundations, as basic spatialconceptions, for the fluid and action-based directly experienced (per-formed) space of the moment, resulting in a coherent ‘spatial practice’.Here we need to address the importance of Lefebvre’s notion of ‘livedspace’ from a slightly different perspective by briefly introducing one of themost prominent commentators of Lefebvre’s work. Edward Soja presentshis re-reading of the spatial triad in the form of what he terms the ‘trialectics’of ‘First-, Second- and Thirdspace’. He provides a post-modern reading of



Lefebvre’s project. ‘Firstspace’ is identified as the directly perceived ‘mater-ial side’ of space and ‘Firstspace’ epistemes are described as ‘[f ]ocusingtheir primary attention on the “analytical decipherment” of what Lefebvrecalls spatial practice or perceived space, a material and materialized “phys-ical” spatiality that is directly comprehended in empirically measurable con-figurations’ (Soja 1996: 74). Thus ‘Firstspace’ is also the area of theaforementioned, illusion of opacity, the tendency to ‘[p]rivilege objectivityand materiality [. . .]’ (Soja 1996: 75). Subsequently, ‘Secondspace’ epistemesare advanced as guided by ‘[t]heir explanatory concentration on conceivedrather than perceived space and their implicit assumption that spatialknowledge is primarily produced through discursively devised representa-tions of space, through the spatial workings of the mind’ (Soja 1996:78–79). This is the space of the ‘illusion of transparency’, the tendency totreat every kind of knowledge about reality as a result of reflective thought,thus granting the reign to the res cogito. The element that differs mostfrom Lefebvre’s original text in Soja’s interpretation is his version of ‘livedspace’ or ‘Thirdspace’. He basically defines ‘Thirdspace’ epistemologies as‘[a]rising from the sympathetic deconstruction and heuristic reconstructionof the Firstspace-Secondspace duality [. . .]’ (Soja 1996: 81). For Soja,‘Thirdspace’ is the necessary other for the duality of real and imaginedspace and he introduces Borge’s ‘Aleph’ as a metaphor for it. In his rendi-tion ‘Thirdspace’ seems to become the post-modern container of differ-ence, otherness and novel approaches. Thus he leaves the definition for‘Thirdspace’ as open as possible, to be filled with all concepts and strate-gies leading to new possibilities and places. Here, ‘lived space’ becomes avery far-reaching placeholder for everything that cannot be defined either by‘First-’ or ‘Secondspace’ approaches. Soja’s reading brings Lefebvre downto earth when he identifies perceived space (Firstspace) with the real, andconceived space (Secondspace) with the imaginary, leading to lived space(Thirdspace) as a field of both, imagined and real. The hybrid mix between realand imagined spaces that is provided by digital game universes reverberatesstrongly with this conception of ‘Thirdspace’. This insight is crucial because itdefies the idea of computer games as merely ‘virtual’ and purely imaginaryspaces. It is precisely the interaction between real and imagined spatiality thatmakes this medium so compelling and unique. The spatial practice emergingfrom computer games has to be regarded as a hybrid between physical (thehome or a LAN tornament with hundreds of players) and imagined spaces(representational aspects of generated by the game engine).

At this point we would like to advance a set of different spatial modali-ties that can be separated according to their functions and qualities in thegame space, namely user space, narrative space, rule space, audiovisualrepresentational space and kinaesthetic space, and to position them withinthe framework of Lefebvre’s spatial model. Firstly, user space is understoodas the physical location of the ‘spatial practice’ emerging from gameplay. Ithas a social dimension, since it is the location of players who meet andinteract with each other. Accordingly, within Lefebvre’s triad it can be identi-fied with ‘perceived space’. Secondly, the modalities of narrative space (text



and/or speech based elements) and rule space (the rules of the simulationsystem) are language-based abstract dimensions and thus belong to therealm of ‘conceived space’. Thirdly, the modality of kinaesthetic space (thebodily connection between player and game space facilitated via the inter-face) is closely linked with Lefebvre’s notion of ‘lived space’, since it desig-nates the bodily link between player and game, which is establishedthrough the interface in conjunction with the non-verbal sets of spatialsymbols produced by the audiovisual representational modality of space.

What makes Lefebvre’s theory so significant for the development of anovel perspective on game space is his precise analysis of different types ofspace and the notion of the dynamic interplay between them, resulting inthe notion of ‘spatial practice’. Accordingly, all of the above categories haveto be regarded as interlinked modalities in a dynamic process that results inthe ‘spatial practice’ of computer game play. To illustrate, the ‘spatial prac-tice’ emerging from playing an online MMORPG like World of Warcraftcould be sketched as follows: it takes place in a specific user space (thehome of the player or a public internet cafe) and it involves representationsof space such as narrative space (you are in a specific region of the gameuniverse azeroth and can travel to different regions in order to find items orplay quests) and rule space (which defines the values and behaviour ofobjects in the game space) as well as the audiovisual representationalaspects (the threedimensional rendering of the game universe, objects andavatars) and finally the kinaesthetic modality (the link between the player’sbody, via the keyboard and mouse interface to the avatar) that makes thegame a directly lived, visceral experience. Furthermore, the spatial practiceemerging from World of Warcraft also includes the continuous develop-ment of new territories and maps by the company Blizzard as well as thesocial interactions before and during gameplay. As this brief sketch demon-strates, on the one hand, it would be impossible to deny the connectionsbetween those spatial modalities; on the other hand they all have individualand distinctive characteristics that have to be accounted for.

Performative interventions in online gamesTo bring the argument to a close and highlight avenues for further researchit seems sensible to briefly introduce the work of artists who are criticallyengaging with different aspects of the spatial modalities that have beenadvanced above. The American artist Josef DeLappe, for example, hasstarted a series of ‘online performances’ in networked game environments.In the piece “War Poets Online” from 2004 he logs onto servers of thepopular Ego-shooter ‘Medal of Honour’ and starts to type poetry of Warpoets from World War I such as Siegfried Sassoon or Wilfried Owen. In aninterview with Jan Winet he says ‘[f ]rom the start, I was considering thepoetry readings in the games as being a new kind of street theatre. [. . .]When I first started doing these performances online they were also veryprivate. The idea of doing these before an audience came later. [. . .] Thesewere quite individual encounters in an online server where there might betwenty other gamers who may or may not be paying attention to the fact



that there was somebody typing these odd texts into the gamespace. Thestrategy was to exist as a neutral visitor – I did not engage in the gameplay –at least not in the prescribed manner. There was also something quitecurious about performing poetry, only to be killed and reincarnated again,and again. Bringing the performative aspect into these hyperviolent spaceswas, in a way, an intervention, an aesthetic protest. There is a level of wry,satirical humour to it as well. It was also very poignant, particularly doing“The War Poets”. I started doing these after September 11th when we wereinvading Afganistan and into the present as we were heading into Gulf War 2’(Winet 2006: 98). DeLappe’s practice can be regarded as an attempt toengage with the audiences of online games in the form of a performancebased on the narrative modalities that make up the game space. As he haspointed out in other interviews, his work sometimes leads to highly contro-versial discussions in the chat channels that are part of the games and thusinitiate a critical discourse that reflects the actions of players. However mar-ginal this approach might seem at first, it amounts to a realisation of thefact that contemporary game environments represent public spaces thatcan be used for performance based artistic interventions. This practice onlyhints at the kinaesthetic potential inherent in these games since the artistleaves his own avatar to be continuously shot and killed. However, thispractice can be seen as a perfect example for performances in digital gamesthat are geared towards the symbolical field provided by the representa-tions of space.

A work that addresses what we have introduced as the kinaestheticmodality of game space, namely the bodily link between the player’s motoricspace and the game space can be seen in Eddo Stern’s ‘Runners Everquest”(1999–2000). The installation confronts the user with three different pro-jections and three computer mice connected to them. Each mouse steersthe movement of a character, which is present in real-time in the popularonline MMRPG Everquest. In this sense the piece also amounts to anonline game performance and Eddo Stern notes on his website that thegame performance ran for exactly 180 days. Stern deliberately confuses theplayer’s kinaesthetic link between interface device and avatar by multiplyingthe options. Since it is impossible for a single player to control threeavatars simultaneously, the direct link between interface device and avataris put into question. Stern writes ‘[u]sing a custom made “Triple Mouse”’participants can, and must control all three characters, who simultaneouslynavigate a separate area of the game world, respectively. The player isforced to make a decision about which character to embody and which toabandon, while a varying live web-audience of thousands follows his or herperformance within the online game’ (Stern 1999). The simple multiplicationof avatars/interfaces sharply highlights the questions regarding embodi-ment and kinaesthetic space. Furthermore, ‘Runners: Everquest’ develops ahighly complex spatial setup since the piece connects one user space (inthis case the gallery) with three different locations in the game space of theonline game and thus three different audiovisual representational spaces(although they all follow the same pattern defined by a 3rd person camera).



In this way, the singular connection between player and avatar that guaran-tees the function of embodiment within the game is shattered and theplayer has to come to terms with the fact that he/she has to simultaneouslycontrol 3 different Game Egos in three different locations of the gameuniverse. Stern’s piece amounts to a critical study of game conventions andclearly highlights the central role of the kinaesthetic link between player andavatar. In this sense it amounts to a questioning of the realm that is highlyspecific for digital game environments and that reverberates strongly withLefebvre’s lived space. In Stern’s installation the link between physicalembodiment (lived space) and sign based audiovisual space (representa-tional space) is deliberately interrupted and thus brought to the foreground.Here the impact of game space on the potential of contemporary perfor-mance pieces becomes obvious. For example, it might be very productivefor contemporary performance artists to consider the possibilities of avatarmultiplication as a means of increasing the echo of embodied presence indigital game spaces.

It is hoped that the close reading of Levebvre’s spatial theories that hasbeen undertaken in this article may provide directions for further researchinto the unique spatiality that forms the core of contemporary digital gameenvironments. If we consider that these game spaces have become a stagefor contemporary artists and performers it is necessary to understand howhis unique spatiality inform these works. Most importantly, the proposedtheoretical approach might enable a way of integrating issues that that areoften considered in separation, such as the socio-economical and politicalimpact of those immersive universes, thereby encompassing the perspec-tives of producers, players as well as artists who are starting to interveneand reflect the consequences of mediated performative actions. The growingimportance of this ‘third place’, that emerges from the complex interplay ofspatial modalities, for contemporary artists and audiences has become ahighly dynamic field of action that ranges from fan culture to the arena offine arts in the 21st century and thus has to be considered worthy of furtherinvestigation.

ReferencesAarseth, E.J. (2001), ‘Allegories of Space: The Question of Spatiality in

Computergames’, in Eskelinen, M. and Koskimaa, R. (eds.) (2002), CybertextYearbook 2000, Jyväskylä: Research Center for Contemporary Culture, Universityof Jyväskylä, pp. 152–169.

Castranova, E. (2001), ‘Virtual worlds:A First-Hand Account of Market and Societyon the Cyberian Frontier’, The Gruter Institute Working Papers on Law,Economics, and Evolutionary Biology, 2. Accessed 8 August 2006. Available athttp://www.bepress.com/giwp/default/vol2/iss1/art1/current_article.html

Juuls, J. (1999), ‘A Clash Between Game and Narrative’, MA Thesis, University ofCopenhagen, Institute of Nordic Language and Literature, Copenhagen.

Kline, S., Dyer-Witheford, N. and De-Peuter, G. (eds.) (2003), Digital Play: TheInteraction of Technology, Culture, and Marketing, Quebec: McGill-Queen’sUniversity Press.

Laurel, B. (1991), Computers as Theatre, Menlo Park, CA: Addison Wesley.



Lefebvre, H. (1991), The Production of Space, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (2002), Phenomenology of Perception, London: Routledge Classics.

Merrifield, A. (2000), ‘Henri Lefebvre: A Socialist In Space’, in Crang, M. and Thrift, N.(eds.), Thinking Space, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 167–182.

Murray, J.H. (1997), Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace,Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Soja, E. (1996), Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real and ImaginedPlaces, Oxford: Blackwell.

Stern, E. (1999), ‘Runners: Everquest’, Online Game Performance, Website. Accessed7 August 2005. Available at http://www.eddostern.com/runnersEQ.html

Stockburger, A. (2006), ‘The Rendered Arena: Modalities of Space in Video andComputer Games’, Doctoral Thesis, Awarded by the London Institute (LCC).

Winet, J. (2003), ‘In Conversation Fall 2003: An Interview with Joseph DeLappe’, inClarke, A. and Mitchell, G. (eds.) (2007), Videogames and Art, Intellect Books,Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Wolf, M.J.P. (2001), ‘The Medium Of The Video Game’, Austin, TX: University ofTexas Press.

Suggested citationStockburger, A. (2007), ‘Playing the third place: Spatial modalities in contemporary

game environments’, International Journal of Performance Arts and digital Media 3:2&3, pp. 223–236, doi: 10.1386/padm.3.2&3.223/1

Contributor detailsAxel Stockburger is an artist and theorist who lives and works in London andVienna. He studied at the University of Applied Arts in Vienna with Peter Weibel andholds a PhD from the University of the Arts, London. His films and installationsare shown internationally. Among other projects he has initiated the independentart television channel TIV in Vienna in 1998 and collaborated on internationalprojects with the London based media art group D-Fuse (2000–2004). At presenthe works as scientific staff member at the Department for Visual Arts andDigital Media/Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna. More information can be found athttp://www.stockburger.co.uk. Contact: Axel Stockburger, Academy of Fine ArtsVienna, Institute of Visual Arts, Lehargasse 8, A-1060 Vienna, Austria.E-mail: [email protected]





IntroductionPart 3: Complexity: The theory into the practice

Introduced by Alec Robertson

This third section of the special issue of IJPADM tracks the results of rela-tionships which formed during the ‘Magic in Complexity’ Event in February2007. The Event, hosted by SMARTlab of the University of East London andconvened by myself with Professor Lizbeth Goodman and Professor JeffreyJohnson, brought together a range of people within the performing arts,design practice and research.

The focus of that event was upon digital games design which looksbeyond the current saturated market of computer and video games – orwhat has been thought of as the ‘shoot-em-up’ genre, reaching towardsnew forms of game making and game play. In this, the MAGIC event took across section of ideas and approaches to performance informed by theentertainment domain, offering a range of playful game-like designs forsocially engaged projects informed by ‘the science of complex systems’.

The Event was one of a series and part of a research project led byProfessor Jeffrey Johnson of the Open University and entitled ‘EmbracingComplexity in Design’ set within the ‘Designing for the 21st Century, initiativejointly organised by the UK AHRC (Arts and Humanities Research Council)and the EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council).

The papers in this section cover a variety of perspectives in this trans-disciplinary context, and the nature of ‘collaboration’ in the context ofexploring the arts and new media is discussed, together with the natureand understanding of ‘complexity’ itself. For example, a (D21C) project –‘Emergent Objects 2’ is outlined by its researchers who attended the event,which is an example of collaboration in design research between artists, sci-entists, engineers and designers. Suggestions, terse statements, open endsand partial completion are integral to the emerging nature of the researchoutlined in the section. Some recommendations are made in the papers toprovide pointers for further academic work and practical action.

Specifically, in summary drawing from the paper Abstracts the contribu-tions include a paper led by Dave Everitt, which outlines issues concerningcollaboration, group behaviour, complexity and organisations. This is insome relation to specific events organised by the ‘Embracing Complexity inDesign’ (ECiD) project of the D21C AHRC and EPSRC UK research Clusteraimed to encourage ‘emergence’ of new ideas within trans-disciplinaryresearch dealing with design research, complexity, performance and new


PADM_3-(2-3)_13-ROBERTSON 11/27/07 5:57 PM Page 237

media. These events involved group work in a performative context alongwith multimedia on-line proceedings. The paper explores possible prerequi-sites and conditions that stimulate or inhibit emergent behaviour amonggroups of creative individuals.

Karen Cham discusses ‘structuralism’, ‘post structuralism’ and ‘semi-otics’ as a common ground for the analysis and design of diverse culturalartifacts; multiple ‘authors’ and multiple ‘readers’ are able , via digital inter-action, to participate in a simultaneous and instantaneous reproductionand dissemination of their multiple interpretations of an artefact as part ofa networked participatory process. This dynamism of digital interactivity iswell within the realm of complexity science as a ‘performative autopoeitic’process. The paper argues for a new paradigm of ‘complex media’ for thereflexive practitioner in digital media.

The paper by Bayliss et al. presents Emergent Objects 2, a portfolio ofsub-projects funded by the EPSRC/AHRC, D21C initiative. It focuses on theway interdisciplinary exchange and collaboration allows fluidity and respon-siveness in uncertain design contexts. Resisting the modernist, instrumentalconception of design, it outlines the aim to defamiliarise the design processand to play with its nature and possibilities. The notion of a singulardesigner is displaced by the notion of a collaborative design process,whereby any participant is an active design agent, partaking in design func-tions. The paper explores how key performance concepts of play and embod-ied knowing are employed within Emergent Object 2 design practices, withillustrations from the three sub-projects: Snake, SpiderCrab and Hoverflies.

The 4D design perspective is central to the paper by Robertson, Lycourisand Johnson. It introduces an approach to the design of interactive environ-ments, including digital new media created for urban spaces, with referenceto choreography, architecture, the science of complex systems and 4D design.Relationships between architectural structures of buildings and the hybrid ofbodies, images, sounds and choreographic designs are discussed togetherwith issues around ‘static’ and ‘dynamic’ aspects of the built environmentin public spaces. It embraces ‘movement’ as an important element in theprocesses of conceptualisation and design of architectural space and in thebuilding itself, and concerns itself with what might be termed ‘applied chore-ography’ with notions of 4D design and ‘complexity theory’.

238 Alec Robertson




Emergence and complexity: Someobservations and reflections ontransdisciplinary research involvingperformative contexts and new media

Dave Everitt De Montfort University, Leicester

Alec Robertson De Montfort University, Leicester

AbstractThis paper outlines issues concerning collaboration, group behaviour, complexityand organisations with some reference to specific events organised by the‘Embracing Complexity in Design’ (ECiD) project of the D21C AHRC andEPSRC UK research Cluster. These events aimed to encourage ‘emergence’ intransdisciplinary areas dealing with design research, complexity, media art withlive or participatory elements and new media. They involved group work in aperformative context along with on-line proceedings. The authors’ research per-spectives in art-design-technology, performance art and collaboration informedthe paper, which explores possible prerequisites and conditions that stimulateor inhibit emergent behaviour among groups of creative individuals, drawingupon concepts from the fields of Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences.Suggestions, terse statements, open ends and partial completion are integral tothe emerging nature of the research outlined, although a tentative framework isproposed in which to position work observed. Some recommendations are madeto provide pointers for further academic and practice-based work.

IntroductionTransdisciplinary research is increasingly productive in pushing the boundariesof knowledge, particularly in the creative fields of the arts and design, in whichnew methods to encourage productivity are needed just as they are for otherspecialist domains. For example, methods of inquiry from complexity theoryand the social sciences can be applied to the arts and methods from the artswithin some sciences. Although the scientific paradigm (with systematic defin-itions and the need for explicit evidence and processes) once appeared con-trary to creative approaches there is now increasing collaboration between thearts and sciences, and recognition of the role of ‘creativity within research’, asevident in a remark from Professor Sir Christopher Frayling:

. . . ‘research’ need not mean ‘academic research’ or ‘scientific research’.It simply means an enquiry whose goal is new and communicable


Keywordscomplexityemergencecollaborationtransdisciplinaryart-technologycliques

PADM_3-(2-3)_14-EVERITT 11/28/07 7:16 PM Page 239

knowledge – and, of course, there’s a key role for creativity in that process.

(Frayling 2004)

The need for more ‘contract research’ involving collaboration is also encour-aged by the Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration (Lambert2003), while the ‘CREEM’ network of researchers and practitioners is acurrent example from transdisciplinary research and practice (CREEM 2007).

Complexity science researches the property of ‘emergence’, in which theindependent activities of agents or ‘actors’ in strong interaction with eachother produce unpredictable results of value (Gell-Mann 1995). These kindsof complex situations often exist in groups of transdisciplinary researchersacting creatively. Specifically, group work in the performing and especially themediated arts necessitates a degree of collaboration not always evident in tra-ditional arts and design disciplines with a more strongly individual ethos. Theskills required for practice in digital media stimulate collaborations acrossdisciplines, and this invites new methods for research and practice.

With an understanding of the required conditions, collaboration andgroup behaviour can be designed to encourage the emergence of new ideasand knowledge. This is perhaps more prevalent in the arts and design thanin other areas, with its tradition of ‘studios’ and non-linear serendipitousprocesses. There are clear implications here for transdisciplinary inquiry, andthis paper outlines issues, first concerning collaboration, group and emer-gent behaviour, then complexity and organisations; with some reference tospecific events organised to encourage ‘emergence’ within transdisciplinaryarts and design research, complexity, performance and new media.

Collaboration and group behaviour with new mediaCollaboration requires some basic conditions from the individual to resultin creative group behaviour:

• Individual potential is significantly enhanced through group interactiononly when participants are already functioning adequately as individualpractitioners; otherwise unaddressed issues may be highlighted throughgroup activity; it is then the individual’s task to work on these, and onqualities that promote individual creativity (Macleod 2004).

• Effective collaborators recognise their limitations in scope, and seeparticipation in groups of effective individuals (i.e., those able tocontain personal behaviours such as defensiveness, within limitsdefined as safe by the group in which they function) as a viable modelfor extending practice.

Through being excluded from the mainstream arts canon until around2002–3 (Grau 2007) artists working with technology (‘media artists’)formed groups to exchange skills and information. The web and other com-munications technologies enabled a kind of distributed group behaviour toemerge, where participating individuals may or may not physically meet,

240 Dave Everitt and Alec Robertson


and where outcomes are often unpredictable. Distributed group behaviourin art is already evident (e.g., Catlow 2006) and is likely to increase as thefunctionality, accessibility and usability of web technologies and softwareframeworks increases and diversifies (Piccini; Doruff 2006).

Groups of artists working with technology can be said to exist explicitlyand implicitly as exoteric and esoteric groups:

Exoteric or explicit groups involve practitioners working either at physicallocations (e.g., university departments) or via digital networks – since com-munications technology is commonplace, the latter are regarded as explicitgroups, since the individuals communicate personally over the network andthe network is organised and undertaken consciously, for example at theevent ‘Real-time Collaborative Art Making’ (2007).

• Esoteric or implicit groups engaged in specific activities involve individu-als may not know each other personally, but who nevertheless belong tothe larger group of ‘collaborative artists working with technology’ andwho therefore share qualities, problems and knowledge with theirimplicit peers. Unlimited by geography or personal connection, theyimply the wider cultural development of integrating technology into cre-ative practice.

In collaborations with specialists, or where artists borrow, learn and mixfrom areas beyond their original practice, the following observations canbe made:

• Artists working with technology connect to other disciplines in order todevelop their work – for example, from the development of pigmentsand the mathematics of perspective, to the engineering and computerscience of media art.

• Many artists are therefore also practitioners or at least informed explor-ers in other fields specific to their practice (computer science, philoso-phy, mathematics, engineering . . .), a process that can be seen intechnological initiatives aimed at unlocking computing functionalityinstead of accepting the limitations of proprietary software (Turner2006; Candy and Edmonds 2006; Turner and Edmonds 2003).

• Inquiry within one discipline is enhanced when insights from anotherare applied through co-operative inquiry or by crossing disciplinaryboundaries; it follows that environments supporting this kind of activityrequire the same qualities as the individuals they seek to serve. Theemergence of specialists within co-operative groups is a related issue(Di 2004).

• Some ability to synthesise initially disparate threads at a ‘meta’ level isessential, the aim being to create new connections that open up com-munication between previously unconnected or poorly-connected ele-ments. This can be found in individual specialists and practitioners, aswell as within groups, departments and organisations, and is a keytransdisciplinary skill.

241Emergence and complexity: Some observations and reflections on . . .


When undertaking collaborative activity, language and thinking style arealso important:

During many conversations with artists working in this area, common experi-ences in overcoming ‘concept barriers’ often crop up. Technologists are ofteneducated to be concrete thinkers who use language precisely. The samephrase can thus mean different things to people with differing backgrounds.

(Everitt 2002)

The artist attempting to describe a process can end up finding that thetechnologist requires more precision in the terminology used. For example,a data model ‘ontology’ in information science is more specific an applica-tion than its usage in conceptual analysis, while the words ‘array’ and‘object’ in computer science have precise meanings to the computer pro-grammer (or media artist . . .).

Emergent behaviour in groups of artistsThe following model of arts practice suggests three modes of behaviour,found in varying degrees within individual practitioners. For the purposes ofillustration these are roughly exemplified by artists who best embody them:

1. Individual, heroic, pioneering – the heroic model of the lone artist:Picasso, Pollack, O’Keeffe; or Char Davies, Harold Cohen, Paul Brown –all interesting because some pioneering media artists had greater singleownership over their mediated works.

2. Reactive, revolutionary, challenging – the ‘revolutionary group’ model:historically, Dada, Fluxus, shock art (Hermann Nitsch, Zhu Yu’s EatingPeople, Genesis P-Orridge, or less extreme: Sensation in the UnitedKingdom, particularly Marcus Harvey’s Myra; Sarah Lucas’s urinal refer-ence to Duchamp in her Charlie George installation at the ICA; GottfriedHelnwein’s references to the Holocaust).

3. Synthetic or collaborative – (the networked model) beyond artist andassistant, peer collaboration networks are required to complete workrequiring input exceeding the capacity of individual skills (historically,Bauhaus; more recently – plucking two disparate examples from themany – Greyworld and Rhizome; software such as ‘KeyWorx’; fundingprogrammes like the former SciArt; organisations and events, e.g., ArsElectronica, CAiiA-STAR, ASCI, Creativity and Cognition, etc. or multi-faceted designers like Thomas Heatherwick).

Each mode of activity has evolved to address specific creative needs thatfunction (in the above order) to:

1. Research and initiate creative ideas while protecting them from exces-sive interference during the process (the individual).

2. Respond and react to environmental influences, and test new ideasagainst existing ideas (the reactive and interactive).



3. Extend territories and interactions with others, thereby transcending theboundaries of individual practice (the collaborative and potentiallycomplex interactive).

Incidentally, triple models offer rich cross-disciplinary parallels and appearto be common in attempts to model human behaviour.1

Emergent behaviour can arise in transdisciplinary groups, both individu-ally and within the group. The recognised indicators of emergence arepresent, since individual artists already tend to:

• follow working methods that produce unforeseen outcomes, which theyvalue

• pursue several lines of inquiry simultaneously• be sensitive to the significance of slight initial differences in producing

significantly varying outcomes• regularly adjust these slight differences towards a result that – while

perhaps remaining indefinable – is nevertheless perceptible to themand (hopefully) their audience.

When these methods are mixed with the complex nature of group interac-tions, relationships become ripe for the unpredictable generation of emer-gent outcomes.

Co-operative human behaviour in the field of Complexity has been mostfamously researched and applied to conflict resolution by Robert Axelrod(1984, 2000) and Hoffman (2000) and continues as a component of Agent-Based Modeling in the Social Sciences (Axelrod and Tesfatsion 2007; fordetails on social interaction in complex networks see Klemm et al. 2003).

Some basic principles of complexity theory can also provide insight intothis process. Rzevski (2005) outlines three:

1. Autonomous units (Actors, Players and Agents) each pursue their owngoal in a strong interaction with each other.

2. The interaction can be competitive, cooperative or a combination of thetwo.

3. Goals of individual players may or may not be disclosed to otherplayers.

One facet of complexity involves elements of Chaos Theory (the origin ofthat much-loved yet technically specific phrase ‘strange attractor’); particu-larly relevant here are models that employ a ‘landscape’ metaphor. Usingthe related terms, group behaviour may evolve into or around one orseveral ‘basins of attraction’ in an ‘attractor landscape’:

We are all familiar with decisions that once made are difficult to reverse, andalso perhaps with the feeling that we are being drawn into a situation againstour will. Consider life then as a complex landscape full of hills and valleys. Wetry to navigate from attractor to attractor, using energy to climb to the top of a

1 Beyond the scope ofthis paper, but foruseful triple models in psychology, seeAlderfer’s existence –relatedness – growthHierarchy ofMotivational Needshttp://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/COL/motivation/motivate.html (or for a briefnon-academicsummary – ignore thegraphics! – see: http://motivationcentre.blogspot.com/2006/03/alderfers-erg-theory.html). Bothaccessed 21 July 2007.



nearby hill – changing state, so that we can reach a better valley, a new (hope-fully more rewarding) steady state – or attractor.

(Lucas 2004)

This view is expanded by Sher Doruff (while discussing development of theKeyWorx extensible application framework, designed for New MediaPerformance):

There are three types of attractors; point (stable), loop (oscillating) andstrange or fractal (chaotic) and they form, within the phase space of themodel, ‘basins of attraction’. Their positions in phase space describe the pat-terns and behaviours of the system. Most basins remain stable (homeostatic)through negative feedback but some have ‘thicker’ bifurcators that tend tomake the basins more sensitive to the slightest movement and MAY (elementof chance, potential catastrophe) trigger a move to another basin of attrac-tion, causing a new pattern to emerge.

(Doruff 2006)

For meaningful emergent behaviour to occur in a collaborating transdisci-plinary group (‘basin of attraction’2) containing individual but intercon-nected actors, conditions need to be dynamic (or ‘jiggly’) enough to allowindividuals to ‘escape’ into other regions or find other ‘basins’. Deeperbasins are harder to escape from; they may be deeper because of specificallyfocused activity or from mutually-reinforced status, or simply from cliqueyattitudes (see later) that create a ‘steep’ them-and-us boundary to thebasin. However, too shallow a basin may fail to contain the individuals con-sistently enough to produce meaningful outcomes; it may be shallowbecause of a lack of focus, scant supporting resources, too much (or toolittle) noise in the system (Baronchelli 2007),3 or from poor network coher-ence between individuals. Such conditions for emergence in social groupstransfer well to those working collaboratively towards live art events.

Threats to emergent behaviourExpanding on the triple model above, emergent behaviour may be limitedwithin a group by modes (1) and (2), for example:

• Too dominant an individual (mode 1) may attempt either: to force groupbehaviour in an individual direction without respecting the group’s(possibly multiple internal) ‘basins of attraction’, or become competi-tive rather than co-operative. In both cases emergence will likely beskewed towards certainty.

• If reactions (mode 2) between two or more group members becomesrigid, stereotyped or locked into an action-reaction cycle, formalised ordefensive behaviour will probably isolate them from the influence ofemerging group dynamics.

Yet without either strong individuals or robust dialogue, groups of individu-als simply working together may fail to display the complex behaviours

2 A basin of attraction in this case is adynamically stablefocus of activityresulting fromcollective attentionand acting as anattractor to currentand potentialparticipants.

3 Noise-InducedTransitions are studiedin a range of fieldssuch as populationdynamics, electricalcircuits, chemical and photochemicalreactions. For a classictext see: Horsthemkeand Lefever (1983).



likely in mode 3. Perhaps a fusion of all three modes – individual, reactiveand synthetic – is most likely to encourage emergence, just as a well-bal-anced team is the most productive (Belbin 1993).

Certain psychological factors may also inhibit emergent behaviour. Themany masks of fear can produce limited, aggressive or ritualised behav-iours that can remain rigid unless there is commitment to personal devel-opment. To make matters worse, these qualities are often masked undersuch cloaks as ‘professional integrity’, ‘current debates’, ‘coolness’, fash-ionable agendas and other formal methods of defining intellectual and cul-tural territory, or even shaped by the remits of funding organisations andthe need to survive. Emergent behaviour is likely to be stifled by suchrestrictions, since any rigid agenda will influence outcomes too strongly toqualify as truly emergent.

CliquesCliques are worth special mention as a threat to emergent behaviour. Viewedas a super-type of the solitary and reactive behaviour modes (1 and 2), butextended to a group and having a similar influence over the surroundingenvironment, they arise from internally-reinforced collective behaviour(defensiveness, lack of confidence, arrogance, professional pride, etc). Thedifference between cliques and ‘basins of attraction’ is that the latter can beresponsive and fluid, whereas cliques tend to:

• Isolate themselves from other group members in the ‘basin’ or – ifthe entire basin becomes a clique, from other groups – by discouragingnew participants via them and us scenarios, maintaining explicit orimplicit ‘in and out’ lists or constricting interaction to acceptable,formal exchanges.

• Conceal knowledge, skills and outcomes or use inaccessible language orjargon.

• Attempt to control outcomes without being sensitive to or aware of the‘feel’ of others, or of potential emergent qualities.

Disciplines tend to evolve unique languages which only become exclu-sive where there is no effort to render it (or a lexicon) accessible to non-specialists – plain English does not imply simplistic thought. Challenges toemergent behaviour arise where such languages are used as jargon inattempts to gain validation, rather than to expresses an idea well. This is apsychological issue because such usage – where it does not arise fromhabit or imitative thinking – is likely to be based on fear of exclusion/desirefor approval, where that fear/desire is coupled with lack of self-esteem.Name-dropping and ‘coat-tailing’ are possible trivial indicators.

Cliques generally risk becoming too rigid for change, or of forcingissues and then having to defend them by stifling the elements of effectivecommunication. If the parent ‘basin’ is dynamic enough the cliquemay eject (or ejects itself); if itself a ‘too-deep basin’, it becomes isolatedfrom outside interaction. In either case, emergent behaviour is likely tobe inhibited.



Organisations and ComplexityAgent-based-modeling (ABM) is an approach used to run computer simu-lations of human interactions and test the possible outcomes (Axelrod andTesfatsion 2005; Hoffmann 2000), and in research into the formation andspread of opinions (Holyst 2000). However, the Complexity Group at theLondon School of Economics (LSE) has some useful insights into thegeneral characteristics of complexity modeling in organisational contexts:

Modeling of aggregate behaviour in organizations is usually based on theassumption that all individuals exhibit average and thus predictable behav-iour, when organizations are entities made up of individuals who interact, aremutually inter-dependent and exhibit non-average behaviour.

(Mitleton-Kelly 2007)

The crucial point here is that human individuals and their interactions arealready highly variable, so ABM as it is usually used (with ‘independentagents’ obeying small sets of rules) may not capture an effective range ofpossible outcomes without modelling a great deal of human behaviour andinteraction itself. However, the restrictions of ABM can force variables intoa compact essential set and, since segregation has already been famouslymodelled (Schelling 1978) it may be also be possible to reproduce – say –the outcomes of clique behaviour within a basin of attraction. However,current research into cliques, where ‘it becomes necessary to allow updateof the beliefs of an agent upon receipt of the beliefs of another agent(Valtorta 2002)’ appears to be primarily focussed on the need to under-stand the threat of terrorism (Sandia 2004), while research into collabora-tive creative groups has a lower priority, if it is to be found anywhere.

Another key factor when considering organisations is the understandingthat traditional structures and their centralised information system are nowrecognised as inflexible:

The switch from the Command-and-Control to Learning Organisation para-digm in the area of organisational theory is well understood.

(Rzevski and Prasad 1998)

Many of the deeply hierarchical organisations that support creative practice willtake some time to implement these findings. However, there exist opportuni-ties to create conditions favourable to emergence in the more ‘agile’ territory ofseminars and related events, a practical possibility explored in the next section.

Serendipity Syndicates and Performative Knowledge Elicitation

The sciences of complexity have shown that for an entity such [as] an organi-zation to survive and thrive it needs to explore its space of possibilities and toencourage variety.

When far-from-equilibrium, systems are forced to experiment and exploretheir space of possibilities and this exploration helps them discover and



create new patterns of relationships, different structures and innovative waysof working.

(Mitleton-Kelly 2007)

In considering transdisciplinary research used to stimulate emergence, someexperience of several research events involving scientists, artists and designersis drawn upon (Everitt 1999; Robertson 2004, 2005, 2007; Johnson and Cham2007). These events involve what might be referred to as ‘applied perfor-mance’ (Robertson 2001), where the ‘performance ’ element included the cre-ation of situations (with a view to stimulating emergence) in which groupsphysically act out scenarios and concepts.

Events at e-artlab (Everitt 1999) sought to create situations where artemerges from data gathered from the environment and the interactions ofparticipants. It also grasps opportunities for digital art in urgent, spontaneousor unusual public situations. Later events dealt with the nature of ‘designresearch’; ‘design and complexity science’; complexity and games design,and another with ‘art and complexity science’. Two used a ‘Question-Time’format with a panel and audience participation (Robertson 2004, 2005).The event ‘Magic in Complexity’ (Robertson 2007) used what the organisercalled ‘stimulus talks’ to feed ‘serendipity syndicates’ where each syndicatehad a research question to address and was then allowed free discussion,encouraged by two ‘facilitators’. The latter (Johnson and Cham 2007)engaged performative group exercises (see explanation, above) and partici-pative sculpture to explore the ‘emergence’ of ideas and ‘connectivity’ oftransdisciplinary participants for the purpose of ‘knowledge elicitation andknowledge creation’. These events resulted in numerous tentative connec-tions being made relating to complexity science theory, games design, andnew media with the online proceedings increasing the chance of ‘emer-gence’ beyond the event venue itself.

The characteristics of ‘applied performance’ in these contexts includes:

• Use of participatory workshops to ‘jiggle’ participants out of familiar‘basins’ based on pre-existing relationships, discipline or status.

• Differing degrees of participation from various delegates with varyingbackgrounds and stances.

• Outcomes resulting in potentially complex connections between:people–people, people–projects and projects–projects.

These events contributed transdisciplinary input for research projectsinvolving both creative individuals and those with scientific approaches,both on a ‘micro’ level to address immediate needs but – more importantly –to stimulate emergence of post-collaboration, involving complex groupbehaviour, with productive potential for design research.

ConclusionThere is potential in examining current research from the Social Sciences incooperation, group behaviour and complexity to assess implications for



collaborative groups in art-design-technology and performance work. Fromthese tentative explorations it would be rewarding to deepen connectionsbetween the fields of performing arts, complexity science and design.Agent-Based Modelling in the Social Sciences has already established itselfin Complexity Science (as evidenced in the works cited earlier) but in thearts, especially where collaboration is crucial in the performing arts or inart-design-technology partnerships, the terms ‘emergence’ and ‘complexity’need to be clearly understood and researched with regard to their scientificcontext, so that they retain connection with the larger body of ComplexityScience. Further, the consideration of the conditions required for the stimu-lation of emergence in such situations suggests broadening the area ofresearch to include non-human components such as organisations, toolsand environments. This suggests the integration of new elements in thecritical framework, an initiative evident since the advent of Actor NetworkTheory (Callun 1986; Latour 1987, 2005).

Concerning personal effectiveness within groups, it would also be ofbenefit to draw on findings from humanistic psychology (Rogers 1961),partly as a compliment to the Cognitive Sciences and strong technicalelement of Complexity in the Social Sciences; and from applications alreadymade in education (Smith 1997). Well-established models of personal moti-vation (e.g., Maslow 1943), would also benefit further exploration to aidunderstanding of the effectiveness of individual and group behaviour in cre-ating conditions for emergence.

Several recommendations can be made:

• Experimental work combining performance methods with appropriateprinciples from complexity theory to generate conditions for collabora-tion in transdisciplinary research would be useful.

• Careful consideration as to the kind of ‘independent agents’ that makeup a complex evolving system of groups is required, as specialists – orthose deeply into their own line of inquiry without a little inter-discipli-nary approach – may be inhibitors to ‘emergence’.

• There is a need to explore and model exactly how artists might contributeto or become involved in ‘complexity’ research, and how they mightoperate in a group environment designed to stimulate ‘emergence’.

• The dissemination of research findings in this field of inquiry involvingnew methods for transdisciplinary collaboration between the perform-ing arts, complexity science and design could be productive withindesign practice.

The practical application of some work in this field of inquiry might betermed ‘applied performance’ or ‘4D design’ (Robertson 1994, 1995, 1997).The use of better design methods in professional design may assist the cre-ation of better objects, systems and services in everyday life. This couldassist artists and designers in their role to improve the general well-being ofpeople in their relations with each other and to technology in their environ-ment. Finally, such an approach could provide commercial benefits thus



making a further contribution by the ‘creative industries’ to the generaleconomy.

ReferencesArs Electronica (English version), http://www.aec.at/en/. Accessed 21 June 2007.

ASCI (Art & Science Collaborations, Inc.), http://www.asci.org. Accessed 21 June2007.

Axelrod, R. (1984), The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books.

Axelrod, R. (2000), ‘On Six Advances in Cooperation Theory’, Analyse & Kritik, 22,pp. 130–151.

Axelrod, R. and Tesfatsion, L. (2005), ‘A Guide for Newcomers to Agent-BasedModeling in the Social Sciences’, Appendix A in Leigh, T. and Kenneth, L.J.(eds.), Handbook of Computational Economics, Vol. 2: Agent-Based ComputationalEconomics, Handbooks in Economics Series, Amsterdam, the Netherlands:Elsevier/North-Holland, 2006. PDF available at: http://www.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/GuidetoABM.pdf with support materials at: http://www.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/abmread.htm. Accessed 21 June 2007.

Baronchelli, A., Luca, D., Alain, B. and Vittorio, L. (2007), Non-equilibrium phasetransition in negotiation dynamics. ‘Deviations from purely herding behavior areconsidered by introducing a certain level of noise. [. . .] the presence of noisecan induce non-equilibrium phase transitions from the consensus state to dis-ordered configurations, in which more than one opinion is present. Recently, anew class of models has been proposed, in which the mere herding behavior isreplaced by a more complex interaction process, based on the principle ofbounded confidence. This principle consists in enabling interactions onlybetween agents that share already some cultural traits’ (references removed),Available at arXiv: http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0611717v1 or PDF at: http://aps.arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0611/0611717v1.pdf. Both accessed 21 June2007.

Belbin, M. (1993), Team Roles at Work, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. For asummary, see Team Types: Know Them by Their Slogans. Available at: http://www.srds.co.uk/cedtraining/handouts/hand39.htm. Accessed 21 July 2007.

CAiiA-STAR (2006), ‘International Research Conference Consciousness Reframed:art and consciousness in the post-biological era, has been held at the CaerleonCampus of the University of Wales College Newport in 1997, 1998, and 2000’.See http://www.planetary-collegium.net/conferences/. Accessed 21 June 2007.

Callon, M. (1986). ‘Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication ofthe Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay’, in J. Law (ed.), Power, Actionand Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Candy, L. and Edmonds, E. (2006), ‘Creative Expertise and Collaborative TechnologyDesign’, Available at: CiteSeer: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/732096.html. Accessed21 June 2007.

Catlow, R., Marc, G., Patrick, S. and Kate, S. (2006), as an example: NOVEMBER – anetworked performance, http://november.gloriousninth.net. Accessed 21 June2007.

Creativity and Cognition. http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/CC2007/. Accessed 21 June 2007.

CREEM (2007), based in the Institute of Creative Technologies (IoCT), De MontfortUniversity, Leicester. http://creem.dmu.ac.uk. Accessed 24 September 2007.

Di, Z., Jiawei, C., Yougui, W. and Zhangang, H. (2004), ‘Emergence of Specializationfrom Global Optimizing Evolution in a Multi-Agent System’, (date not given), inJef Allbright’s blog (http://www.jefallbright.net/node/2775); PDF available at



Cornell University Library (arXiv.org) at http://www.arxiv.org/ftp/nlin/papers/0407/0407005.pdf. Both accessed 21 June 2007.

Doruff, S. (2006), The Translocal Event and the Polyrhythmic Diagram, PhD thesis,SMARTlab Programme in Performative New Media Arts, Central Saint MartinsCollege of Art & Design, University of the Arts, London. http://spresearch.waag.org/images/TheTranslocalEvent.pdf. Accessed 24 September 2007.

Everitt, D. (1999), Emergency Art-Lab web-archive at http://e-artlab.com/e-art_about.htm. Accessed 24 Sept 2007.

——— (2002), Arts Council England, study and recommendations, part 1 of 4 fromArts and disability interfaces, PDF of part 1: http://ecoconsulting.co.uk/research/papers/distech-study.pdf or full scoping study available at http://ecoconsulting.co.uk/research/disability-tech.shtml. Both accessed 21 June 2007.

Frayling, C. (2004), (Rector of the Royal College of Art, Chair of the UK Arts Council,past Chairperson the UK Design Council) ‘Message from the Rector’, inRobertson A. (ed.), DDR4: Reflecting, Refreshing, Reuniting and Renovating. Eventhosted by RCA Society and Design Research Society, at Royal College of Art, Londonon 20 March 2004. Web proceedings at http://www.dmu.ac.uk/4dd/DDR4/.Accessed 6 June 2007.

Gell-Mann, M. (1995), ‘What Is Complexity?’, Reprinted with permission from JohnWiley and Sons, Inc.: Complexity, 1:1, at: http://www.santafe.edu/~mgm/complexity.html. Accessed 5 July 2007.

Grau, O. (2007), MediaArtHistories, The MIT Press. Also see the Media Art HistoriesArchive at http://www.mediaarthistory.org. Accessed 21 June 2007.

Greyworld.org, about: http://www.greyworld.org/?s=about_greyworld_#about_greyworld_. Accessed 21 June 2007.

Heatherwick, T. (2007), http://www.heatherwick.com/index.php. Accessed 21 June2007.

Hoffmann, R. (2000), ‘Twenty Years on: The Evolution of Cooperation Revisited’,Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 3: 2, available at: http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS/3/2/forum/1.html. Accessed 21 June 2007.

Holyst, J.A., Krzysztof, K. and Frank, S. (2000), ‘Phase Transitions in Social ImpactModels of Opinion Formation’. Available at arXiv: http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0004026v1. Accessed 21 June 2007.

Johnson, J. and Cham, K. (2007), Art in the Science of Complex Systems. Event hostedby The Lighthouse Media Centre, Brighton University, UK, on 13–16 June 2007.Web proceedings at http://www.complexityanddesign.net/art&complexity.html.Accessed 6 June 2007.

Klemm, K., Víctor M.E., Raúl T. and Maxi, S.M. (2003), ‘Nonequilibrium Transitions inComplex Networks: A Model of Social Interaction’, in Physical Review E, 67, 026120,Issue 2, February 2003. Available at http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v67/i2/e026120. Accessed 21 June 2007.

Latour, B. (1987), Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers ThroughSociety. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

——— (2005), Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lucas, C. (online version 2004), Attractors Everywhere – Order from Chaos, availableat ‘CALResCo Complexity Writings’, website at: http://www.calresco.org/attract.htm. Accessed 21 June 2007.

Lambert Review (2003), Department for Education and Skills and the Departmentfor Trade and Industry. November 2002 commissioned by HM Treasury. HMSO.



Maslow, A.H. (1943), A Theory of Human Motivation, Psychological Review, 50,pp. 370–396. Available at http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm.For a summary of Maslow’s famous hierarchy of needs, see the Wikipedia entryat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow’s_hierarchy_of_needs. Both accessed 21July 2007.

Macleod, H. (2004), ‘How to be Creative’ (July 25), Available at http://www.gapingvoid.com/Moveable_Type/archives/000876.html. Accessed 21 June 2007.

Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2007), ‘Lexicon’, web site of the Complexity Group at theLondon School of Economics, http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/complexity/lexicon.html.Accessed 5 July 2007.

Piccini, A. Chosen as an example of grid computing, see ‘Digitized Data: PerformingLocated Knowledges in the Creative and Performing Arts’, available at: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/drama/staff_research/angela_piccini/. Accessed 21 June 2007.

Real-time Collaborative Art Making – A Methods Network Workshop, 20 July 2007.http://www.biad.uce.ac.uk/vru/collaborativeart/index.php. Accessed 10 July 2007.

Rhizome.org, general information: http://rhizome.org/info/. Accessed 21 June 2007.

Robertson, A. and Woudhuysen, J. (2001), ‘4D Design: Applied Performance inthe Experience Economy’, Body Space Technology Journal (On-line), 1: 1. Nov2001, Brunel University. Available at http://people.brunel.ac.uk/bst/vol0101/index.html. Accessed 5 July 07.

Robertson, A. (ed.), (2004), ‘DDR4: Reflecting, Refreshing, Reuniting andRenovating’, Event hosted by RCA Society and Design Research Society, at RoyalCollege of Art, London on 20 March 2004. Web proceedings at http://www.4d-dynamics.net/DDR4/. Accessed 6 June 2007.

——— (2005), ‘DDR5: More is More: Embracing Complexity in Design’, Eventhosted by the RCA Society and ECiD1 D21C AHRB/EPSRC Project at RoyalCollege of Art, London on 16 Dec 2005. Web proceedings at http://www.4d-dynamics.net/DDR5/. Accessed 6 June 2007.

——— (2007), ‘DDR6: Magic in Complexity: Embracing the 4D Design Arts’, Eventhosted by SMARTlab, University of East London and ECiD2 D21C AHRB/EPSRCProject on 23 Feb 2007. Endorsed by the Chartered Society of Designers (CSD).Web proceedings at http://www.4d-dynamics.net/DDR6/. Accessed 6 June 2007

——— (1994), ‘4D Design: The Interaction of Disciplines at a New DesignFrontier’, in ‘Designing Strategic Interfaces’, Design Management Journal, 5: 3,Summer, Boston, pp. 28.

——— (1995), ‘4D Design Futures: Some Concepts and Complexities’, inRobertson, A. (ed), 4D Dynamics: An international interdisciplinary conference ondesign and research methodologies for dynamic form, Leicester: De MontfortUniversity, ISBN 1857211308, pp. 149–153. Available at http://www.4d-dynamics.net/guest-ar.html. Accessed 5 July 2007.

——— (1997), ‘4D Product Design, Mechatronics and Multimedia Technologies:Some Conceptual Challenges’, in Proc. PDE 97, 4th National Conference on ProductDesign Education, Brunel University, 7—8 July. Available at http:// www.4d-dynamics.net/und.html. Accessed 5 July 2007.

Rogers, C.R. (1961), On Becoming a Person, Constable and Robinson, (New Ededition, 2004); See also Rogers, N. (2002), ‘Giving Life to Carl Rogers Theory ofCreativity’, PDF at http://www.nrogers.com/GivingLife.pdf or HTML at http://www.talentdevelop.com/articles/GLTCRTOC.html. Both accessed 21 July 2007.

Rzevski, G. and Prasad, K. (1998), ‘The Synergy of Learning Organisations and FlexibleInformation Technology’, PDF available at http://www.rzevski.net/papers.asp.Accessed 5 July 2007.



Rzevski, G. (2005). ‘Designing Complexity into Products and Processes’, presentationat DDR5 Event hosted by RCA Society, Royal College of Art, London on16–17 Dec 2005. Web proceedings at http://www.dmu.ac.uk/4dd/DDR5/Clusters1.html. Accessed 6 June 2007.

Sandia National Laboratories (2004), ‘Advanced Concepts Group’, (http://www.sandia.gov/ACG/), powerpoint presentation by Nina, B., Teresa, K., Tim, M.,Julienne, S., Jessica, T. and Ben, W., available at http://www.sandia.gov/ACG/documents/sandreports/SAND2004-1107P.ppt. Accessed 5 July 2007.

Schelling, T.C. (1978), Micromotives and Macrobehavior, New York: Norton.

Sci-Art, former projects: http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTX035067.html. Accessed21 June 2007.

Smith, M.K. (1997, updated February 04, 2007), ‘Carl Rogers, Core Conditions andEducation’, from the Encyclopaedia of Informal Education, http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-rogers.htm. Accessed 21 July 2007.

Turner, G. (2006), ‘Supportive Methodology And Technology For Creating InteractiveArt’, available at http://gregturner.org/thesis/. Accessed 21 June 2007.

Turner, G. and Edmonds, E. (2003), ‘Towards a Supportive TechnologicalEnvironment for Digital Art’, available at CiteSeer: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/turner03towards.html. Accessed 21 June 2007.

Valtorta, M. Kim, Y.-G. and Vomlel, J. (2002), ‘Soft Evidential Update for ProbabilisticMul- Tiagent Systems’, International Journal Approximate Reasoning, 29: 1,pp. 71–106. Available at CiteSeer: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/477140.html.Accessed 5 July 2007.

Suggested citationEveritt, D. & Robertson, A. (2007), ‘Emergence and complexity: Some observations

and reflections on transdisciplinary research involving performative contexts andnew media’, International Journal of Performance Arts and digital Media 3: 2&3,pp. 239–252, doi: 10.1386/padm.3.2&3.239/1

Contributor detailsDave Everitt is an artist and researcher whose work concerns biological input, theinterplay of order and disorder in mathematical pattern and collaborative live art-technology projects. A former visiting researcher at Creativity and CognitionResearch Studios, recipient of Arts Council England funding and research fellow atLeicester’s Institute of Creative technologies, he has two ongoing collaborative pro-jects: the ‘Emergency artlab’ and ‘cubelife’. His principal interests are the implica-tions of the interdisciplinary sciences for artists and creators, and computerprogramming culture; he runs a media information design consultancy, lectures andresearches in New Media and art-technology partnerships. Contact: Dave Everitt, 30Woodland Avenue, Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, LE13 1DZ, UK.E-mail: [email protected]

Alec Robertson’s research interests include dissemination problems of design researchand ‘4D Design’ for which he has organised several related design conferences andevents, where the website Cyberbridge-4D at http://www.4d-dynamics.net, includessome multimedia archives of these. Alec is a graduate of the Royal College of Art,and he has held several elected Council Officer posts of the Design Research Society,and was Chair of the long established RCA Society (06–07). He is an independentconsultant, as well as an academic in the Dept. of Imaging & CommunicationDesign at De Montfort University; is a member of the Chartered Society of Designers,UK, and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, UK. Contact: Alec Robertson, Facultyof Art & Design, De Montfort University, Leicester, LE1 9BH, UK.E-mail: [email protected]





Reconstruction theory: Designing thespace of possibility in complex media

Karen Cham The Open University

AbstractStructuralism, post-structuralism and semiotics underpin core teaching methodolo-gies in art, design, media and cultural studies and crucially, provide commonground for the analysis and design of divergent cultural artefacts from literature, thevisual and performing arts and the media. However, there are as yet, no establishedparadigms stemming from this methodological approach to allow the reflexivepractitioner to address the nature of digital interactivity; neither in virtual realitythrough a graphical user interface, nor in the augmented reality and embodiedinterfaces of interactive art installations and participatory performances. In artisticcompositions, the design of open structural relations rather than closed objects findsits roots in the participatory performance and installations of systems art, yet thedynamic capacity of digitally interactive systems in use, places digital interactivitywell within the realm of complex systems science. A digital interface may, forexample, allow multiple ‘authors’ and multiple ‘readers’ to participate in a simul-taneous and instantaneous reproduction and dissemination of their divergent inter-pretations of an artefact as part of a networked participatory process; such a processdemonstrates self-organisation and emergent behaviours, which are key attributesof complex systems. This paper proposes a ‘reconstruction theory’ as a designmethodology for the ‘space of possibility’ in such ‘complex media’ in order to under-pin critical practice in digital media arts. Such a proposal would also provide thefoundations of a much sought after theoretical continuum from established art,design and media theory to the divergent manifestations of digital culture by estab-lishing the common relations between structuralism, systems theory and systemsart, to post-structuralism, complex systems science and the digitally interactive arts.

Introduction‘Superstructuralism’ (Harland 1987) is a useful term encompassing key crit-ical movements such as structuralism, post-structuralism and semioticsand their attendant methodological practices such as deconstruction andtextual analysis. Such practices have proved extremely useful in providingcommon ground for deconstructing and analysing the form and function ofdiverse cultural artefacts and practices and are today well established ascore teaching methodologies in art, design, media and cultural studies(Danesi and Perron 1999).

Superstructuralism has been used to analyse heterogeneous manifesta-tions of different media from a common theoretical ground, for example


Keywordsdigital mediainteractive artreflexive practicepost-structuralismcomplexity theory

PADM_3-(2-3)_15-CHAM 11/28/07 7:22 PM Page 253

television advertisements, passages from literature and teenage rites ofpassage can all be ‘read’ as ‘texts’, offering some insight into the myths andideologies of our own culture.

However, addressing the form and function of digitally interactive arte-facts has driven many commentators to distraction; Manovich describesinteractivity as a ‘myth’ (2001: 55) stating only a ‘basic fact about computermedia’, whilst for Gansing it is ‘not . . . describing any specific functionalityof digital media’ but is rather ‘cultural rhetoric’ (2003: 39). Whilst all cul-tural terms come to possess mythological connotations, surely it is impor-tant for the reflexive practitioner to address what makes the nature of theirmaterial different from other materials?

What is immediately and significantly different and important aboutdigital interactivity as a medium, is its provision of some dynamic form ofmedia interface to a text, or the component parts of a text, such as symbol,metaphor and narrative. Thus, the multiple ‘authors’ and multiple ‘readers’of a digitally interactive ‘text’, often participate in a simultaneous andinstantaneous reproduction and dissemination of their multiple interpreta-tions of an artefact as part of a networked participatory process.

Many authors of interactive artworks have actively exploited this capacity.For example, Bill Seamans work with Gideon May ‘The World generator/TheEngine of Desire’ (Figure 1) allows users to select, contribute and alter themedia assets of the installation in a group dialogue exploring Seamansnotion of ‘recombinant poetics’ that Christiane Paul describes as an ‘everincreasing complexity of meaning’ (2003).

Yet, in evaluating this work in detail, do we critically address the idea,the facilitating structure, the process or the result? What paradigms do weuse to contextualise such work? What type of artwork is this? David Rokebystates that ‘rather than creating finished works, the interactive artist createsrelationships’ (1996). Yet we could easily argue that all compositionsconsist of relations. Indeed, Philip Galanter goes so far as to insist all art isactually generative art because it relies on systems of rules to generateinterpretations (2003). However, Seamans work is actually a fine exampleof interactive art that explores the potential crafting of the material. Here,interactivity is exploited in such a way as to demonstrate it as much morethan a myth or rhetoric; interactivity is explored as a medium.

This work demonstrates Rokebys ‘relationships’ with a dynamism or a‘fourth dimensional’ (Robertson 1995) capacity, which is indeed what he

254 Karen Cham

Figure 1. Control Panel for the ‘World Generator’, ‘Approaches to InteractiveText and Recombinant Poetics’ (Seaman 2004).

PADM_3-(2-3)_15-CHAM 11/28/07 7:22 PM Page 254

actually means; in interactive art relationships are malleable or open tochange. Artistic compositions of dynamic systems of relationships finds itsroots in the participatory performances and installations of ‘systems art’; a‘rejection of art’s traditional focus on the object, to wide-ranging experi-ments with media that included dance, performance and . . . film & video’(De Salvo 2005: 3). Yet in digitally interactive media, there is also a virtuallytangible, live mediated exchange of elements which constitutes an entirelynew form of systems art and an entirely new medium.

In the sciences this type of dynamism or capacity for unpredictable changeis a recognised characteristic of ‘complexity’; a new type of scientific thinkingconcerned with complex systems that display a capacity for ‘self organization’and ‘emergent behaviour’. This concern with systems and complexity in thesciences has run concurrent to the computer age as engineers and scientistshave begun to develop computerised communications technology. In hisseminal paper ‘ The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical reproduction’ WalterBenjamin states that photography accelerated pictorial reproduction to thespeed of speech (1937). It is here proposed that the digital interaction of com-puterised communications technology has accelerated that utterance to thespeed of discourse; the primary complex system of human communication.

This paper therefore proposes a critical context for digital interaction asdiscourse by means of a ‘complex adaptive structuralism’ to address thedigitally interactive, ‘4D texts’ of ‘complex media’ and the ‘complex causalsystems’ of networked digital media culture. It is in this context that a‘reconstruction theory’ would find its home, both as a practical methodol-ogy for designing a ‘space of possibility’ into ‘complex media’ artefacts andas a theoretical tool to underpin critical practice in digital media arts.

Furthermore, a complex adaptive structuralism for digitally interactiveartefacts would provide a much sought after theoretical continuum by inte-grating established art, design and media theory with systems theory andcomplexity science to embrace the divergent manifestations of digitalculture and the interactive arts.

Complex systems theorySystems theory is an holistic approach to analysis that views whole systemsbased upon the links and interactions between the component parts andtheir relationship to each other within their environment. This stands instark contrast to conventional science which is based upon Descartes’sreductionism, where the aim is to analyse by reducing a whole to its compo-nent parts (Wilson 1998). A concern with such systems has been commonacross disciplines as divergent as art and design, thermodynamics, biology,sociology, physics, economics and law since the late 1960s.

Known as ‘systems theory’ this is a way of thinking rather than a specificset of rules, and has given rise to ‘complex systems theory’, whereby asystem demonstrates specific capacities of ‘complexity’ such as ‘self organi-zation’ and ‘emergence’. The study of complex systems is very interdiscipli-nary and thus encompasses more than one theoretical framework, so thereis no single unified Theory of Complexity, but several different theories have

255Reconstruction theory: Designing the space of possibility in complex media

PADM_3-(2-3)_15-CHAM 11/28/07 7:22 PM Page 255

arisen concurrently. Whilst key ideas of complexity theory developed throughartificial intelligence and robotics research, other important contributionscame from thermodynamics, biology, sociology, physics, economics and law.

For our purpose here, ‘complex systems’ will be the general term usedto describe those systems that are ‘diverse and made up of multiple inter-dependent elements’, (Johnson 2007) they are often ‘adaptive’, in that theyhave the capacity to change and learn from events. ‘This capacity to adapt canbe understood as emerging from the interaction of autonomous agents –especially people’. (Johnson 2007) Finally, it is worth noting that the com-ponents of a complex system are often themselves complex systems; a‘fractal’ type characteristic which is known as nested complex systems.

In her volume for the Elsevier Advanced Management Series, ‘ComplexSystems and Evolutionary Perspectives on Organisations’, Eve Mitleton Kelly(2003: 7) describes some generic principles of complex systems as

• self-organisation• emergence• interdependence• feedback• space of possibilities• co-evolving• creation of new order

These principles can just as easily be traced in virtual ‘organisations’ as theycan in real ones, for example, in artificial life projects such as ‘TechnoSphere’(Figure 2), the ‘space of possibilities’ was consciously designed into a ‘digitalecology’ (Prophet 1996). Indeed, in 2002, the Samuel Dorsky Museum of Art,New York, held an international exhibition entitled ‘Complexity; Art & ComplexSystems’, that was concerned with ‘art as a distinct discipline offer [ing] its

256 Karen Cham

Figure 2. Technosphere, Jane Prophet, Gordon Selley and Mark Hurry (1995).

PADM_3-(2-3)_15-CHAM 11/28/07 7:22 PM Page 256

own unique approache[s] and epistemic standards in the consideration ofcomplexity . . .’ (Galanter and Levy 2002: 5) and the organisers go on todescribe technical applications of genetic algorithms, neural networks, a-life,etc, as one of the key ways in which artists engage the realm of complexity.

However, any critical context for this work is noticably absent, withGalanter himself arguing that ‘contemporary art theory rooted in skepticalcontinental philosophy [reduces] art to social construction’ as ‘postmod-ernism, deconstruction and critical theory’ are ‘notoriously elusive, slippery,and overlapping terms and ideas . . . that in fact [are] in the business ofdestabilizing apparently clear and universal propositions’ (2003).

Yet the concern with the dynamic aspects of complex systems is prefiguredmost significantly in the study of language; perhaps the most immediatecomplex, dynamic, co-evolving, adaptive system and ‘structural linguistics’ isthe scientific study of language and its complexities in use. Semiotics, stylis-tics, semantics and pragmatics are all extremely well established and effectivemethodologies from structural linguistics that underpin the art theory to whichGalanter is so resistant. They have been successfully applied in the humanitiesfor the best part of the last century in such a way as to assist critical analysis ofinteractive systems that display complex characteristics such as conversations,art installations and news reporting. It is not unreasonable to suggest that wecannot legitimately develop any critical evaluation of digitally interactive arte-facts without some recourse to ‘contemporary art theory rooted in skepticalcontinental philosophy’ because of its comprehensive approach to interaction.

Postmodernism, deconstruction and critical theoryWhilst many key ideas of complexity theory developed in the sciencesthrough artificial intelligence and robotics research, concurrently, in thehumanities, structuralism, post-structuralism and deconstruction theorybecame popular methodologies demonstrating a concern with humansystems and interactions.

Structuralism is an all encompassing term for various theories from thehumanities, social sciences and economics that share the assumption thatstructural relations between principle concepts can be exposed andexplored to useful ends. In academic disciplines such as linguistics, anthro-pology, psychology and sociology, structuralism is concerned with investi-gating how these relations combine to make meaning.

Structuralist thought stems from the teaching of Ferdinand de Saussurewhose teaching pursued a ‘synchronic’ linguistics; an analysis of conditionsfor the existence of language in general, when the common 19th centurypractice was ‘diachronic’ linguistics, a concern with changes over time inspecific languages. It is in Saussures key concept of the difference between‘langue’, the grammatical system of rules that governs language and ‘parole’,the spoken word, that the parallels between structuralism and systemsthinking are apparent. ‘Langue’ is the system and ‘parole’ is the performa-tive capacity of the system in use. It is in this way that we can define theorigins of structuralism as systems thinking applied to linguistics, fiftyyears or more before its common occurrence in other disciplines.


PADM_3-(2-3)_15-CHAM 11/28/07 7:22 PM Page 257

The Saussurian approach to the study of the synchronic systems of lan-guage underpins European schools of thought, which focus upon humansigns and discourse; an intentional process of representation, significantlydifferent to Aristotlian traditions, which are concerned with broader ‘univer-sal’ sign systems.1 As such, Saussurian concepts have come to underpinmuch of the theoretical basis for art, design, media and cultural studies,which is of course, also the study of human signs and discourse. Indeed formany Saussurian successors, such as Jean Baudrillard, representation ofany kind does not distort, reflect nor represent some kind of prior reality, itis all there is (1988: 32).

Such a statement can perhaps be better understood in the light of thekey structuralist technique of ‘textual analysis’. Structuralism takes the keyconcept of the literary text and expands it to address any cultural artefact asa ‘text’ which can be ‘read’ because, just as the written sentence consists ofcombinations of words, all cultural artefacts have a communicative func-tion and consist of combinations of ‘signs’. Saussures defined these signas a dyad, consisting of a ‘signifier’ or material aspect and a ‘signified’ orthe attendant mental concept. The concept of the ‘science of signs’ isknown as ‘semiotics’.

A seminal work of textual analysis using semiotics is Roland Barthes‘Mythologies’ (1968) where he deconstructs popular artefacts such asadvertisements (Figure 3) to reveal common myths in French society andthe ideologies that propagate those myths. For example, an advertisementfor pasta sauce uses combinations of common European signs such as awooden kitchen table and fresh vegetables spilling from a shopping bag todenote the ‘myth of Italianicity’ and its connotations of ‘family’ and ‘home’.It is only in specific combinations and contexts that such signs denote thedesired signifier and its preferred connotations. Meaning is thus defined asan emergent property of the interaction between component parts of amessage; thus, meaning is an emergent property of a complex system.

Does textual analysis demonstrate that an advertisement is a complexsystem? Advertisements tend to be ‘closed’ texts; that is they are con-structed using the denotations and connotations of signs in commonusage at any one time as they are aiming to communicate to as manypeople as possible. However, the meaning of all texts changes diachroni-cally, as the denotations and connotations of their component signschange; for example the sign of passenger aircraft before and after 9/11.This is the structuralist concept of the ‘open work’ (Eco 1962), wheremeaning is established not only as an emergent property of the interactionbetween component parts of a message but also as an emergent propertyof interaction between the text and the reader.

Systems artWhilst theorist Phillip Galanter describes all art as involving some degreeof systems of rules (Galanter 2003), Francis Halsall (2001) defines a‘systems art’ from a systems theoretical perspective. Halsall gives a thor-ough definition of systems art as ‘emerging in the 1960s and 1970s as a

1 The work of CharlesSandres Peirce mustbe acknowledged hereand his concept ofsemiology. Whilst verysimilar to Saussuriansemiotics, Pierce isconcerned with‘universal’ signsystems above andbeyond humandiscourse; e.g. similarto the Stoics forwhom ‘natural’ signs were medicalsymptoms. Piercessemiology thus posits a potentiallyunworkable 56,049different sign types.His initial triad ofsigns; iconic, indexicaland symbolic haveproved invaluablehowever (see Cobleyand Jansz, 1997).

258 Karen Cham

PADM_3-(2-3)_15-CHAM 11/28/07 7:22 PM Page 258

new paradigm in artistic practice . . . displaying an interest in the aestheticsof networks, the exploitation of new technology and new media, unstable orde-materialised physicality, the prioritising of non-visual aspects, and anengagement (often politicised) with the institutional systems of support(such as the gallery, discourse, or the market) within which it occurs’(Halsall 2005: 7).

‘Open Systems: Rethinking Art c.1970,’ at Tate Modern, London (2005)describes system art as a ‘rejection of art’s traditional focus on the object,to wide-ranging experiments with media that included dance, performanceand . . . film & video’ (De Salvo 2005: 3) Artists include Andy Warhol, RichardLong, Gilbert and George, Sol Lewitt, Eva Hesse and Bruce Nauman.


Figure 3. Panzani Pasta Ad, Barthes, 1968.

PADM_3-(2-3)_15-CHAM 11/28/07 7:22 PM Page 259

For example, Warhols Marilyn Monroe screen prints (Figure 4) aresystems art because the artistic value of the work, which traditionally lies inthe execution of the object, is here in the relational structure between themedia, the technique, the subject and the context.

It is by predicating the role of the reader and their interpretationsthat structuralism anticipates the role of the user in digital interaction.For example, in looking at a painting the ‘reader’ experiences an individu-alised interpretation; in participating in a digital installation such asCamille Utterbacks ‘External Measures’ (Figure 5) where the dynamiccomposition is linked to human motion, the user experiences an individu-alised interaction.

It is also on this basis that later on, post-structuralist theorists went onto establish the concept of the complete ‘death of the author’ (Barthes,1977) – the apriori that all cultural artefacts are ‘open’ and all meanings canonly be ‘completed’ by the ‘reader’. Again, it is not difficult to appreciatethese concepts in digital interaction, where without the user; there is only astatic system or framework which only has potential meaning throughhuman interaction, like an unseen painting or unread book. Thus, post-structuralist textual analysis demonstrates the advertisement as a nestedcomplex system; the meaning of an advertisement is an emergent property

260 Karen Cham

Figure 4. Andy Warhol, Marilyn Monroe (1967).

PADM_3-(2-3)_15-CHAM 11/28/07 7:22 PM Page 260

of the interaction between the component parts of the message, which arein themselves part of a diachronic complex adaptive system.

‘Post-structuralism’ is a self-reflexive discourse marked most distinc-tively by a rejection of totalising world views and the proposition that thereis no external reality outside of language and ideology. Post-structuralismthus became a concern with the meta paradigms of ‘knowledge’ itself. JeanFrancois Lyotard took the structuralist concern for the analysis of culturaltexts to its logical conclusion in The Post Modern Condition; A Report onKnowledge (1984) where he describes postmodernism as a loss of faith in‘meta narratives’, the totalising philosophies of history, upon which ethicaland political decisions are made for society. For example, the progressiveliberation of humanity through science is a cultural meta-narrative ratherthan a truth.

The work of post-structuralists such as Barthes, Baudrillard and Lyotardoffers us the notion of all cultural artefacts, including meta narratives suchas mathematics, science and religion, as texts or systems of signs. Themeaning of such systems are not fixed but rather sustained by networks ofrelationships that change, both synchronically and diachronically. This ispost-structuralist discourse analysis, where all sense of reality is theproduct of discourse; put simply, of interaction. It was Jacques Derrida whotook this proposal to its logical conclusion with ‘deconstruction’; anattempt to demonstrate that any text can be deconstructed to into multi-tudinous interpretations. The pluralism of deconstruction is at the core ofall post-modern thought which is best described simply as ‘a concern withthe generation, sustenance and social ramifications of systems of intelligi-bility’ (Shotter 1975).


Figure 5. ‘External Measures’, Camille Utterback (2003).

PADM_3-(2-3)_15-CHAM 11/28/07 7:22 PM Page 261

It is not difficult to see post-structuralisms concern with adaptive systemsas a concern with complexity; conversely, the concern of complexity sciencewith systems defines it immediately as a postmodern science. Whilst manytheorists addressing complexity and digital media are antagonistic to dis-course analysis and postmodernism in general, if language for Derrida is‘an unfixed system of traces and differences . . . . regardless of the intent ofthe authored texts . . . with multiple equally legitimate meanings’ (Galanter2003) then I have heard no better description of the signifiers, signifieds,connotations and denotations of digital culture.

Furthermore, Lyotard’s definition of the ‘performativity’ of knowledge in acybernetic society is manifest on a daily basis on the internet; even Saussurehimself, almost a century ago, described ‘parole’ as a performative system inuse. It is difficult to see how we can legitimately address interactivity andcomplexity without addressing post-structuralism; any interactive system, atleast when in use, is ideologically plural and thus necessarily postmodern.Prior to being used, it is a system designed as a space of possibility.

Digital interactivityDigitally interactive media is a recent development and is defined here as ‘amachine system which reacts in the moment by virtue of automated reason-ing based on data from its sensory apparatus’ (Penny 1996). Interactivity ismost commonly an attribute of server based multimedia on the internet andis a specific attribute of digital media, although interactive systems are notnecessarily screen based. This type of interactivity is new, and the core crit-ical debates in art and design at present centre around the search for atheoretical continuum between ‘traditional’ mediums and ‘new’ or digitallyinteractive media.

There are abundant autonomous theories of interactivity across anentire spectrum; ranging from the stubborn conviction that digital interac-tive media is not important as a medium (Manovich 2001) which doesnothing to help the reflexive practitioner contextualise their work; to rea-sonable ideas of remediation (Bolter 1999) that, by reducing mediation totechnique alone, fail to account for the socio-cultural dynamic of humaninteraction; to full blown radical ideas of reframed consciousness (Ascott)and post humanism (Hayles) which, whilst intellectually important, can bedifficult to apply tangibly to the more basic critical questions of the natureof interactive art.

Digital interaction through a GUI is a graphic model of interaction. Forexample, compare the traditional top down model of news generation, dis-tribution and consumption (Figure 6) to the ‘emerging media eco-system’(Figure 7) (Bowman and Willis).

To the traditional news organisations, such a ‘democratization of pro-duction’ (Mc Luhan 1968) has been a huge cause for concern, they are nowlost in a global miasma of competing perspectives. What is important herefor us is that such a shift demonstrates in practice the theoretical differencein linear modes of production, and dissemination to non linear, interactivemodes where the meaning emerges from the interaction between people and

262 Karen Cham

PADM_3-(2-3)_15-CHAM 11/28/07 7:22 PM Page 262

the text. The ‘emerging media eco-system’ is an advanced model of post-structuralist theory in practice and simultaneously a complex adaptivesystem in play.

In his paper ‘Post Structuralism, Hypertext & the World Wide Web’, (2006)Luke Tredennick states that ‘despite the concentration of post-structuralism on


Figure 6. Traditional top down model of news generation, distribution andconsumption (Bowman and Willis).

Figure 7. The ‘emerging media eco-system’ (Bowman and Willis).

PADM_3-(2-3)_15-CHAM 11/28/07 7:23 PM Page 263

text and texts, the study of information has largely failed to exploit poststructuralist theory’ (Tredennick 2006). Whilst it is not difficult to anticipatethe potential of a basic overlap to inform information management, it hasyet to be appreciated that digital interaction in its entirety can be appre-hended from a post-structuralist position and in a wholly digital environ-ment post-structuralist theory is tangible complexity.

For example, Petra Gemeinboeck describes her installation ‘Uzume’ as‘evolving unforeseeably based on a dynamic interplay of input and response’(Figure 8) between the user and the system. Here, the author has designed thesystem incorporating the potential ‘space of possibility’, for unknown out-comes of the interactive process. Whereas less sophisticated works are essen-tially reactive, like ones interaction with a light switch, this work is designed foremergence which is an inevitable development in an adaptive system.

It is in design for interactive media arts, where algorithms meet images,and the user can interact, adapt and amend the artefact, that self-organisa-tion, emergence, interdependence, feedback, the space of possibilities, co-evolution and the creation of new order are embraced on a day to day basisby artists, designers and users alike. A digitally interactive environmentsuch as the world wide web, clearly demonstrates all the key aspects of acomplex system. Indeed, it has already been described as a ‘complexitymachine’ (Qvortup 2006).

It is important to remember that this ‘complexity machine’ has beendesigned. It is an intentional facility. For example, Tredinnick details itsevolution through the Memex machine of Vannevar Bush’; Ted Nelsonshypertext system Xanadu and Tim Berners-Lees Enquire (Tredennick 2006).The internet may display all the characteristics of complexity but it has notemerged spontaneously itself, it was engineered. So, whilst we may not beable to entirely predict complex behavior, we can, and do, quite clearlydesign the space of possibility within which it can arise in design for digital

264 Karen Cham

Figure 8. ‘Uzume’, Petra Gemeinboeck (2003).

PADM_3-(2-3)_15-CHAM 11/28/07 7:23 PM Page 264

interaction. If post-structuralism hadn’t come first, we would have to inventit to understand digital interaction as a complex performative mediatedprocess.

When designing digitally interactive artefacts we design parameters orco-ordinates to define the space within which a performative autopoeiticprocess will take place. We can never begin to predict precisely what thoseprocesses might become through interaction, emergence and self-organisa-tion, but we can and do establish and then author parameters that guideand delineate the space of possibilities.

Conclusion: a complex adaptive post-structuralismIn digital interaction the terms art, design and media converge into ‘a processdriven, performative event that demonstrates emergence through autopoieticprocesses within a designated space of possibility’ (Cham and Johnson 2007).

This is at the core of ‘complex adaptive structuralism’, a legitimate anduseful new paradigm that allows us to embrace digital interactivity as acomplex system in practice. It is built upon the basis of a theoretical contin-uum from Saussurian linguistics and the concern with synchronic systemsand performance; it predicates post-structuralism and the role of the ‘reader’in ‘completing’ the emergent meaning of open texts and integrates systemsthinking and complex systems theory with systems art and digital media.

Complex adaptive structuralism is significantly different to post-structuralism per se, as it is applicable to the realm of digital interaction,above and beyond post-structuralisms concern with its predecessor, inter-pretation. As demonstrated, interaction is significantly different to interpre-tation in that it is part of a performative rather than conceptual, complexadaptive system.

Thus we have a proposal for ‘Reconstruction Theory’. Whereas Derrida’sDeconstruction Theory is an ongoing ‘fractal’ textual analysis of the con-ceptual interpretive systems of the reader, Reconstruction Theory is adesign methodology and critical tool regarding the intentional authorshipof the space of possibility in complex media, designed for emergent behav-iours, as part of any 4D text such as an interactive installation, networkedweb communities and massively multiplayer games.

Finally, it may only be through integrating our existing knowledge ofcommunication with our evolving knowledge of complex systems into acomplex adaptive structuralism that it may prove possible to understandmore about the complex adaptive systems of media culture as a whole andraise important questions about the generative capacity of representationper se within a solid theoretical framework.

ReferencesAscott, R. (1991), ‘Reframing Consciousness, Art, Mind, Technology’, Intellect

http://beallcenter.uci.edu/shift/screens/techno.html. Accessed 13 September 2007.

Barthes, R. (1968), Mythologies, London: Paladin.

Barthes, R. (1977), Image, Music, Text, London: Paladin.

Baudrillard, J. (1988), Selected Writings, Cambridge: Polity Press.


PADM_3-(2-3)_15-CHAM 11/28/07 7:23 PM Page 265

Benjamin,W. (1937), http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm. Accessed 12 July 2007.

Bolter, J.D. and Grusin, R. (1999), Remediation, Understanding New Media, Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.

Bowman and Willis (2003), http://www.hypergene.net/wemedia/weblog.php.Accessed 12 July 2007. http://www.brown.edu/Research/dichtung-digital/2006/01/Simanowski-b/index.htm. Accessed 13 September, 2007.

Cham, K.L. and Johnson, J. (2007), ‘Complexity theory; a science of culturalsystems’, M/C Journal, Complex, 10: 3, J. Cahir and S. James (eds.), http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0706/08-cham-johnson.php. Accessed 12th July 2007.

Cobley, P. and Jansz, L. (1997), Introducing Semiotics, Cambridge: Icon Books. www.complexityanddesign.net/. Accessed 12 July 2007. http://crossings.tcd.ie/issues/4.1/Gemeinboeck/. Accessed 13 September 2007.

Danesi, M. and Perron, P. (1999), Analyzing Cultures, Indiana: Indiana University Press.

Derrida, J. (1998), Of Grammatology, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

De Salvo, D. (ed.) (2005), Open Systems: Rethinking Art c. 1970, London: Tate GalleryPress.

Dorai, C. and Venkatesh, S. (2002), Computational Media Aesthetics, Berlin:Springer-Verlag.

Eco, U. (1979), The Open Work, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Galanter, P. and Levy, E.K. (2002), Complexity; Art & Complex Systems, SDMA GalleryGuide.

Galanter, P. (2003), Against Reductionism: Science, Complexity, Art & Complexity Studieshttp://isce.edu/ISCE_Group_Site/web-content/ISCE_Events/Norwood_2002/Norwood_2002_Papers/Galanter.pdf, Accessed 10 October 2007Gansing, K.(2003), ‘The Myth of Interactivity or the Interactive Myth?: Interactive Film as anImaginary Genre’, Fine Art Forum, 17: 8, ISSN: 1442 4894.

Halsall, F. (2005), Observing ‘Systems-Art’ from a Systems-Theoretical Perspective.CHArt 2005.

Hayles, N.K. (1999), How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics,Literature and Informatics, Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Lyotard, J.F. (1979), The Postmodern Condition, Manchester: Manchester UniversityPress, 1984.

Manovich, L. (2001), The Language Of New Media, London: MIT Press.

Mitleton Kelly, E. (2003), Complex Systems and Evolutionary Perspectives onOrganisations, London: Elsevier Advanced Management Series.

Mc Luhan, M. (1962), The Gutenberg Galaxy, The Making of Typographic Man,Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Paul, C. (2003), Digital Art, London: Thames & Hudson.

Penny, S. (1996), ‘From A to D and back again; The Emerging Aesthetics ofInteractive Art’, Leonardo Electronic Almanac, 3: 4.Prophet, J. (1996), ‘Sublimeecologies and artistic endeavors: Artificial life and interactivity in the onlineproject “TechnoSphere”’ Leonardo, 29: 5, pp. 339–344.

Qvortup, L. (2006), ‘Understanding New Digital Media’, European Journal ofCommunication, 21: 3, pp. 345–356.

Robertson, A. (1995), ‘4D Design Futures: Some Concepts and Complexities’,Proceedings of the 4D Dynamics Conference, 21 September 1995, De Montfort,University, Leicester, ISBN 1857211308, pp. 149–153. Available at http://www.4d-dynamics.net/guest-ar.html. Accessed 5 July 2007.

266 Karen Cham

PADM_3-(2-3)_15-CHAM 11/28/07 7:23 PM Page 266

Rokeby, D. (1996), ‘Transforming Mirrors: Conclusion – Designing the Future’,http://homepage.mac.com/davidrokeby/mirrorsconclusion.html. Accessed 13September 2007.

Seaman, B. (2004), ‘Approaches to Interactive Text and Recombinant Poetics,www.electronicbookreview.com/.../languagevehicle. Accessed 14 September 2007.

Shotter, J. (1975), Images of Man in Psychological Research, London: Methuen.

de Saussure, F. (1986), Course in General Linguistics, Illnois: Open Court Publishing.

Tedinnick, L. (2006), ‘Post Structuralism, hypertext & the World Wide Web’, Aslib,59: 2, pp.169–186, 2007.

Wilson, E.O. (1998), Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, New York: A.A. Knoff.http://www.janeprophet.co.uk/. Accessed July 2007.

Suggested citationCham, K. (2007), ‘Reconstruction theory: Designing the space of possibility in complex

media’, International Journal of Performance Arts and digital Media 3: 2&3,pp. 253–267, doi: 10.1386/padm.3.2&3.253/1

Contributor detailsKaren Cham is an artist, lecturer and researcher working with Digital Media. She hasbeen working with audio visual technology since 1987 making performance, installa-tion and screen based works exploring the relationship between aesthrtics, seman-tics and technology. Current research interests include how media semantics mightinform computational media aesthetics, algorithmic and data driven video. She ispursuing a theoretcial methodology on design for interaction and emergence, whichcan be applied transdisciplinarily, and also actively involved in promoting andexploring the application of artistic methodologies within complexity scienceresearch. Contact: Karen Cham, Dept Design & Innovation, The Open University,Faculty of Technology, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK. E-mail: [email protected]


PADM_3-(2-3)_15-CHAM 11/28/07 7:23 PM Page 267

PADM_3-(2-3)_15-CHAM 11/28/07 7:23 PM Page 268



Emergent objects: Designing throughperformance

Alice Bayliss University of Leeds

Joslin McKinney University of Leeds

Sita Popat University of Leeds

Mick Wallis University of Leeds

AbstractThis paper presents Emergent Objects 2, a portfolio of sub-projects funded by theEPSRC/AHRC ‘Designing for the Twenty-first Century’ (D4C21) initiative. Ourfocus is on the way interdisciplinary exchange and collaboration allows fluidityand responsiveness in uncertain design contexts. Resisting the Modernist, instru-mental conception of design, Emergent Objects 2 does not propose an alterna-tive model for direct emulation. Rather, the aim is to defamiliarise the designprocess; and to play with its nature and possibilities. The notion of a singulardesigner is displaced by the notion of a collaborative design process, wherebyany participant is an active design agent, partaking in design functions. Thepaper explores how key performance concepts of play and embodied knowingare employed within our design practices, with illustrations from the three sub-projects: Snake, SpiderCrab and Hoverflies.

Emergent objectsEmergent Objects 21 is a portfolio of sub-projects funded by the EPSRC/AHRC Designing for the Twenty-first Century (D4C21) initiative. It adoptsan interdisciplinary and cross-sector standpoint to promote new ways ofthinking about design and designing from a performance perspective. Itinvolves artists, designers, choreographers, performance academics, com-puter specialists and roboticists from the academy and the professionalsphere.

The portfolio name plays with the concepts of emergence and objectile.Emergence addresses three areas: self-evolving performances engendered bycomplex products and systems such as gaming; productive complexity indesign processes and the complex and shifting context of design practiceitself. Design thinking and performance knowledge intersect particularlywhen considering the potential for an expressive and affective interactionbetween the designed object and the human subject, and this is the terrainthat Emergent Objects explores. We consider the designed object as an‘objectile’, a continuous variation of matter and development of form:

1 For full details of projects andpersonnel, seehttp://www.emergentobjects.co.uk/. EO2 builds onperspectives gained inthe similarly-fundedEmergent Objects 1Cluster (2004), alsoled by the Universityof Leeds.


KeywordsCollaborationdesign processinterdisciplinaryplayembodied knowingresponsiveness

PADM_3-(2-3)_16-BAYLISS 11/27/07 6:10 PM Page 269

the object becomes an event, always in the process of becoming throughinteraction (Deleuze 1993).2 Such a perspective doubles as an impetus tothe development of new design thinking and practices.

The portfolio comprises three sub-projects and one meta-project. Eachsub-project addresses its own concerns through practice-led methodologiesfounded on the hermeneutic spiral (Trimingham 2002). Design and perfor-mance theory/practice imperatives develop iteratively, through a structuredseries of encounters, drawing on groundwork established between researchersat University of Leeds and Shadow Robots (see Popat and Palmer 2005).The sub-projects inform each other through regular joint meetings.Simultaneously, the meta-project informs the sub-projects by mappingdesign- and performance-related models and paradigms for reflection orapplication. In addition, the interpenetration of the sub-projects is observed,charted and theorised.

The design processes of the three sub-projects are deliberately at differ-ent stages of emergence:

Snake (Nottingham Trent University) principally investigates the per-formed engagement between an interactive sculpture and human agent.The key objective is to design an interface to facilitate a direct responsive-ness that is conducive to a corporeal, tacit engagement. The sculpture willengage the viewer in a ‘dance duet’ through use of sensors, both respond-ing to existing mood and suggesting/creating alternative mood. The designof the moment of engagement between duet partners takes account of itsemergent nature, arising from a real-time encounter where the partnershave equal influence.

SpiderCrab (University of Leeds and Shadow Robot Company) is a roboticagent conceived of as a multisensorial mediation between architecturalenvironment and dancing partner. As with Snake, performative merging is akey concern, and Popat proposes that the ‘Turing Test’ will be the dancer’ssensation of SpiderCrab as another dancer. The fully-realised 6-limbed,3.3 metre high, robot will have pseudo-human characteristics includingprecoil and recoil in gesture, learning, aesthetic choice, redundant move-ment, mood and physical temperament. As objectile, it will set continuingevolutionary challenges to software design, robot engineering, performancespecialists and human agents.

Hoverflies (Universities of Huddersfield and Leeds) is at the earliestdesign stage, where the objectile is in its most fluid state of emergence.The aim is to design and build an interactive object, which entices perfor-mative interaction and play. Using accelerometers as the mediating tech-nology and the performing body in flight, the work investigates howmotion, gravitational pull and velocity might be projected into a variety ofdigital outputs. The guiding principle is to investigate hyper-physical inter-faces where the traditional notion of ‘user’ is supplanted by ‘participant-performer’. Hoverflies will be installed in a number of different socialcontexts (e.g. playground, festival, public space) to investigate how posi-tioning and spatiality impact on people’s willingness to participate (seeFigure 1).

2 Jan Overfield, aparticipant in EO1,used performanceperspectives sosuccessfully asStrategic Arts Officerfor Hinckley andBosworth BoroughCouncil, to be put in charge of thedevelopment of theHinckley Master Plan. She conceived of a disused factory building as a Deleuzian‘objectile’ – constantlytransformed throughthe use of thecommunity in theirrehearsals andmodelling of theirmaterial environment.

270 Alice Bayliss, Joslin McKinney, Sita Popat and Mick Wallis


ContextsPerformance devices (role-play, scenarios) have long been employed directlyand indirectly by design researchers, primarily as a means of accessing andunderstanding human factors within the design process. The role of perfor-mance-based techniques and scenarios in participatory design (Muller2002) and in design of interactive systems (Iacucci, Iacucci and Kuutti2002) has been examined. Whilst endorsing these studies, we aim tomobilise a deeper understanding of the value of performance knowledge todesign practice and thinking about design.

271Emergent objects: Designing through performance

Figure 1. Hoverflies pursues a simple interface for technological interaction – aswing. Photo: Alice Bayliss.


Key performance concepts such as embodiment, empathy and/orexpression facilitate exploration of design as an agent of interaction andexperience, as suggested by Robertson and Woudhuysen (2000). Emergencehas been variously described in different design domains (e.g. Testa, O’Reilly,Weiser, Ross 2002; Cavallo 2000). Our focus is on the way interdisciplinaryexchange and collaboration allows fluidity and responsiveness in uncertaindesign contexts.

Calls for design to facilitate creative engagement between its objectsand their users identify the need for improvisational and expressive space(Fischer and Scharff 2000; Redstrom 2006). The rootedness of our experienceof products in bodily interactions between people and their environmentshas been stressed (van Rompay, Hekkert, Muller 2005). And performancetheory and practice foreground the phenomenological dimensions andembodied nature of encounter and expression (Garner 1994).

The value of tacit knowledge and kinaesthetic perception to an interdisci-plinary design practice has been argued (Rust 2004). The tacit dimensionenhances consideration of both what the designer knows and can act on andthe way that humans may meaningfully interact with technological objects.

Over-inflated claims for the ‘interactive’ nature of products have beencountered by re-definitions of the possible and desirable relationshipsbetween users and designed artefacts or systems. Thus, Kozel (2005) callsfor ‘responsive’ interactions between system and participant. The spatial,phenomenological experience of design (in particular theatre design) sug-gests an intersection of imaginations between designer and ‘consumer’ –an exchange rather than a transmission. (McKinney 2005).

DesigningWhile the Snake team, formed before EO2 started, has designated designers,the other two projects comprise design teams. The Meta-Project Briefing states:

In Emergent Objects, the notion of a singular designer is displaced by thenotion of a collaborative design process, whereby any participant is an activedesign agent, partaking in design functions. Even where one person may be ulti-mately responsible for the design outcome of a particular aspect of a project,the permeability of their own design activity will be an important principle andindeed object of research. Wherever possible and appropriate, active collabo-ration on the setting and conduct of design tasks should be sought.

This contrasts with the currently dominant conception of the designer andtheir place in the design process. Addressing the Cox Review (2005), theMeta-Project Briefing notes that Cox’s linear sequence of three definedterms neatly maps traditionally good business practice:

creativity – ‘is the generation of new ideas’design – ‘shapes ideas to become attractive propositions for users or customers’innovation – ‘is the successful exploitation of new ideas’

(Cox 2005: 2)



But the Briefing suggests that, in order to better understand the actual andpossible place and nature of design, we might play with these definitionsand the relation of terms. Rather than think of ‘Design’ as ‘creativitydeployed to a specific end’ (ibid.), we might ask:

Is there any line to be drawn between creativity and design?Are perhaps creative play and working towards specific ends both parts of thedesign process? If so, are they sequential? dialectically related? cyclical? Oris the situation ‘fractal’ – design having its own sequence or cycles of creativ-ity-design-innovation?How can we define and map the three terms – creativity /design/innovation –in relation to the functioning of our proposed objectiles?

The design process in EO2 is eccentric in conventional terms. Not only isthe design function spread across a number of agents, few of whom areprofessional designers; the team members are also typically institutionallyand geographically distant. Resisting the Modernist, instrumental, concep-tion of design, EO2 does not propose an alternative model for direct emu-lation. Rather, the aim is to defamiliarise the design process; and to playwith its nature and possibilities. EO2 set up its design process as a complexsystem for three reasons: to examine how such a system encourages emer-gent behaviour in the design process, and emergent design solutions; toplay towards the emergence of a new, complex, sustainable design processand to ask what conditions might encourage the design of such newprocesses themselves to be emergent, evolving.

PlayPlay theory has regained importance in performance studies through itsappropriation for instance by games design and theory. EO2 makesits own strategic appropriations. Huizinga (1949), Caillois (1958) andothers conceive of play as a framed activity, where the frame both definesa space of freedom and provides a productive restraint. Csikszenmihalyi(1996) associates play with the condition of ‘flow’ – the absorbed concen-tration, non-contradiction of goals, and immediate feedback essential tocreativity.

For a conventional designer, the non-contradiction of goals necessary toa creative design solution often equates to a clear design brief. Such hasbeen the habitual expectation of software designer John Bryden from theSpiderCrab team, for example. But EO2 works to deny such teleologicalprompts, by opening out a complex space of play from the outset. At thesame time, it offers easily graspable models for self-management of thenewly-opened space. In particular, the Meta-Project Briefing providesCaillois’ two key mappings of play for reflection and experimentation: first,the four categories agon/competition; alea/chance; mimicry/illusion andillinx/vertigo; and second the continuum between paidia/sheer playfulnessand ludus/rule-bound play. The first question for an EO2 designer, then, is‘Am I playing, and how?’



As a complement, the Briefing appropriates Schön’s (1983) analysis ofprofessional practice: ‘reflection-in-action’; ‘tacit understanding’ and ‘posthoc reflection’, to engender a five-phase feedback cycle:

Contributing to the meta project, Bryden reports that such tools have pro-vided him with what might itself be identified as a frame of play – the licenseand the protection within which to play. That he began with an inclination toexperiment outside his ‘safety zone’ was of course crucial (Figure 2).

Caillois’ categories of play have been directly exploited early in theHoverflies process, with each member of the design team in turn leading theothers in a play-based activity prompted by their initial self-briefing. Playingbetween the striations of play categories and the smoothness of openexperiment (Deleuze and Guattari 1980), the team thereby generated acomplex system of prompts for their design process through inductiveexperiment. The intention is to allow the nature of the process itself toproject into the designed object which, in turn, will encourage playful shiftsbetween roles of performer, participant and observer – as defined in themodel of tripartite interaction (Bayliss, Lock, Sheridan 2004).

Schechner (1988) adapted the notion of the frame of play to considerwhat might otherwise be called determinations on the performer’s playfulcreativity: it happens within concentric frames of play, from the logic of thepart through the director’s desires to the prevailing performance conven-tions. While ambiguous – which is the most potent frame, the nearest orall-encompassing? – Schechner’s model provides a useful tool for the nego-tiation of internal and external determinations on the design process. Inother words, it provides a metaphorical space in which a complexity ofdeterminations – the contradictions of interdisciplinary praxis; fundingimperatives; scheduling, etc. – can be managed by the group as a group.

Further, Schechner’s model became for some in the SpiderCrab groupa ready means to figure towards the outer frame of Bryden’s emergent


(1) Post hoc reflection on existing – Have I been playing; and how?practice

(2) Conscious framing – I am consciously using a frameof play to guide or inform mydesign process

(3) Reflection-in-action – I am aware that I am playing,and how, but my principalfocus is the process

(4) Tacit understanding – I am fully immersed in theprocess; I am playing but amunconscious of this

(5) Post hoc reflection on – Have I been playing; and how? developed practice is there a qualitative difference

from (1)?


software design solution for scripting the robot’s gestures. We establishedearly that a palimpsest of determinations would frame its movement: exter-nal signal; current state; ‘disposition’; ‘game’ and so on. By way of discus-sions around object-related computing, these have settled into afundamental model to generate emergent behaviour through the complexityof a system comprising successive simple levels: stochastically-generated


Figure 2. John Bryden interacts with a SpiderCrab prototype limb, entwinedwith a full-scale mock-up of the robot. Photo: Neil MacPhail.


‘random’ movement is over-determined by a number of constraints, them-selves simply designated ‘high-’ or ‘low-level’.

Embodied knowingRecourse to Schechner’s frames of play for the understanding of complexitymediates between the modes of knowledge and knowing. On the one hand,a reified map of determinations begins to precipitate out; on the other, theambiguity and mobility of the model tends to dissolve precise boundaries.Our formulation here draws on Williams’ (1973) notion of a ‘structure offeeling’: while we may feel able to objectify historical data into clear struc-tures, our grasp of the present necessarily remains fluid, more a matter offeeling. Structure remains emergent. Arguably, one challenge for the cul-tural historian is to retain the ‘structure of feeling’ dialectic when address-ing the past; to grasp the ‘knowing’ that precedes ‘knowledge’: tore-imagine the emergence of seeming historiographic artefacts from thecomplexity of human interaction.

Such knowing requires an open body, and the EO2 Briefing foregroundsthe role of the designer’s own body as much as it asks what kind of embod-ied relations we want our designed objectiles to draw their human co-agentsinto. The SpiderCrab team have reflected, for instance, on the habitus –defined by Bourdieu (1998) as ‘the deeply-installed set of cultural frameswithin which our physical improvisations can occur’ – that we bring to thedesigning process. Allowing, as many do, habitus to include intellectualand emotional as well as physical dispositions, we might suggest that twovectors of Bryden’s habitus at the start were his openness to experimentand his discomfort at the lack of a clear brief. Physical games in particularassisted him in his desire to experiment outside his ‘safety zone’. ProfessorDavid Hogg, also from the Leeds School of Computing, described the earlyinitiation into physical play as at first ‘terrifying’ and then liberating: thehabitus frame was recalibrated within the frame of EO2.

Popat and Palmer (2005) report on a mask exercise by Popat and Wallisin experiments with Shadow Robots in late 2003. Dancers contemplated arobot so as to identify fully with it, to embody it. Drawing on regular masktechnique, the exercise proved to have significant value in the context oftechnological design. The performer contemplates the mask so deeply thatit can ‘possess’ – fully inhabit or in-form – their body when worn. In 2003,this embodied performance of the robot by the dancer, one instance ofknowing, served also as a second. Designers and mechanics from Shadowin turn had the sensation of haptic, kinaesthetic, encounter with the dancer-as-robot. Their knowledge of their robot was for a time supplanted by amore immediate knowing. New perspectives on the robot, its design andpotential, emerged with a palpably exciting rapidity. SpiderCrab adopted themask exercise as a foundation.

The protocol of knowing aligns broadly with Heidegger’s (1949) techne–,a kind of relationship with the world, its objects and processes that worksthrough an attitude of in-dwelling. Truth is not extracted; rather, space ismade for the essence to make itself manifest. And when complexity theory



identifies or conceives of self-developing closed systems, it suggestsessences. Idhe (1993), like others, has celebrated the power of Heidegger’sintervention in the ‘Technology’ essay, while resisting his romanticism andrecourse to foundationalism. Wallis (2005) subjects the essay to a rhetori-cal critique to much the same ends, while proposing the theatrical appara-tus as a collective subject of techne–. One thread that runs through the EO2Meta Project is a similar conception of the individual design process as acreative iteration of objectifications and phenomenal encounters, simulta-neously drawing on and contributing to the human-crafted environment.

Delegates to an international Emergent Objects symposium in June2007 expressed satisfaction that the project has opened up new perspec-tives on the role of emergence within the design process, as well as thedesign of emergent interactions between technological objects and humanagents. Meanwhile, the frame of D4C21 has opened up our own awarenessof the 4D and complexity design communities, especially through the initia-tive of Alec Robertson. We leave it to him to weave those connections here.

ReferencesBayliss, K.A., Lock, S. and Sheridan, J.G. (2004), ‘Understanding Interaction in

Ubiquitous Guerilla Perfomances in Playful Arenas’ in: S. Fincher, P. Markopolous,D. Moore, R. Ruddle (eds.), People and Computers XVIII – Design for Life: Proceedingsof HCI 2004, Springer-Verlag, pp. 3–18.

Bourdieu, P. (1998), Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Caillois, R. (1958, 2001), Man, Play and Games (trans. M. Barash), Chicago: Universityof Illinois Press.

Cavallo, D (2000), ‘Emergent Design and Learning Environments: Building on indige-nous knowledge’, IBM Systems Journal, 39: 3/4. http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/393/part2/cavallo.htm

Cox, G. (2005), Cox Review of Creativity in Business: Building on the UK’s strengths,London: HMSO.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996), Creativity, Flow and the Psychology of Discovery andInvention, New York: HarperCollins.

Deleuze, G. (1993), The Fold: Liebniz and the Baroque (trans. T. Conley), Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.

Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1980, 1987), A Thousand Plateaus. Capitalism andSchizophrenia (trans. B. Massumi), London: Continuum.

Fischer, G. and Scharff, E. (2000), ‘Meta-Design: Design for designers’, Proceedingsof Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, practices, methods &techniques, New York: ACM Press, pp. 396–405.

Garner, S.B. (1994), Bodied Spaces: Phenomenology and Performance in ContemporaryDrama, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Heidegger, M. (1949), ‘The question concerning technology’ in The QuestionConcerning Technology, and other essays (trans. W. Lovitt), New York, London:Harper and Row, 1977.

Huizinga, J. (1949), Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture, London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Iacucci, G., Iacucci, C. and Kuutti, K. (2002), ‘Imagining and Experiencing inDesign: The Role of Performances’, Proceedings of 2nd Nordic Conference on



Human-Computer Interaction, October 19–23 2002, Aarhus, Denmark, New York:ACM, pp. 167–176.

Idhe, D. (1993), Postphenomenology. Essays in the postmodern context, Evanstown Ill:Northwestern University Press.

Kozel, S. (2005), ‘Revealing Practices: Heidegger’s Techne Interpreted ThroughPerformance in Responsive Systems’, R. Gough and M. Wallis (ed.), PerformanceResearch, 10: 4, pp. 33–44.

McKinney, J. (2005), ‘Projection and Transaction: The Spatial Operation ofScenography’, M. Wallis (ed.), Performance Research, 10: 4, pp. 128–137.

Muller, M.J. (2002), ‘Participatory Design: The third Space in HCI’, The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and EmergingApplications, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 1051–1068.

Popat, S. and Palmer, S. (2005), ‘Creating Common Ground: Dialogues betweenperformance and digital technologies’, International Journal of Performance Arts &Digital Media, 1: 1, pp. 47–65.

Redström, J. (2006), ‘Towards User Design? On the shift from object to user as thesubject of design’, Design Studies, 27: 2, pp. 123–139.

Robertson, A. and Woudhuysen, J. (2000), ‘4D Design: Applied Performance in theExperience Economy’, Liminality & Performance Conference, Brunel University,27–30 April 2000, http://people.brunel.ac.uk/bst/documents/alecrobertson.doc.Accessed 16 June 2007.

van Rompay, T. Hekkert, P. and Muller, W. (2005), ‘The Bodily Basis of ProductExperience,’ Design Studies, 26: 4, pp. 359–377.

Rust, C. (2004), ‘Design Enquiry: Tacit Knowledge and Invention in Science’, DesignIssues, 20: 4, pp. 76–85.

Schechner, R. (1988), Performance Theory, London: Routledge.

Schön, D.A. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, NY:Basic Books.

Testa, P., O’Reilly, U., Weiser, D. and Ross, I. (2001), ‘Emergent Design: A CrosscuttingResearch Program and Design Curriculum Integrating Architecture and ArtificialIntelligence’, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 28: 4, pp. 481–498.

Trimingham, M. (2002), ‘A Methodology for Practice as Research’, Studies in Theatre &Performance, 22: 1, pp. 54–60.

Wallis, M. (2005), ‘Thinking through techne’, Performance Research, 10: 4, pp. 1–8.

Williams, R. (1973), Drama from Ibsen to Brecht, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Suggested citationBayliss, A., McKinney, J., Popat, S., & Wallis, M. (2007), ‘Emergent objects:

Designing through performance’, International Journal of Performance Arts anddigital Media 3: 2&3, pp. 269–279, doi: 10.1386/padm.3.2&3.269/1

Contributor detailsAlice Bayliss is Lecturer in Applied Theatre and Intervention at the School ofPerformance and Cultural Industries at the University of Leeds, UK. She is an activeresearcher in the field of interactive performance, club culture and play, creatingDigital Live Art works and installations for free parties and underground clubspaces. In particular she investigates new technologies for performance and strate-gies for enhancing mutual engagement and participation within creative collabora-tions. She is co-convenor of the (re)Actor: International Conferences on Digital Live Art



(2006, 2007). Contact: School of Performance and Cultural Industries, University ofLeeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.E-mail: [email protected]

Joslin McKinney is Lecturer in Scenography in the School of Performance andCultural Industries at the University of Leeds, UK. Her practice-led research investi-gates the nature of the communication that occurs when audiences encounterdesign for the stage. Recent work includes ‘Projection and Transaction: The spatialoperation of scenography’ Performance Research 10(4) 2005. Contact: School ofPerformance and Cultural Industries, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.E-mail: [email protected]

Sita Popat is Senior Lecturer in Dance at the University of Leeds. Her research inter-ests centre on choreography and new technologies. Current projects include theAHRC-funded ‘Projecting Performance’ with Scott Palmer and KMA CreativeTechnologies Ltd, and the AHRC/EPSRC/JISC-funded ‘Relocating ChoreographicPractice’ with Helen Bailey, Simon Buckingham Shum and Michael Daw. She isauthor of Invisible Connections: Dance, Choreography and Internet Communities(Routledge 2006). Contact: School of Performance and Cultural Industries, Universityof Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.E-mail: [email protected]

Mick Wallis is Professor of Performance and Culture and Director of Research at theSchool of Performance and Cultural Industries. He is Principal Investigator for‘Emergent Objects’ and for the AHRC-funded ‘Village Theatre Survey’, investigatingthe use of amateur theatre in inter-war England. Recent work includes Drama/Theatre/Performance with Simon Shepherd (Routledge, 2004) and PerformanceResearch 10: 4, ‘On techne–’ (2005) edited with Richard Gough. Contact: School ofPerformance and Cultural Industries, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.E-mail: [email protected]





An approach to the design of interactiveenvironments, with reference tochoreography, architecture, the science of complex systems and 4D design

Alec Robertson De Montfort University

Sophia Lycouris Edinburgh College of Art

Jeffrey Johnson The Open University

AbstractThis paper introduces a transdisciplinary approach to the design of interactiveenvironments, including digital new media created for urban spaces, with refer-ence to choreography, architecture, the science of complex systems and 4Ddesign. Relationships between architectural structures of buildings and the hybridflux of bodies, moving images, sounds and choreographic designs are discussed. Anumber of issues about ‘static’ and ‘dynamic’ aspects of the built environment inpublic spaces are raised. It embraces ‘movement’ as an important element in theprocesses of conceptualisation and design of architectural space and also dis-cusses wider uses of choreography of movement in the building itself as whatmight be termed ‘applied choreography’ along with notions of 4D design and‘complexity theory’. This framework can facilitate developments in expanding thecontext for application of choreographic knowledge through taking into accountthe full potential of the dynamic properties of the built environment. The paperconcludes with some provocations as to future design possibilities.

IntroductionMaking connections between architecture and choreography has beenencouraged by recent developments of new digital media available forurban spaces and technologies for the sensing and control of interactiveenvironments. Significant use of computers to control building servicesand systems started in the 1980s, with pioneering development of comput-erised control in large buildings, such as the NATWEST Tower in London(Vincent and Peacock 1985). In the early 1990s notions bubbled of the‘intelligent building’, cyber-control systems (in contrast to automatic),archionics engineering (analogous to avionics for aircraft) and ‘kinematicbuildings’ (in contrast to static) (Robertson 1993). Performance and danceevents in public spaces have also been happening since the 1970s. In 1973,American choreographer Trisha Brown created Roof Piece, in which fifteen


Keywordsapplied choreographyarchitectureinteractivityurban space4D designcomplex systems


dancers were placed across the roof of buildings in Manhattan, NYC andwere instructed to copy from each other a series of choreographed move-ments, so that a ‘telegraphed message’ travelled from one person to thenext (Robertson and Hutera 1988: 196). Similarly, during the 1970s Britishchoreographer Rosemary Butcher created a number of outdoor pieces suchas Passage North East (Jordan 1992: 169) and White Field (Tufnell andCrickmay 1990: 83). Since the early 1990s there has been a proliferation ofdance performance work, which employs interactive technologies, createdfor professional performers and theatre stages – such as the work ofAmerican company Troika Ranch (Coniglio and Stopiello 2007), or interac-tive installation work created by dance artists such as Sarah Rubidge (2007)for audience participation, however this has been happening in specially setup installation spaces rather than as part of ‘everyday’ environments.

Therefore, until recently the control of media displays within publicspaces through movements of the regular users of these spaces has notbeen used in relation to the development of artistic work and was limited toproblem-solving in relation to traffic on the roads. For example, designresearch was done in the early 1970s on targeting a traffic message to onedriver (Robertson 1977). Here, messages on road-side signage weredesigned to help keep vehicles a safe distance apart by warning an individ-ual of dangerous driving behaviour. A sensor in the road picked up thespeed and distance between vehicles and with a road side sign flashed amessage at the driver. Incidentally human behaviour with such designs canbe unpredictable, as it was found in interactive road signs designed toreduce speeding. In some locations it was noticed vehicles occasionallyspeeded up! The reason was found to be children in the cars saying,‘Daddy . . . daddy light up the sign please!’ More recently, complex systemsscientists have used computer simulation extensively to investigate themovement of human beings in constrained environments. For example,Helbing et al. (2005) report studies that investigate the rules underlying theemergent group behaviour based on experiments of human subjects andmathematical models derived from the observations. Creating bridgesbetween the use of complex systems, choreographic practices, architecturalapproaches and design communities can add significantly to these devel-opments. Unpredictability in complex design situations will be briefly dis-cussed later.

More economical and technologically sophisticated digital media arenow available for design of interactive environments. With expanding under-standings of choreography as a compositional method generally, new possi-bilities arise. The idea of ‘applied choreography encourages application ofuseful choreographic knowledge into everyday life situations (outside theatrestages and without trained dancers). It expands the influence of performingartists. The distinction made in the fields of science between pure andapplied science, and also in the traditional object based arts of fine arts andapplied arts can be useful too in the performing arts field.

In addition, there are transdisciplinary theoretical connections that canbe made with this kind of ‘performing’ work. For example, ‘complexity

282 Alec Robertson, Sophia Lycouris and Jeffrey Johnson


science’ provides notions that can be applied to both human situations andthe design of the built environment. ‘Complex systems’ is a general termused to describe systems that are diverse and made up of multiple interde-pendent elements (Johnson 2006). It is a multidisciplinary and holisticapproach concerning interactions between component parts and subsys-tems, and their relationships to each other and their environment.

The next section gives an overview of the science of complex systemsfrom the perspective of Jeffrey Johnson. This is followed by the notion of 4Ddesign as described by Alec Robertson at the 4D Dynamics Conference in1995, along with a brief discussion of the choreographic proposalIntelligentCITY made in 2002 by Sophia Lycouris, Yacov Sharir and StanWijnans. The purpose is to make tentative connections of relevance todesign research speculation of new possibilities for creating a more engag-ing aesthetic experience within architectural contexts and urban space.

The emerging science of complex systemsThe science of complex systems is a relatively new academic field investi-gating aspects of ‘complexity’ that occur across many disciplines.Researchers in this field may find it useful to consider aspects of the per-forming arts, which inherently deal with the complex. Similarly, those in thefield of performing arts may find it useful to be aware of aspects of thescience of complex systems. This section outlines basic notions that mightbe applicable in choreographic contexts.

Complex systems are generally diverse and made up of multiple inter-connected elements. They are adaptive in that they have the capacity tochange and learn from events. The scientific study of complex adaptivesystems encompasses more than one theoretical framework and is highlyinterdisciplinary, seeking the answers to some fundamental questionsabout evolving, adaptable, changeable systems.

The science of complex systems is still very young, and there are manydifferent views on what constitutes this science. Most people (Bourgineand Johnson 2006) agree that complexity can emerge from the interactionof autonomous agents – especially when those agents are people.Complexity is often a feature of multilevel systems, with intra and inter-leveldynamics at micro-, meso- and macro-scales. The dynamics of complexsystems can be path dependent, with future events depending on previousevents over long periods of time. One defining feature for a large class ofcomplex systems is that it is not possible to make predictions of theirprecise state at precise points of time in the future. Certainly this appears tobe the case for systems that include human beings: no-one knows for surewhere they will be and what they will be doing ten years from now.

There are many reasons as to why a system might be consideredcomplex, including their having one or more of the following characteristics:

• many heterogeneous parts, e.g. cities;• complicated transition laws, e.g. economic systems for sale of goods;• unexpected or unpredictable emergence, e.g. accidental events;

283An approach to the design of interactive environments, with reference to . . .


• dependence on initial conditions, e.g. weather systems;• path-dependent dynamics, e.g. qwerty keyboard evolution• network connectivities and multiple subsystem dependencies, e.g.

ecosystems;• dynamics emerge from interactions of autonomous agents, e.g. road

traffic;• self-organisation into new structures and patterns of behaviour, e.g.

businesses;• non-equilibrium and far-from equilibrium dynamics, e.g. military aircraft;• discrete dynamics with combinatorial explosion, e.g. telecommunica-

tions;• adaptation to changing environments, e.g. retailing;• co-evolving subsystems, e.g. land-use and transportation;• ill-defined boundaries, e.g. pollution, terrorism;• multilevel dynamics, e.g. aircraft, the internet, multinational companies.

Various systems exhibit many of these characteristics. Any one of them canmake systems appear complex, but together they can make systems verydifficult to understand and control (Johnson 2006).It would be nice to givea simple definition and to have a single, easily applied test for complexity.In his paper ‘From Complexity to Perplexity’, Horgan (1995) quotes 31 defi-nitions of complexity, and selects the following to illustrate the diversity:entropy (disorder), information (surprise), fractal dimension, effective com-plexity (regularity versus randomness), hierarchical complexity, grammati-cal complexity, thermodynamic depth, time computational complexity,spatial complexity and mutual information (between parts). Edmonds(1999) gives a list of some fifty approaches to measuring complexity,varying between concepts of size, variety, information, connectivity, decom-posability, irreducibility, computation and description. This illustrates theimpossibility of reducing complexity to a single measurement, or even asimple definition.

In 1956, W. Ross Ashby wrote, ‘Science stands today on something of adivide. For two centuries it has been exploring systems that are eitherintrinsically simple or that are capable of being analysed into simple com-ponents. The fact that such a dogma as “vary the factors one at a time”could be accepted for a century, shows that scientists were largely con-cerned in investigating such systems as allowed this method; for thismethod is often fundamentally impossible in the complex systems’.

In fact there are further points of departure for the new science ofcomplex systems. Traditional scientific approaches include experiment andreplicability, but this may be impossible in complex systems. For example, ifone party is voted into power we cannot know what would have happened ifanother party had been elected?

So, what can we know about the behaviour of complex systems? Onepossibility is the set of states that the system might take in the future.Another possibility is likelihood of a particular state in the future. Anotherpossibility is how dangerous a possible future state might be. Another



possibility is the trajectories of states that start from the current state andend in some future state. In this context managing or controlling complexsystems can be seen as the attempt to keep the system on a relatively‘good’ trajectory, steering it towards desirable states and away from unde-sirable states.

Complex systems research attempts to provide an holistic approachthat views whole systems based upon the links and interactions betweenthe component parts and their relationship to each other and the environ-ment within which they exists. It is accepted that it may not be possible toanalyse systems in terms of independent subsystems. In complex systemssmall changes can cause large changes: a change in one part of a systemcan adversely affect another apparently decoupled part of the system.

One way that complex systems scientists try to explore future possiblestates depends on computer simulation. This has the ‘can you trust it?’problem in which one can question the underlying model, the quality of thedata, the correctness of the computer programme and the interpretation ofthe results. Nonetheless, it is the best we have at present as we grope in thedark towards new ways of understanding systems that can behave in veryperplexing ways.

This is the context in which we ask the question as to whether art cancontribute to the new science of complex systems. Where so many of theold certainties have had to be abandoned, why should we not look tounconventional sources to new approaches to scientific investigation?Sciences must develop new methods of representing systems, new ways ofseeing and interpreting what we see, and new ways of communicating newkinds of synthesis. That visual arts such as drawing, painting and photogra-phy can contribute to science is not so challenging, since all these modes ofexpression can readily be found in scientific publications. That performanceart might contribute to science is less obvious, and that is what we areinvestigating in this paper. A simple example of a complex system is a teamgame, which is both ‘evolutionary’ and ‘behavioural’. The dynamics emergefrom the interaction of players, who are autonomous agents, yet all have acommon aim. Although the rules of a team game provide some certainty,what actually happens is unpredictable. Minor changes in one area of thefield can be catalytic and cause significant changes in another. The compo-nents of a ‘complex system’ are often ‘adaptive’ with the capacity to changeand learn from events, as teams and their players are in this example. Thechoreography of dance performances using new interactive media is anexample of ‘complex systems’ in action, as are the ‘everyday’ actions of‘everyday’ people having a performative effect on the built environment. Abroad philosophical article entitled ‘Complexity Theory: Actions for a BetterWorld (Calresco.org 2007), argues that a better world will result when richinteractions within a system (a dynamic collection of interconnected parts)allow it to self-organise by being critically connected, that is, neither static(with disconnected parts) nor chaotic (with over connected parts) arrivingat an improved state in-between. It adds that (positive) evolution can occurthrough random mutation, through internal learning or through selection



by trial-and-error interaction. The parts of the system can be people andinteractive media, where these dynamically evolve with a set of rules fromchoreographic theory and complexity science to create an improved state.Herbert Simon in his seminal book ‘Sciences of the Artificial’ definesdesign as the ‘transformation of existing conditions into preferred ones’(Simon 1969: 55). A definition of design that is close to the multifariousframework of the science of complex systems is that of 4D Design – ‘thedynamic form resulting from the design of the behaviour of artefacts andpeople in relation to each other and their environment’ (Robertson 1995).However, the 4D design notion is centred in the field of art and design witha more intuitive approach than the science of complex systems and focuseson a cultural and aesthetic context.

The next section explores the notion of 4D design to illuminate thepotential of the choreographic character of everyday life in relation tonotions of complexity above.

4D Design4D design, as ‘the dynamic form resulting from the design of the behaviourof artefacts and people in relation to each other’, focuses upon designingcultural expression within dynamic situations in the everyday ‘designed’world. Figure 1 depicts Alec Robertson’s conception of 4D design showingthe relationship of the performing arts with functional action of people anddynamic technologies.

The diagram depicts four basic domains of practical knowledge. Twocover the physical dynamics of intangible media and artefacts – robotics


Figure 1: 4D design diagram (Alec Robertson 1995).


and multimedia technology, the other two the dynamics of people in workand play – ergonomics – the study of people in their functional workingcontext; and, the performing arts – involving dynamic cultural expressionand meaning. In the diagram above there are sub-set domains shown, andthese are as follows: the new discipline of ‘interaction design’, focusing onthe usefulness of digital technological objects; ‘interface design’, focusingon the usefulness of digital informational media, for example, screens andsurfaces; the ‘electronic arts’ which deals with expression through intangi-ble digital media; and ‘kinetic sculpture’ which focuses on dynamic expres-sion of material art objects. The arrows added to the original diagram herepass through the ‘4D design’ core and highlight that 4D designs caninvolve mainly with ‘the artificial’ of digital multimedia with robotics tech-nologies, or mainly with people and both the utilitarian perspective of‘ergonomics’ and the more playful performing arts. In other words, 4Ddesigns can result in artefacts alone acting in relationship to each other,such as robots dancing interactively with digital graphics on screens, orpeople acting (without much technology) in relationship to each other,such as the elegant performance of an up-market restaurant waiter(perhaps using a portable credit card reader) with a customer. The profes-sional design of this service is a creative challenge. (Robertson 1994 2001).

As digital media is advancing and getting easier to use, the 4D perspec-tive is developing in the arts within the built environment, as outlined byGuest Editor, Lucy Bullivant of the Special Issue of Architectural Design –‘4dSocial: Interactive Design Environments’ (Bullivant 2007). The followingsection provides a specific example of a design proposal for a choreo-graphic project called ‘IntelligentCITY’, within which people, who are ‘doingtheir own thing’ while shopping, interact in a performative context with avariety of digital media involving sound or image or both in a shoppingmall.

The IntelligentCITY projectPeople use everyday built environments for various agreed purposes (e.g.shopping in shopping centres, waiting for trains in train stations and soon). They move, speak and perform various actions in order to fulfil theirneeds. These everyday activities become ‘events’ defined by the nature andlimitations of the environments within which they take place and the char-acter of their architecture. The ways in which people perceive the relevanceof these environments to their everyday lives is affected by their physical aswell as emotional relationship to these environments, personal stories,memories which are superimposed, attached, fused, inserted, adapted,negotiated with the structure, materials, physical parameters and otherqualities of these architectural manifestations.

IntelligentCITY is introduced here to merely indicate potentialapproaches to the design of interactive environments, with reference to 4Ddesign and tentatively with the science of complex systems. It is a choreo-graphic proposal initially developed for Grafton Shopping Centre(Cambridge, UK) by choreographer Sophia Lycouris, Dutch multimedia



composer Stan Wijnans and American choreographer/multimedia artistYacov Sharir.1 The project was designed to use the dialogue between chore-ography and interactive technologies in order to generate a ‘re-newed’ per-ception of everyday built environments (with particular emphasis on publicspaces) for the regular users of these spaces. The proposal suggested theuse of an interactive system inserted in Grafton Shopping Centre, whichwould be triggered by the movements of the visitors through the Centre.These movements would be captured through camera-based sensors inorder to trigger visual, sonic and dynamic transformations of the space,manifested as multiple video screenings and surround sound. In this way,the physical presence of the Shopping Centre’s visitors and their movementreactions would generate a media space, appropriately inserted into thephysical space of the building. The design of the interactive system had anadditional purpose of encouraging the visitors to initiate their own journeysin the Centre, and augment through play and interaction their perceptualexperience of this public space, which is part of their everyday lives. Figures2 and 3 below show visual details of the venue, which would be brought tothe attention of users of this environment.

However, a question to briefly address here is ‘what is a public space’?Bunschoten (2000: 5) suggests that ‘public spaces must have a prototypi-cal character’ in the sense that they should function as instruments ofchange. He explains that because a ‘prototype is a programmatic condition’it has dynamic properties. By being a model for testing, a prototype inher-ently contains a number of different sets of possibilities that could give riseto new qualities. Bunschoten (2000: 6) perceives public spaces as the play-ground of society, ‘the playground in which society re-invents itself’. Withreference to ‘complexity theory’, which explains how new forms ‘emerge’from unpredictable interrelationships between relatively autonomous ele-ments which have a common goal, it becomes clear why public gatheringsare prohibited in some circumstances, particularly those which are politi-cally volatile.

IntelligentCITY’s main commissioning bodies (Future Physical and TheJunction) requested an amended proposal so that the project could be usedto celebrate the opening of Junction’s new building in 2003. This building

1 IntelligentCITY(http://www.futurephysical.org/pages/programme/commissions/intel_city.html, accessed11/09/07) has been aFUTURE PHYSICALcommission(http://www.futurephysical.org/pages/programme/commissions.html,accessed 11/09/07) byShinkansen (London,UK) and East EnglandArts (East England,UK) also co-commissioned byThe Junction(Cambridge UK), anartistic centrecommitted to newartists, new art andnew audiences(http://www.junction.co.uk/, accessed11/09/07). The projectreceived a Research &Development grantsby London Arts(London, UK) and TheNottingham TrentUniversity(Nottingham, UK)plus support in kindby variousorganisationsincluding theDepartment of Danceof The University ofTexas (Texas, USA)and The JerwoodSpace (Art centre,London, UK). Finally,IntelligentCITY was thelast phase in a seriesof practice-basedresearch projectsexploring the nature ofinterdisciplinarychoreography whichwere undertakenbetween 2000 and2003 by SophiaLycouris with thesupport of a three-yearFellowship for theCreative andPerforming Artsawarded in by the Artsand HumanitiesResearch Board(Bristol, UK).


Figure 2: Grafton Shopping Centre –view of the Mezzanine and glass roof.

Figure 3: Architectural features ofGrafton Shopping Centre worthy ofattention of shoppers.


was part of a recently developed public space, comprising a leisure centre,a cinema, restaurants, shops and a hotel, all arranged around a centralopen space, a Plaza. The main objective of the revised project became thedevelopment of an interactive environment through which the regular usersof this area of Cambridge would have the opportunity to experience an aug-mented perception of the architectural arrangement of the entire Plaza.Thus the revised version of the proposal was developed for a new site,which in some ways fulfilled better Bunschoten’s criteria of a public space.However, the initial research undertaken in relation to the development ofan interactive environment for Grafton Shopping Centre informed a projectwhich was reliant on the spatial and architectural coherence of that site. Ashopping centre is a well-defined and ‘continuous’ architectural space, inmost cases, it can be considered as a single building. Therefore, workcreated in (and for) it becomes easily integrated within its architecturalspace. In the revised version of the proposal, IntelligentCITY would engagedirectly with more than one buildings. The project’s main function would beto create links between the buildings of the Plaza, to activate additional andalternative pathways for the users, to imaginatively add a sense of coher-ence that may not originally be present. The Plaza could become a ‘play-ground’ in the way Raoul Bunschoten (2000) suggests, a prototypical spacewhich contains the seeds of its own transformation.

It becomes clear that the development of this proposal would have ben-efited from the consideration of notions of ‘complexity’ as outlined earlierin this paper to enable a richer framework to design the software operatingthe display hardware. In addition, an assessment of the functionality of theinteractive mechanism from within an awareness of how complex systemswork and the knowledge that unpredictable situations, phenomena andbehaviours can emerge due to this complexity, would support a more effec-tive evaluation process in this project and provide appropriate hints abouthow the mechanism could be further developed so that the system and itsunderlying concept could both reach their full potential. It remains toexamine more closely the nature of the dialogue between choreography andarchitecture and how concepts of 4D design can make this dialogue moreproductive. These two issues are discussed in the following two sections.

Architecture and choreographyArchitecture and choreography both engage and develop spatial structuresin their own contexts of the 3D urban environment and stage sets respec-tively. In IntelligentCITY, the aim was to create a series of dynamic environ-ments within which the viewers can circulate freely and physicallyexperience the impact of various types of movements (including the move-ment of sounds and images) which take place around them. It is a steptowards the synthesis of an interactive playground within architecturalspaces. The difference to be explored was that images and sounds wouldbe fully integrated into the fabric of the building to allow it to function as amore dynamic entity that reacts to the movement of its users. Through cap-italising on the relationship between the architectural structures of the



buildings and the hybrid choreography of bodies, images and sounds, thisproject was aimed, amongst other things, for attracting the viewers’ atten-tion to the 3D architectural features themselves. As a result visitors shouldnotice architectural elements they had not seen before, or see them differ-ently, and access in this way the opportunity for a renewed perception of afamiliar space, which can enrich their everyday lives, in addition to thedelight of physically engaging with this interactive environment.

Porter (1997) suggests that the perception of the architectural space iscaused by the interrelationship between body, movement and space.McCullough (2004: 13–14) further indicates that ‘the modern space was allabout freedom of movement . . . the act of design became the shaping notof buildings, but of space . . . space became conceived in relation to amoving point of reference’. Indeed the perception of the architectural spaceas static has been challenged by various theorists, practising architectssuch as Lars Spuybroek and Peter Eisenman, as well as hybrid artists witharchitectural background such as Marcos Novak. Additionally, the fusionbetween new technologies (or other disciplines such as ecology) and archi-tectural practices in highly challenging interdisciplinary articulations hasalso supported the development of appropriate conceptual frameworks foran understanding of architecture as a discipline which can accommodatechange, instability, as well as material and conceptual flexibility (Brayer andSimonot 2002).

The work of Peter Eisenman has significantly contributed to a newunderstanding of non-linear conceptions of space, employing deconstruc-tive methods which question static notions of the architectural space andprioritise dynamic techniques through which architectural designs aredeveloped. Galofaro (1999: 59) suggests that Eisenman’s methodology crit-icises the prioritisation of the sense of vision in the experience of the archi-tectural space and generates buildings which offer ‘a tactile, emotionalexperience, which contains a strong realistic connotation based on bodysensations’. The advantage of creating architectural space with an inte-grated understanding of its dynamic potential is that such space canincrease the corporeal responses of the viewer/user, in the sense that asthey move through the building, they perceive it more intensely as a resultof the generation of multiple physical sensations. Eisenman’s ideas allowfor the consideration of an example of how contemporary architectural dis-course could share a partially common language with choreographic theoryand practice. This opens up possibilities for the development of a produc-tive dialogue between the two, with the potential to push each others’boundaries, thus expanding the applicability of their core concepts towardsmultiple interdisciplinary articulations. Indeed the concept of ‘appliedchoreography’ as mentioned in the introduction of this paper would not beoperational without the support of architectural theory which recognisesthe relevance of movement into the users’ experience of architecturalspace. Furthermore, the very idea of ‘applied choreography’ would bealmost inconceivable without the understanding of space as a dynamic



entity (which includes objects and animate agents such as humans andanimals) as this has been made possible by theories of 4D design.

Therefore, another challenge of the static character of architecturaldesign conceptions and manifestations generally, can be made throughusing Alec Robertson’s concept of 4D Design (1995) also mentioned earlierin this paper. It makes conceivable the integrated choreographic under-standing of all manifestations of movement in a given physical space beyondthe typical use of interactive digital displays in the built environment. In thearchitecture of public spaces, the concept of 4D design brings together phys-ical objects, media and the activity of people in the situation within spacesand can thus engender a dynamic multisensory expression of culture.

Some speculation on design possibilities can be made. Experimentswith animated architectural lighting are beginning to show some dynamicpossibilities in the built environment beyond visual display screens (Bruges2007) and indicate future potential of alternative dynamic technologies.The changing environments through generation of local climate, the func-tion of buildings with changing organisational functions, all these instancesprovide examples of the ‘kinematic building’, where a building incorporatesmotion through use of dynamic technologies. For example, at a simple levelsolar heat collectors that follow the path of the sun across the sky wouldcreate a changing building form, and at a more complex technological level,windows may ‘act’ like super environmental filters that operate in a similarway to the iris of an eye. Light, heat, air and noise might be filtered by intel-ligent and dynamic membranes allowing buildings to develop ‘moods’ and‘personalities’ defined by physical changes in localised environments. Itmay well be that the architectural structures themselves could be made sig-nificantly more responsive to the people in the space. A building could beas beautifully responsive as a plant is physically to its environment, and asgraceful as a ballet dancer with gentle articulation of its components on anurban stage. This gives rise to dynamic architectural expression within thewhole public experience; designs involving choreographic expression withinarticulated artefacts, media displays, and people.

This perspective may empower the choreographer in transdisciplinaryprojects to influence designs of the built environment. When taken with anumber of other conceptions relating to the use of new technology that canbe incorporated into design this indicates emergence of new architecturalpossibilities.

ConclusionThe tentative linking of the disciplines of choreography, architecture andcomplex systems in the design of the built environment relies on a robusttransdisciplinary framework which can clearly define the character of theexchange between them. Through emphasising dynamics, interaction andrelationships between the behaviour of artefacts and their users, ratherthan 3D iconic form, it should be possible to expand the potential for col-laborative ventures between choreography and architecture, choreographersand architects. This dialogue can be driven by a purely practical process of



seeking solutions to a specific problem as well as by a generative interac-tion through which speculative situations (without immediate practicalapplications) emerge.

The IntelligentCITY project is an example of the 4D perspective where‘applied choreography’ has a crucial role within a speculative venture. In thisexchange there is a challenge to the boundaries of disciplines. Whether there isa practical outcome or not, this interdisciplinary dialogue produces expandedmeanings of existing terms from which disciplines can benefit in the future.With regards to the development of IntelligentCITY as a case study of an inter-disciplinary dialogue between choreography and architecture, the choreogra-pher involved benefited from considering the architectural perspective, whichcan be further explored and then applied in other future choreographic pro-jects. Similarly, the architectural perspective could be enriched with a numberof choreographic lenses which can be later used in other architectural contexts.

With notions of complexity science, particularly dealing with humanmovements within cityscapes, and this perspective on dynamics, can welook forward to buildings and built environments which respond kinaesthet-ically as well as efficiently? Can movement of commuters on pathways bedesigned to create a kinaesthetic spectacle? Is the ‘automatic door’ openingas one approaches the beginnings of buildings dancing with people? Couldtraffic flow through urban roads with automobiles embody choreographicideas through use of intelligent traffic signals interacting with the accelera-tion and braking of vehicles thus creating delightful movement as well asefficient traffic flow? Could we have subtle performances of buildings in ourcities equivalent to the aerial displays of the Red Arrow Jets of the Royal AirForce, or gymnasts at the Olympic Games? Should we add the term‘archobatics’ to ‘aerobatics’ and acrobatics’? This may be a metaphor too far,however the application of choreography within the built environment, inpublic spaces or its artefacts themselves, using new digital media and artic-ulated structures as well as people presents an opportunity for creativity.

The tentative integration of the disciplines touched upon in this paper –choreography, architecture and complexity science through design – is onlya beginning, where further theoretical nuances, especially from choreogra-phy and architecture, need further thought. However this is a step towardsa very interesting future for designing in the 21st Century.

ReferencesAshby, W.R.(1956), An Introduction to Cybernetics, London: Chapman & Hall.

Bourgine, P. and Johnson, J.(2006), ‘The Living Roadmap for Complex Systems’, ECONCE-CS Report, http://complexsystems.lri.fr/main/tiki-index.php?page=living+roadmap. Accessed 9 September 2007.

Brayer, M.A. and Simonot, B. (eds.) (2002), Archilab Orleans 2002 ConferenceProceedings, 31 May – 14 July, Orleans, France: Editions HYX.

Bruges, J. (2007), ‘Installations, Sculptures And Environments’, Web pages avail-able at http://www.jasonbruges.com/. Accessed 4 Sept 2007.

Bullivant, L. (2007), ‘4dSocial: Interactive Design Environments’, ArchitecturalDesign, Vol. 77, No. 4., London: John Wiley & Sons.

Bunschoten, R. (2000), Public Spaces, London: Black Dog Publishing.



Coniglio, M. and Stoppiello, D. (2007), ‘Troika Ranch’, website http://troikaranch.org/.Accessed 11 September 2009.

Galofaro, L. (1999), Digital Eisenman, An Office of the Electronic Era, Basel:Birkhauser – Publishers for Architecture.

Calresco.org (2007), ‘Complexity Theory: Actions for a Better World’, Web pages athttp://www.calresco.org/action.htm. Accessed 24 August 2007.

Edmonds (1999), Syntactic Measuring of Complexity, Ph.D. thesis University ofManchester, Department of Philosophy.

Helbing, D. (2005), ‘Self-organized pedestrian crowd dynamics: experiments, simu-lations, and design solutions’, Transportation Science, 39: 1, pp. 1–24.

Horgan (1995), ‘From complexity to perplexity’, Scientific American, 272, pp. 74–79.

Johnson, J.H. (2006), ‘Hypernetworks for reconstructing the dynamics of multilevelsystems’, Proc. European Conference on Complex Systems, Oxford University, 25 –29 September 2006.

McCullough, M. (2004), Digital Grounds: Architecture, Pervasive Computing andEnvironmental Knowing, Cambridge: MIT Press.

Jordan, S. (1992), Striding Out: Aspects of Contemporary and New Dance in Britain,London: Dance Books.

Porter, T. (1997), The Architect’s Eye: Visualization and depiction of space in architec-ture, London: E & FN Spon.

Robertson, A. (1977), A road sign warning of close-following driving behaviour: formand message design, TRRL Report, SR 324, Transport and Road ResearchLaboratory, UK.

——— (1994), ‘4D Design: Interaction of Disciplines at a new design frontier’ DMIJournal, Summer, pp. 26–30.

——— (1993), ‘Speculation on the Future of Engineering the Environment’. Paperin Proc. Environmental Engineering Conference, 21 September 1993, Leicester, UK.

——— (1995), ‘4D Design Futures: some concepts and complexities’, in A. Robertson(ed.), 4D Dynamics: An International Interdisciplinary Conference on Design andResearch Methodologies for Dynamic Form, Leicester: De Montfort University,pp. 149–153. Also available at http://www.4d-dynamics.net/guest-ar.html.Accessed 5 July 2007.

Robertson, A. and Woudhuysen, J. (2001), ‘4D Design: Applied Performance in theExperience Economy’, Body Space & Technology Journal (On-line), 1:1, pp. 2001,Brunel University. Available at http://people.brunel.ac.uk/bst/vol0101/index.html.Accessed 5 July 07.

Robertson, A. and Hutera, D. (1988), The Dance Handbook, Essex, England: Longman.

Rubidge, S. (2007), ‘Sensedigital’, website http://www.sensedigital.co.uk/ accessed11/07/09.

Simon, H. (1969), Sciences of the Artificial, Cambridge: MIT Press.

Tufnell, M. and Crickmay, C. (1990), Body Space Image: Notes towards improvisationand performance, London: Dance Books.

Vincent, G. and Peacock, J. (1985), The Automated Building, Architectural Press, London.

Suggested citationRobertson, A., Lycouris, S., & Johnson, J. (2007), ‘An approach to the design of

interactive environments, with reference to choreography, architecture, thescience of complex systems and 4D design’, International Journal of PerformanceArts and digital Media 3: 2&3, pp. 281–294, doi: 10.1386/padm.3.2&3.281/1



Contributor detailsAlec Robertson of the Dept of Imaging & Communication Design at De MontfortUniversity, Leicester UK, and also an independent consultant is interested in dis-semination problems of design research, innovation modelling and 4D design. Hehas organised numerous design research events – where some archives are atwww.dmu.ac.uk/4dd/. Contact: De Montfort University, The Gateway, Leicester. LE19BH, UK.E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Sophia Lycouris is Director of the Graduate Research School at the EdinburghCollege of Art (Edinburgh, UK). Her research is concerned with the use of interac-tive technologies in interdisciplinary choreographic projects and the role of choreo-graphic approaches in interdisciplinary projects which address issues of movementin the social and public space. Contact: Edinburgh College of Art, Lauriston Place,Edinburgh, EH3 9DF, UK.E-mail: [email protected]

Jeffrey Johnson is Professor of Complexity Science and Design in the Department ofInnovation and Design at the Open University. He is principal investigator of theDesigning for the 21st Century Cluster ‘Embracing Complexity in Design 2’ fundedjointly by the AHRC and EPSRC. Contact: Open University, Walton Hall, MiltonKeynes. MK7 6AA, UK.E-mail: [email protected]



Index – Volume 3

Bailey, H., Ersatz dancing: Negotiating the live and mediated in digital performancepractice, pp. 151–165.

Barkun, D. & Gilson-Ellis, J., Orienteering with double moss: The cartographies ofhalf/angel’s The Knitting Map, pp. 183–195.

Bayliss, A., McKinney, J., Popat, S., & Wallis, M., Emergent objects: Designing throughperformance, pp. 269–279.

Cham, K., Reconstruction theory: Designing the space of possibility in complex media,pp. 253–267.

deLahunta, S. & Bevilacqua, F., Sharing descriptions of movement, pp. 3–16.

Doyle, D. & Kim, T., Embodied Narrative: The Virtual Nomad and the Meta Dreamer,pp. 209–222.

Everitt, D. & Robertson, A., Emergence and complexity: Some observations and reflec-tions on transdisciplinary research involving performative contexts and new media,pp. 239–252.

Fenton, D., Hotel Pro Forma’s The Algebra of Place; destabilising the original and thecopy in intermedial contemporary performance, pp. 169–181.

Fenemore, A., Dialogical interaction and social participation in physical and virtual per-formance space, pp. 37–58.

Goodman, L., Performing self beyond the body: Replay culture replayed, pp. 103–122.

Ladly, M., Being there: Heidegger and the phenomenon of presence in telematic perfor-mance, pp. 139–150.

MacCallum-Stewart, E., The warfare of the imagined – building identities in SecondLife, pp. 197–208.

Morie, J.F., Performing in (virtual) spaces: Embodiment and being in virtual environ-ments, pp. 123–138.

Robertson, A., Lycouris, S., & Johnson, J., An approach to the design of interactiveenvironments, with reference to choreography, architecture, the science of complexsystems and 4D design, pp. 281–294.

Sheridan, J., Bayliss, A., & Bryan-Kinns, N., The interior life of iPoi: objects that enticewitting transitions in performative behaviour, pp. 17–36.

Stockburger, A., Playing the third place: Spatial modalities in contemporary game envi-ronments, pp. 223–236.

Taylor, F. Scott, Metaphors and mirrors in digital performance: Dress rehearsal for socialautism, pp. 59–81.

295PADM 3 (2&3) Index. ©Intellect Ltd 2007.

PADM_3-(2-3)_18-Index 11/28/07 3:50 PM Page 295

PADM_3-(2-3)_18-Index 11/28/07 3:50 PM Page 296


Performance Arts and DigitalMedia

International Journal of Performance A

rts and Digital M

edia | Volume Three N

umber Tw

o and Three

ISSN 1479-4713

3.2&3

intellectwww.intellectbooks.com

Volume Three N

umber Tw

o and Three intellect Journ

als | Theatre & Perform

ance


Performance Arts and Digital Media Volume 3 Number 2&3 – 2007

Special Issue: Performance and play: Technologies of presence in performance, gaming and experience design (Guest editor: Lizbeth Goodman with Deveril, Esther MacCallum-Stewart & Alec Robertson)

Editorial

97–99 Performing and Being (There) live and online Lizbeth Goodman

Introduction

101–102 Part 1: Performance futures: Bodies in movement, viewed through multiple screens Introduced by Lizbeth Goodman

Article

103–121 Performing self beyond the body: Replay culture replayed Lizbeth Goodman123–138 Performing in (virtual) spaces: Embodiment and being in virtual environments Jacquelyn Ford Morie 139–150 Being there: Heidegger and the phenomenon of presence in telematic performance Martha Ladly151–165 Ersatz dancing: Negotiating the live and mediated in digital performance practice Helen Bailey

Introduction

167–168 Part 2: First, second and third spaces: Digital narratives and the spaces of performance Introduced by Lizbeth Goodman

Article

169–181 Hotel Pro Forma’s The Algebra of Place; destabilising the original and the copy in intermedial contemporary performance

David Fenton183–195 Orienteering with double moss: The cartographies of half/angel’s The Knitting Map Deborah Barkun and Jools Gilson-Ellis197–208 The warfare of the imagined – building identities in Second Life Dr. Esther MacCallum-Stewart209–222 Embodied narrative: The virtual nomad and the meta dreamer Denise Doyle and Taey Kim

223–236 Playing the third place: Spatial modalities in contemporary game environments Axel Stockburger

Introduction

237–238 Part 3: Complexity: The theory into the practice Introduced by Alec Robertson

Article

239–252 Emergence and complexity: Some observations and reflections on transdisciplinary research involving performative contexts and new media

Dave Everitt and Alec Robertson 253–267 Reconstruction theory: Designing the space of possibility in complex media Karen Cham269–279 Emergent objects: Designing through performance Alice Bayliss, Joslin McKinney, Sita Popat and Mick Wallis281–294 An approach to the design of interactive environments, with reference to choreography, architecture,

the science of complex systems and 4D design Alec Robertson, Sophia Lycouris and Jeffrey Johnson

295 Index

9 771479 471004

ISSN 1479-4713 0 3

international journal of performance arts and digital media: volume: 3 | issue: 2-3

Documents