‘I gave that cue.’ Integrating dance studies, praxeology, and computational perspectives to model change in the case study of William Forsythe’s Duo

Figures & data

Figure 1. The Duo Project by William Forsythe. (left) Duo with dancers Allison Brown and Jill Johnson in 2003 © Jack Vartoogian/FrontRowPhotos. (right) DUO2015 with dancers Riley Watts and Brigel Gjoka © Bill Cooper.

Table 1. Key performances of Duo.

Date	Location	Dancers
20 January 1996	Frankfurt	Regina van Berkel and Jill Johnson
8 May 1997	Frankfurt	Regina van Berkel and Allison Brown
9 March 2000	Frankfurt	Allison Brown and Jill Johnson
29 June 2003	Cologne	Allison Brown and Roberta Mosca
12 September 2013	Weimar	Brigel Gjoka and Riley Watts
Date unknown 2015^7	London	Brigel Gjoka and Riley Watts
6 August 2016	Paris	Brigel Gjoka and Riley Watts

Table 2. Annotation categories: Duo research in comparison to Synchronous Objects.

Duo Research Movement Material (i.e. the elements comprising each dancer’s movement sequence) Subcategories: degrees of transformation Entrainment Mode (i.e. the dancers’ modes of entrainment) Subcategories: based on Laban Motion Factors Transitions (i.e. cues, prompts, Alignments) Subcategories: based on mode and relational qualities Synchronous Objects for One Flat Thing, reproduced (Forsythe et al. 2009) Movement Material (i.e. the elements comprising each dancer’s movement sequence) Alignments Cues

Figure 2. Screenshot showing annotation data for the 1996 key performance in Microsoft Excel. Columns A and B record the duration markings of the video; column C the category of entrainment; column D the transitions; Column E sectional markings; Column F the movement material identifier; Columns G and H reiterate informal names for the movement material of the left and right dancers respectfully, drawn from Waterhouse and the dancers’ lingo.

Figure 3. Isadora visualizer showing the 1997 key performance, timecode and annotation of ‘c’ for concurrent motion.

Figure 4. Annotations of the 1996 key performance in Piecemaker.

Table 3. Sequence Changes to a Hypothetical Sequence of Building Blocks ABCDE.

Insert of new material (N)	ABCDE becomes ABCNDE
Removal or loss of material (C)	ABCDE becomes ABDE
Repeat	ABCDE becomes ABBCDE or ABABCDE
Scramble	ABCDE becomes CEDBA
Variation B becomes B	ABCDE becomes ABCDE
Complex: all of the above	ABCDE becomes DENABAB

Figure 5. Relative proportions of entrainment modes in Duo longitudinally.

Figure 6. Relative duration of transformed motion in Duo longitudinally.

Table 4. Duration of key performances (seconds).

Duo	DUO2015
20 January 1996: 770s	(date unknown) 2015: 899s
8 May 1997: 832s	6 August 2016: 1009s
9 March 2000: 741s
29 June 2003: 756s
12 September 2013: 561s

Table 5. Modes of Entrainment (%) of Duo key performances.

	1996	1997	2000	2003	2013	2015	2016
Unison	42.5	44.7	46.9	47.6	53.5	34.1	46.0
Concurrent	17.0	16.7	17.0	18.5	22.4	35.1	28.5
Turn-taking	22.0	22.7	18.1	16.4	0.7	1.4	2.03
Solo	11.6	9.6	10.2	12.3	13.0	24.6	21.9
Break	5.2	4.6	5.39	3.4	6.1	0.4	0.6
Other	1.8	1.6	2.36	1.75	4.3	4.33	1.04

Table 6. Count of cues, Alignments and prompts of Duo key performances.

	1996	1997	2000	2003	2013	2015	2016
Cues	12	15	12	13	19	5	15
Alignments	29	35	30	33	27	34	35
Prompts	1	0	0	1	3	4	1
Total	41	40	42	47	49	43	51

Figure 7. Overview of change and continuity in Duo longitudinally.

Figure 8. Duo longitudinal data at a glance.

Forsythe, William, Maria Palazzi, Norah Zuniga Shaw, and Scott deLahunta. 2009. “Synchronous Objects for One Flat Thing, reproduced.” The Forsythe Company and The Ohio State University, http://synchronousobjects.osu.edu. Accessed December 15, 2020.

 Google Scholar