Disembodied prosthetics.

Background

Movement, Mimesis, and Mimicry is an ongoing research project at the Research Institute at The University of the Arts Helsinki that investigates how non-representational kinetic sculptures can be imbued with human-like movement patterns and how these characteristics modulate the experience of such sculptures.

The investigation explores if kinetic sculptures can inspire the experience of mimetic recognition of human movement patterns and whether such recognition can intensify onlooker engagement by affording affective and emotional responses.

Experiences of kinship and relation between audience and artwork are of particular interest.

This approach is used as artistic motivation and guiding principle for creating kinetic sculptures and developing choreographic and compositional material for performances featuring the sculptures, potentially alongside human performer(s).

How?

This process uses motion capture data from a human performer, extracting key characteristics such as movement density, acceleration and deceleration curves, and variations in limb configurations over time.

This data is, in turn, used to control movement powered by actuators driving the kinetic sculptures. By doing so the project aims to investigate whether some remnant of “humanity” will be recognizable or perceivable even when performed by completely non-anthropomorphic kinetic sculptures.

The kinetic sculptures can perform autonomously but are also intended to perform alongside the human performer whose movements they mimic.

Impetus

The impetus for this project is the notion that physical movement, as it is used in kinetic sculptural practice, can foster a sense of relation towards the artwork that deepens engagement.

This project builds on my earlier works , particularly Emotional Machines – Composing for Unstable Media (Thorolf Thuestad, 2022). This work explores how physical movement in non-representational kinetic objects may afford affective and emotional responses. My time with the Oslo-based art collective Verdensteatret1 with the strongly transmedial and kinetic approach we had to the productions I was part of with them, is also a formative experience that has inspired my current practice.

Intent

When I encounter kinetic art, I often experience a sense of relation towards the work. I attribute this to my tendency to associate physical movement with liveliness and intent. It seems my disposition is to interpret movement as an expression of agency.

I experience myself as having agency and, by extension, my movements as being expressions of agency. In the context of my artistic practice, I project this experience onto the kinetic object when I observe their movements. For me, this creates a sense of familiarity, as I relate the object's movements to my own.

The mapping of certain characteristics of a human performer's movement onto the kinetic sculptures allows me to consider them extensions of the performer's body. The sculptures embody the performer’s movements, creating a disembodied presence.

Although physically detached from the performer, the sculptures move as if they are fragments of the performer, extending their presence beyond their body, detached but together.

Physically removed from the performer, the sculptures strive to be external representations of certain aspects of the performer's bodily movements while bearing little or no physical resemblance.

The sculptures mimic the performer's movements as best they can but inevitably cannot help but reimagine them. Their physical capabilities, proportions, and somewhat limited structural complexity when compared to a human body — combined with factors such as the power density of their actuators, speed, precision and physical rigidity, grant them very different movement affordances.

Extending bodies

This project suggests that certain remnants of human movement characteristics will be perceivable as a presence in the actions of the kinetic sculptures despite their lack of similitude. Doing so becomes a means to consider the ontological borders of body, self and representation. The kinetic sculptures’ mimicry of the performer’s movements may be regarded as both a displacement and an expansion of those movements.

Distribution of the performer’s self beyond themselves and across and into different physical forms is achieved by imagining the sculptures as prosthetics that the performer utilizes to extend themselves through the abstracted and re-contextualized movement patterns performed by the sculptures.

The sculptures serve as an abstract re-imagining of the body’s capabilities, appearing detached and reimagined while retaining some causal affinity with the performer's body. The physical detachment underlines them as separate entities, each imposing on their shared space through their movements. Their connectedness is not physical, the sculpture-performer affinity is through a sharing of characteristics transcending their physical incongruity. The sculptures unfold certain aspects of the performers’ mind-body beyond its boundaries.

By mimicking specific characteristics of the performer, the sculptures emphasize how the interacting agencies continuously create interconnectedness.

Through this externalized embodiment of movement, I hope an audience will experience the sculptures as familiar yet strange, humanlike while patently inhuman.

The replicant and the replicated – Inscription

This research is actualized in the time-based performance Inscription.2 

The performance feature the same human performer, Alwynne Pritchard, who provided the movements that were collected and mapped onto the partaking sculptures.

The performers’ identity, as expressed in their movements, is on some level extended into the sculptures. Though the physical boundaries of the human performer and the sculptures may seem straightforward, I hope a different sense of relation between the sculptures and the human performer will arise as a sense of mysterious connection between the two. With the human performer and the kinetic sculptures sharing a performative space, I hope for the audience to engage with the concept of disembodied prosthetics in a direct and visceral way.

The sculptures, among other things, serve as an extension of the performer’s abilities, providing additional limbs to express certain aspects of themselves. However, this expression may occur beyond their conscious control.

Physically separate from the performer and possessing distinct capabilities, the sculptures carry only a remnant or echo of the performer’s identity. They bring their own unique characteristics and abilities, existing as independent entities alongside the performer while simultaneously extending aspects of the performer’s self.

I have described this process as a transfer of characteristics from the performer to the sculptures, resembling a one-way extraction of 'value' from the performer. However, it is clear that this extraction also creates a context that influences the performer’s actions, establishing a feedback loop. I am convinced that intentional performance, in conjunction with the kinetic mechanisms as proposed here, generates the experience of resonance with the performer’s experience of physicality and movement, leading to a reactive state. When these sculptures engage in actions that the performer relate to themselves, it also becomes an exploration of their disembodied self.

Non – representation?

It is an explicit goal that the sculptures be non-representational. By this, I mean that they are not immediately recognizable as being or mimicking a thing or mechanism that would be known to an observer. Through this lack of recognizability, I hope that they can inspire an observer to actively speculate about what the sculptures are and what their intentions may be.

The attempt is to inspire absent realities by actively seeking that their physical forms evoke a sense of the ambiguous, encouraging any recognition to be primarily directed toward their movement rather than their representation.

Although not explicitly intended, this extension or displacement of the performers’ characteristics and physical boundaries may be taken as hinting at transhumanism. In a sense, the sculptures extend the capabilities and presence of the human performer, aligning with the idea of using technology to enhance or replace human abilities. However, since the sculptures are autonomous and not directly controlled by the performer, it is equally accurate to say that it is the performer will be extending the sculptures.

For me, the notion of sculptures as disembodied prosthetics becomes a meditation on embodiment itself.

Perspectives on mimesis and difference

In the 20th century luminaries such as Derrida and Deleuze sought to investigate mimesis further.

Derrida is critical of understanding mimesis as a representation of a reality external to the representation itself since this presupposes that there is, in fact, an original stable reality to be imitated, represented or mimicked. With this, he challenged the binary distinction between the original and imitation. Representation is, for Derrida, always involved in the construction of reality itself. (Derrida & Derrida, 1993) It is, he argues, always caught up in the play of differences - différance. Any attempt to imitate or represent something is always marked by difference, by the irreducible gap between the original and its copy.

A primary characteristic of attempting representation becomes what the representation is not. It is the difference between the representation and the original (or what the original was when the representation was created) that is its fundamental characteristic. Therefore, I think of any representation as being defined by what it lacks (Thuestad, 2022), which Derrida might broadly describe as the trace.

Derrida would argue that there is no fully present original and that every original is marked by other things. It is interwoven with dependencies on prior systems of signs, differences and relations. Always something that itself is part of a system of other representations. In this sense, the original and the mimetic representation are not distinct; they form a system of representations where identity and meaning are never localized or fully present since any “original” is itself dependent on a system of traces.

With that in mind and aligning with my own outlook, mimesis is not something derivative; it is part of any process in which meaning or reality is constructed. It is not something that flows from an original to an imitation but rather a condition of possibility for both.

Deleuze is also critical of the concept of representation that he associates with mimesis for reasons I interpret as related to Derrida’s. He also opposes the assumption that there is a pre-existing static original to be imitated. Deleuze sees the concepts of representation and mimesis as limits to creativity since they must always refer back to some template. He emphasizes difference as a creative and productive force. With his focus on immanence rather than transcendence, he places the existence of all things on a level field with no privileged original to be imitated. Deleuze(for a period before abandoning the notion (Mayell, 2014)) preferred his own version of the concept of simulacrum over mimesis. For Deleuze, simulacrum is something that is not mere copies or simulations, but rather an unfolding of the virtual. Simulacra becomes a generative force that produces actualities. They are productive, creative forces that generate difference and new forms of reality rather than reproductions or representations. In the end, Deleuze rejects the notion of a fixed point of reference and, as such, the possibility of representation in the traditional sense. Reality is not something to be represented but something always in the process of becoming, constantly transforming and evolving.

The experience of something as representational of something else can, for Deleuze, be explained through the concepts of simulacrum and difference, exchanging the hierarchy of original and copy with a more dynamic and immanent process of becoming. Acknowledging that we often encounter things that claim a relationship to something else, images, models and so on, he would argue that these are simulacra, that they are creative expressions of difference that have no need for an external or transcendent original.

Meaning

This is an outlook that I broadly share as a basis for my practice. I find that in an artistic context, this approach to representation highlights that my artistic production is not about creating representations but rather about creating new realities. Art in such a framework is the creative act of difference that allows new expressions in the flow of becoming. For me, the interplay between recognizing something as related or representative of something else and the apparent discrepancies and otherness of that thing from what is recognized as being mimicked is often a leading facilitator of artistic experience. In that light, the sculptures can, in fact, never mimic anything but rather become a force that produces their reality in the tension between their distinctiveness and their attempt at engaging in mimicry. With this in mind, I hope for the sculptures to be defined not by what they attempt to be or mimic but rather by what they are not.

Building on these insights from Derrida and Deleuze as I understand them, the kinetic sculptures in Inscription become tools to investigate the meaning of (attempted)mimesis, difference, and the creation of new realities. They do not simply mimic the human performer’s movements as mere imitations but rather engage in an act of transformation or the unfolding of simulacra. While the sculptures share some movement characteristics with the performer, they cannot avoid their unique presence and explicit distinctness. The difference between the performer and sculptures is not a gap to be filled but a productive force that both facilitates and is the artistic expression. In line with how I understand Derrida's idea that representation is always marked by difference, these sculptures are not lesser imitations but agents of their own (whose activities include an attempt at mimicry) intertwined with certain qualities in the performer’s movements yet separate from it. They seek out the space between familiarity and the uncanny as a creative force of becoming to generate meaning through the productive tension between what is recognized and what is other.

This tension, grounded in difference, attracts my and, I hope, the audience’s engagement.

Movement with intent, movement without intent

I associate movement with intent, as a sensual endeavour, and as part of the cognitive process that translates my goals or desires into physical actions.

It is also a medium and mechanism of cognition and an extension of those cognitive thinking functions. The latter is an outlook that resonates with how Sheets-Johnstone emphasizes the lived experiential quality of movement, suggesting that our understanding of intent, both in ourselves and when observed in others, is rooted in our embodied experience. (Sheets-Johnstone, 2011)

Alva Noë, with his enactivist credo that “perception is not something that happens to us, or in us, it is something we do” (Noë, 2006), also feels pertinent to how I experience affect from my practice involving kinetic sculptures.

For me, movement involves physical material, usually my body, and also what I experience as intent (for movement not guided by the parasympathetic nervous system).

When an intent to move is formed, it is, according to Kandel et al., translated into a motor plan engaging several sectors of the brain to coordinate and execute the movement. Such motor plans are involved in all our physical activities (Kandel et al., 2021). However, the experience of a given movement is greatly influenced by our familiarity with similar physical actions. I experience typing this article as fulfilling my intent of capturing the thoughts spurred on by wilful engagement with the topics under discussion (movement and intent). The actual physical movement involved in doing so, I experience primarily sensually: the slightly rubbery feeling of the cheap computer keyboard I am typing on, some strain in my wrists, the sound of the keys, a sense of joy if I manage to type out a sentence at a particularly rapid rate enjoying experiencing my fingers as particularly speedy today.

According to Kandel et al., my ability to fulfil this intent and experience its sensual implications is facilitated by the existence of a motor plan as a neurological mechanism. In this example of typing on a computer keyboard, the motor plan is experienced as intuitive. An intuitiveness stemming from our ability to integrate sensory input, muscle memory, and fine motor coordination into an almost subconscious process. This allows me to experience typing as primarily a sensual experience and as an expression of my intent to communicate.

Thinking back to the time when I first started typing, the experience was very different. Back then, I was consciously thinking about each letter or keystroke, primarily focusing on the kinematics of the movements and topology of the keyboard. Now, the experience of typing is akin to thinking with my inner voice, as motor programs developed through repetition and practice are executed, guiding the movements of my hands and fingers smoothly and efficiently (at least I like to think it is) in what now feels like an automatic process.

The physical actions are broadly the same, but my experience is radically different.

Accepting, as I do, that perception is an active process of engagement (a creative one at that) means that the experience of movement is part of cognition. Physical actions are an expression of intent but also a means for cognition. We cannot perform a physical movement without being cognizant of it. The motor plans guiding these movements are not just neural mechanisms but part of ongoing embodied interactions. Activities characterized by fluent embodied performance, such as typing, become thinking through action. Cognition and motor activity are co-present and interdependent. Typing is done both to communicate but also as a way of thinking through the hands.

When observing movement in others, or as it pertains to this project, in kinetic sculptures, I am not simply experiencing as a detached onlooker. I find myself feeling actively involved in the process. My understanding of movement shapes my perception through my own embodied experiences. I must do the perception by drawing on sensorimotor knowledge. Perceiving the sculptures becomes an active process where my bodily experiences of movement afford me an understanding of the sculpture's actions by relating to my own sense of intent and presence when moving. Doing this perception is a blend of active cognitive engagement and embodied experience. I am a co-creator of meaning, working with the sculptures rather than being an external observer.

Technical implementation

Motion capture and analysis

The process of extracting human movement patterns from the project's human performer, Alwynne Pritchard, has begun with the development of choreographic material. We started by looking at movements tied to daily tasks. Then, we moved on to more typical dance-like material. The idea was to experiment with different movement types to see how they would be experienced when “performed” by a kinetic sculpture.

For the subsequent movement sessions, I brought in a small kinetic sculpture I had created. It served as a starting point for exploring different movement patterns. The sculpture consists of several limbs mounted on a round base around which an arm provides lighting. For this session, I prepared a 9-minute preprogrammed movement segment. The performer used this segment as an improvisational partner.

After the initial choreography sessions to create movement material, we then proceeded to gather movement data.

This process involves the use of a motion capture system. In our case, we used a Noitom Perception Neuron 323 full-body system with gloves to capture finger movement as well as the larger body limbs. We recorded the motion capture data into Noitoms Axis Neuron software and exported as BVH files from that software.

We primarily focused on capturing short movement segments. These could be single gestures or a brief collection of gestures, with a view to starting to build a library of captured movement segments.

Analysing the data

The data was cleaned up and synchronized with video documentation from the motion capture session using Blender.

The video was included and synchronized to the motion capture data so that we can later “compare” the sculpture's activity to that of the performer and experience both, each by themselves and side by side, to consider what level of communal resonance could be experienced.4

The BVH files are analyzed and translated into a JSON format so that the kinetic sculptures can utilize the motion data.

The JSON file includes metadata about the animation (frame rate, total frames, source file). The JSON file is generated by a Python program that takes the extracted BHV file as input and writes the movement of the specified joints over time. The joints that will be extracted from the source BVH file are given as parameters when initializing the program. For each frame in the BVH file, the values for the specified joints are written as a numbered entry in the JSON file.

In addition, a parameter named total_displacement is calculated for each joint. The total_displacement provides a single value that indicates the overall movement of a joint from its neutral position, regardless of which axis the rotation occurred on. This calculates the Euclidean distance between two points in 3D space: the current joint and reference angles given as parameters as the program starts.

This value encapsulates the total movement of a multi-axis joint, such as the shoulder joint, into a single value.

The thinking behind this is that while the typical human body has a substantial number of degrees of movement, after all, it consists of up to 206 bones connected in various joint configurations, the sculptures typically have far fewer degrees of movement. The total_displacement value allows mapping the total movement of, for example, the shoulder joint to a single rotary actuator on a kinetic sculpture in a manner that creates actuator activity reflecting the joint activity regardless of the joint axis.

Alwynne Pritchard's body is typically capable of 36 degrees of movement if we exclude the hands (the hands are generally accepted as having 27 degrees of freedom each). As the sculpture park expands, enlisting more sculptures to perform or interpret Alwynne's movements, it will be possible to, in a sense, “spread” the characteristics of her movements throughout a more extensive complement of sculptures. This allows for the distribution of movement patterns across several sculptural entities. This is intended to investigate further the impact of considering the sculptures as disembodied prosthetics adhering to central conceptual tenets to expand the performer beyond themselves.

Future work – movement data analysis

Planned developments of the mechanisms for analyzing the motion capture data include functions that consider the bodily context for the movements of a given joint. This entails calculating and interpreting the whole-body position and configuration and utilizing that data both as mappable parameters and as data that provides a variable context for the activity of any given joint. This will prompt the development of tools for analyzing and extracting a form of understanding of the total activity captured in the motion capture data that can be considered a categorization of expression.

By pursuing the idea of distributing the sculptural interpretation of human movement characteristics across multiple sculptures, I imagine parameters related to body configuration influencing the spatial distribution of mobile sculptures throughout the performative space.

Future work – the library

As the number of extracted movement gestures expands, my hope is that it will become a library of sorts containing many of the bodily expressions Alwynne Pritchard chose to provide the project.

I will, in time, develop a categorization system for the gestures. This will involve categorizing the movements according to several parameters, such as:

• The intent behind the gesture, meaning the impetus for the original movement as reported by the performer.

• The subjective interpretation of the movement as experienced by Thorolf Thuestad.

• Physical characteristics of the movement include speed, dynamism, and potentially performer-reported parameters such as rigidity/tension.

• Context-based parameters such as total body configuration and possibly some consideration of preceding gestures or movements to the movement in question.

• Other context-based parameters could be an overall activity level in each window of time or an overall sense of intent or “mood”.

• Involving external onlookers to give feedback on their experience of the movements, both as performed by Alwynne Pritchard and in their re-interpreted form performed by the sculptures.

• Involving non-humans in the categorization process, such as AI analysis.

The Sculptures

Sculptures and their control mechanisms

The sculptures are developed with their potential for movement as the primary concern.

The types of movements currently being pursued are of a nature that relates to human movement capabilities. This means that the sculptures generally have limbs that are manipulated and are bodies that move in space.

However, I am also interested in pursuing other types of movements the human body is capable of, such as breathing, facial expression, eye movement, etc. The possibilities are vast.

A substantial challenge is that the movement capabilities of Alwynne Pritchard's body are far beyond the physical capabilities of the current robotic actuator technology available to this project. This is a challenge and an opportunity since the difference between the body and the embodied is a primary field of interest for the project.

Design of the sculptures

When developing kinetic sculptures that embody a certain level of movement capability, the physical characteristics of the sculptures become of paramount importance. Weight and “limb” layout become critical since the actuators available for this project have limited power density, and the construction materials limited strength-to-weight ratio.

At the time of writing, two main types of sculptures have been developed. The first is an autonomous wheeled sculpture equipped with three omnidirectional wheels, allowing it to roam and orient itself in the performance space freely. In addition to 3 degrees of spatial movement (forward – backwards, left – right and rotation), the sculpture has 8 degrees of freedom utilizing various limbs. Lastly, it is equipped with an extra limb to illuminate itself and its surroundings.

The second type is a sculpture suspended by eight wires that manipulates it in 3D space. Each wire goes from a sculptural element suspended in the air, equipped with an expressive end effector consisting of multiple moving limbs and an RGBW light source. The wires suspending the effector run to winches that pull on 1mm Dyneema wires. The winches are run by brushless DC motors controlled by FOC controllers that afford substantial dynamic potential.

The winches also contribute to a certain level of ontological ambivalence. It appears unclear whether they are part of the sculpture or represent an external force facilitating the sculpture movement.

The shapes

In the design of the sculptures, I utilize generative design to generate several parts that are then 3D printed. Generative design tends to result in " organic " shapes, resulting in sculptures that could be interpreted as engaging in biomimicry. The process I follow is to imagine the overall dimensions and layout of the sculptures inspired by what I imagine will have a good potential for interesting movement. Then, I create or generate the shapes that fill this layout using generative or traditional computer-aided design.

The actuators

The actuators in use are aware of their positions.

I am currently utilizing Dynamixel servos, drivers for brushless gimbal motors based on SimpleFOC5 with magnetic encoders and Odrive-based field-oriented control motor drivers to run larger brushless DC motors.

In addition, these actuator types provide precise positional control; the reason for choosing this technology is that they can all be made compliant, meaning they will yield to physical pressure. They continuously measure their position and can also report on their position and state.

This means they can operate as actuators generating physical movement and as sensors registering external pressure. This carries with it the potential for the sculptures to both be movers while also having some way of sensing their surroundings, with the implication that they can be aware of and use as a haptic input, pressure exerted on them. They could then double as a haptic interface for the performer and other sculptures.

Additional sensory systems

In addition to the sensing actuators, the sculptures use a UWB(ultra-wide band)6 based localization system informing them of their position in a 3D cube that deliminates the performance space.

This system utilizes 5 UWB anchors, with each sculpture equipped with a UWB tag to facilitate x, y, and z location within a 3D space. Since these positions are posted as ROS2 topics, the sculptures can also be aware of the positions of their sculpture colleagues. In addition, they are equipped with an IMU7 allowing them to be aware of their orientation in space. This data could be used to make gestures relative to other actants in the space, as well as more mundane considerations such as trajectory planning and avoiding collisions between sculptures capable of autonomous movement.

Sculpture control systems

As of the time of writing, the sculpture control systems and software are developed using ROS28. Each sculpture is equipped with a Raspberry Pi or Raspberry Pi Zero with Ubuntu that runs multiple Ros2 nodes to control the actuators and sensors of each sculpture and nodes for control logic such as motion planning. As some of the sculptures will have the possibility to move autonomously using omnidirectional wheels, I have, as previously mentioned, also implemented a UWB-based localization system where each sculpture knows its location (and that of the other sculptures)9 in a 3D cube and can navigate the space on that basis.

The control algorithms for each sculpture run as ROS2 nodes on each sculpture locally (rather than utilizing a centralized control paradigm and controlling the sculptures using teleoperation). This is a choice that has conceptual ramifications. It is intended to suggest that the sculptures be considered entities that act autonomously and appear autonomous. Through the possibilities offered by the ROS2 network technology, they can still be controlled by a central control system.

In the ROS2 framework, the programs that run robots are organized into multiple smaller programs that run in parallel and communicate with each other. For example, one of the sculptures for Inscription has the following nodes:

• A node responsible for controlling the Dynamixel servos.

• A node is responsible for controlling the light.

• A node that reads the current location from the UWB localization system.

• A node that reads the sculpture orientation from an IMU.

• A node that handles controlling the omni-wheel motors.

• A node that handles the speed calculations for the three omni wheels so that the sculpture can move in a given direction or orientation.

• A node that handles trajectory planning for the robot to self-correct and move to any point in the square working area for the sculptures, delimited by the placement of the UWB anchors. This node communicates with the node handling the speed calculations for each of the three omni wheels.

Each node runs together on a single board computer (a Raspberry pi 5 with Ubuntu installed) on the sculpture and communicates using the ROS2 publish/subscribe scheme. 10

Future work - Sensory system

Since all sculptures are connected to the same WIFI network, these topics are also available for all other sculptures, should they wish to subscribe to them. This means mechanisms allowing the sculptures to sense each other's activity can be developed.

This publish/subscribe system allows each sculpture to report on its activity and enables others to subscribe and sense their sculpture colleagues´ activities. It also creates the potential for creating mechanisms where the sculptures could sense the performer's activities and for the performer to sense the activities of the sculptures through a haptic interface connected to the ROS2 network.

Future plans include developing generative systems that run on each sculpture, further underlining them as autonomous entities. This will involve providing each sculpture access to the library of movement gestures (most likely by storing a copy on the SBC) and creating software that allows the sculptures to use various movement gestures as a means of expression. Both as a tool for them to improvise with movements and as a tool for being reactive to the activity of the human performer and each other.

Non-representative

Intuitively, my inclination to pursue what I consider to be non-representative forms of kinetic sculptures emphasizes my reliance on my embodied experience, sensorimotor engagement and imaginative participation. This process is enhanced and more pleasurable when I cannot depend on established cognitive shortcuts or visual references. I become more aware that perception must be actively constructed, in a sense “filling in the gaps” and highlighting the enactive aspect of perception.

When observing sculptures that appear unrelated to any recognizable “original”, I, as the observer, generate my own involvement and perceptions, making it explicit that it is a dynamic and exploratory activity. As a utopian ideal (utopian in the sense that removing the experience of some form of recognition is unlikely; we are recognizing beings), I invite the observer to relate to the kinetic sculptures on the level of pure movement. I want the observer to connect directly to their kinaesthetic attuning to the sensory qualities of the movement itself using their own bodily experiences to infer meaning.

As such, I hope that the non-representativeness of the kinetic sculptures can be interpreted as an attempt to highlight the enactive aspect of perception. Embracing ambiguity and openness to encourage an experience of co-creation while being an observer through this embodied and active perceptual engagement.

Observed movement

Observed movement is often interpreted as an expression of intent. Kandel et al. link this process of interpreting movement to the brain's ability to understand and predict the actions of others utilising a range of neural systems, including the mirror neuron system. This allows the observer to simulate or mirror the observed action, effectively linking the physical movement to the interpreted underlying intention or goal of the action.

This motor simulation mechanism supports our ability to understand action by linking the observed movement with the neural patterns associated with performing that movement, bridging the gap between observation and recognition of the intent driving the action.

Such inference of intent is part of our social cognition, where gestures and movements are used as cues to infer others’ goals and intentions and is, as such, a fundamental tool to convey meaning.

Maxine Sheets-Johnstone posits that our understanding of the world and the actions of others is rooted in kinaesthetic knowledge - the knowledge we gain through movement. We have the ability to empathise with the movement of others because we have an internal bodily sense of what it means to move. When observing movement in others, we draw on our own motor experiences to understand and contextualise their movements and intents, which becomes a fundamental tool for our intersubjective understanding. According to Sheets-Johnstone, this empathy is a bodily pre-reflective understanding of movement reaching below the conscious cognitive mechanism. Our understanding of movement and intent through our own motor capacities allows us to “feel” the movement and, therefore, grasp the movement in an embodied way.

Mimesis in For one – for many – for all

In my previous work, For one - for many - for all (Thuestad, 2021), I investigated the potential of experiencing relation between kinetic sculptures and human performers. The primary mechanism I sought to utilize was recognition and familiarity with the sculptures while striving for them to be as non-representative as possible.

Movement and intent appear to me as primary characteristics of life and, therefore, of human beings. I postulated that observing movement in kinetic sculptures could create association with intent as motivation behind the physical movements. Interpreting the sculptures as moving with intent might inspire a sense of relation or kinship towards them.

A primary challenge for For one – for many – for all was ensuring that the movements of the human performers performing alongside the kinetic sculptures could be experienced as related. Human movement is characterized by a large degree of flexibility, coordination agility, speed, accuracy, strength, adaptability, coordination, variation and dynamism. Conversely, the kinetic sculptures I was able to construct (as is the situation in the robotics field in general) are not yet capable of such dynamism, precision and flexibility. For the actions of the human and non-human performers to appear related, the human performers in For one – for many – for all worked diligently to adjust the movement patterns of the sculptures, subduing their own dynamism. It was the human performers who attempted to mimic the sculptures and not the other way around.

This approach resulted in a performance that I experienced as quite affective, with the human and non-human performers achieving what I felt was a balanced level of presence. This balance was predicated on the human performers' efforts to approach the sculptures' behaviour rather than the other way around. In a sense, the performers were mimicking the sculptures and striving to represent some of their characteristics in lieu of their limited physical abilities. This resulted in a movement language that I experienced as tapping into a certain level of uncanniness.

I suppose it was quite apparent to observers what the human performers were trying to achieve. Still, it is a movement language I do not believe would develop if the choreographic intentions were different. As such, this interest in establishing a sense of relation between the human and nonhuman performers became a primary artistic strategy serving both as motivation and mechanism for generating the artistic material.

Conclusion

Movement, mimesis, and mimicry is a project situated at the intersection of embodiment, perception, and artistic expression, investigating how non-representational kinetic sculptures can embody specific characteristics of human movement patterns while maintaining their distinct otherness. Building on insights from previous works like For one – for many – for all, this investigation employs the concept of disembodied prosthetics as a lens through which to examine questions about embodiment, agency, and the nature of representation. These topics are approached as artistic motivation and guiding principles for artistic creation and experimentation.

The creation of kinetic sculptures that simultaneously extend and interpret human movement is intended as an artistic method and means of addressing traditional notions of mimesis and representation. I hope for the sculptures to become generative forces that produce their own reality while establishing a mysterious relation to their human counterpart.

I feel that the emphasis on attempting to create non-representational forms and movement-based recognition aligns with contemporary understandings of perception as an active, embodied process. By striving to create sculptures that engage viewers through pure movement rather than familiar forms, the hope is to highlight the enactive nature of perception and invite deeper engagement with questions of embodiment, agency, and the boundaries of self.

As this research project develops, I hope that it becomes an exploration of the rich territories in the space between recognition and otherness, between human and non-human movement, and between representation and difference.

Acknowledgements

Movement mimesis and mimicry is a a research project by Thorolf Thuestad at the Research Institute at The Univerisity of Arts Helsinki

The project utilises equipment from the MAGICS network. The production Inscription is produced by Neither Nor and Uniarts Helsinki.

Supported by:

The University of the Arts Helsinki.
The Norwegian Composers Fund.
Bergen Municipality Norway.
Fond for Lyd og Bilde Norway.
The Norwegian Arts Council.
NOTAM Oslo, Norway.

Featured performers:

Inscription:
Alwynne Pritchard

For one - for many - for all:
Alwynne Pritchard
Caroline Eckly
Jostein Gundersen
Lighting design by Silje Grimstad
Costumes by Maria Victoria Høvring Høeg
Photos by Thor Brødreskift 

For one - for many - for all was supported by The University of Bergen, The Norwegian Artistic Research Program(NARP), Arts Council Norway, Bergen Kommune and The Norwegian Society of Composers.

For one - for many - for all is part of Thorolf Thuestads Ph.D in artistic research Emotional machines - composing for unstable media at The Grieg Academy, Department of Music, The University of Bergen.

References and bibliography

Colebrook, C. (2002). Understanding Deleuze. Allen & Unwin.
Colebrook, C. (2008). Gilles Deleuze (Reprinted). Routledge.
Derrida, J., & Derrida, J. (1993). Dissemination (B. Johnson, Trans.). Univ. of Chicago Press.
Difference and repetition (Reprinted) (with Deleuze, G., & Patton, P.). (2021). Bloomsbury Academic.
Kandel, E. R., Koester, J., Mack, S., & Siegelbaum, S. (Eds.). (2021). Principles of neural science (Sixth edition). McGraw Hill.
Mayell, C. (2014). The Rise and Fall of the Simulacrum. Deleuze Studies, 8(4), 445–469. https://doi.org/10.3366/dls.2014.0165
http://www.neithernor.no
Noë, A. (2006). Action in perception (1. MIT Press paperback ed). MIT Press.
RANDOM INTERNATIONAL. (n.d.). RANDOM INTERNATIONAL. Retrieved October 1, 2024, from https://www.random-international.com/study-for-fifteen-points-2015
Sheets-Johnstone, M. (2011). The primacy of movement (Expanded 2nd ed). John Benjamins Pub. Co.
Thorolf Thuestad. (2022). Emotional Machines—Composing for Unstable Media. KMD Artistic Research, 6. https://doi.org/10.22501/kmd-ar.426170
http://www.verdensteatret.com