Using Laban Movement Analysis to create a framework of interactions [Research & Theory]

This blog post has been published in the context of the Computational Art-based Research and Theory module, part of the MA in Computational Arts I am currently doing at Goldsmiths.

Photograph of Valerie Preston-Dunlop in an icosahedron at the Art of Movement Studio, Manchester, 1947–1949 (Laban Library and Archive)

As part of my final project for the Research & Theory module, I want to explore the possibilities of computing to encourage people to move and dance. In parallel, I also want to explore the politics in place in such systems and what it means to be controlled or influenced by the machine, or by another human through the proxy of technology.

You can read more about the research project here.

Exploring digital stimuli and movement

To answer some of my questions, I want to explore what type of stimuli can generate what type of movement when applied to non-trained dancers. To do so, I have been thinking of exploring the possibilities of different digital systems, ranging from simple instructions displayed on a screen to fully interactive solutions.

Exploring those systems can be an endless quest, so in the context of this first phase of research, I will limit the experiments to some simple technologies, building quick prototypes to answer the initial questions. After this first phase, I am intending to expand this project to a larger piece of work.

Using Laban Movement Analysis as a foundation to generate and observe movement

Two of the first questions I would like to explore are:

• What type of interactivity can make people move/dance?
• What types of interactions/stimuli/technologies are the most effective for what type of movement?

As a way to structure my experiments, using the Laban Movement Analysis theories came as a natural way to build a framework around body movement and cut its components into smaller pieces.

Key parameters of Laban Movement Analysis

The other interesting aspect of the Laban approach is that it was not meant to be used for analysing dancers’ movements only but for it has been created for describing, visualising, interpreting and documenting human movement in general. And it has been developed by observing humans doing everyday life activities at first. This makes it even more relevant for this research project as the purpose is to involve non-trained dancers.

Categories of stimuli

On the other side, I have been thinking about the type of stimuli that could be used and how technology can support that.

I have grouped them under the following categories:

• Direct instruction / Written — Telling them what to do
• Follow visual instructions — Showing them what to do
• Auditive — Using sounds and music
• Kinetic — Stimuli applied directly onto the body
• Interactive / Achieve a goal — Feedback / Response or game
• Inspiration / Intention — Using psychological stimuli

Building the framework

Using the movement analysis approach on one side and the type of stimuli on the other side, I started creating a matrix of potential experiments. I also looked at existing improvisation or movement exploration techniques to think about how to reproduce those approaches digitally.

This led me to the following thinking process:

1. Laban parameter
2. What type of improv / creative movement exercise would I use in a dance workshop?
3. How to generate the same effect with technology?
4. What type of stimuli?
5. What type of prototype and experiment would that lead to?

The work-in-progress framework is available here.

Movement framework — Laban / Stimuli matrix

Planning the experiments

Based on this framework, the next steps will be to realise two series of experiments, with individuals and in a group.

The first one will be based on 1-to-1 sessions where each participant will be exposed to the different stimuli. I will observe their reaction and the movements generated.

Each prototype will be evaluated using the following criteria:

• Did the stimuli generate a movement?
• Was the movement repeatable and/or similar between the participants?
• Was the movement “interesting” for future choreographic exploitation?

Based on this evaluation, I will decide which experiments I want to push further or improve for the next round of sessions.

The second phase will be to test those stimuli on a group of people and see if the movements generated differ now the individuals are surrounded by other people and explore the group dynamic.

Discussions and interviews will also happen after each session to collect qualitative data on the perception of the system from all participants.