The following words and images document the September 2010 development of feedback and associated work-in-progress showings. Much of this document is written in present tense as feedback is still under development and will undergo significant change before it reaches a final incarnation.

I originally created feedback as an extension of my lighting design practice. It has evolved into something much more due to the contributions of my collaborators:

Composers: Wendy Suiter, Houston Dunleavy and Joshua Craig

Movers: Jessica Millman, Solomon Thomas, Malcolm Whittaker

This documentation is intended to, amongst other things, provide practical insights that might be of use to practitioners attempting similar projects or who would like to know more about working with the technology.

What is feedback trying to achieve?

Feedback is constructed, conceptually, around the idea of placing humans into a feedback loop with machines. Both humans and machines are decision makers within the loop. The long term goal is to produce behaviours that are both emergent and accessible.

Emergence is where complex output is created by relatively simple input, however this is a somewhat subjective phenomenon. For feedback the term emergence has a number of connotations: it represents an effective, efficient algorithmic relationship in the sense that it is more perfectly designed. It also often indicates that the algorithm is an effective embodiment of the performer, reacting 'naturally' to smaller, somatic movements (when that is an objective of the scene)

Creating accessible behaviours simply means creating behaviours that hold interest for viewers. It's important, if a little uncool, to acknowledge accessibility when creating intensely technical works. I unashamedly want feedback to go places in the future and so a reasonable amount of consideration needs to be given to viewer experience at all stages of the process. This accessibility is manifest in the need for scenes to have a dynamic/shape. To go, in some way, from A to B.

In 2010 the feedback loop functions as follows: The mover moves onstage, the camera picks up their movement and sends an image to the computer. The computer interprets the behaviour as visuals and audio according to algorithms set for each scene. The mover then reacts to the visuals and audio creating the next frame of input.

For this development there are four scenes. Each experiments with different algorithmic relationships inside the loop. These relationships vary from linear to abstract. I.E in some scenes it is obvious how the performer affects the virtual environment, whilst in others it is more subtle, to the point in scene 4 that it is unclear if they are having an effect at all.

Where did feedback come from?

Feedback originally comes out of the software I developed during my Masters in Theatre at the University of Wollongong. At that point I was trying to create a tool that would unlock the potential of digital projectors in traditional lighting designs. The idea was to create a system that allowed you to draw light directly on an actor with a physical interface rather than having to work with abstract ideas like channel numbers and parameters. You could precisely light a face, or just elements of a face, or even draw in false shadows, in any colour the projector was capable of. The created image would then stay on the actor wherever they moved within the projected area. It could be saved so that it was later recalled by a standard lighting control desk, along with normal lights, so it wouldn't put any extra burden on stage managers or lighting operators. I built a working prototype with two projectors and staged a short performance: Everlasting Geometry.

I'd used bits and pieces of the software on a number of projects since, but knew I wanted more time to explore the new lighting possibilities offered by this kind of system. I began making enquiries but it was when I saw Chunky Moves Mortal Engine that I realised there could be an audience for this kind of work beyond lighting designers and other techno types. Mortal Engine derives some of it's appeal as a dance show, but it is arguably a presentation on the choreography of light. Up till that point I thought light couldn't have an audience, it was a show that had an audience and the show simply needed light. Seeing it motivated me to think big and put myself in the shoes of a director rather than lighting designer. If I ever wanted an audience that big to appreciate my work, as I now believed they could, I'd need to put myself out there.

This new found artistic impetus presented some questions: As an artist, what was I offering? Why was light my chosen form of expression? What was I hoping it could communicate to an audience?

My answer: When I was starting out I often did the lighting for band nights in pubs. I only had access to some basic equipment with a few colours and the interface was usually a manual lighting console - no memory, and no use for it because you weren't going to see a rehearsal anyway. However it was these gigs where I fell in love with lighting. There is nothing like doing the lights for a band you've never heard before in your life, but suddenly finding a moment where everything syncs up. You feel the music building and the lights build. You make the big moments big, the quiet moments beautiful. It's like the architecture of this dingy pub comes to life and is supporting the band, a sum greater than it's parts. And what I realised after seeing Mortal Engine is that it's not just me, everyone recognises it when it all comes together. We feel more than human because the whole thing, the lights, the sound, the gesamtkunstwerk, embody our experience. It creates, briefly, a communal, tribal connection that everyone can participate in if they choose. Lighting is, for me, a form of universal communication.

Actually doing it, having your hands on the buttons, feels like you are part of a loop, part of the connection between the band and the music and the audience and the technology. And you don't have to verbalise what you are doing, it's just there without language, you know if the next moment needs to be big or small or fast or slow but you don't need words to describe it. It's like the you in your head that makes the decisions is hardwired in there directly and you don't have to speak through this big matrix of words and symbols. You just act.

The experience I want to share with those who view my work is the experience of being in that loop without spoken language or written language or even body language. Feedback is my first attempt to bring that experience to an audience. And whilst dancers and projectors may seem a long way from rock and roll I believe it's a path that could get there.

What was the process for the 2010 development?

Feedback began with an application to the Merrigong Theatre Development Program. This was successful and Merrigong generously agreed to provide three non-consecutive weeks in the Gordon theatre for creative development. These weeks occurred in July and September, culminating in two work-in-progress showings on September 8^th and 9^th 2010.

I put a call out for contributors and was lucky enough to get three composers and three movers involved. After some initial meetings feedback was split into four scenes of 10 - 15 minutes each. The team for each scene was free to explore the concept of a feedback loop however they wished.

In the end a wide variety of approaches and techniques were employed, an ideal scenario for a first development. These included sample based audio and video, generative audio and video, dynamical systems, AI's, arbitrary and evolving relationships.

Scene 1

Visuals/Programming: Toby Knyvett

Composer: Wendy Suiter

Mover: Jessica Millman

Scene 1 ended up having a very 'organic' feel, and explored an almost sentimental algorithmic relationship between mover and machine.

The sound employed a multi-speaker array arranged in a spiral through the space. Wendy created four tracks of audio which were routed to the eight speakers. Several layers of algorithms switched speakers on and off according to a variation on the Fibonacci sequence. Some algorithms had priority over others, for instance Jessica spinning onstage would cause speakers to come on permanently. This gave the whole scene some shape by ensuring we had more speakers on then off as time went on. The actual tracks were made from site-specific sound Wendy had recorded over a period of several months, most often from Thirroul beach. Elements came and went from the soundtrack over time, adding to this shape.

Jess comes from a belly dancing background and the flowing movement style she brought to the space worked beautifully. Jess also brought in a veil which at first I was hesitant about. However once we tried it onstage and I could see how Jess was using it to modify her shape it became a vital part of the scene. I should take a moment to thank Jess, Malcolm and Solomon for their patience and energy. I would often ask them to get onstage and improvise for up to half an hour or more whilst I pounded out code and rewired things.

There were two parts to the visuals in scene 1: The first was the 'dots', which is a variation on the original prototype visual I developed and had been using when showing people what the system could do. The movement of the dots is based on a mathematical attractor. Initially I to move away from the dots as I felt I'd already seen all they could do, however I came back to them because they were just so damn responsive to Jess's movements. The texture and movement was such that over time I found I would see the dots rather than Jess, I.E see the product of human movement, but not so much the human body. By reducing the visibility of body language in the piece I felt brought the viewer closer to seeing the loop itself rather than a performative arrangement.

There was a distinct shift where we moved to the second part of the visuals, the dots disappear and a tree begins to grow from the bottom of the projection area. The tree shape was based on a Lindenmayer system and it's shape was seeded based on Jess's movements, which meant no two trees would ever grow the same. In this section we also see two 'shadows' on either side of Jess, these are modified versions of her silhouette. After the tree has grown to its full height it begins to break apart, shrinking to become hundreds of dots, referencing the starting visual. However these dots, instead of appearing in a grid, are disarrayed, still borrowing their positions from the tree shape.

The move from dots to tree, I hate to admit, simply occurred after a preset time elapsed. For any future versions of this scene I would dearly love to have this transition controlled by either the performer or through biofeedback from the audience.

Scene 3

Visuals/Programming: Toby Knyvett

Composer: Joshua Craig

Mover: Solomon Thomas

Scene 3 diverted from the first two in having a non-random decision making machine. It employed a very simple AI to control an artificial lifeform.

The goal of the lifeform was to eat the shape of the mover. It was blind but could 'feel' where the mover was onstage whenever they moved. The faster they moved the more likely it was to extend a tentacle towards them. If it could only detect small movements, not enough to give it a clear reading on where to send a tentacle, it would instead increase its total size and attempt to catch the mover that way. When enough of its mass was touching the mover it would devour their shape. A few moments later it would release but retain a shape derived from the shape of the movers shadow. In this way the organism evolved to resemble the mover over time, permanently taking some amount of DNA from its meals each time it ate.

Audio was generated in pure data. The same parameters that fed and distorted the AI shape were sent to the PD patch via MIDI. In this way the audio and visual expression were very strongly linked, to the point that the sounds appeared to be the sounds of the organism rather than the sounds of the mover moving, despite the latter being closer to the truth.

Everything the organism did was a result of the movers actions, just like the algorithms in the other scenes. However the organism is clearly read as a separate entity as opposed to the dots and tree from scene 1 which were strongly recognised as an extension of the movers body.

Scene 4

Visuals/Programming/Composer: Toby Knyvett

Mover: Malcolm Whittaker

Mover (2^nd showing only): Solomon Thomas

Scene 4 runs in contrast to the others by purposefully obstructing the relationship between the mover and the machine response. Technically it still loops, but not in a way a viewer can easily identify. The establishing and dissolving of repetitive patterns within the scene compounds confusion further by providing the viewer with 'false starts' where they believe a relationship is established.

The vision consisted of 9 viewports displaying Betty Boop for President, a black and white film in the public domain. The viewport that Malcolm stood in front of (and hence was projected on him) was the only one that ran in real-time, the other 8 views would play any frame out of the last hundred. The cartoon was divided into clips between 5 and 20 seconds in lngth. Malcolm's movement was aggregated as white noise, which would then drive the system in choosing when to advance to the next clip and which frame the 8 delayed viewports were showing.

The audio algorithm was designed to trigger a drum machine via MIDI. Every 8 bars a basic drum pattern was randomly generated according to a Gaussian distribution. By default only a few of these beats would be played. Malcolm's movement increased the probability that beats would be played, until, if he moved fast enough, all drums would play on all beats.

Malcolm's movements explored a kind of non-dance. Instead of any kind of virtuous movement he would parody movements from the cartoon, themselves already caricatures of real movement. Most of the time he would be imitating a movement from a clip that wasn't anywhere onscreen so it was not immediately obvious that this was going on.

The purpose of scene 4, in the work-in-progress showing at least, was to evaluate the true value of providing 'supportive' relationships between technology and human by taking that support away and playing them in opposition instead. It also marked a significant departure from our aesthetic by utilising the visual symbols present in the cartoon.

Note: I've avoided including scene 4 images until I can 100% confirm the public domain status of Betty Boop for President.

What was learnt from the work in progress showings (and post-show feedback sessions)?

Overall there was a positive response. Most people responded well to the ideas presented within feedback and were keen to see it taken further.

I think people found scene 1 to be the most accessible and visually arresting, many responding well to the dynamic changes within the scene. Many came away with visual metaphors about fireflies and other natural phenomenon which I feel is a comment on the expressiveness of the visuals. Some felt scene 1 best embodied the concept of feedback in terms of seeing a clear loop, particularly with the audio.

Scene 2 seemed to spark a lot of ideas about the potential of the technology. Some said they felt the audio wasn't as responsive as scene 1, which I believe is to do with the samples being triggered when the centre of the silhouettes crossed a trigger, rather than their edges. Because the centre changes as the shape changes it is harder to see a consistent relationship between shadows and audio. There was also a comment that one viewer believed there was less of a loop because Solomon was facing upstage and watching the shadows rather than facing the audience. In both cases, on a technical level, the reverse is actually true - in a quantitative sense far more information was sent that affected sound in scene 2, and arguably Solomon was better able to participate in the loop by seeing what he was doing. I think in both cases this points to a certain counter-intuitiveness about some of these relationships, which I will elaborate further on in a moment.

Scene 3 was widely recognised as being an interaction between two separate entities, and the audio was praised for bringing the creature to life. For me scene 3 is something I want to take much, much further. Ideally I would like to see a dynamic that would begin with a response to human expression, aka scene 1, but slowly splitting away into separate human and machine agency, before perhaps merging again.

Scene 4 provoked a mixed response. Some people found it interesting, if enigmatic, whilst others found it patronising. Some seemed to feel that where they had 'gotten' what was going on in the other scenes, scene 4 was cheating them by giving them nothing to 'get'. The viewer response to scene 4 illustrated for me the value of the human-machine relationship as a discrete element within the whole work.

In a similar way to learning the secret behind a magic trick there seemed to be a great deal of pleasure derived from seeing how each relationship worked. But it was never how it really worked, its not finding out about code or equipment or nuts and bolts. It's not the relationship I see as creator and coder. Instead I think the viewer sees a relationship on an intuitive, cause-and-effect level. And the actual unfolding of it in front of them delivers some kind of satisfaction, like solving a puzzle. However the viewer also has expectations regarding what this relationship should be. There were many comments about scene 2 and 4 that people 'wanted' to see sound and vision sync up, that it would have been a stronger experience for them if it had. This is also evidenced by some of the negative reaction to scene 4, after the expectation was established of certain relationships in prior scenes that scene 4 failed to deliver on.

So what might these relationships communicate? This is still an area of exploration for me, but I'm finding some parallels with lighting design which is, after all, where this whole process started. I believe the algorithmic human/machine relationships are political relationships. They are commentaries on where power rests in the performative environment. The organic relationship in scene 1 speaks strongly of 'natural' power in the body. Scene 2, with its sampled shadows, gave power to Solomon as a decision making agent - we see a picture that Solomon has consciously arranged. Scene 3 also gave power to a decision maker but began to localise that power in another entity. Scene 4 took the power away from the human completely, giving it instead to an arbitrary omnipresent machine (rather than an isolated entity-machine as in scene 3).

Precisely shaping the arrangement of apparent power within feedback will be a vital part of its next development.

In terms of the viewers themselves I observed a divide between those who were frustrated by not being able to see the dancer, and those who never even thought it was an issue. At first I thought this may be about expectations regarding dance performance and a privileging of the virtuous body, in the same way written text is often said to be privileged in dramatic theatre. However I think it also may be to do with an intuitive rejection of the feedback loop itself, or some aspect of it. I need to think more on this but certainly it is a factor to keep in mind for future development.

For me much of the viewer response resonated quite strongly with my own feelings on feedback, so one of the most valuable things to come out of the showings was a validation of my own view of the work.

Questions I now know the answer to:

Is feedback a dance work?

No. Physical movement is a vital form of input in feedback, but I think the language and traditions of dance are something that would cloud feedback as a whole work if they were to become a major element. I do think getting the input of a choreographer is vital for taking feedback to its next stage. I'd love to bring in an 'expert mover' who could help the other participants find a greater range of physical expression in their interactions.

Is feedback a theatre work?

No. For me theatre is distinguished as work that presents ideas in language and asks us to consider those ideas. What I want, and it's a big want, is for language to be largely stripped out of feedback in an attempt to communicate via.... whatever it is that is left when you take away language. I can't describe it well yet. I see it in the dots from scene 1. The person moves, they extend their arm, but we don't see an arm and all the body language associated with an arm. We just see the dots moving, but we know they are human because it's still a human movement.

This is a difficult decision. The clips in scene 4 are extremely attractive to me from a visual perspective, and I will certainly revisit them at some point, but for now they are too loaded with symbols and language. I think feedback needs to remain true to my original (and admittedly grand) idea, that there is some kind of euphoric understanding to be found as a participant in a feedback loop. By stripping away the distractions of higher, symbol based communication I believe I can more effectively share my base,

Is feedback a performance?

No. And yes. The work-in-progress happened in a theatre and ran for 50 minutes. And I think the version of feedback that I'm currently making funding applications for will do the same. And when the next development is over I want to take it to festivals and venues and show it in a performance format. I think this is simply because I have a background working on performances and so I understand how to put work on in these spaces. I think feedback could also work in an installation format and I'm not ruling out going that direction in the future. So I think the answer is that its entirely subjective as to whether feedback is a performance or not, I only know that its an expansion of my practice and so it hangs on the same framework as my previous output.

What does the future hold?

Lots more of what we just began to look at in scene 3. A decision making algorithm that can be as expressive as the dynamical systems (attractors) used in Scene 1.

A stronger link between the scenes overall, but not going so far as to start thinking of it as a narrative.

Some way for the movers to see what the vision is doing onstage without having to face the back wall.

A high quality video camera to record the documentation.

A biometric sensor worn by viewers. This signal would mediates the data coming from the stage allowing the dynamic/intensity of the loop to be controlled through some intrinsic value coming directly from the viewer. Not only would this literally put viewers into the loop but it would allow a 'natural' method for shaping the piece, rather than relying on timed changes or other arbitrary control.

When feedback is complete I hope to put the entire video of the 2010 September development online in order to complete the documentation. However in the meantime find some excerpts here

Questions and responses are always welcome.

I'd like to say a big thankyou to:
Merrigong Theatre Company for supporting my work.
The Faculty of Creative Arts in the University of Wollongong for helping me realise that this was possible.
The vvvv.org community for making this possible.

Photos courtesy of Jessica Millman Photography