We have developed this exposition for ‘scoring an aesthetic encounter’ with the multimodal — visual, textual, sonic, performative — findings from the artistic research project Choreo-graphic Figures: Deviations from the Line. We have modelled the exposition on the experimental score system developed within our research project, for organising our process of aesthetic enquiry through the bringing-into-relation of different figures and practices. The ‘score’ is intended to be played: the reader is invited to ‘dive in’ and experience our research process by navigating their own route through the content presented (→ Play the Score), with this → Find Out More section operating in support with a contextualising function.
In this exposition, our aim is not to present an exhaustive account of the Choreo-graphic Figures.1 Rather, we seek to test the specificity of this online context for extending our investigation through the questions: How can we create a digital archive capable of reflecting the durational and relational aspects of the research process, a mode of online dissemination that enacts something of the liveness or vitality — the energies and intensities — within collaborative live exploration? Beyond the limitations of the static two-dimensional page, how can an enhanced digital format enable a non-linear, rhizomatic encounter with artistic research, where findings are activated and navigated, interacted or even played with as a choreo-graphic event? However, our research focus is not one of trying to capture and communicate the live experience as it was, as it happened — for the document always, inescapably mediates the live experience, is always ‘something other’.2
By sharing our research through its various documents our intent is not to undermine the experiential encounter with the live process itself, but rather to consider how the performing document could have a liveness of its own, always evolving, always in transition. Less an indexical record of ‘being there’, the performance document is approached as a malleable material that can be dislocated from the originary historical context, to be brought into new configurations, re-encountered each time anew.3 The research catalogue is approached as a collaborative tool, its limitations and possibilities enabling us to share our research in different ways to other publication formats, creating the conditions for an alternative experiential encounter with our work other than through live participation in or engagement with the actual research process itself. Our exposition is not just documentation — not simply the evidencing of what ‘has been’. Neither is it an iterative account of our evolving methodology, nor solely a discursive rationale. We respond to theorist Dieter Mersch’s call for artistic research to ‘show’, to reveal the “‘work in the work’, the ‘becoming’ of the processes themselves.”4 We ask: How can we show our research rather than tell? How can we present rather than represent — how can we perform, enact and activate our research findings within this online context?
FIGUR(ING) > < PRACTICES > < SCORE
The score and its ecology of figures and practices were developed gradually over a number of years (2014 — 2017) through a series of Method Labs (test sites for experiential knowledge production) that involved us — Cocker, Gansterer, Greil — working collaboratively, often closely with our critical interlocutors (Alex Arteaga, Christine De Smedt and Lilia Mestre), guest collaborators (Werner Moebius and Jörg Piringer), alongside videographer Victor Jaschke and designer Simona Koch. Whilst not sequential, our research process can be conceived as a tripartite enquiry involving three core phases or foci:
[i] Figuring > < Figure: our enquiry into the processes of artistic sense-making has involved the conceptualisation and exploration of the relation between the event of figuring (a term we use for describing those small yet transformative energies, emergences and experiential shifts which operate before, between and beneath the more readable gestures of artistic practice, that are often hard to discern but which ultimately shape or steer the evolving action) and the emergence of figures (this term is used to refer to the point at which ‘something happening’ — figuring —coalesces into a recognisable form). Through the process of live exploration, our enquiry involves the identification and naming of different figures, alongside a collective attempt (through the ‘scoring’ of live exploration) to create the conditions for a figure’s arising; as well as for giving rise to unexpected interactional constellations of figures through live activation and play. Our intent is not only to observe and identify, but also to amplify and refine the specific qualitative vitalities of different figures through repeated testing and experimentation. Within our investigation so far, we have been able to articulate the qualities and constitutive conditions for nine named figures out of a list of infinitely more. In turn, these figures have been grouped according to three different qualitative categories: Elemental, Empathetic and Transformative Figures (→ Introduction to Figures, → Index of Elemental Figures, → Index of Empathetic Figures and → Index of Transformative Figures).
[ii] Practices: In conjunction, we have developed a set of practices for sharpening, focusing or redirecting attention towards both the event of figuring and the emergence of figures (→Introduction to Practices, → Index of Practices, → Practices of Attention, → Practices of Notation, → Practices of Conversation, → Practices of Wit(h)nessing).
[iii] Score: Our research process has further involved the creation of an innovative permutational ‘score system’ — which forms the basis of this exposition — as a research tool or apparatus, for bringing-into-relation the various figures and practices that we have developed during the Choreo-graphic Figures project, a device for foregrounding the process of artistic compositional decision-making as a live event.
THE PLAYING IN PRACTICE
The score was used during our Method Labs as a tool for organising our live exploration, helping us to focus attention towards the relation between the event of figuring and the emergence of figures. Within the process of a live exploration, the score is played thus: Prior to an exploration, we select which figures and practices we want to explore, making a visible note of these on a series of blackboards. We then enter a designated time period of shared exploration, where the invitation is to ‘call’ (→ Practices of Notation: Calling) different named figures or practices into play. You could begin like this: let’s say someone calls for the → Figure of Becoming Material. Since you and ‘fellow explorers’ all know the qualities of this figure, you can collectively begin a process of exploration in the hope of giving rise to its emergence. Continue to explore together — in time, maybe the figure shows up, maybe not. Perhaps a → Practice of Attention would help to refine your collective sensitivity to the material transformation inherent within this figure: someone calls for the → Practice of Touching. Haptic awareness now heightened, you could collectively return to exploring the arising conditions of → Becoming Material. Alternatively, another figure or another practice might be called. The process continues until a decision is made to stop. Within this exposition, the blackboard score used in our live explorations is translated into a matrix of figures and practices (visible at the top-left of each online page), whilst the act of ‘calling’ for shifts between different figures and practices is approximated through the use of hyperlinks within this matrix.
SELF-ORGANISATION AND REORGANISATION
The development of our ‘score system’ has enabled us to attend closely to the relational conditions for the arising of specific named figures, where live exploration is focused through the prism of various practices. Whilst we are interested in the specific form that the score takes, our research focus has been towards better understanding the score as a ‘research tool’; how it operates within our enquiry as a device for a bringing-into-relation through live composition.5 We ask: How can we create the conditions for improvisational self-organisation or organism-relation that emerges from within the process itself, where the organisation of live exploration is immanent rather than imposed from above or from outside? How can we develop a score that activates thinking-in-action, where the ‘vitality contour’ of live exploration evolves through attending to the emergences and vitalities therein?6 In developing our score we have focused on its capacity for both organising and reorganising our process of aesthetic exploration. Counter-intuitively, our desire for bringing-into-relation the different aspects of our research has meant that we first needed to clarify or even categorise the various intensities, energies and experiential emergences therein, by defining the qualities and attributes of differentiated figures (→ Figure of Clearing & Emptying Out, Figure of Spiralling Momentum, Figure of Temporary Closing, Figure of Vibrating Affinity, Figure of Wavering Convergence, Figure of Consonance and Dissonance, Figure of Ventilating Meaning, Figure of Becoming Material, Figure of Translational Flux) and establishing the specificity of each of our various practices (→ Practices of Attention, Notation, Conversation, Wit(h)nessing).
Yet, the attempt to create these different categories — whether of figures or of practices — is not one of order or control, for fixing or limiting the contingent process of creative exploration through labels and names; rather, we conceive the act of separation as a precondition for reconfiguration and reconnection. Likewise, we consider the act of hyphenation evident in the choreo-graphic, as an act of separation in order to conceive a new relationality between the constitutive parts. Our practice of categorisation operates first as one of wilful or even subversive disorganisation, a means for de-stabilising or unsettling those habitual processes of — often imperceptible or undeclared — organisation that structure our ways of doing things (both within artistic exploration and our relations with others), so that we might observe how they organise us, in turn, how they might be reorganised. For philosopher Alva Noë, art is a “strange tool” through which we might engage, “with the ways our practices, techniques, and technologies organize us, and it is finally, a way to understand our organization and inevitably, to reorganize ourselves.”7 He argues that art and philosophy are “really species of a common genus whose preoccupation is with the ways we are organized and with the possibility of reorganizing ourselves.”8 Noë outlines various ‘everyday practices’ by which the temporal and relationship-building dynamics of our lives are organised through the interplay of attention and negotiation, listening and responding, focus and distraction, action and inaction. These organising practices are those habitual activities — often implicit rather than necessarily explicit — that shape and structure our ways of being and behaving at the biological level of embodiment. To a certain extent, many of our own practices might be conceived in such terms: walking, breathing, voicing, sleeping, touching, reading, naming, conversing, watching, listening, translating. However, within our enquiry such activities are ‘offset slightly’ such that they become disentangled from their everyday use or function, and instead have the capacity to be tested and explored within the frame of aesthetic exploration. Likewise, Noë uses ‘choreography’ as a ‘stand-in’ for reflecting more broadly on how art practices “seek to bring out and exhibit, to disclose and to illuminate, aspects of the way that we find ourselves organized.”9 Choreography, a term through which Noë invokes all art, is that which makes visible or attends to the system of organisation itself; moreover, remains ‘bent’ on its reorganisation. By bringing our figures and practices into the score, we interrogate how they organise us alongside how might we activate them in new relation.
Our score is one device that we have developed for deepening our attention towards a level of vitality operating beneath or below a ‘structural’ level of organisation; in turn, providing a framework for bringing-into-relation different figures and practices as a means of re-organisation. Yet, beyond attending to the qualitative sense of how-ness, our research also asks ‘how else?’10 How does artistic research support the production of ourselves, our subjectivity — our being-with others, our being-in-the-world — as otherwise? We anatomise and separate the practices and dynamics that comprise the process of collaboration artistic exploration to test how they might be diagrammatically reconfigured differently, even unexpectedly; in turn, how we ourselves also might be configured differently in and through this experience. In this sense, our use of the score seeks also to constitute new, experimental ways through which we can become re-organised as an ethico-aesthetic practice. This experimentation with a diagrammatic paradigm or praxis for ethico-aesthetic reorganisation can be conceived as a practical articulation of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari’s concept of the rhizome that “is open and connectable in all of its dimensions; it is detachable, reversible, susceptible to constant modification. It can be torn, reversed, adapted to any kind of mounting, reworked by an individual, group, or social formation. It can be drawn on a wall, conceived of as a work of art, constructed as a political action or as a meditation.”11
Within a rhizomatic diagrammatic model, there is no centre; all parts have the capacity to be connected to all parts, any point can be broken and reattached to another.12 Likewise, we consider our acts of separation and categorisation as a means for activating new connections. Here, we conceive our score and the milieu constituted through its very activation in ecosophical terms. Guattari outlines an “ethico-aesthetic aegis of an ecosophy” — comprising the ‘three ecologies’ of “environment, social relations and human subjectivity”13— involving the cultivation of an ecological praxis, “specific practices that will modify and reinvent the ways in which we live […] it will be a question of literally reconstructing the modalities of ‘group-being’ [l’être-en-groupe], not only through ‘communicational’ interventions but through existential mutations driven by the motor of subjectivity.”14 This notion of an ecology or even ecosystem of practices resonates with our conceptualisation of the score: we conceive it as a living organism more than a system of organisation. It pulses with a sense of liveness, aliveness; it has the capacity to develop and grow.
CONDITIONS OF ARISING
Significantly, within our diagrammatic system of scoring, the form that a figure takes is not predetermined at the outset, but rather it is emergent. It only becomes recognisable through the arising of its qualities in and through the process of exploration. As Alex Arteaga argues, “In the case that a figure becomes explicit it always remains at the edge of its own explicitness. It is fragile, subtle, contingent, dubious, shady — in the shade of the objects and subjects that enable its presence.”15 Whilst previous ‘examples’ of a figure might help to indicate the conditions needed for a figure’s arising or give clues to its atmospheric signature, they do not define what the figure is, nor do they guarantee its return. The ‘call’ for a specific figure is thus for the conditions of the figure’s arising, wherein we collectively strive to generate the qualities associated with that figure. We ask: how are the conditions that give rise to the emergence of a figure? How does the figure come into being, how does it become? What conditions are prerequisite; moreover, how might the figuring figure require conditions that are contingent and unpredictable, which cannot be diagrammed in advance? In one sense, our enquiry is one of exploring the germinal conditions for the arising of specific figuring figures, refining and amplifying the qualitative vitality dynamics emerging therein as a means for shedding new light on the process of collaborative artistic exploration. Here, as Lilia Mestre asserts, “the score operates simultaneously as a way to practise and to observe the practice.”16
Yet, herein lies a dilemma, how do we revisit and reactivate the qualities of specific figures, whilst also retaining or returning a sense of their dynamic vitality? How do we avoid, as Alva Noë cautions, our figures from becoming empty ‘symbolisations of an idea’; at worst, a ‘hollow shell’ dispossessed of its aliveness.17 Whilst we have been able to articulate the qualities of a figure and even identify concrete examples of its articulation, how can we avoid fixing the specific form that a figure should take? How do we let go of our preconceptions of what a specific figure looks like, attending rather more to how it feels. As Arteaga reflects on the figures, “We cannot move straight forward to it — it is not an ‘it’.”18 Significantly, the live process of activating the figures through the use of the score, requires a radical letting go of the original form in order to per-form it again, where in Erin Manning’s terms, “to begin is to begin again, differently, impossibly, impractically. It is to begin not with the form but with the force of the more-than as articulated by the welling diagram the event calls forth.” 19 In attempting to re-meet a named figure, one must re-find a way of finding it again in its vitality: this is not simply a case of repetition. For as Manning elaborates, “No movement can be cued, aligned to or performed in the same way twice […] What emerges as a dance of attention cannot be replicated. It is not a thing, a form.”20
Here, as Manning suggests, “The diagram does not pre-exist its shaping […] The diagram that may have seemed to be an individual form now reveals itself to be an emergent multiplicity.”21 So, how does one reactivate the embodied diagrammatics of the scored choreo-graphic figure, so as to re-encounter or re-find the experience in its dynamic vitality? For Manning, what is required is the ecology of a ‘diagrammatic praxis’ where, “Spacing and bodying transindividuate, fashioning a multiple singularity: a body-diagrammatic. The body-diagrammatic is a procedural ‘I’ that stands not for the subject but for individuation … making felt the merging of topological registers of co-constitution: space-bodying, time-spacing.”22 She uses the term biogram for describing a ‘becoming-body’ that “has no fixed form”23, that “makes itself felt in the intensive passage from one intensity – one series – to another … The biogram cannot represent anything because it has no pregiven form … The biogram propels a process of determining that always resists final form.”24
Our figures are not re-presentational diagrams: they are not outlines or instructions that define or describe a set of predetermined actions or operations. The qualitative descriptions of our figures and the documentation of previous examples within this exposition are not conceived as a ‘how to’ guide — as instructions or ingredients — but rather as the diagramming of possibility. In the process of live exploration, all previous iterations of the figure must be unlearnt or forgotten so that it can be transformed: a deformation or defiguring of the figure that necessarily prefigures figuration, an emptying out so that it can be re-filled with life once more. For Dieter Mersch, “The figure in the sense of figuration consequentially ‘keeps’ itself in persistent ‘transience’. On the whole it is a movement without state”.25 He argues that the “reciprocal dialectics of figuration and defiguration”, involve a process of “continuous transfiguration, processuality in itself” focused on “the permanence of a ‘formative’ that is formation and flux in one.”26 Whilst the concept of — or even previous iterations of — a given figure might pre-exist (→ Index of Figures), the process of figuration is always immanent to its per-forming.
Whilst figure is the term that we use for referring to a ‘local’ instance of figuring incarnating as content modality — the point at which figuring becomes recognisable, even nameable — our intent has been towards the production of choreo-graphic figures within which there is more than one arising of a figure figuring. Choreo-graphic: the hyphen, a deviating line, holding two terms in proximity whilst also keeping them apart. Choreo: more than one or in relation to another, as in chorus, as in group, always a communication between. Graphic: the possibilities and sensitivities of inscription (of moving, drawing and writing and the modalities in between), not just for describing — representing or reproducing that which already exists — but as much a dynamic happening, capable also of bringing about, constituting, transforming. Here, the specificity of this online exposition has enabled us to construct possibilities for the choreo-graphic figure that were not possible through the process of live exploration alone. Specifically, within this exposition our figures can truly appear as multimodal, multidimensional, durational intensities, the performed entanglement of visual-spatial, verbal-linguistic, bodily-kinesthetic sensibilities.
The online exposition format enables us to bring-into-relation multiple articulations of a figure from different spatio-temporal moments in our enquiry, enabling us to better express the signature of figure (in atmospheric terms) rather than the specific form that it should take. It allows for the temporal co-inciding of material fragments that could not co-exist otherwise, performed actions distanced by years can be choreographed into new relations through a virtual weave. Whilst our actual live explorations took place within the linear chronology of time passing and through the vehicular language of per-forming, within this exposition the different modalities of drawing, writing and choreography intermingle at their different registers of speed and slowness. The reader can linger with things for longer than the live performance affords. Loops and repeats bring materials into chance relations. Fragments of sound and spoken word can be built up in overlapping layers. The acoustic reverberations of one exploratory fragment seeps into the frame of another — it is not always immediately evident where the sound comes from. Yet, the sound signatures of each figure video are diegetic (whether source-connected or source-disconnected), emerging directly from the live exploration itself and not artificially generated through post-production. Drawings can be zoomed into revealing a universe of detail that emerges temporally, gradually over time. The reader is plunged in, enters in the midst, arriving in the middle of things. Hyperlinks are used to create different points of ‘landing’ or arrival on a ‘page’, enabling different connections and proximities to emerge. New pathways are created through the material by the individual reader deciding when to look and when to listen; when to read and when to watch; when to zoom in (+) and when to zoom out (-). Between glimpsing and dwelling — how long to stay with, when to leave, when to activate certain materials (video or sound) or when to stop or make them silent. Find unexpected connections. Allow time to get lost. The route through the materials will probably be different each time.
The format of the exposition allows us to attend better to the rhythmic interplay of heterogeneous durations in the constitution of ethico-aesthetic relations, revealing a sense of polyrhythmic or even idiorhythmic micro-temporalities operating between, beneath and below the more ‘readable’ temporal dynamics of chronological — perhaps even anthropocentric —time.27 Here, as philosopher Henri Bergson asserts, “In reality there is no one rhythm of duration; it is possible to imagine many rhythms which, slower or faster, measure the degree of tension of different kinds of consciousness.”28 Indeed, it is not a case of just zooming into different durational intensities, but rather a gentle practice of attending to — or at least acknowledging — their simultaneity. Here then, the technological possibilities and limitations of the exposition format open up new approaches for exploring the performativity of the research document itself. In these terms, the research catalogue is considered as a ‘strange tool’ that has helped facilitate the ‘scoring of an aesthetic encounter’ with our artistic research, a device for both organising and also (re)organising our research materials as an experiential event.
 Indeed, the theoretical basis and a methodological exposition of our enquiry have already been outlined in the publication, Choreo-graphic Figures: Deviations from the Line, (eds.) Emma Cocker, Nikolaus Gansterer, Mariella Greil, (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2017). For example, see the chapters 'Becoming Undisciplinary', pp. 37 — 47; ‘Figuring > < Figure’, pp. 69 — 81, and ‘Embodied Diagrammatics’, pp. 315 — 331.
 This reference to ‘something other’ draws on feminist scholar and performance theorist Peggy Phelan’s oft-cited cautionary against the attempt to capture the experiential, ephemeral nature of performance, in which she argues that documentation is a flawed project: “Performance’s only life is in the present. Performance cannot be saved, recorded, documented, or otherwise participate in the circulation of representations of representations: once it does so, it becomes something other than performance”, in Unmarked — The Politics of Performance, (London and New York: Routledge, 1993, p.146). At the same time, the provocation of this ‘something other’ can be seen to operate as an investigative impetus for enquiry. Cf. the online project Something Other, a collaboration between performance writers Maddy Costa and Diana Damian Martin and Mary Paterson [http://www.somethingother.io/#/]
 Dieter Mersch, Epistemologies of Aesthetics, (Zurich and Berlin: Diaphanes, 2015), p. 11. Mersch differentiates ‘aesthetic thought’ from the “classical philosophical ideas about thinking thought, in particular equating thought and concepts or, since the linguistic turn, the appropriation of thought by language” (2015, p. 8). He argues how discursiveness — “making a statement or formulating an ‘argument’ in the form of sentences” (p. 8) — and methodology — based upon a “scientific, i.e. methodological, research process” (p. 9) — have “advanced to become the main criteria for the production of episteme”, neither of which he claims are “particularly suited to artistic practice” (ibid.). Against this context, Mersch asks what “thought in other media” might mean, where “thought is understood as a practice, as acting with materials, in materials, or through materials… or with media, in media or through media” (pp. 9 — 10). Interestingly, Mersch is keen to avoid “favouring tacit knowledge as is the trend in science studies and the history of science” (ibid) in an attempt to differentiate an artistic or rather aesthetic mode of thought beyond a vocabulary of linguistic discursivity and process methodology, where the specificity — even alterity — of an aesthetic epistemology is made explicit. Moreover, he argues that the “decisive epistemic modus” through which art performs, presents and exhibits its ‘work in the work’ is always one of showing: “we are dealing with ‘showings’ that in equal measure reveal something and show themselves while in showing, hold themselves back […] their métier is not representation, but presence” (p. 170).
 In this sense, the project of ‘scoring an aesthetic encounter’ for re-activating research documents through an online exposition can be situated within a wider context of research practices and theory engaged in complicating the relation between liveness and the document/recording. An historical precedent for this can be found in the work of media theorist Philip Auslander who argues how the concept of liveness itself is a product of ‘mediatization’ and that since the early twentieth century ‘live performance’ has been mutually entangled with and coexisted alongside recordings, non-live media and various forms of technological reproduction. Cf. Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized Culture, (London; New York: Routledge, 1999). More recently curator and writer Bridget Crone identifies numerous practices that, “have already radically disrupted these neat separations between the live-ness of the body and the not-live status of the image” where, “staging becomes a means for re-thinking and re-configuring the relationship between body and image, between immediate experience and mediated information, between projected image and performed body”, The Sensible Stage: Staging and the Moving Image, (Bristol: Picture This, 2012), p. 6. She argues that many contemporary artists are now “interested in articulating a sense of separation … between the ‘live’ unfolding performance and the quoted or re-enacted material” (2012, p. 6). She further outlines how the “instability of the feedback loop — of performance into image, image into performance and so on — also acts to undermine the fixities of time, reminding us of the relational nature of time itself” (2012, p. 10). Alternatively from 2011 – 2015, the Arts and Humanities Research Council funded project Performing Documents: Modelling creative and curatorial engagements with live art and performance archives (hosted by the University of Bristol in partnership with Arnolfini and In Between Time), involved investigation into the problems and potential of performance and its documents, exploring artists’ re-use of their own archival materials. Cf. also ‘The Alternative Document’, Special Issue of Journal Studies in Theatre and Performance, Volume 38, 2018, Issue 3, (ed.) Angela Bartram, specifically the article by Emma Cocker and Clare Thornton, ‘The Italic I — Between Liveness and the Lens’ pp. 238 — 250, for further exploration of ‘performing documents’, an examination of the forms of temporality and performativity that emerge in the interval between live performance and lens-based mediation, between event and document. In parallel, we also consider Senselab’s conceptualization and practice of ‘anarchiving’ and the ‘anarchive’ where they argue that: “The question is how what moves an event into taking form can be archived, as opposed to documenting the content of the event. Can traces of the event’s liveness be captured, in a way that might set the stage for a next event to occur in its wake? […] How to make operative that which resists pinning down? How to activate this surplus share of previous events without committing to a full capture of their potential?” [http://senselab.ca/wp2/immediations/anarchiving/]. Further elaborating the notion of anarchiving, they state that, “the anarchive is not documentation of a past activity. Rather, it is a feed-forward mechanism for lines of creative process, under continuing variation" [https://senselab.ca/wp2/immediations/anarchiving/anarchive-concise-definition/].
 For example, the influence of Fluxus scores is evident in our Practices, as well as the work of experimental composer Pauline Oliveros. See Pauline Oliveros, Deep listening: a composer's sound practice, (New York, NY, iUniverse, 2015) and Software for People: collected writings 1963-80 (2015). Lisa Nelson & Scott Smith’s Tuning Scores offer the tools and a framework for communication and a model of collaboration constructed in the act of doing. Drawing on philosophies of the event, choreographer João Fiadeiro’s conceptualisation of ‘real time composition’ (RTC) involves the radical rethinking of how decisions are made within live improvisation and performed composition, where the performer is invited to ‘let go’ their role as ‘creator’ — along with the ‘interference’ of habits and patterns of behaviour — to become the ‘facilitator’ or ‘mediator’ of ‘what happens’, conceived as a co-emergent process. See http://www.uniarts.fi/uniartstv/online-jo%C3%A3o-fiadeiro-real-time-composition.
 The term ‘vitality contour’ is borrowed from Daniel Stern, Forms of Vitality: Exploring Dynamic Experience in Psychology, the Arts, Psychotherapy and Development, (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2010).
 Alva Noë, Strange Tools — Art and Human Nature, (New York: Hill and Wang, 2015), p. xiii.
 Noë, 2015, p. xiii.
 Noë, 2015, p. 16.
 In seeking to get close to the how-ness within collaborative practice, our enquiry largely took place within the relatively ‘closed’ and ‘protective’ environment of the ‘Method Lab’, an experimental time-space where we could actively control and amplify the conditions that were conducive to a nuanced exploration of our key concepts of figure and figuring. The expansion of the enquiry from how-ness to how else could involve staging the Method Labs beyond the gallery or rehearsal rooms, in situations which might not be so receptive to the concerns explored therein. In our project publication we invite future ‘players’ of the score to ‘set the parameters’ thus: “Decide on a space, location or environment within which to undertake your live exploration. This could range from a closed space such as a studio or rehearsal space, to an open space in the public domain — a park, a plaza, a promenade, or else perhaps a forest, a mountaintop or beach”, Choreo-graphic Figures: Deviations from the Line, 2017, p. 382. In parallel, we also acknowledge that new ways of being and behaving don’t always emerge in unfamiliar or even antagonistic contexts. Indeed, this can inadvertently result in a retreat towards familiar ways of doing things and the safety of habit rather than an expansion of practice into uncertainty. For example, curator-theorist Adrian Heathfield argues that what doesn’t happen when “one is polarised with the other, is the fluidity, multiplicity and complexity of a conversation. As soon as you establish an antagonism, seven or eight other positions or possibilities have fallen away. I don’t think that is the optimal situation for transformation and change to happen”, ‘Trialogue: On Sedimentations of Sensitivities’ in Choreo-graphic Figures: Deviations from the Line, (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2017), p. 218.
 Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, (trans.) Brian Massumi, (London: Continuum, 2004), p. 12.
 As Deleuze and Guattari assert, “A rhizome may be broken, shattered at a given spot, but it will start up again on one of its old lines, or on new lines.” Deleuze and Guattari, 2004, p. 10.
 Guattari, The Three Ecologies, (London; New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2014), p. 8.
 Guattari, 2014, p. 22.
 Alex Arteaga, ‘Researching Aesthetically the Roots of Aesthetics’ in Choreo-graphic Figures: Deviations from the Line, 2017, p. 259.
 Lilia Mestre, ‘Score It!’ in Choreo-graphic Figures: Deviations from the Line, 2017, p. 304.
 Alva Noë, ‘Fragile Figures’ in Choreo-graphic Figures: Deviations from the Line, 2017, pp. 374 – 376.
 Arteaga, 2017, p. 259.
 Erin Manning, Always More Than One: Individuation’s Dance, (Durham: Duke University Press, 2013), p. 147.
 Manning, 2013, p. 134.
 Manning, 2013, p. 142.
 Manning, 2013, p. 134.
 Manning, Relationscapes: Movement, Art, Philosophy. Technologies of Lived Abstraction Series, (MIT Press, 2009), p. 125.
 Manning, 2009, p. 125.
 Dieter Mersch, ‘Figuration/Defiguration’ in Choreo-graphic Figures: Deviations from the Line, 2017, p. 117.
 Mersch, 2017, p. 117.
 Roland Barthes uses the term ‘idiorhythmy’ to refer to a state where each is able to maintain his or her own rhythm of existence, combining periods of being-with alongside being-apart. See Roland Barthes, How to Live Together: Novelistic Simulations of Some Everyday Spaces, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013); Henri Lefebvre, Rhythmanalysis: Space, Time, and Everyday Life, (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015).
 Henri Bergson, Matter and Memory, trans. Nancy Margaret Paul and W. Scott Palmer, (New York: Dover Publications, 2004),