• The economy of means (3 bodies, 3 chairs, 3 laptops) versus the resulting dynamics of all the elements is really effective. Really like the idea of choreography through (video) editing.

The time lag from the act of copying really makes me think about choreography (/editing) as something that exists pre-performance. And the play of the sequence of choreography, rehearsal, performance etc could be interesting?

  • I like it, I feel that the two people on the right were watching a different video from the left – but at the same time there was a dialogue. Don’t laugh but I thought you girls were watching Bruce Lee. J
  • Firstly I was preoccupied with how accurately the movements were being reproduced – then I thought about the physical work involved in making work is never usually seen.
  • The most interesting aspect for me is how the 3 performers sometimes have similar movements at certain times even though each seem to be absorbed in one’s own movements (despite the 3 being situated in such close proximity in the same space) I wonder about the deliberate extent of synchronicity in the choreography.

Perhaps the dressing of the performers could be colour coded or standardized to make the performance visually more engaging? J

  • How do I know there’s anything on the screen?! Response – Reflecting? Or imitating?






  • Should be able to see something of what you are looking at on screens.

More physical movements have more impact.

Facially expressive parts less convincing.

Perhaps more narrative/episodic movements might be effective. And then one relates to impacts on another.

Liked chaotic aspect.

Reminded me in parts of ritual prayer.

Microsoft kinect-feed movements back onto program so one influences next.

  • Contrived. Whether this is the intention (quite possibly) or not in the movement.
  • The set created atmosphere of studying room (?)

The dance was feeling of restricted..

  • I felt the dance was very physical and gave me the chance to observe and make the connections myself. I thought it was a human acting in a sort of cathartic exorcism like a ROBBOT. It engaged me completely. The way it was performed each face had an expression. The silence left me FIXED and trying to guess if you had rehearse or not. A DANCE LIKE THE TARANTELA.
  • For me the most interesting aspect of the performance was the isolation of the performers because usually dance in groups is associated with interaction and synchronization. In the occasional parts were the movement of the different performers were in sync it seems that it was by chance rather than arrangement which further added to the sense of isolation. It was very successful!
  • Really loved it! Very engaging. Particularly the emotions.
  • It was great. It need not need exclamation. I found the text above a bit distracting as the performance worked without this. It made me think of many things, but none which can be described in one word! (Which I think is a good thing)
  • Quite removed from “dance”. Only the fact that you were obviously “dancers” meant it reared towards “dance”. With non-dancers the effect would be quite different. I was frustrated that the movement didn’t seem to mean anything – or at least we can’t see any meaning. It’s fascinating that we don’t know what you are copying or even if you are copying anything or if your movements are choreographed or accidental.
  • Individuality, variance,
  • Made me extremely aware of my movements.

Made me see actions/movements differently –how many are forced? How many are natural? (Both in the performance and in real life)

Felt like a sequence of events broken down to only the movements

Faces have “a life of their own”

Puppets dragged alone by the screen.

  • I became quite conscious of my own seated position and a little uncomfortable in how static I felt.
  • Is this questionnaire to create data for your research, or is it a parody of a feedback process conducted during your performance? Or something else? I didn’t see any text or video (unless this is the text?) We have to consider that there may or may not be a video or set of videos. I often mistrust claims made for a piece of work (as in “is an unsettling and playful piece which…”) do you parody this practice of introducing work with claims about what it does? Or is this a genuine attempt to pre-empt how I experience the piece, for example, I am expected to find it funny and that emotional response is assumed before I can make my response or form of judgment about whether it evokes memories or makes me laugh. Maybe I am not unsettled. Am I wrong?
  • The ROSSAS ROUTINE! Knowing about it kind of spoiled it for me, but I think it would ‘ve been interesting from the ‘unknowing; point of view.
  • I was thinking about Beckett while watching (not meaning your work is derivative) making me think about the isolation of each performer, from the audience as well as form each other. Seemed quite tragic in that sense that individuals were not able to communicate with the person next to them or even look at them – the communication goes form laptop to performer. Brought up ideas about interaction with computers at work and at home. Sharing space but not really sharing. Someone said “electronic puppets” – very resonant for me a sinister notion of the body being controlled by an outside agent, lacking agency itself. Thank you.
  • That would be more engaging if the videos you were copying from will be screens on the background and visible for audience. Interesting, but difficult to follow and concentrate for a long time, as there is no sound / plot to build a connection with.