THE PHILOSOPHY OF ACTION IN LIVE PERFORMANCE INTERACTION DESIGN: ALIGNING FLOWS OF INTENTIONALITY by David J. Wright B.A. English and Theatre, Belhaven University, 2002 M.A. Philosophy of Religion and Ethics, BIOLA University, 2005 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2015 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH KENNETH P. DIETRICH SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by David J. Wright It was defended on May 11, 2015 and approved by Brett Ashley Crawford, Assistant Teaching Professor, Arts Management, Carnegie Mellon University Heinz School of Public Policy and Management Ryan McDermott, Assistant Professor, English & Theatre Arts Jennifer Waldron, Associate Professor, English & Theatre Arts Dissertation Advisor: Bruce McConachie, Professor, Theatre Arts ii Copyright © by David J. Wright 2015 iii THE PHILOSOPHY OF ACTION IN LIVE PERFORMANCE INTERACTION DESIGN: ALIGNING FLOWS OF INTENTIONALITY David J. Wright, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2015 In recent years, ubiquitous computing has altered traditional performance spaces. Arts organizations have notably tested various strategies to either accommodate or eliminate the persistent and disruptive “glowing screen” of smartphones. While theatre and performance artists and scholars correctly identify many problems created by this influx of new technology, this dissertation argues that the rise of ubiquitous computing presents immense potential for theatre and performance studies to begin solving the design problems faced by computer scientists and user experience designers. Theatre and performance scholars hold a crucial role in ubiquitous technology design for live performance, and we have key knowledge of action that user experience designers seek now more than ever. I propose that human action is the basis for a common nomenclature and theoretical bridge between user experience design and theatre and performance studies. I extend Aristotle’s intentionalist mimetic theory using current philosophy of action and cognitive science, and argue that performance artists and designers select and align flows of intentionality in action that immerse spectators in the intentional presentation of an action. Furthermore, I follow Elizabeth Anscombe’s theory of action to argue for the incommensurability of propositionally articulated theoretical knowledge and non-propositional practical knowledge. Audiences experience the flow of a performance as they ascertain the interweaving of these incommensurable yet complimentary iv articulations of intentionality through a reciprocal feedback loop of active perception. Both performers and audiences derive the meaning of a performance from an “expanded description” of the teleological structure of actions that comprise it. This action-centric analysis of performance provides the basis for dialogue with human experience designers through an ecologically balanced mapping of the four Aristotelian causes of a performance onto the design of new technology. As a practical application of this theoretical framework, the dissertation also proposes a new platform for smartphone-based audience interactivity at live Jazz concerts. Applying the theoretical argument to the intentional flows of action in live jazz, the Nymbus system seeks to align the material, formal, and efficient causality of smartphones at concerts with the intentional flows in jazz performance in order to heighten and compliment audience immersion in jazz performance flow. v TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE .................................................................................................................................. XII 1.0 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CURRENT USE AND BEGINNING TRANSFORMATIONS OF EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES IN PERFORMANCE.......... 1 1.1 CURRENT PAIN & CURRENT SOLUTIONS EXAMINED ........................ 6 1.2 THEORIZING, DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTING NEW DIRECTIONS ............................................................................................................................. 10 1.2.1 Three Reasons for the Timeliness of the Project...................................... 16 1.3 CRITICAL METHODOLOGY: ACTION AT THE INTERSECTION OF COGNITIVE SCIENCE, PERFORMANCE, AND TECHNOLOGY DESIGN ......... 18 1.3.1 Action and Embodied Cognition ............................................................... 20 1.3.2 The Move from Action Theory to Technology Design ............................ 23 1.3.3 Intentional Flows and Articulations .......................................................... 27 1.3.4 Three Preliminary Caveats ........................................................................ 31 1.4 CHAPTER SUMMARIES ................................................................................ 34 1.4.1 2.0 Intentional Action, Performance, and Technology ............................ 34 1.4.2 3.0 Experiencing Intentional Flows: Jazz as Proto-Interaction Design . 35 1.4.3 4.0 Passive-Dynamic Interaction Design and Nymbus ............................ 37 2.0 INTENTIONAL ACTION, PERFORMANCE, AND TECHNOLOGY .............. 41 2.1 MIMESIS OF AN ACTION: ARISTOTLE’S INTENTIONALISTIC MIMETICISM .................................................................................................................... 41 2.1.1 The Aristotelian Systematic Structure: Ends and Goods ....................... 48 vi 2.1.2 Mental and Mind-independent Realities in the Structure of Ends ........ 51 2.1.3 Preliminary Conclusions from Aristotle ................................................... 60 2.2 DONALD DAVIDSON'S “STANDARD THEORY” OF HUMAN ACTION . ............................................................................................................................. 62 2.3 ANSCOMBE: INTENTION IN THE STRUCTURE OF ACTION, PRACTICAL RATIONALITY, AND PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE ......................... 68 2.3.1 Practical Rationality ................................................................................... 72 2.3.1.1 Action Displays a Structure ............................................................... 77 2.3.1.2 Practical Rationality|ytilanoitaR laciteroehT .................................. 86 2.3.1.3 Expression of Intention ...................................................................... 91 2.3.1.4 The End of an Action (the object of desire) is an "Expanded Description" ....................................................................................................... 95 2.3.2 Practical Knowledge ................................................................................. 100 2.4 INTENTIONALITY IN DESIGN .................................................................. 104 2.4.1 Teleology in Action: Task Design ............................................................ 104 2.4.2 Theoretical vs. Practical Rationality: Audience vs. Performer ............ 105 2.4.3 Practical Rationality Takes Time: Tempo, Improvisation, and Interruption .............................................................................................................. 106 2.4.4 Expression of Intention: Identification and Failure of Objectives ....... 109 2.4.5 Emergence and Discovery in Action: Sandbox vs. Path ........................ 111 3.0 EXPERIENCING INTENTIONAL FLOWS: JAZZ AS PROTO-INTERACTION DESIGN .................................................................................................................................... 115 vii 3.1 IDENTIFYING INTENTIONAL FLOWS: METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS AND STRATEGIES ................................................................................. 119 3.1.1 Avoiding Structuralism: The Ecological Placement of a Listener within in a Musical Context. .................................................................................................... 122 3.1.2 Functionalism: Social Function and Active Practice ............................. 131 3.1.3 Phenomenology and Active Experiencing .............................................. 133 3.2 JAZZ AND INTENTIONAL FLOWS: DESIGNED FOR INTERACTIONS ........................................................................................................................... 139 3.2.1 Rhythm....................................................................................................... 142 3.2.2 Swing .......................................................................................................... 144 3.2.3 Groove ........................................................................................................ 146 3.2.4 Melody, Harmony and The Head as the Basis for Improvisation ........ 147 3.2.5 The Song Form and Order of Play .......................................................... 150 3.3 IMPROVISATION & EXPERIENCE AS A SPATIOTEMPORAL, SOCIAL PHENOMENON ............................................................................................................... 155 3.3.1 Maintaining the Parameters and Intermusicality within Improvisation .....................................................................................................................164 3.3.2 Comping and Solo Improvisation ............................................................ 170 3.3.3 Improvisation and Freedom to Choose ................................................... 178 4.0 PASSIVE-DYNAMIC INTERACTION DESIGN AND NYMBUS .................... 182 4.1 PASSIVE-DYNAMIC INTERACTION DESIGN: THE PRINCIPAL OF ECOLOGY AND ARISTOTLE'S