1

Youmove,Iwatch,itmatters:AestheticCommunicationinDance

GuidoOrgs1,DanaCaspersen3,PatrickHaggard2Affiliations:1DepartmentofPsychology,Goldsmiths,UniversityofLondon2InstituteofCognitiveNeuroscience,UniversityCollegeLondon3TheForsytheCompanyCorrespondingauthor:GuidoOrgs,DepartmentofPsychology,Goldsmiths,UniversityofLondon,SE146NW,London,UK.E-mail:g.orgs@gold.ac.ukBookChapterpublishedin:SHAREDREPRESENTATIONS:SENSORIMOTORFOUNDATIONSOFSOCIALLIFESukhvinderS.Obhi&EmilyS.Cross,Editors,CambridgeUniversityPress2016.

2

SummaryIn this chapterwewill introduceanew theoryof aesthetics in theperformingarts that is based on communication via movement. With a specific focus ondance performances, we propose thatmovementmessages are communicatedfromperformertospectator.Wesuggestthattheaestheticimpactofdance(andperhapsallperformingarts) is a resultof successfulmessage-passingbetweenperformer and spectator. We show how Grice’s four maxims of successfulconversation can be applied to the performance situation. We propose thatcommunication during a performance is interactive and bidirectional.Information being passed from performer to audience is primarilycommunicated through observed movement kinematics and choreographicstructure:Wewilldistinguishbetweentheprocessingofsyntacticinformationofpostures,movementsandmovementsequencesontheonehand,andprocessingofsemanticsofmovementintentionsontheotherhand.Aestheticprocessingofthemovementmessagewillfurtherdependonthespectator’svisualandmotorexpertise. In a dimensional model of aesthetic appreciation of dance wedistinguishbetweenprocessing fluency andnovelty/complexity of informationas two distinct sources of movement aesthetics that relate to specific brainmechanisms. Aesthetic judgements of preference and interest will reflect acombinationofbothimplicitprocessingfluencyandexplicitaestheticstrategyoftheobserver.Ourtheorydiffersfromexistingaccountsofaestheticexperienceinthatitemphasisessuccessfulcommunicationastheprimarysourceofaestheticexperience. Appreciation of dance in this context is neither just a function ofdance movement features (as an objectivist aesthetics suggests) nor of thespectator’sprocessingfluency(asasubjectivistaestheticssuggests).Instead,ouremphasisoncommunication impliessome levelofexperience-sharingbetweendancerandspectator.

3

PerformingartsaestheticsandsocialcognitionAristotle argued that the performing arts are based on the human ability toimitate,andthatspectatorsderivepleasurefromwitnessingimitationsofreality(Poetics, IV).Aristotle thusemphasises social interactionsbetweenperformersand between performers and the audience as a prime contributor to theaestheticsof theperformingarts.The term ‘aesthetics’,derived from theGreekword“aisthetikos”(Isense,Ifeel)referstothescienceof“sensual”asopposedto“rational” cognition and was initially coined by Alexander Baumgarten in themiddle of the 18th century (Hammermeister, 2002). The first empiricalinvestigations into aesthetic cognition were conducted by Gustav TheodorFechner (1871), who studied optimal proportions in paintings (“the goldenratio”).Inmorerecenttimes,aestheticperceptionanditsneuralbasishasbeeninvestigatedinthevisualarts(Leder,2004;ZekiandLamb1994)andinmusic(Koelsch, 2011). In this chapter we will focus on aesthetic percpetion in theperformingarts and its link to social cognitionandcommunication theory.Wewill argue that aesthetic perception of the performing arts involves successfulcommunication between performers and spectators of a performance. Morespecificallywewillcombinethecognitiveneuroscienceofhowweperceiveandinterpret other people’s actions with knowledge from dance practice toformulateaneurocognitivetheoryofaestheticsinperformingdance.

DanceasasocialartformWhatisdance?TheOxfordEnglishDictionarygivesastraightforwarddefinition:Danceis“aseriesofstepsandmovementsthatmatchthespeedandrhythmofapiece of music”. This simple definition seems appealing at first glance, butregularvisitorsofdanceperformances,dancersandchoreographersarelikelytodisagree:Adanceperformancewillveryoftenneither involveaseriesof stepsnor any obvious relation to a piece ofmusic, yetwill clearly qualify as dance.Attempts to define core features of an art form are difficult because whatqualifiesasartconstantlychanges.Themostappreciatedartworkstodaywereoftendismissedwhentheywerecreated(Gopnik,2012).Toavoidthesepitfalls,wewillnot focushereon trying todefinewhatdance is, in thesenseofgivingminimal necessary and sufficient conditions. Instead, we aim to develop aneurocognitivetheoryofhowdanceworks.Thatis,if,anythingweretocountasdance,weanticipateitwouldinvolvethecognitiveandneuralmechanismsthatwe describe here. We conceptualize the performing art of dance as a humansocio-cultural activity where one individual moves, and another watches. Ourdefinition differs from the conventional “Movement to music” definition inalmostallpossiblerespects,barone.First,weholdthatmusicisaccessory,whileonewidespreadviewconsidersitessential.Second,weholdthatthepresenceofan observer is an essential part of dance as a performing art, yet danceobservationbarelyfiguresinmostdictionarydefinitionsofdance.Thisisnottosay that one cannot dance without being watched; rather we argue thatmovementinperformingdanceservesacommunicativepurpose,itisexpressive

4

movement,gearedtowardsexchangingemotions, intentionsandideasbetweenpeople(Leach,2013).In our view, the key feature of dance as a performing art is not somuch thedancer, but the dancer-observer dyad. People move all the time. Whatdistinguishesadanceperformancefrommeremovementisthatitisintendedforandhasa receiver. It ismovementdesigned forwatching.Performingdance isthusanintrinsicallysocialartformthatinvolvesatleasttwopeople,thedancerandaviewer.Thereisoftenathirdperson:thechoreographer.Incollaborationwiththedancer,thechoreographerdesignsthemovementthatistobewatched.We argue that understanding the aesthetic impact of dance involves first andforemostunderstandinghowpeoplesee,processand interpret themovementsofothers.In a neurocognitive sense, perceiving another’s movement involves aperceptuomotorcouplingbetweenindividuals’brains(RizzolattiandCraighero,2004; Heyes, 2011; Keysers and Perrett, 2004). Accordingly, the aestheticexperience of dance can be considered as a communicative process: In itssimplestform,thedancer/choreographeristhetransmitterofthemessage,bodymovementprovides themessage itself, and the spectator is the receiverof themessage(seefigure1).Fromthisperspective,danceissimilartootherformsofcommunication and message-passing. In this paper, we will investigate howtheories of communication deriving from cognitive informaticsmay help us tounderstandtheaestheticandculturalimpactofdance.

Dance MakingDance TrainingStage Presence

ReceiverSpectator/Audience

TransmitterDancer/Choreographer

MessageMovement Kinematics

Feedback

visual, action and emotional features

SemanticsSyntax

information- and fluency-based

aesthetic appreciation

Figure1:Communicationduringadanceperformance.Considering of dance as message-passing between bodies has a number ofinterestingimplications.First,itclearlydistinguishesdancefromotherartformsthatinvolveinanimateartisticobjectsorrepresentations,eithervisual(suchaspainting,artorfilm)orauditory(music).Thecardinalactivityofcommunicationis the direct contact between two ormore people,which is always present indance. In contrast, cultural activities such as writing or painting may haveundeniableartisticvalue,but thedirect contactbetweenartistandaudience isnotcentral.Rather,theaudiencerelatestotheartistonlyindirectly,throughanartistic‘work’suchasabookorpainting.Indance,thecommunicativesituationisthework.Second,ourviewfocusesonbodilymovementasacorefeatureofallperformingarts, including not only dancing, but perhaps also acting,miming, and singing

5

Understanding howmovement comes to carry aesthetic information thereforeprovides a basis for understanding how the performing arts work in general.This doesnotmean thatmovement is theonly carrier of informationduring adance performance, still less in other forms of performance art. Additionalelements (costume, lighting, stage design,music, words etc.)will substantiallycontribute to the aesthetic experience of a dance performance. However, wecontend that these additional elements are not strictly necessary: observedmovementremainstheonlynecessaryandsufficientcorefordance.

RoadmapIn the firstpartof this chapterwewill characterize the threecomponentsofacommunicationtheoryapproachtodance:themessagetransmitter(dancerandchoreographer), the message (observed movement) and the receiver (theaudience).Wewillthenexploretheconstraintsofmessage-passingbyapplyingGrice’s (1989) four cooperative principles of successful communication. Theseprinciplesrelatetothequantityandqualityofinformationthatisexchangedanddeterminethecomplexityofthemovementmessageinchoreography.Finallywewillintroduceadimensionalmodeloftheaestheticexperienceofdancethatwillrelate the movement message to aesthetic judgement and will identify bothimplicitaswellasexplicitsourcesofaestheticappreciationofmovement.

TheDancerasTransmitterIn a communication theory approach to dance, the dancer’s primary role is toconvey amessage to the audience bymaking bodymovements. This implies acertainlevelofobjectification:Thedanceruseshisbodyasthetoolformessage-passing.Thisviewclearlydistinguishesbetweenperformativedanceontheonehand,andothermovementpracticessuchasYoga,dancetherapyandthemartialarts on the other. The former focuses on successful communication to anaudience,while the latter focusmoreonachievingadesiredpersonal state, orgoal. Psychologically, one might say that the goal of dance performance isprimarilytoinduceastateofmindinthespectator.Incontrast,thegoalofdancetherapy, and of some movement practices often associated with dance, isprimarilytoinduceastateofmindinthedancer.

DanceTrainingservestooptimisemessagetransmissionThe limitsofwhatcanbecommunicatedthroughdancearesetbythephysicalconstraintsof thehumanbody. Ina communication theoryapproach todance,thepurposeofdance training is to reduce those constraintsby expandingandrefiningthewaysinwhichabodycanmove.Thisincreasesthemessage-passingcapacityofdance, inthesamewayasexpandingandrefiningthesemanticandsyntacticcapacity increase thecommunicativecapacityof thedevelopingchild.The increase in movement repertoire through dance training may involveaddition of new movements that were not previously possible (Daprati, Iosa,Haggard, 2009; Calvo-Merino, Glaser, Grèzes, Passingham, Haggard, 2005) ormay involveperfectingmovements that aremadeeveryday. In either case, the

6

range of physical and emotional expression is increased. This idea resemblesRudolf Laban’s developments of specific exercises “to develop the body as aninstrumentof expression” (Laban,2011). Interestingly, thisdefinitionofdanceexpertise is not exclusive to any particular dance style or technique (such asHipHop or Indian Kathak), but only refers to a dancer’s ability to effectivelycommunicateintentionsthroughmovement.

Choreographervs.DancerIn the case in which dancer and choreographer are not the same person, thedancerwill assume an additional role in transmitting not only his or her ownintentionsbut also the intentions of the choreographer.In this sectionwewilldiscuss the division of labour between Choreographer and Dancer in (a)generatingmessages,and(b)receivingthem/reconstructingintentions.

GeneratingmessagesThe division of labour between dancer and choreographer in generatingmessages is variable and changes according to the methodologies chosen forcreatingandperformingwork.Themessagescommunicatedinadanceworkareaffected by numerous elements. Among these are the chosen movementsequences,categoriesorgenerationprinciples, theoveralltemporalandspatialstructures of the work, the relationship of the movement to any soundcomponentandtheconditionsoftheenvironmentwithinwhichtheperformancetakesplace.Accordingtothemethodchosentocreatethework,theseelementsmay be the work of the choreographer or the performer, or theymay be theproduct of differing levels of collaboration between the two (ormore) peopleinvolved(Caspersen,2004).Weillustratethispointwithexamplesfromonemodernchoreographer.WilliamForsythe’s work shows several different divisions of labour betweenchoreographerandperformer.In“TheVertiginousThrillofExactitude,”Forsythechoreographed set movements in a specific relationship to the music. TheaudienceseesmovementsthatarelargelythecreativeworkofForsythe,whichare embodied in the experience and sensibilities of the dancer. On the otherhand,in“Sider,”Forsytheandhisfellowcompanymembersworkedtogetherandinparallel,usingseveraldifferentmethodstocreateabodyofmotionideasandscenic parameters. These parameters combined allow for the real-timeemergenceofmotioncontent.Inthispiece,thedancerswearearpiecesandlistento the soundtrack of a film of a Shakespeare play, which acts as a musicalentrainment device. At the same time, Forsythe uses the earpieces tocommunicatewiththedancers,directingthetemporalanddynamicstructureofthe scenes.Within this framework, the dancersmake decisions that shape thecontentof thework inperformance,accordingto thestrategies thathavebeenestablished. What the audience sees is movement that results from oneindivisibleflowofideasfromnumeroussources.There aremanyways tomake dance, ranging from asking questions - as forexample in the work of Pina Bausch (Climenhaga, 2009) - to applyingmathematical rules (de Keersmaeker and Cvejić, 2013). Dance pieces often

7

emergefromanextendedperiodofartisticresearchratherthanlinearlyfromapreformed conception. In the process of dance making, neither dancer norchoreographermaybeabletoexplicitlyidentifytheartisticmessagethatisbeingcreated and communicated. In fact underdetermined, conflicting or ambiguousmessagesmay form an essential part of all art (Jakesch and Leder 2009;Kirk,2008). Similarly, whereas some choreographic decisions and tools will bedeliberately applied, others may be purely intuitive (for a selection ofcontemporary approaches to dance making see motionbank.org). Importantly,however, we argue that dance making - irrespective of the specific approachtaken-ultimatelyresultsinamovementmessagethatwillprimethespectatortodecodebothcontentaswellasthesourceofthemessage.Onlythedancercanbeboth carrier and source of the movement message: the choreographer’scontributiontothemovementmessagerequiresthedancer’sbodyasacarrier.Withoutthedancer,thechoreographercanimaginemessage-passing,butcannotactuallydoit.

ReceivingmessagesDuringadanceperformance,directcommunicationoccursonlybetweendancerand spectator. The choreographers’ and/or the dancer’s contributions to themessage are not directly discernible. Rather, the audience must recover theintentions of the message based on what they see. A strength of thecommunication approach to dance aesthetics is that it clearly distinguishesbetween the message the audience receives, which is based solely on thedancer’smovements,andthemessagethatisintendedorgenerated,whichisinthe mind of the choreographer or dancer. Dance itself is the process ofconnectingthegenerativemessagetothereceptivemessage.

MovementasMessageWe have previously introduced a hierarchical model of dance perception thatdistinguishes three levelsofmovement representation (Orgs,Hagura,Haggard,2013). Based on this model, we will identify body-specific and more generalvisualfeaturesofthemovementmessage.Wewillshowhowthesecontributetoaesthetic impactofdance,separatingat least threedistinct levelsofmovementrepresentation: static body postures, dynamic movement and sequentialstructure.

ActionfeaturesofthemovementmessageTaken together, the building blocks of movement are combined in order tocommunicate intentions. This is impressively documented in studies showingthat people attribute specific and elaborate mental and emotional states todynamic animations of simple geometric shapes (Heider and Simmel, 1944).Kilner (2011)distinguishes four levelsofmovement representation: themotorlevel(neuralmotorcommands),thekinematiclevel(space,time,force),thegoallevelandtheintentionallevel.Sincethemotorcommands,goalsandintentionsofthedancerarenotavailabletothespectatordirectly,aestheticcommunicationbetweendancer and spectator can only occur at the visible kinematic level. In

8

otherwords“thedancerconsists–atleastforhisaudience–ofnothingbutwhatcanbeseenofhim.Hispropertiesandactionsareimplicitlydefinedbyhowhelooksandwhathedoes.Onehundredsixtypoundsofweightonthescaleswillnot exist if to the eye he has the winged lightness of a dragonfly” (Arnheim,1974). Although, auditory cues may play some part in perceived effort ofmovement (e. g. breath, contact with the floor), the primary carrier of theaesthetic impactofdance therefore lies in thevisuallyperceivedkinematicsofthe dancer’s movements. The contributions of other levels of movementrepresentationtotheaestheticexperienceofdancesuchasgoalsandintentionscan only be inferred from the visually available kinematic level. Importantly,recovering these intentions and goalsmay require a special processing of themovementmessagewithinthemotorsystemoftheobserver’sbrain(RizzolattiandCraighero,2004;KeysersandPerrett,2004;Urgesi,Calvo-Merino,Haggard,Aglioti, 2007; Calvo-Merino, Urgesi, Orgs, Aglioti, Haggard, 2010; Orgs,Bestmann,Schuur,Haggard,2011).Dancetraditionshaveaddedotherelements,such as costume, music and narrative. Nevertheless, the core of performativedance remains sensorimotor coupling induced by observing the dancer’smovementsandtheirkinematics.

EmotionalfeaturesofthemovementmessageIn addition to action goals and intentions, observers readily infer emotionalexpressions from both static and dynamic displays of the human body (deGelder,vandenStock,Meeren,Sinke,Kret,Tamietto,2010).Interestinglyactivityinbody-specificvisualareassuchas thesuperiortemporalsulcus(STS),or thefusiformbodyarea(FBA) is increased forexpressive(e.g. fearful)compared toneutral actions (Grèzes, Pichon, de Gelder, 2007; de Gelder, Snyder, Greve,Gerard,Hadjikhani,2004),suggestingaroleoftheseareasininferringemotionsfromobservedhumanmovement.Emotionalbodyposturesadditionallyactivatepremotorareasofthebrain(Grèzes,Pichon,deGelder,2007).Sincetheseareasarealsothoughttoextractintentionsfromothers’actions,emotionandintentionprocessingmaybe related.Expressivebodypostures are alsoprocessed fasterthan neutral body postures, producing shorter latencies in the body-specificN170 event-related potential, relative to neutral postures (van Heijnsbergen,Meeren,Grèzes,deGelder,2007).These findingssuggestadirect linkbetweenexpressiveness of movement and the ease with which the observed action isprocessed.Theeaseorfluencyofstimulusprocessinghasprovenanimportantpredictorofaestheticprocessing.Wewillreturntotheroleofprocessingfluencywhendiscussingthespectatorasthereceiverofthemovementmessage.

VisualfeaturesofthemovementmessageAsidefromtheseaction-specificfeatures,aestheticperceptionofthemovementmessage will also depend on features that are common to all visual aestheticperception (Palmer, Schloss, Sammartino, 2013). The best-studied principle ofthis kind has been composition and balance in visual objects or pictures(Fechner, 1871; McManus, 1980). Aesthetic judgement of dance appears tofollowthesamerulesasforothervisualstimuli.Aestheticjudgementsofdancepostures(Daprati,Iosa,Haggard,2009)andofdancemovements(Orgs,Hagura,Haggard, 2013)were governed by principles of symmetry and balance. Visual

9

“gestalt”principles,suchasgoodcontinuationofmovement,influenceaestheticjudgements of movement kinematics (Orgs, Hagura, Haggard, 2013). In morecomplexsituations,suchasmanydanceperformances,visualattributes,suchasthe spatial distribution of a group of dancers on stage and interpersonalsynchrony,mayalsobeaestheticallyrelevant(Loeb,1986).For example, theuseofpointe shoes in classicalballet canbe interpretedas ameans to enhance the visual features of themovementmessage. Pointe shoeswere introduced in the end of the 18th century, to allow dancers to executemovements that involved placing theirweight on the tips of their toes. Pointeshoesemphasisethemovementmessagebyvisuallylengtheningthelegsofthedancer:legmovementsbecomesalient.Similarly,theuseofépaulementinclassicalballetcanbeinterpretedasameanstoenhancethevisualfeaturesofthemovementmessage.Épaulementisasetofcomplex relationships between the dancer’s eyes, head, shoulders, hips, handsand feet; a series of curvilinear forms, or directed lines or volumes, in angledrelationships.Épaulementvisuallyextendsthegeometricangleswithinthebody,directingattentionbeyondthebodyandintothesurroundingspace.Oneeffectof épaulement is to expand and delineate the audience’s sense of the spacearoundthedancers,andtherelationshipsbetweenthedancers,thestageandtheaudience.(Caspersen,2011)

TheSpectatorasReceiverIn order to understand the aesthetic impact of movement on the receiver weneedtounderstandthebrainprocessthatunderliemovementperception(Zekiand Lamb, 1994; Blake and Shiffrar, 2007; Allison, Puce, McCarthy, 2000).Aesthetic evaluation of dance inevitably beginswith visual perception of bodymovement.Severalrecentstudieshaveidentifiedneuralprocessesthatunderlieperception of static visual bodies (Peelen and Downing, 2007), of humanmovement kinematics (McAleer, Pollick, Love, Crabbe, Zacks, 2013), and ofinferring intentions from other people’s actions (Kilner, 2011). All theseprocessesarepotentiallyrelevanttodanceperception.Ouraiminthispaperistoidentifyspecificneuralprocessesthatareessentialforthecorecircumstancesofdance:namelyyoumove, Iwatch,anditmatters. Anextensivereviewofallaspects of the neuroscience of dance is beyond the scope of this paper (forreviews, see Blaesing, Calvo-Merino, Cross, Jola, Honisch, Stevens, 2012; Crossand Ticini, 2011). Here, we focus on the influence of prior experience onaestheticprocessing,becausethisisperhapstheareawhereexistingtheoriesofaesthetic processing are most helpful. In the case of observedmovement, thespectator’sexpertisewilldependonbothvisualandmotor familiaritywiththemovementmessage.

VisualandmotorfamiliaritywiththeobservedmovementAesthetic perception will depend on whether movements are familiar to theobserver.Theinfluenceoffamiliarityonaestheticjudgementiswelldocumented

10

inthe“mere-exposureeffect”(Zajonc,1968).Peoplelikewhattheyknow.Inthecaseofmovementweneedtodistinguishbetweenvisualandmotorfamiliaritywith the observedmovement.Movements that have been frequently observedarepreferredtomovementsthathavebeenseenlessfrequently(Orgs,Hagura,Haggard,2013).Theinfluenceofvisual familiarityonthespectatorcanexplainwhypeoplepreferspecificmovementstyles.Thisargumentisparticularlystrongifamovementstylereliesonarelativelyrestrictedmovementvocabulary,asinclassical ballet. This is because a restrictedmovement vocabularywill usuallyimplymore repetitions of the same or similarmovements, thereby increasingtheirvisualfamiliarity.Visualfamiliaritycanexplainlong-term“Zeitgeist”effectsinaestheticappreciation(Carbon,2010).Originalandunfamiliarchoreographiesmaybeinitiallyrejectedbythepublic,butcangainwidespreadrecognitionovertime. One example is Stravinsky’s “Rite of Spring” first staged by the BalletsRusses in1913,whichcausedoutrageat itspremierebut isnowregardedasamasterpiece(Berg,1988).We have seen that on the side of the transmitter the vocabulary is limited bywhat thedancercando.One important theoryofmovementperceptionmakesan even stronger prediction: if visual motion perception is an ‘embodiedprocess’, in the sense of linking the observed actions of others to one’s ownmotor repertoire, then the receiver must have the capacity to make themovementiftheirbrainistofullyrespondtoit(Aglioti,Cesari,Romani,Urgesi,2008;Calvo-Merinoetal.,2005,2006;Orgs,Dombrowski,Heil,Jansen-Osmann,2008; Cross, Hamilton, Grafton, 2006). This is because unfeasible movementsoutside the motor repertoire cannot be mapped onto existing motorrepresentations and are thereforemotorically unfamiliar. Movement with lowmotor familiarity should therefore be less aesthetically pleasant thanmovementsforwhichtheobserverhasthecorrespondingmotorrepresentation(Beilock and Holt, 2007; Topolinski, 2010). Lack of familiarity should havenegative aesthetic impact. Existing studies onperceptuomotor couplingduringaestheticperceptionofmovementhoweverhaveproducedmixedfindingsontherelationship betweenmotor familiarity and preference.Whereas some studiesshow that knowing how to perform a movement correlates positively withaesthetic preference (Beilock and Holt, 2007; Topolinski, 2010; Kirsch,Drommelschmidt, Cross, 2013) other studies suggest that novel movementsoutsideofthemotorrepertoireoftheobserverareactuallypreferredtoknownmovements.Forexampleextremebodyposturesarepreferred to lessextremepostures(Crossetal.,2011,Dapratietal.,2009).Visual and motor familiarity both contribute to the spectator’s expertise.Expertise has been show to have a profound effect on aesthetic judgement(AugustinandLeder,2006).Wewillreturntotheroleofexpertiseindiscussingtheinfluenceoffluentprocessinginaestheticappreciation.

BidirectionalityofcommunicationIndanceperformance,informationisexchangedfromperformertoaudience,butalso from audience to performer. This bidirectional communication lies at theheartofdance’sstatusasaperformingart. Evena“passive”audienceprovides

11

continuousfeedbackthatwillinfluencedancers.Forexample,audiencemembersmayspontaneouslyclaporlaugh,orevenleaveanon-goingperformance.Evenlack of overt audience behaviour may be a signal to the dancer, indicatinginvolvement and concentration.These audience reactions confirmwhether theaudience receives the message transmitted by the dancer, and furthercommunicatewhether thedancer’s intentionswereunderstoodas intendedbythedancer.Forexampleaudiencelaughterprovidesfeedbacktothedancerthattheirintentiontobefunnysucceeded.Oriftheyhadsomeintentionotherthanbeing funny, the message of laughter provides feedback that the dancer’sintention failed. This information from the audience can then be used by thedancertomodulatetimingorexpressivityoftheirmovements,soastoeitherbeless or more funny, as appropriate. Accordingly the feedback provided by anaudience is used directly by the transmitter to adjust the communicationprocess. The existence of such a feedback loop supports the view of aperformance asmutual communicationbetweenperformer and audience. Thisloop isuniqueto theperformingarts,and isabsent inotherart formsthatarenot“live”.Somechoreographersemphasisethebidirectionalityofcommunicationbetweenperformers and the audience by creating work in which the spectator canbecome part of the actual performance. A performancemay take place amongobservers or outside the traditional theatre setting, thereby blurring theseparation between performers and the audience. Examples for such aninteractive approach to choreography can be found in the work of MegStuart/DamagedGoods(Peters,2010).

Danceasmessage-passing,orasexperience-sharing?In this paper, we use the communication-theory view of dance to sketch anexperimental approach to performing arts aesthetics. Defining dance as acommunicative act places few constraints on what dance is, other thanemphasisingtheimportanceofthereceiver/audience.Acommunicativeaccountof how dance works requires more precise constraints if it is to be moreinformative. Amajor shift in communication theory occurs if we compare thequantitative,mathematicalformulationsofShannonandWeaver(1949),andthepragmatic, behavioural theories pioneered by Grice (1989). The originalmathematical theory of information did not restrict in any way the set ofmessagesthatmightbepassedfromtransmitterandreceiver,andrequiredonlythatthesetofmessagesbeknowninadvancetobothparties. Infact,however,human communication typically involves a contextual restriction on what isactuallysaid.Thinkofthesetofmessagesthatyouexpecttoexchangewiththepersonwhocutsyourhair,forexample,andthelargersetofmessagethatyoudonot expect to exchange. In thenext sectionof thispaperwe showhowGrice’scooperativeprinciplesforsuccessfulconversation(Grice,1989)canalsobeusedto understand how dancers communicate messages, and how audiencesunderstand them. These cooperative principles relate to the (i) quantity ofinformation(ii)therelationbetweenpacketsofinformation,(iii)themannerinwhich information is presented and (iv) the quality of information. Message-

12

passing in dance is highly culturally constrained, and a Gricean approach canhelp in understanding how these constraints work. Grice’s maxims arereproducedintable1,togetherwithasuggestionoftheirpossibleapplicationtodance.Maxim Manifestation in dance Quantity Movement vocabulary and dance style Relation Structural properties of the movement sequence,

complexity and novelty of composition. Quality Congruency between observed movement and

inferred movement intentions; stage presence Manner Semantic ambiguity and novelty of movement

intentions Table1:Grice’smaximsofsuccessfulcommunicationappliedtodance.

Quantity:thesizeofthemovementvocabularyQuantity relates to theamountof informationcommunicated.Messagesshouldcontainneithermorenor less information than required. In the case of dance,this translates to economy of movement. Quantity of communication woulddeterminehowmanymovementsarepotentiallyperformedbythedancer,thatisthesizeofthemovementvocabulary.Inorderformessagestobeunderstood,transmitter and receiver need to share a common vocabulary: Themovementvocabularyofdanceisconstrainedbythephysicallimitationsofthehumanbodyononehand,andbychoreographicdecisionsontheotherhand.Inthiscontextdance styles can be regarded as higher-level constraints on the vocabulary. Asmallmovement vocabularywill facilitate communicationbetweendancer andspectatorbutwill limittherangeofwhatcanbeexpressed.Theriseofmoderndance in the 20th century can be interpreted as a deliberate expansion of themessage set. A larger vocabulary allows for a greater range of expression.However, someof the extendedvocabularywill be (initially) less accessible tothespectator.

Relation:MovementpatternsRelation refers to the appropriateness of information at a given point of thecommunicative process. Information should be relevant to the specificcommunicativesituation.Themostobviouswaythat thisconstraintappears indance involves the sequential structure of the movement vocabulary. Indeedsequential structure is an importantpredictorof aestheticpreference indance(Orgs,Hagura,Haggard,2013;Opacic,Stevens,Tillmanns,2009).Onthereceiverside, communication of relevant information will fulfill audience expectations,whereas irrelevant informationwill violate expectations.We propose that theaestheticimpactofdancewilldependonbalancingwhenstructuralexpectationsareviolatedorfulfilled.Excessiveviolationofsuchexpectationsisunrewarding(Wunderlich,Dayan,Dolan,2012).Equally,excessiveconformitytoexpectationthrough ordered repetition is monotonous and reduces any sense ofinvolvement. Seemingly irrelevant or unpredictable informationmay therefore

13

be important to induce an appropriate level of surprise (Berlyne, 1974), andavoidmonotony.The principles of quantity and relation combined determine the syntaticcomplexity and novelty of the movement message. Complexity relates to theamountofinformationthatiscommunicatedthroughasequenceofmovements(Berlyne, 1974): A choreography with few restrictions on the potentialmovement vocabulary and few or no repetitions (e. g. a dance in which eachmovement is performed exactly once) is maximally complex and rich ininformation, butmay be hard to follow. Contrastingly, in a choreography thatconsist of repetitions of a single movement only (such as Sufi Whirling), theinformation is maximally redundant and each individual movement containsonly very little information. Compositional rules such as repetition can beappliedatthelocallevelandspecifytransitionsbetweenindividualmovementsorbodypostures.The samecompositional rules canalsobeappliedat amoreglobal level, that is, between longer movement phrases or sections of thechoreography (Orgs, Hagura, Haggard, 2013). Berlyne (1974) argued that“optimal” aesthetic processing occurs at intermediate levels of complexity.Wewill return to the role of movement complexity in aesthetic experience whenintroducingourdimensionalmodelofaestheticexperience.

Manner:AmbiguityofexpressionTheGriceanprincipleofmannerstatesthatperspicuousmessageswillbeeasierto understand than ambiguous messages. Dance movements vary widely inambiguity. Whereas gestural movements communicate intentions veryspecifically(e.g.wavingorhugging)danceisoftencharacterisedbymovementsthat are abstract with no obvious verbal label or specific meaning. Whileambiguity is normally considered to impair communication, it has long beenconsidered to have an exceptional, even essential status in art. Indeed, Grice(1989)himself refers to the case of poetry in discussing ambiguity. In poetry,,ambiguity can showcase the artistry of the writer by suggesting a number ofdifferent though equally plausible interpretations of the same sentence.Similarly, ambiguity ofmovementmeaningmay allow the spectator to chooseoneinterpretationwiththegreatestpersonalrelevance,ortoholdanumberofpossibleinterpretationsinplay.Ineithercase,thereceiver’schoiceorevaluationprocess brings something to the aesthetic process. Alternatively, the spectatormay simply enjoy the multitude of possible interpretations. Accordingly,ambiguity of artistic messages is often intentional and part of the messagecontent (DeborahHay,2000).Messagesmaybe “perspicuously ambiguous”. Incontrasttoperspicuousmessages,ambiguousmessagesrequirethatthereceivertakesamoreactiveroleinrecoveringintentionsfromthemessage(e.g.choosingoneinterpretationsorresolvemessageconflict).Whether perspicuous or ambiguous messages are perceived as aestheticallypleasingthereforedependsonthespectator’sepistemicactionswhilstwatchingdance.Wewillreturntothisissueinthenextsectionwhenwediscusssyntacticand semantic processing and the role of cognitive effort in aestheticappreciation.

14

Quality:“truthful”movementandstagepresenceSuccessful communication requires that messages are genuine and notdeceptive.InGriceanterms,thisincludestwospecificrules:(1)“Donotsaywhatyou believe to be false” and (2) “Do not say for which you lack adequateevidence”. The principle of quality therefore is a prerequisite for the othercooperative principles to come into play (Grice 1989) as its violation collideswith the general assumption that communication should be beneficial to bothtransmitterandreceiver.Weproposethatmovementisperceivedasgenuineifthe spectator perceives congruency between a dancer’s intentions and hismovements. Dance critics and dancers alike speak of performances as“authentic” or “compelling” or “believable” (good) as opposed to “fake” or“merelydoingthesteps”or“notfeelingit”(bad).Thesecommentssuggestthatanimportantelementofaestheticevaluationisperceiveddiscrepancybetweenthe observed movement and the intentions that they are supposed tocommunicate.Theimportanceofcongruencybetweenintentionandmovementexecutionhavepreviouslybeen emphasized in embodied approaches to acting(“method acting” as developed by Constantin Stanislavki). In his seminal book“Creatingarole”(p.47)Stanislavskiwrites:“Scenicactionisthemovementfromthesoultothebody,fromthecentertotheperiphery, fromthe internal to theexternal, fromthethinganactor feels to itsphysical form.Externalactiononthestagewhennot inspired,not justified,notcalled forthby inneractivity, isonlyentertaining for theeyesandears; itdoesnot penetrate the heart, it has no significance in the life of a human spirit aswhole”Applyingthesameprinciplestodance,wearguethatamovementintendedtobedecisivewillnotappeargenuineifitisperformedineffectively,forexamplewitha hesitant quality. Congruency between performed movement and inferredintention is therefore closely related to a performer’s stage presence. In ourcommunicative theory of performing dance aesthetics, stage presence isequivalenttotheperformer’spowertocommunicateor‘theabilitytopenetratetheheartoftheobserver’,andresults fromtheperformerbeingperceivedasaconsistentlyreliablesourceofthemovementmessage.

AdimensionalmodelofaestheticappreciationofhumanmovementWehaveemphasisedaunique featureofperformativeart, namely that theartobject isnothingbut thekinematicsofobservedmovement. In communicationtheory,wewouldsaythatthesekinematicsarethesolemessage.Fortheretobeanartisticexperience,thereceivermustprocessthismessage.InGriceantheory,thisprocessingaimstorecoverthetransmitter’scommunicativeintention.Thus,the act of communication in performative arts involves a performer whoprovokesexperiencesinthereceiver,theaudience.TheGriceanprinciplesgivenabove describe some of the constraints and assumptions that are required forthisprocesstowork.Inthissection,wedevelopamodeloftheprocesseswithin

15

the receiver’s brain that operate on the message to generate this artisticexperience.Atthisstage,thetransmittervanishesfromourconcerns:theyhavealready done their work in generating the message, and it is now up to thereceivertodealwithit.The effect of the stimulus on the receiver ultimately depends on how thereceiver’sbrainprocessesthemessage.Inthecaseofdance,wehaveidentifiedvisual,actionandemotional featuresofthemovementmessage.Thesefeaturesaretransmittedthroughmovementkinematicsandcombinetoproduceboththesyntactic structure (Quantity and relation of information) and the semanticcontent (Manner of information, ambiguity) of a dance performance.We havefurther identified the observer’s expertise, in particular visual and motorfamiliarityasanimportantfactorinhowobservedmovementsareprocessedbythebrain.Inthissection,weconsiderhowprocessingofthemovementmessageinfluencesaestheticoutcomes.

DimensionsofaestheticexperienceHow can we relate stimulus processing in the brain to the features of‘dimensions’ of aesthetic experience. Osgood’s ‘semantic differential’ method(Osgood, Suci, Tannenbaum, 1957) purported to identify three cardinaldimensions of all human experience: valence (likable or not), activity orpassivity, and potency (strong or weak). Interestingly, many accounts ofaesthetic experience recapitulate these general dimensions of all experiences,perhapsreflectingthefactthatallexperienceshavesomeaestheticcomponent.Building on Osgood’s work, Berlyne (1974) identified two dimensions thatplayedaprimaryroleintheaestheticaspectsofexperience.Thefirstdimensioniscapturedbyovertlyaestheticjudgementsbeautiful/ugly,pleasant/unpleasant,liked/disliked. The second dimension relates to judgements about stimulusinformation and structure, such as orderly/disorderly, simple/complex andboring/interesting.Interestingly,Osgood’sthirddimension(potency)hasreceivedlittleattentioninexperimentalapproachestoaestheticexperience.However,allcurrenttheoriesof aesthetic experience are based on the visual arts or music perception.Speculatively, we propose that potency relates to the genuineness of themovementmessageandtheperformer’spowertotransmit.Thus,potencymayreflect the intensity of communication between performer and observer. Thiskindofpotencywouldbespecific to theperformingarts.However, forpresentpurposes and in agreementwith existing views in experimental aesthetics,wewill focus on the two established dimensions of aesthetic experience, valenceandactivity.

BrainmechanismsunderlyingaestheticprocessingofmovementWe argue that these two dimensions of aesthetic experience relate to distinctbrainprocesses.Aestheticvalenceshouldstronglydependonprocessingfluency,whereas aesthetic arousal should primarily depend on brain mechanisms ofnoveltydetection,bothinthesyntacticandthesemanticdomain.

16

ProcessingfluencyThe effect of the stimulus on the receiver ultimately depends on how thereceiver’sbrainprocessesthemessage.The“fluency”ofcognitiveprocessingisamajorpredictorofaestheticexperienceandrefers to theeaseatwhichagivenstimulusisprocessedbythecognitivesystem.Acentralideaisthatastimulusisfluentlyprocessedwhenbrainstructuresarespecificallytunedtothefeaturesofthatparticularstimulus.Forexamplehighcontraststimuliarepreferredtolowcontrast stimuli because they are more easily recognized (Reber, SchwarzWinkielmann,2004)andoptimallyactivateprimaryvisualcortex.Accordingtoprocessingfluencytheory,itisthereforenotobjectivestimulusfeaturesthatgiverise to aesthetic experience but only how these features are processed by thecognitive system. Zeki and Stutters (2012) show that the amount of activity asimple motion pattern induces in early visual areas is directly linked to itssubjective beauty. Stimuli are preferred if they optimally stimulate dedicatedbrainareas,suchasV5forsimplemotionpatterns.FluentprocessingofmovementInthecaseofwatchingdance,processingfluencyofobservedmovementswillbedetermined by the neural architecture that mediates movement perception.Severalstudiesidentifiedfunctionallyspecialisedsystemsinthehumanbrainforthe perception of biologicalmotion (Blake and Shiffrar, 2007), and intentionalaction (Fogassi, Ferrari, Gesierich, Rozzi, Chersi, Rizzolatti, 2005). Fluencytheorieswouldsuggest that the stimuli that readilyoroptimallyactivate thesebrain mechanisms should generate particularly fluent processing, and shouldtherefore be perceived as aesthetically pleasant (Reber, Schwarz andWinkielmann,2004).Themovementmessageshouldinducefluentprocessingifitsvisual,actionandemotional featuresoptimallyexcite thosebrainareasthatarespecializedforprocessingthesefeatures.FluentprocessingoffamiliarityInadditionprocessingfluencystronglydependsonthespectator’sexpertise.Wehave seen that visual and motor familiarity strongly influence how observedmovementsareprocessedbythebrain.Accordingtoprocessingfluencytheory,familiar stimuli are preferred because they are processed faster and moreefficiently (Reber, Wurtz, Zimmermann, 2004). In contrast to fluency that isbased on specialized brain areas for low-level visual parameters (Zeki andStutters,2012),processingfluencyforfamiliarmovementsarisesfromlearning(Orgs, Hagura, Haggard, 2013). Once new neural connections have beenestablished by a novel stimulus, these connections are more easily activatedwhen the same stimulus is repeated (Hebb, 1949). Fluency theory thereforesuggeststhat familiarmovementsshouldbeperceivedasaestheticallypleasantbecausetheyactivateexistingvisualormotorrepresentationsautomaticallyandwith littlecognitiveeffort.Processing fluencyshouldbe largest formovementsthatarebothvisuallyandmotoricallyfamiliar.

17

Processingfluencycorrelatespositivelywiththevalencedimensionofaestheticjudgement.Fluentlyprocessedstimuliarejudgedtobemorepleasant,beautifuland likeable than disfluently processed stimuli (Zajonc, 1968; Reber,Winkielmann,Schwarz,1998).Fromanevolutionaryperspective,theexperienceof fluent processing is perceived as pleasant, because it signals safety and apredictableenvironment.However,fluentlyprocessedstimulimayalsobecomemoreboringsincetheydonotprovidenewinformation(Berlyne,1974).ThelimitsofprocessingfluencyProfessional dancers have typically undergone years of training and acquiredsubstantial motor skill. In most dance performances involving professionaldancers, spectators will not be able to perform what they are observing.Whereas frequent spectators of dance performance may acquire substantialvisual expertise with the observed movements, they will not acquire motorfamiliarity (Aglioti et al., 2008). Acquisition of motor familiarity requiresperforming and seeing an action at the same time (Keysers andPerrett, 2004;Heyes,2010).Yetspectatorsclearlyenjoyskillandvirtuosityacrossdancestyles,frombreakdancetoballet.Indeed,somestudiesinmovementaestheticssuggestan inverse relation between motor familiarity and preference: The morespectacular a movement, the more likely it is to be liked (Calvo-Merino, Jola,Glaser,Haggard,2008).Similarlycontortedbodyposturesarepreferredto lesscontortedbodypostures(Cross,Mackie,Wolford,Hamilton,2011).Thissuggeststhat fluent processing of familiar movements is not the only relevant processthat determines aesthetic appreciation of dance. We suggest that this secondaestheticcomponentisbasedonnoveltyandvirtuosityofmovement.Inordertounderstand how communicating and extracting information will influenceaestheticappreciationofdance,weneedtolookatbrainmechanismsfornoveltydetectioninbothmovementsyntaxandsemantics.

NoveltyofmovementsyntaxBerlyne (1974) emphasises the role of amount of stimulus information inaestheticexperience.Hearguesthattheaestheticimpactofastimuluscruciallydependsonanoptimallevelofarousalthatisproducedbyintermediatelevelsofstimuluscomplexity.Stimulithatcontainalotofinformationarejudgedasmoreinteresting than stimuli that contain less information. For example, Crozier (inBerlyne,[1974])presentedsoundsequencesthatvariedininformationcontent.Simplesequencesthatrepeatedasmallnumberoftoneswerejudgedtobelessinterestingthansequencesthatconsistedofmoretoneswithfewerrepetitions.Thebrainhasdedicatedmechanisms thatprocessnoveltyandpredictabilityofinformation.Inthecaseofstimulussequences,thishasbeenstudiedextensivelyusing the “oddball” paradigm and event-related brain potentials (ERP) in thehuman electroencephalogram (Picton, 1992). In the auditory domain, theoddball paradigm involves sequences of identical tones that are interspersedwith less frequent tones. Importantly, these unexpected “oddball” tones willinduce a positive deflection of the ERP approximately 300 ms after theirpresentation. Importantly, this component which has been termed P300 does

18

not depend on physical stimulus identity but only on whether a stimulus hasbeenpredictedornot(Wacongneetal.,2011).TheP300thereforeservesasanindexofsurprise.Theexperienceofsurpriseisdirectlyrelatedtotheamountofinformationastimulusprovides:Withinasequenceofrepeatedeventsanovelstimulus contains more information than a previously encountered event(Gottlieb,Oudeyer,Lopes,Baranes,2013).In analogy to these simple sound sequences, appreciating dance involves(implicit) learning of compositional rules (Orgs, Hagura, Haggard, 2013).Accordingly, the size of the movement vocabulary and the relation betweenmovementsdetermine information complexityandnovelty indance.The samebrain mechanisms of sequential information processing that apply to simplerstimulussequencesofsoundswillthereforealsoapplytoaestheticprocessingofmovementandshouldpredictbothperceivedcomplexityofthesequenceaswellas its interestingness. Choreographies that induce surprise should be moreinterestingthanchoreographiesthatarestructurallylesssurprising,butmaynotbenecessarilyperceivedaspleasant.

NoveltyofmovementsemanticsThe second source of information in dance is movement meaning. Whereasmeaningofgesturesandgoalsinobject-directedactionsandgesturesisclearlydefined, dance often involves abstract movements that are ambiguous withrespect to their goal or communicative content. Similarly to processing ofmeaninginlanguageandmusic(Orgs,Dombrowski,Lange,Heil,2006;Koelsch,2011), movement semantics have been studied using event-related potentialmeasures (Amoruso, Gelormini, Aboitiz, Alvarez González, Manes, Cardona,Ibanez,2013).Actionsthatcannoteasilybeintegratedintoanexistingsemanticcontext,suchasabusinesswomanbalancingononefootinthedesert(ProverbioandRiva,2009)inducean“action-N400”,thatisanegativedeflectionoftheERP400 ms after action observation. Similar N400 effects can be observed forspeech-incongruentgestures,forexamplesaying“tall”whilstgesturing“short”atthe same time (Kelly, Kravitz, Hopkins, 2004). These findings show thatprocessingofmovement intentions is functionallydifferent fromprocessingofsequential movement structure as described above (P300). Extraction ofmovement meaning and extraction of movement structure depend onfunctionallydistinctneuralmechanisms.Violationsofcommonactionsemanticsand ambiguous movement intentions are common features in choreography.Particularly theatrical styles of performing dance (e. g. choreographer PinaBausch [Climenhaga, 2009]) make frequent use of placing familiar actions inunfamiliar contexts, or alienate gestural actions from their originally clearlydefined intentional purpose. We argue that such manipulations of actionmeaningfulnessprovideasourceof“conceptualsurprise”thatisfundamentaltotheaestheticimpactofdance.Combinedprocessing ofmovement syntax and actionmeaningdeterminehowmuchinformationthemovementmessagecontains,andhoweasyitistoextractintentions from it.Accordingly,wepropose that these two components shoulddetermine complexity and interestingness of observedmovement, and should

19

correlate with the second dimension of aesthetic processing (Berlyne, 1974).This dimension can also be linked to a general concept of activity, as in thesemanticdifferentialliterature(Osgood,Suci,Tannenbaum,1957).

Explicitaestheticappreciationandjudgementbasedontwodimensionsofimplicitaestheticprocessing.The two dimensions of aesthetic processing (processing fluency andnovelty/complexity of information) correspond to twodimensions of aestheticjudgement, assessing the valence (beauty / likeability / pleasantness) andaesthetic arousal (interestingness / complexity / ambiguity) respectively.Bothdimensionsareimplicitsourcesofaestheticexperiencesincetheydependontheneuralarchitectureforvisualprocessingofhumanmovement.Sincethereceiverhas very little control over the perceptual mechanisms that are triggered byobservationofaspecificmovement,wearguethattheseimplicitmechanismsareprimarily under the influence of the transmitter. In creating the movementmessage,bothdancerandchoreographerchoosehowtostimulate thebrainofthespectator.The spectator however deliberately chooses an explicit strategy of aestheticappreciation that may favour either fluency or novelty/complexity. Thespectator may enjoy the cognitive challenge that is posed by high levels ofmovementcomplexityandambiguity,orhemayenjoy theexperienceof fluentprocessing that is induced by watching a familiar dance piece that inducesoptimal visual movement processing. Indeed existing research on the role ofexpertise in aesthetic appreciation has shown that experts invest greatercognitive effort before making aesthetic judgements (Müller, Höfel, Brattico,Jacobsen, 2010) and focus on stylistic and compositional features rather thanevokedfeelings(AugustinandLeder,2008).Acomplexchoreographyofhighlyunfamiliarmovementswill only be appreciated if the spectator is prepared toinvest considerablecognitiveeffort. Incontrast, simpleand familiarmovementmessages may be considered beautiful because they are easily accessible andcommunicate intentions clearly and unambiguously, allowing the spectator torelax and be entertained. Ultimately, aesthetic appreciation will thereforedepend on how the spectator weighs the outcomes of implicit aestheticprocessing (valence and arousal) according to his explicit aesthetic strategy(cognitiveeffort):Ourtheorymakesthefollowingpredictions:1) At low cognitive effort, aesthetic appreciation will primarily depend onprocessing fluency. Aesthetic appreciation should therefore strongly correlatewithaffectiveaesthetic judgementsofpreferenceand likeability. Familiarityofthe choreographywill be a strong predictor of aesthetic appreciationwhereasmovementcomplexityandambiguitywillbelessappreciated.Noviceswilltendtoadoptalowcognitiveeffortstrategyofaestheticappreciation.

2) At high cognitive effort aesthetic appreciation will primarily depend onsurprise that results from both high levels of information complexity and

20

semanticambiguity.Aestheticappreciationisstronglypredictedbyjudgementsof interestingness, clarity and ambiguity. Experts will tend to adopt a highcognitiveeffortstrategyofaestheticappreciation.Movement Message Aesthetic

appreciation Aesthetic judgement

Clear/Simple/familiar Fluency > Novelty/Complexity

Pleasant

Complex/ambiguous/unfamiliar Fluency > Novelty/Complexity

Unpleasant

Clear/Simple/familiar Fluency < Novelty/Complexity

Boring

Complex/ambiguous/unfamiliar Fluency < Novelty/Complexity

Interesting

Table 2: The relationship between characteristics of the movement message,aestheticprocessing,appreciationandjudgement.Figure1 illustratesourdimensionalmodeofaestheticappreciation. It includestwodimensionsofaestheticprocessing,valenceandactivity.Processingfluencyprimarily influencesaestheticaffect,whereasnoveltyofsyntacticandsemanticinformation complexity primarily influence arousal. The two dimensions ofaesthetic processing are captured by two distinct dimensions of aestheticjudgement. These are based on Osgood’s semantic differential and relate tointerestingnessandpleasantnessofthemovementmessage.Wefurtherproposeathirdlevelthatreflectsthereceiver’sstrategyofaestheticappreciation.Atthislevel the receiver weighs information from the two sources of aestheticprocessing (fluency and information complexity/novelty), depending on howmuch cognitive effort the spectator is prepared to invest into decoding themovementmessage.

pleasantboring

pleasantinteresting

unpleasantinteresting

unpleasantboring

vale

nce/

impl

icit

fluen

cy

arousal/ implicit information and novelty

explicit

cognitive

effort

high cognitive effortarousal based judgement

low cognitive effortvalence based judgement

pleasantboring

pleasantinteresting

unpleasantinteresting

unpleasantboring

Figure2:Adimensionalmodelofthecomponentsofthereceiver’sappreciationofdance.

21

Isdancespecial?Theanalyticstructureoutlinedherepartiallyoverlapswithartformsotherthandance.Thus,thecommunicativeprocessthatweclaimtounderlietheaestheticexperienceofdancemaynotbefundamentallydifferentfromthecommunicativeprocessesthatoccurwhenattendingalivemusicconcert,forexample.Existingmodels ofmusic perception (e. g. Koelsch, 2011) can account for some of thestructural aspects of how dance works, such as its composition across time.However, the crucial difference between dance and other art forms, such asmusic or acting, is that a given musical piece or play can be experiencedindependently of thehumanbody that initially performedor created it.Dancedoesnotproduceanythingelsebutobservedmovement. Incontrastmusicanddramausemovementasameanstoproduceeithersoundorspokentext.Theirmessagescanthereforebedescribedbasedonmusicalorliterarycharacteristicsand independent of the actions that originally produced these messages.Therefore, whereas watching human movement may indeed contribute to theappreciationoflivemusicortheatre(Tsay,2013)itisnotessentialtoappreciatemusic or a play. Aesthetic perception of music will ultimately depend on theauditorycharacteristicsof themusic listened toandnotonhowthemusiciansmove.Incontrast, theuniquequalityofdanceisthathumanmovementisbothnecessaryandsufficientforthekeyaestheticexperience.

ConclusionDuring a dance performance, movement messages are communicated fromperformer to spectator. The aesthetic impact of dance (and perhaps allperforming arts) is a result of successfulmessage-passing between performerand spectator. Existing theories of aesthetic processing focus either on themessage (objectivist view)or the receiver (subjectivist view)only. In contrast,we propose that aesthetic processing in dance is interactive and bidirectional.Furtherweclaimthataestheticinformationindanceisprimarilycommunicatedbythekinematicsofobservedmovement.Wedistinguishbetweenthesyntacticcomplexityofpostures,movementsandmovementsequencesonthehand,andsemantic ambiguity of movement intentions on the other hand. Aestheticprocessing of both visual and motor features of the movement message willfurther depend on the spectator’s own visual and motor expertise. In adimensional model of aesthetic appreciation, implicit processing fluency andinformation complexity/novelty of observed movement interact with explicitcognitive effort. Aesthetic judgements of preference and interest will reflect acombinationofbothimplicitaestheticprocessingandexplicitaestheticstrategyoftheobserver.

AcknowledgementsThisworkwassupportedbythe‘DanceEngagingScience’grantfromVWStiftung,andbyaresearchgrant(F/07134/DO)fromLeverhulmeTrusttoPH.

22

PHwasadditionallysupportedbyaProfessorialFellowshipfromESRCandbyERCAdvancedGrantHUMVOL.WearegratefultoScottDelaHuntaforadviceandencouragement.

23

ReferencesAglioti, S. M., Cesari, P., Romani, M., Urgesi, C. (2008). Action anticipation and

motor resonance in elite basketball players. Nature Neuroscience, 11,1109-1116.

Amoruso,L.,Gelormini,C.,Aboitiz,F.,AlvarezGonzález,M.,Manes,F,Cardona,J.F.,Ibanez,A.(2013).N400ERPsforactions:buildingmeaningincontext.FrontiersinHumanNeuroscience,7:57.

Aristotle(1996),Poetics,PenguinBooks,London,UKAllison,T.,Puce,A.,McCarthy,G.(2000)Socialperceptionfromvisualcues:role

oftheSTSregion,TrendsinCognitiveSciences,4,267-278,Arnheim,R.(1974)Artandvisualperception:Apsychologyofthecreativeeye.

UniversityofCaliforniaPress,Berkeley,CA.Augustin, D. M. & Leder, H. (2006) Art expertise: a study of concepts and

conceptualspaces,PsychologyScience,48,135–156.Berlyne,D.E. (1974)Studies inthenewexperimentalaesthetics:Stepstowards

an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation, Halsted Press, JonWiley&Sons,NewYork,NY.

Beilock, S. L., & Holt, L. E. (2007). Embodied preference judgments – Canlikeabilitybedrivenby themotorsystem?PsychologicalScience,18,51–57.

Berg, S. C. (1988) Lesacreduprintemps.7productions fromNijinskytoMarthaGraham.UMIResearchPress,AnnArbor.

Blake, R.,& Shiffrar,M. (2007). Perception of humanmotion.AnnualReviewofPsychology,58,47–73.

Bläsing,B.,Calvo-Merino,B.,Cross,E.S.,Jola,C.,Honisch,J.,Stevens,C.J.(2012)Neurocognitive control in dance perception and performance, ActaPsychologica,139,300-308.

Carbon, C. C. (2010). The cycle of preference: long-termdynamics of aestheticappreciation.ActaPsychologica,134,233-244.

Calvo-Merino,B.,Glaser,D.E.,Grezes,J.,Passingham,R.E.,&Haggard,P.(2005).Actionobservationandacquiredmotorskills:AnfMRIstudywithexpertdancers.CerebralCortex,15,1243–1249.

Calvo-Merino,B.,Grèzes,J.,Glaser,D.E.,Passingham,R.E.,&Haggard,P.(2006).Seeing or doing? Influence of visual and motor familiarity in actionobservation.CurrentBiology,16,1905–1910.

Calvo-Merino, B., Jola, C., Glaser, D. E., & Haggard, P. (2008). Towards asensorimotoraestheticsofperformingart.ConsciousnessandCognition,17,911–922.

Calvo-Merino, B., Urgesi, C., Orgs, G., Aglioti, S. M., & Haggard, P. (2010).Extrastriate body area underlies aesthetic evaluation of body stimuli.ExperimentalBrainResearch,204,447–456.

Climenhaga,R.(2009).PinaBausch,Routledge,NewYork,NY.Caspersen,D.(2004) ‘TheBodyisThinking’, InDenkeninBewegung,Siegmund,

G.(Ed.),HenschelVerlag,Leipzig,Caspersen, D. (2011) 'Decreation: Fragmentation and Continuity.' InWilliam

Forsythe and the Practice of Choreography, Spier S. (Ed.), Routledge,London,pp.93-100.

24

Cross,E.S.,Hamilton,A.F.,Grafton,S.T.(2006).Buildingamotorsimulationdenovo:observationofdancebydancers.Neuroimage,31,1257-1267.

Cross, E. S., Kirsch, L., Ticini, L. F., & Schutz-Bosbach, S. (2011). The impact ofaestheticevaluationandphysicalabilityondanceperception.FrontiersinHumanNeuroscience,5,102.

Cross,E. S.,Mackie,E.C.,Wolford,G.,&Hamilton,A.F.d.C. (2010).Contortedand ordinary body postures in the human brain. Experimental BrainResearch,204,397–407.

Daprati, E., Iosa, M., & Haggard, P. (2009). A dance to the music of time:Aesthetically-relevant changes in body posture in performing art. PLoSONE,4,e5023.

De Gelder, B., van den Stock J., Meeren, H. K. M., Sinke, C. B. A., Kret, M. E.,Tamietto, M. (2010). Standing up for the body. Recent progress inuncoveringthenetworksinvolvedintheperceptionofbodiesandbodilyexpressions.NeuroscienceandBiobehavioralReviews,34,513-527.

De Gelder, B., Snyder, J., Greve, D., Gerard, G. &, Hadjikhani, N. (2004). Fearfosters flight: amechanism for fear contagionwhenperceiving emotionexpressed by a whole body. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciencesUSA,101,16701–16706.

De Keersmaeker, A. T., Cvejić, B. (2013). En Atendant & Cesena – Achoreographer’sscore,Rosas,Brussels,Mercatorfonds,Brussels.

DiDio,C.,Macaluso,E.,&Rizzolatti,G.(2007).Thegoldenbeauty:Brainresponsetoclassicalandrenaissancesculptures.PLoSONE,2,e1201.

Fechner, G. T. (1871). Vorschule der Ästhetik. [Preschool of aesthetics]Hildesheim:Olms.

Fogassi, L., Ferrari, P. F., Gesierich, B., Rozzi, S., Chersi, F., Rizzolatti, G. (2005)Parietal lobe: From action organization to intention understanding,Science,308,662-667.

Forsythe,W.(2010).Improvisationtechnologies,HatjeCantz.Gopnik, B. (2012). Aesthetic science and artistic knowledge, Aesthetic Science:

Connecting minds, brains and experience, Chapter 6, Oxford UniversityPress,NewYork,NY.Edts.Shimamura,A.P.,Palmer,S.E.

Gottlieb, J., Oudeyer, P. Y., Lopes, M., Baranes, A. (2013) Information-seeking,curiosity,andattention:computationalandneuralmechanisms.TrendsinCognitiveSciences,17,585-93.

Grèzes, J., Pichon, S., de Gelder, B., (2007). Perceiving fear in dynamic bodyexpressions.NeuroImage35,959–967.

Grice,P.(1989).Studiesinthewayofwords,Chapter2:LogicandConversation.HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge,MA.

Hammermeister, K. (2002). The German aesthetic tradition, CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,UK.

Hay,D.(2000).Mybody,theBuddhist.WesleyanUniversityPress,Middleton,CT.Hebb,D.O.(1949).TheOrganizationofBehavior.NewYork:Wiley&Sons.Heider, F & Simmel, M. (1944) An Experimental Study of Apparent Behavior.

AmericanJournalofPsychology,57,243-259.Heyes,C.(2011).AutomaticImitation.PsychologicalBulletin,137,463-483.Jakesch, M. Leder, H. (2009) Finding meaning in art: preferred levels of

ambiguity in art appreciation. Quarterly Journal of ExperimentalPsychology,62,2105-2112.

25

Kelly, S. D., Kravitz, C., and Hopkins, M. (2004). Neural correlates of bimodalspeechandgesturecomprehension.BraiandLanguage,89,253–260.

Keysers, C., Perrett., D. I. (2004). Demystifying social cognition: a hebbianperspective.TrendsinCognitiveSciences,501-507.

Kilner, J. (2011). More than one pathway to action understanding. Trends inCognitiveScience,15,352-7.

Kirk, U. (2008) The neural basis of object-context relationships on aestheticjudgement.PlosOne,3,e3754.

Kirsch L. P., Drommelschmidt K. A., Cross E. S. (2013). The impact ofsensorimotor experience on affective evaluation of dance. Frontiers inHumanNeuroscience,7:521.

Koelsch,S. (2011).Towardaneuralmodelofmusicperception–Areviewandupdatedmodel.FrontiersinPsychology,2,110.

Laban,R.(2011).Themasteryofmovement,DanceBooksLtd.,Alton,UK.Leach, J. (2013). Choreographic Objects. Journal of Cultural Economy,

doi:10.1080/17530350.2013.858058.Leder,H.,Belke,B.,Oeberst,A.,&Augustin,M.D. (2004).Amodelof aesthetic

appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95,489–508.

Loeb, A. L. (1986). Symmetry in court and country dance. Computers &MathematicswithApplications–PartB,12,629–639.

McAleer,P.,Pollick.,F.E.,Love,S.A.,Crabbe,F.E.,Zacks,J.M.(2013).Theroleofkinematics in cortical regions for continuoushumanmotionperception.Cognitive,affectiveandbehavioralneuroscience,ebubaheadofprint.

McGregor,W.(2013).Choreographicthinkingtools.PaulHamlynFoundationMcManus, I. C. (1980). The aesthetics of simple figures. British Journal of

Psychology,71,505–524.Müller, M., Höfel, L., Brattico, E., Jacobsen, T. (2010) Aesthetic judgments of

music inexpertsand laypersons:anERPstudy. International JournalofPsychophysiology,76,40-51.

Opacic, T., Stevens, C., & Tillmann, B. (2009). Unspoken knowledge: Implicitlearningof structuredhumandancemovement. JournalofExperimentalPsychology–Learning,Memory,andCognition,35,1570–1577.

Orgs, G., Bestmann, S., Schuur, F., & Haggard, P. (2011). From body form tobiological motion: The apparent velocity of human movement biasessubjectivetime.PsychologicalScience,22,712–717.

Orgs, G., Dombrowski, J.-H., Heil,M., & Jansen-Osmann, P. (2008). Expertise indance modulates alpha/beta event-related desynchronization duringactionobservation.EuropeanJournalofNeuroscience,27,3380–3384.

Orgs,G.,Hagura,N.,&Haggard,P.(2013)Learningtolikeit:Aestheticperceptionof bodies, movements and choreographic structure. Consciousness &Cognition,22,603-612.

Osgood, C. E., Suci, G.J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957) The measurement ofmeaning,Urbana,UniversityofIllinoisPress.

Palmer,S.E.,Schloss,K.B.,&Sammartino,J.(2013).Visualaestheticsandhumanpreference.AnnualReviewofPsychology,64,77–107.

Peelen,M.V.,Downing,P.E.(2007).Theneuralbasisofvisualbodyperception.NatureReviewsNeuroscience,8,636-48.

26

Peters, J. (2010).DamagedGoods/MegStuart.Arewehereyet?Lespressesduréel,Dijon,France.

Picton, T. W. (1992). The P300 wave of the human event-related potential.JournalofClinicalNeurophysiology,9,456-79.

ProverbioA.M.,Riva,F.(2009).RPandN400ERPcomponentsreflectsemanticviolations in visual processing of human actions. Neuroscience Letters,459,142-146.

Ramachandran, V. S., & Hirstein, W. (1999). The science of art. Journal ofConsciousnessStudies,6,15–51.

Reber,R.,Winkielman,P.,&Schwarz,N.(1998).Effectsofperceptualfluencyonaffectivejudgments.PsychologicalScience,9,45–48.

Reber,R.,Schwarz,N.,&Winkielman,P.(2004).Processingfluencyandaestheticpleasure:Isbeautyintheperceiver’sprocessingexperience?PersonalityandSocialPsychologyReview,8,364–382.

Reber, R., Wurtz, P., & Zimmermann, T. D. (2004). Exploring "fringe"consciousness: The subjective experience of perceptual fluency and itsobjectivebases.ConsciousnessandCognition,13,47-60.

Rizzolatti, G. & Craighero, L. (2004) The mirror-neuron system. Annu. Rev.Neurosci.,27,169–192.

Shannon, C. E., Weaver, W. (1949). A Mathematical Model of Communication.Urbana,IL:UniversityofIllinoisPress

Stanislavski,C.(1968).Creatingarole.NELMentorBooks,London,UK.Topolinski, S. (2010). Moving the eye of the beholder: Motor components in

vision determine aesthetic preference. Psychological Science, 21, 1220–1224.

Tsay, C-J. (2013). Sight over sound in the judgment of music performance,ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences,110,14580-14585.

Urgesi, C., Calvo-Merino, B., Haggard, P., Aglioti, S. M. (2007). Transcranialmagnetic stimulation reveals two cortical pathways for visual bodyprocessing.JournalofNeuroscience,27,8023-30.

Van Heijnsbergen, C. C, Meeren, H. K., Grèzes, J., de Gelder, B. (2007). Rapiddetectionoffearinbodyexpressions:anERPstudy.BrainResearch,1186,233-241.

Wacongne, C., Labyt, E., van Wassenhove, V., Bekinschtein, T., Naccache, L.,Dehaene,S.(2011).Evidenceforahierarchyofpredictionsandpredictionerrors in human cortex. Proclamations of the National Academy ofSciencesUSA,108,20754-9.

Wunderlich,K.,Dayan,P.,Dolan,R.J.(2012).Mappingvaluebasedplanningandextensively trained choice in the human brain.NatureNeuroscience,15,786-791.

Zajonc,R.B. (1968).Attitudinaleffectsofmereexposure. JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,9,1–27.

Zeki,S.,Lamb,M.(1994)Theneurologyofkineticart,Brain,117,607-636.Zeki, S., Stutters J. (2012).Abrain-derivedmetric forpreferredkinetic stimuli.

OpenBiology,2:120001.