Cosmic Body S(t)imulation 

​

This pilot project explored choreographic interactions between a human dancer and the Stewart platform at Motion Lab, University of Agder. It formed the basis for investigating what kinds of physical, aesthetic, and conceptual vocabularies might emerge when dance is situated not only on but with a dynamic machine—a device that operates both as environment and as partner. The collaboration included dancer Ellinor Ødegård Staurbakk, myself as choreographer, and engineers from the Mechatronics Innovation Lab. Over the course of one week, we developed a physical and conceptual foundation for what we tentatively call the “cosmic body”—a body navigating unfamiliar gravitational and spatial conditions, as might be imagined in a post-climate-collapse or extra-terrestrial future.

The project tested a set of machine-generated scenarios (earthquake, wave simulation, neutral gravity) and modes of control (fully autonomous platform movement, head- and hand-driven real-time interaction). These scenarios allowed us to treat the platform not as an extension of scenography or as a responsive tool, but as an active agent—its own performer—shaping both the dance material and the conditions under which it emerged. Our aim was to allow the machine’s presence and its “logic” to participate in the making of choreographic material.
The final result was a 15-minute program where the dancer gradually gained more control: 

Earthquake simulation (no dancer control) 
Wave simulation (no dancer control) 
Wave simulation (dancer head control) 
Free movement (dancer head control) 
Free movement (dancer hand control) 

Each mode provided a different sense of agency, rhythm, and weight. As we layered or shifted between them, new choreographic possibilities emerged—not only in the modes themselves, but also in the transitions between them. What follows are some of the key reflections, tests, and physical discoveries that surfaced during the pilot:

Cables from the Stewart platform and the Qualisys motion capture system became part of the scenographic imagination. We began to see them not as technical infrastructure but as roots—an organic extension grounding the dancer through the machine. The cameras setup could likewise be read as part of a futuristic yet strangely familiar ecosystem, evoking an alien planet that somehow felt known.

We found that less movement from the dancer often had more impact. Stillness, minimal gestures, or simply being moved by the platform had a stronger presence than constant motion. The machine's rhythm amplified the subtlety.

In earthquake mode, when the dancer hangs off the machine in a harness and the platform begins shaking, her body becomes strikingly vulnerable. This is a clear moment where the machine has full agency, and the dancer's body is in an “exposed" state.

Sculpture positions emerged when the dancer paused mid-movement during subtle wave programs, or when the platform froze under dancer control. These pauses revealed a compositional rhythm we want to explore further— as punctuation and as tension held in time.

Glitches became important. At one point, when the dancer used head movement to control rotation, the platform unexpectedly began jolting back and forth (due to a reading error in the sensor code). The platform took over momentarily, producing unplanned movements. These interruptions exposed the improvisational capacity of the machine—moments of randomness, failure, or refusal that invited new reactions from the dancer. We began to use these deliberately: the dancer could enter and hold a known "glitch point" by positioning her head at a specific angle, allowing the platform to momentarily behave unpredictably. This type of contingency should be key in the full scale dance performance. 

We also noticed how dancer control—especially via head movement—requires completing a gesture. In the waves + head control mode, if the dancer didn’t finish a full gesture motion, the dance appeared robotic, giving it a “stop-motion” effect.

The earthquake mode provided a set of useful physical insights:

When the dancer stands still and lets the platform shake her body, the movement reads clearly.

​

But if she actively uses her muscles, the shaking disappears—she counters it.

By strategically engaging different body parts (knees, hips, torso), the dancer can direct the visible shake through her body in waves. She can also interrupt the shake—transitioning from a visibly shaking state to stillness, and back again—without the platform ever stopping.

One small but interesting movement motif emerged when the dancer performed push-up–like gestures while listening attentively to the platform’s rhythm. These moments of physical “tuning” could develop into a larger compositional logic.

In wave mode, when the dancer stood and bent her knees in rhythm with the machine, her upper body remained visually level—creating the illusion of a levitating body. This moment of visual contradiction was effective and could become a central image.

We tested abstract hand and arm gestures that appeared to be “suggested” by the machine’s movement. Some gestures took on emotional weight even though they had no known referent. We found that by splitting a gesture into two separate directions or phases, we could play with the level of control—questioning whether the dancer or the platform initiated the movement.

Toward the end of the week, we began working on a more layered and structured scenario, beginning with a suspended, off-platform position while the machine initiated earthquake-like movements. The platform rose gradually, as if lifting the dancer from the ground. This sequence transitioned through several modes—earthquake, waves, wave + head control, free motion—before ending in a state of slow up-and-down “breathing.” The closing image was one of gradual descent and stillness, echoing the opening rise.

In terms of aesthetic and dramaturgical potential, we started building a choreographic script that combines technical modes (“earthquake”, “waves”, “neutral”) with types of agency (platform only, platform + dancer control, dancer control only), and overlays these with imagined inner motivations and environmental metaphors.

 

​​

​

​