The computer generated dance script of John Lansdown is properly applied to activity theory. Basically, the subject can match with dancers who do ballet dance, and before having performance, they are well-acquainted with the notation on a paper provided by computer, and interpret between two peaks of the movements (Figure 1) with music as instruments, namely the notation and music. In this respect, audiences as objects watch the show. As a result, these steps for the performance lead to the outcome as having an astonishing and unexpected experience by watching the performance (Figure 2).
(Figure 1) a sketch material from research curator ‘Simone Gristwood’.
(Figure 2) The computer-generated dance script of John Lansdown is applied to the first generation of activity theory.
In addition, the formula (Figure 2) can be expand with three elements of the second generation (Figure 3). When the dancers perform with the notations, there are several ‘rules’ to have to do such as keeping following the poses the entire peaks of the movements as well as wearing formal garment of ballet dancers for the performance. Secondly, in terms of ‘community’, in macro level, this is highly important for the outcome on account of the fact that the community in this context embodies a group to be able to form a social consensus, namely formation of sympathy. Ballerinas undoubtedly ought to persuade the precise meaning of the performance and what they want to convey and communicate with the audiences through the collaboration between computer-generated dance script and their dance. Lastly, when it comes to ‘division of labour’, it is plainly classified. Computer generate dance codes on paper, and dancers become proficient at it as well as making dances between the peaks of the movement through much practice. Furthermore, composers flexibly endeavour to compose background music in order to create flawless final performance.
(Figure 3) The expanded form of figure 2 applied to the second generation.
Activity theory fundamentally has a triangle shape which can effectively explain the core value. Largely, there are two generations except an expanded form of the second generation developed from the 1920s. The first generation established by Lev Vygotsky who a pioneer of Soviet psychological activity theory, consists of three points of the triangle shape: instruments, subject and object (Figure 1). The three points organisationally interact with each other, and an outcome is coming out through the direction of the object (CSAT, nd). Subject specifically represents individual, dyad and group, and the subject has a fusion with instruments, namely tools such as machines, writing, speaking, gesture, architecture, music and so on. Lastly, object embodies motive bringing outcome. To sum it up, for instance, a subject can be an educator who has a responsibility to nurture students as appropriate members of society. In this sense, the object representing motive is for the purpose to support them broaden their horizon such as learning styles of living for their future. Finally, tools such as textbooks, educational visual materials like videos or infographics are used to be able to effectively help the object. As a result, the student educated by the tutor will be suitable members of society through the method of the first generation of activity theory.
(Figure 1) The first generation of activity theory
The second generation was proposed by Yrjö Engeström who was the Finnish educational researcher based on Leontiev’s framework1 in the 1980s (Figure 2). The generation had an aim to represent social and collective elements by adding the components of community, rules and division of labour. This theory was concentrating on a macro level as the ‘social entities’ (Kaptelinin, nd) in preference to a micro level just focusing on the individual or agent operating with instruments.
(Figure 2) The second generation of activity theory
Kaptelinin, V. (nd) Activity Theory. Available at https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-2nd-ed/activity-theory (Accessed: 28 December 2015).
The Centre for Socio-Cultural and Activity Theory (CSAT). (nd) Models and principles of Activity Theory. University of Bath. The Learning in and for Interagency Working Project.
1. Leontiev provided a clear distinction between object-oriented activity and goal-directed actions. Goal-directed actions are much more temporary in nature and may be a step that subjects take in the process of participating in an object-oriented activity. Goal-directed actions often are individually focused and have less of a collective consequence to the community-based object-oriented activity (Leontiev 1974), and may be a means for individuals or groups of individuals to participate in the object-oriented activity.
In order to comprehend activity theory, we need to look at Human-computer Interaction (HCI) which is covering the theory with other categories. What is HCI? Where does HCI stem from?
In the later 1970s, with the advent of personal computer (PC), everyone was the potential users of PC, and the issue was emerging in terms of the usability of it for people who wanted to use the computer as a tool.
At the end of the 1970s, the wide-ranging task of ‘cognitive science’, which has an interaction of a conceptual framework between the process of management of ‘computer’ and the mental process of ‘human being’, had formed. In addition, there was an endeavour to research ‘cognitive engineering’ which analyse, design and evaluate the complex system between ‘human’ and ‘technology’ (Carroll, nd).
HCI is a part of the research ‘cognitive science’ focusing on ‘interactions’ or ‘interfaces’ between ‘humans’ and ‘computers’ (Figure 1). HCI can be classified as four categories such as user-centred design, activity theory, principles of user interface design and value sensitive design (Figure 2).
(Figure 1) The defination of Human-comuper Interaction
(Figure 2) The categories of Human-comuper Interaction
Carroll, J. (nd) Human Computer Interaction. Available at https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-2nd-ed/human-computer-interaction-brief-intro#heading_UIST_-_Symposium_on_User_Interface_Software_and_Technology_page_35313 (Accessed: 22 December 2015).
A paper ‘The Computer in Choreography’ (Lansdown, 1978), provided from the curator, has been including and conveying a significant clue to be able to understand the core value of his project, with some sentences below including relevant keywords.
1. Final outcome could be seen as a genuine fusion between computer procedure and human imagination.
2. It finally appeared that, by devising frameworks which, in some sense, outlined only the important “peaks” of movements rather than the complete movements themselves, I would not only be able to sidestep some of the notational and computational difficulties but also be able to concentrate more on the procedural aspects of composition.
3. In this system the dancer needs to be given, for each peak of movement, the body configuration, the position on stage, and the direction of facing. These can be called the position-wise factors. The time-wise factor is simply the time between one peak and the next measured in beats.
4. She should compose the linking movements between one peak and the next within the constraints of the timewise factor.
5. The computer provides the key-frames and The dancer, the in-betweening.
In this context, the aim can be defined as an exploration of the possibility of the collaboration between ‘computer procedure’ and human ‘imagination’.
(Figure 1) The Computer in Choreography (Lansdown, 1978)
Dance scripts were automatically generated by computer software set up by his computer programming and were printed out physically on papers (figure 1-2). After this process, he had collaborations and performances with ballet dancers by using the notation (figure 3-4).
(Figure 1) Landsdown, J. (1978) The Benesh ballet notation, devised by Joan and Rudolph Benesh, portrays in stylistic form all the positions of the dancer’s arms and legs.
(Figure 2) Lansdown, J. (1978) The Computer in Choreography: Putting a series of Benesh notations from left to right makes a dance script. Each set of simultaneous movements is analogous to a key frame of an animated movie. System Simulation Ltd.
(Figure 3) Mason, C. (2009) Photograph of R John Lansdown with dancers from the Royal Ballet School rehearsing computer-generated dance notation, 1969. EVA 2009 London Conference.
(Figure 4) Advertisement of the show.
Among the practitioners of Computer Art, there was a prominent artist ‘John Lansdown’ who was interested in Computer Art, and was absorbed in researching diverse practices regarding architecture, performance art and dance from 1960 to 1990 (Figure 1). In addition, he was a co-founder of the ‘Computer Arts Society’ (Figure 2) which has dealt with the whole field of it in the UK along with Alan Sutcliffe and George Mallen from 1968 (Gristwood, 2012).
(Figure 1) John Lansdown using a Teletype (an electro-mechanical typewriter), about 1969-1970. Courtesy the estate of John Lansdown
(Figure 2) Logo of Computer Art Society Available at http://computer-arts-society.com/ (Accessed: 9 December 2015
Gristwood, S. (2012) John Lansdown Project. Available at http://adri.mdx.ac.uk/lansdown-project (Accessed: 28 December 2015).
Computer Art is a wide-ranging word which describes works using the computer as a tool or medium from around the late 1950s. It does not have a tendency to define it with one precise aesthetic trend even though they have been formed as a group working in a particular way. Early computer artists demonstrated an enormous interest in terms of exploring the limitation of the machinery with the new technology (Victoria and Albert Museum, nd).
Mark Wilson, ‘e4708’ (detail), 2008. Museum no. E.535-2008. Given by Mark Wilson.
Georg Nees, ‘Plastik 1’, 1965-8. Museum no. E.61-2008. Given by the Computer Arts Society, supported by System Simulation Ltd, London.
Installation view of Event One (1969) at the Royal College of Art (detail). Photo: Peter Hunot. Courtesy of the Computer Arts Society, London.
Cover of ‘Page’ issue 45, 1980. Courtesy of the Computer Arts Society, London.
David Em, ‘Aku’ (detail), 1977. Courtesy the artist
Victoria and Albert Museum. (nd) The V&A’s Computer Art Collections. Available at http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/t/v-and-a-computer-art-collections/ (Accessed: 25 November 2015).