Breaking from realism: exploring the potential of glitch in AI-generated dance

References

• Berman, A., and V. James. 2015. Kinetic dialogues: enhancing creativity in dance. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Movement and Computing, 80–83.
   Google Scholar
• Bishop, C. M. 1994. “Mixture density networks.” Technical report, Aston University, Birmingham, UK. http://publications.aston.ac.uk/373/.
   Google Scholar
• Bisig, D. 2022. Generative dance-a taxonomy and survey. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Movement and Computing, 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Blackwell, T., O. Bown, and M. Young. 2012. “Live Algorithms: Towards Autonomous Computer Improvisers.” In Computers and Creativity, edited by J. McCormack and M. d'Inverno, 147–174. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Boden, M. 1992. The Creative Mind. London: Abacus.
   Google Scholar
• Boden, M. A. 2007. “Creativity in a Nutshell.” Think 5 (15): 83–96.
   Google Scholar
• Boden, M. A. 2010. Creativity and art: Three Roads to Surprise. London: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2019. “Reflecting on Reflexive Thematic Analysis.” Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 11 (4): 589–597.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlson, K., P. Pasquier, H. H. Tsang, J. Phillips, T. Schiphorst, and T. Calvert. 2016. Cochoreo: A generative feature in idanceforms for creating novel keyframe animation for choreography. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Computational Creativity.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson, K., T. Schiphorst, and P. Pasquier. 2011. “Scuddle: Generating Movement Catalysts for Computer-aided Choreography.” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Computational Creativity.
   Google Scholar
• Cascone, K. 2000. “The Aesthetics of Failure: “post-Digital” Tendencies in Contemporary Computer Music.” Computer Music Journal 24 (4): 12–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, S. J. 1961. “Avant-garde Choreography.” Criticism 3 (1): 16–35.
   Google Scholar
• Crnkovic-Friis, L., and L. Crnkovic-Friis. 2016. Generative choreography using deep learning. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Computational Creativity.
   Google Scholar
• Eno, B. 2001. Oblique strategies. https://www.enoshop.co.uk/product/oblique-strategies. html.
   Google Scholar
• Fdili Alaoui, S. 2019. Making an interactive dance piece: Tensions in integrating technology in art. Proceedings of the 2019 on designing interactive systems conference, 1195–1208.
   Google Scholar
• Fdili Alaoui, S., T. Schiphorst, S. Cuykendall, K. Carlson, K. Studd, and K. Bradley. 2015. Strategies for embodied design: The value and challenges of observing movement. Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition, 21–130.
   Google Scholar
• Gabriel, A., D. Monticolo, M. Camargo, and M. Bourgault. 2016. “Creativity Support Systems: A Systematic Mapping Study.” Thinking Skills and Creativity 21: 109–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galeano, A., and J. Matuszak. 2014. “Performing with Objects.” PAJ: A Journal of Performance and Art 36 (3): 102–111. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26386709.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gemeinboeck, P., and R. Saunders. 2017. Movement matters: How a robot becomes body. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on movement Computing, 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey, F. G., M. Yurick, D. Nowrouzezahrai, and C. Pal. 2020. “Robust Motion in-Betweening.” ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 39 (4): 60–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hochreiter, S., and J. Schmidhuber. 1997. “Long Short-Term Memory.” Neural Computation 9: 1735–1780. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacob, M., and B. Magerko. 2015. Viewpoints ai. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition, 361–362.
   Google Scholar
• Kimmel, M., D. Hristova, and K. Kussmaul. 2018. “Sources of Embodied Creativity: Interactivity and Ideation in Contact Improvisation.” Behavioral Sciences 8 (6): 52.
   Google Scholar
• M. Kumar, D. Long, and B. Magerko. 2020. Creativity metrics for a lead-and-follow dynamic in an improvisational dance agent. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Computational Creativity.
   Google Scholar
• Leach, J., and S. Delahunta. 2017. “Dance Becoming Knowledge: Designing a Digital “Body”.” Leonardo 50 (5): 461–467.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, R., S. Yang, D. A. Ross, and A. Kanazawa. 2021. Learn to Dance with Aist++: Music Conditioned 3d Dance Generation.” arXiv:2101.08779.
   Google Scholar
• Li, J., Y. Yin, H. Chu, Y. Zhou, T. Wang, S. Fidler, and H. Li. 2020. Learning to Generate Diverse Dance Motions with Transformer.” arXiv Preprint ArXiv:2008.08171.
   Google Scholar
• Loke, L., and T. Robertson. 2013. “Moving and Making Strange: An Embodied Approach to Movementbased Nteraction Design.” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 20 (1): 1–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGregor, S. W. 2020. “Living Archive: Creating Choreography with Artificial Intelligence” arts & culture google. https://experiments.withgoogle.com/living-archive-wayne-mcgregor.
   Google Scholar
• Menkman, R. 2011. Glitch studies manifesto. Video vortex reader II: Moving images beyond YouTube, 336–347.
   Google Scholar
• Peña, E., and K. James. 2016. “A Glitch Pedagogy: Exquisite Error and the Appeal of the Accidental.” Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies 14 (1): 108–127.
   Google Scholar
• Plant, N., C. Hilton, M. Gillies, R. Fiebrink, P. Perry, C. González Díaz, R. Gibson, B. Martelli, and M. Zbyszynski. 2021. Interactive machine learning for embodied interaction design: A tool and methodology. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Ramesh, A., M. Pavlov, G. Goh, S. Gray, C. Voss, A. Radford, M. Chen, and I. Sutskever. 2021. Zero-shot text-to-image generation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 8821–8831. PMLR.
   Google Scholar
• Remy, C., L. MacDonald Vermeulen, J. Frich, M. M. Biskjaer, and P. Dalsgaard. 2020. Evaluating creativity support tools in hci research. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM designing interactive systems conference, 457–476.
   Google Scholar
• Ritchie, G. 2007. “Some Empirical Criteria for Attributing Creativity to a Computer Program.” Minds and Machines 17: 76–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rokeby, D. 1986–1990. A very nervous system. http://www.davidrokeby.com/vns.html.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, L. 2021. Glitch Feminisms. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Sangild, T. 2013. “Glitch—the Beauty of Malfunction.” In Bad Music, edited by C. J. Washburne and M. Derno, 267–284. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sawyer, R. K. 1999. “The Emergence of Creativity.” Philosophical Psychology 12 (4): 447–469.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schiphorst T. 2013. Merce cunningham: Making dances with the computer. Merce Cunningham: Creative elements, 79–98.
   Google Scholar
• Shneiderman, B. 2000. “Creating Creativity: User Interfaces for Supporting Innovation.” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 7 (1): 114–138.
   Google Scholar
• Singh, N., G. Bernal, D. Savchenko, and E. L. Glassman. 2022. “Where to Hide a Stolen Elephant: Leaps in Creative Writing with Multimodal Machine Intelligence.” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 30 (5): 1–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soga, A., B. Umino, and J. S. Longstaff. 2005. Automatic composition of ballet sequences using a 3d motion archive. In 1st South-Eastern European Digitization Initiative Conference.
   Google Scholar
• Sol, N. 2022. I used chopin to program drums. the results were kind of amazing https://youtu.be/wY1dIY-UDY?t=366.
   Google Scholar
• Starke, S., Y. Zhao, T. Komura, and K. Zaman. 2020. “Local Motion Phases for Learning Multi-Contact Character Movements.” ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 39 (4): 54–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sturm, B. L., and O. Ben-Tal. 2017. “Taking the Models Back to Music Practice: Evaluating Generative Transcription Models Built Using Deep Learning.” Journal of Creative Music Systems 2 (1): 32–60.
   Google Scholar
• Thelle, N. J., and R. Fiebrink. 2022. How do musicians experience jamming with a co-creative “ai”? https://neuripscreativityworkshop.github.io/2022/papers/ml4cd2022_paper12.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Vaswani, A., N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 5998–6008.
   Google Scholar
• Wallace, B., C. P. Martin, J. Tørresen, and K. Nymoen. 2021a. “Exploring the Effect of Sampling Strategy on Movement Generation with Generative Neural Networks.” In Artificial Intelligence in Music, Sound, Art and Design, edited by J. Romero, T. Martins, and N. Rodríguez Fernández, 344–359. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Wallace, B., C. P. Martin, J. Tørresen, and K. Nymoen. 2021b. Learning embodied sound-motion mappings: Evaluating ai-generated dance improvisation. In Creativity and Cognition, 1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Wallace, B., K. Nymoen, C. P. Martin, and J. Tørresen. 2019. Deepdance: Motion capture data of improvised dance. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5838179.
   Google Scholar
• Wilde, D., A. Vallgårda, and O. Tomico. 2017. Embodied design ideation methods: analysing the power of estrangement. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 5158–5170.
   Google Scholar