Robots and Art pp 273-306 | Cite as

The Multiple Bodies of a Machine Performer

Part of the Cognitive Science and Technology book series (CSAT)


This chapter examines the potentials arising from the embodiment of Machine Performers. Thru an analysis of a robotic reappropriation of the early 20th century dance ensemble named The Tiller Girls, I argue that alternate views of the body further the concept of embodiment as currently seen by artificial intelligence. The chapter first compares embodiment from the biological to the social and cultural. Second, it analyses the passage of a walking robot, nicknamed Stumpy, from the AI lab to the stage. It describes how the historical body of the Tiller Girls shifts the perception of audiences and how such inherited competence contributes to the interpretive skills of a machine. I discuss on intrinsic characteristics that make them perform as opposed to solely function. Finally, by shifting this scientific investigation on gaits towards the perception and reception of robot movements, I am exploring audience mechanisms of empathy and identification towards those non-human performers.


Social Robot Body Schema Mirror Neuron System Point Light Display Movement Phrase 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Garner SB (1994) Bodied spaces: phenomenology and performance in contemporary drama. Cornell University Press Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Demers LP, Horakova J (2008) Anthropocentrism and the staging of robots. Transdisciplinary digital art. Sound, vision and the new screen, pp 434–450Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fischer-Lichte E (2008) The transformative power of performance: a new aesthetics. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Power C (2008) Presence in play: a critique of theories of presence in the theatre, vol 12. Rodopi Bv EditionsGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Csordas T (ed) (1994) Introduction: the body as representation and being in the world, in embodiment and experience: the existential ground of culture and self. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–24Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johnson M (2008) What makes a body? J Speculative Philos 22(3):159–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gallagher S (2012) Taking stock of phenomenology futures. Southern J Philos 50(2):304–318MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Merleau-Ponty M (1962) Phenomenology of perception. Routledge & Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pfeifer R et al. (2007) How the body shapes the way we think: a new view of intelligence. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brooks RA (1999) Cambrian intelligence: the early history of the new Ai. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brooks RA (2002) Flesh and machines: how robots will change us. Pantheon BooksGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaplan F, Oudeyer P (2008) Le corps comme variable expérimentale. Revue philosophique de la France et de l’étranger 3:287–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Riskin J (2003) The defecating duck, or, the ambiguous origins of artificial life. Critical Inquiry 29(4):599–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gallese V (2001) The shared manifold hypothesis. From mirror neurons to empathy. J Conscious Stud 8(5–7):33–50Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gallese V (2005) Embodied simulation: from neurons to phenomenal experience. Phenomenol Cogn Sci 4(1):23–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hagendoorn I (2004) Some speculative hypotheses about the nature and perception of dance and choreography. J Conscious Stud 11(3–4):3–4Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cross ES, Hamilton AFC, Grafton ST (2006) Building a motor simulation de novo: observation of dance by dancers. Neuroimage 31(3):1257–1267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rubidge S (2010) Understanding in our bodies: nonrepresentational imagery and dance. Degrés: Revue de synthèse à orientation sémiologique: Dance Research and Transmedia Practices. 38(141)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brooks RA (1998) Intelligence without representation. In: Cognitive architectures in artificial intelligence: the evolution of research programsGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ziemke T (2001) Are robots embodied. CiteseerGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wilson M (2002) Six views of embodied cognition. Psychon Bull Rev 9(4):625–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sharkey NE, Ziemke T (2001) Mechanistic versus phenomenal embodiment: can robot embodiment lead to strong AI? Cogn Syst Res 2(4):251–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lazere C, Shasha DE (2010) Natural computing: DNA, quantum bits, and the future of smart machines. WW NortonGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    De Man P (1984) Aesthetic formalization: Kleist’s Über das Marionettentheater. The rhetoric of romanticism, pp 263–288Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tellis S (1992) Toward an aesthetics of the puppet: puppetry as a theatrical act. Greenwood Press, New York, p 181Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hoffman G (2005) HRI: four lessons from acting method. M.I.T. Media LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Martin E (1992) The end of the body? Am Ethnologist 19(1):121–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Clark A (2008) Supersizing the mind: embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford University Press, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dewey J (1988) Experience and nature, vol 1. In: Jo Ann Boydston (ed) The later works, 1925–1953. Southern Illinois University Press, CarbondaleGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gallagher S (1995) Body schema and intentionality. The body and the self, pp 225–244Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Damasio A (1999) The feeling of what happens: body and emotion in the making of consciousnessGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ziemke T (2003) What’s that thing called embodiment? In: Proceedings of the 25th annual meeting of the cognitive science society. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Riegler A (2002) When is a cognitive system embodied? Cogn Syst Res 3(3):339–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Auslander P (2006) Humanoid boogie: reflections on robotic performance. In: David Krasner DZS (ed) Staging philopshy: intersections of theatre, performance, and philosophy. University of Michigan Press, pp 87–103Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Iida F, Dravid R, Chandana P (2002) Design and control of a pendulum driven hopping robot. In: International conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 02). pp 2141–2146Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    TheTillerGirls (1967) Sunday night at the London palladium.
  37. 37.
    Kracauer S (1995) The mass ornament: weimar essays. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MaGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Butler J (1988) Performative acts and gender constitution: an essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. Theatre J 40(4):519–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fischer-Lichte E (2008) Reality and fiction in contemporary theatre. Theatre Res Int 33(01):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sone Y (2008) Realism of the unreal: the Japanese robot and the performance of representation. Visual Commun 7(3):345–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nellhaus T (2010) Theatre, communication, critical realism. Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kirby M (2011) A formalist theatre. University of Pennsylvania PressGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fischer-Lichte E (2012) Appearing as embodied mind—defining a weak, a strong and a radical concept of presence. Archaeologies of presence, pp 103Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Michotte A (1963) The Perception of causality. Methuen, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Scholl BJ, Tremoulet PD (2000) Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends Cogn Sci 4(8):299–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Heider F (1944) Social perception and phenomenal causality. Psychol Rev 51(6):358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Heider F, Simmel M (1944) An experimental study of apparent behaviour. Am J Psychol 57:243–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Jola C, Ehrenberg S, Reynolds D (2011) The experience of watching dance: phenomenological‚ Äìneuroscience duets. Phenomenol Cogn Sci 1–21Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Reason M, Reynolds D (2010) Kinesthesia, empathy, and related pleasures: an inquiry into audience experiences of watching dance. Dance Res J 42(2):49–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hagendoorn I (2005) Dance perception and the brain. In: Grove R et al. (ed) Thinking in four dimensions: creativity and cognition in contemporary dance. Melbourne University Press, pp 137–148Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lakoff G, Johnson M (1999) Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. Basic Books (AZ)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Dautenhahn K, Nehaniv CL (2002) Imitation in animals and artifacts. MIT Press Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Johansson G (1973) Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Atten Percept Psychophys 14(2):201–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Johansson G (1976) Spatio-temporal differentiation and integration in visual motion perception. Psychol Res 38(4):379–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Shiffrar M (2011) People watching: visual, motor, and social processes in the perception of human movement. Wiley Interdisc Rev: Cogn Sci 2(1):68–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Pyles JA, Grossman ED (2009) Neural adaptation for novel objects during dynamic articulation. Neuropsychologia 47(5):1261–1268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Pyles JA et al (2007) Visual perception and neural correlates of novel’biological motion’. Vision Res 47(21):2786–2797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Chouchourelou A, Golden A, Shiffrar M (2013) What does biological motion really mean? differentiating visual percepts of human, animal, and nonbiological motions. In: People watching: social, perceptual, and neurophysiological studies of body perception, pp 63Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Chouchourelou A, Golden A, Shiffrar M (2011) What does biological motion really mean? Differentiating visual percepts of human, animal, and non-biological motions. In: Visual perception of the human body. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Art, Design and MediaNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations