In retrospect it was very clear that what we were looking at was not just the development of an interactive performance interface, that would liberate and bring two separate art forms together, but the introduction and development of a new performance practice and a new integrated art form with its own discrete systems of dialogue and its own language patterns.

In the beginning, many of our problems and dissatisfactions arose because either consciously or unconsciously we were attempting to hang onto the disciplines and techniques and working practices of our independent art forms; dance and music, ever hopeful of some kind of fruitful collision of opposites enhanced by the relative proximity that new technology seemed to offer. More often than not our outlook on the pieces was coloured by the fact that we were still looking at the work through the extremely prejudiced aesthetic gaze of a dance practitioner and a composer attempting to pioneer new practice within our respective art forms. As a result neither one of us felt that our particular art form was in anyway being enhanced through the use of new technology, or indeed through this type of collaboration. Of course there were moments of brilliance in the work, and at these times we were able to glimpse the immense possibilities – the articulate fluidity of dance and music, and particularly noticeable at those moments was a sense that we were looking at a different kind of creative presence on stage – something which had depth and a kind of sensuality which engaged the audience, causing the viewer to see beyond the simple cause-and-effect of interactivity for its own sake. At such moments we forgot about what the technology was doing, we forgot to look for the causality and instead began to witness the phenomena of ‘dynamic Performative osmosis’.

Spurred on by the encouraging reactions to the work from audiences, we decided to persist, and address some of the physical problems that had become manifest with the use of interactive technology, this then became the start of the Bodycoder project.

3.  The Bodycoder System

The aim of this new project was to create a performance mechanism which would enable the movements of a dancer to affect, manipulate and control all aspects of a multi-media performance, comprising of both audio and video material. In an attempt to address the problem of the physical gap between the dancer and the sensors we gave ourselves the brief of developing a robust and reliable kinetic interface to be placed on the body, which was powerful enough to offer real-time control, and compact and tough enough to withstand the rigours of human movement. In addition the system had to allow the performer full-mobility, which also included access to the total geography of a stage or performance environment. This meant that the sensor-to-performer interface could not be hard-wired (Fig. 1).

In order to develop a suitable electronic interface with the kinetic qualities of dance, a variety of tactile and movement sensors were investigated. Each of the sensors investigated were placed on the body of a dancer on various joints and points of twist and rotation.