PLAGIARY an ambitious exploration of AI-integrated dance
Alisdair Macindoe: concept, direction, choreography, text, coding, sound design and set design
Sydney Opera House, Unwrapped Festival, 14th September 2024
reviewed by Sarah Kalule
Dimly lit dancers prepared behind a black scrim for the matinee of Plagiary, choreographed by Alisdair Macindoe, at Sydney Opera House’s Studio. Amongst them, a colourful array of clothes were lined up on racks as they dressed in mismatched outfits, finishing their costume with name-tagged bibs. Through projected captions and a robotic voice over, the audience was informed about the performance, including the option for participatory play—we received polarised glasses that blocked out the projections and the scrim stage wings. The grand gimmick was also revealed through the captions and voice: the performance was generated from randomised AI prompts that appeared on the screen as text throughout and was also fed to the dancers via their wireless earpieces. However, some ideas can only go so far, and here, for me, the concept outshone the work.
There were impressive concepts of plagiarism and autonomy shaping Plagiary. Responding to descriptive and action-based prompts, such as “walk onto the stage” and “traverse like gods”, the ten dancers floated and flickered across the stage, occasionally retreating behind the scrim. Their dancing was clearly experimental, carefully considered, and built upon technical contemporary dance skills. They displayed robust commitment as they transitioned through one postural phrase to the next in line with the AI’s fast paced commands, blurring the lines between self-initiative and AI responsive movement. However, ten minutes in, momentum plateaued. The work revealed its overall theme too early leaving little room for evolution. Perhaps this was an intentional decision, feeding into the idea of AI as a novice compared to human intelligence. The AI did prompt exciting sub-themes including AI-generated images, tales and interviews, however the lack of contrast and change as the performance evolved induced feelings of indifference. Even the performers’ ethereal gazes reflected their disconnect, making the work feel like a haphazard rehearsal. Had the AI fed the performers more risk-taking tasks, such as performing between states of compliance and rebellion, it might have made an impactful contrast. Nonetheless, the sameness of the prompts paved the way for the performers’ ability to make original choices. At times they were given the same task, but each unique take further affirmed their independence from the AI. While the overall theme was revealed too soon, these responses to tasks opened up a platform to query AI’s role in the performing arts, demonstrating the human choreographer as far more creative and capable in making performance.
The most compelling section of the work was a numbers game, where the dancers chose a number between one and five and moved when the AI called their number. With the prompt, “drop suddenly to the floor when you hear your number, then slowly rise”, their popcorn-like, explosive response brewed up an exciting anticipation. The audience did not know when the dancers would strike, offering a dynamic surprise as their movement was now unpredictable. Not only did this allow a contrasting moment in comparison to the force-fed prompts, this game was also an effective demonstration of flexible boundaries. It was a moment where AI and performers were working together and were dependent upon each other. Rather than having the AI set rigid frameworks, this numbers game set a foundational framework of performing a specific movement alongside the flexibility for the dancers to choose when to perform the movement, bringing the performers together as a harmonious ensemble. By working with the AI in this way, this further underscores the narrative of who’s in control—whether that be the AI or the performers.
In most cases, Macindoe positioned the AI as the dominant figure, but I question the sustainability of critiquing AI while leaning so heavily on it, if this was indeed his aim. Since AI lacks autonomy or desire, the effect of a controlling force feels inauthentic because it was really Macindoe orchestrating the initial ideas. The text prompts, ambient music and apocalyptic computer graphics, without deeper development, made the overall concept of the work feel awkward and emotionally flat.
While there were a couple of culturally diverse performers, the lack of equal representation limited the work’s depth. People from all walks of life have encountered AI, and an equal range of ages, body types, and dance experience would have enriched the interpretations, potentially further reflecting the diversity of unique perspectives.
Macindoe's Plagiary excels in initiating innovative performance ideas that interact with emerging technologies. Choreographically, there are compelling elements of body ownership where the performers’ decisions to enter or leave the stage contributed to a reclaiming of art affected by technology’s role in plagiarism. Performers Joel Fenton and Siobhan Lynch stood out as a hilarious and engaging duo in their impromptu interview, in which they recited the AI’s nonsensical tales. The ensemble was undoubtedly talented, displaying flair and commitment. The set design was a highlight, using playful light and shade effects with polarised glasses.
Though this Sydney premiere season was short, I would hope to see more development of Plagiary. Employing emerging technologies offers a gateway to explore untapped possibilities. However, when the excitement of AI fades, what makes the performance worth staying for? Answering this is crucial to prolonging momentum.
Plagiary is an ambitious and experimental exploration of AI-integrated dance, and with further development, it has the potential to succeed beyond using new technology as mere novelty.
PLAGIARY
Sydney Opera House, Unwrapped Festival, 12-14 September 2024
Alisdair Macindoe: concept, direction, choreography, text, coding, sound design and set design
Performers: Sam Beazley, Franky Drouisoti, Joel Fenton, Josh Freedman, Allie Graham, Tara Hodge, Grace Lewis, Siobhan Lynch, Frances Orlina, Sam Osborn
Video design, image design, coding: Sam Mcgilp
Software Development, Head Coder: Chris Chua
Costume Design, Prop Design: Andrew Treloar
Lighting Design: Amelia Lever-Davidson
Production Management: Zsuzsa Gaynor Mahaly
Producer: Penelope Leishman (Insite Arts)
Sarah Kalule is an artist exploring choreography, literature and experimental performance. With a strong interest in contemporary art theory, her current practice delves into her diasporic histories, theatrical jazz and presenting the body in space through bold imagery.