![]() ![]() A key motivation for this hypothesis is that performers routinely distinguish between “good” or “bad” audiences for the same performance and between specific moments of audience engagement or “lift” and moments of disengagement or boredom ( Healey et al., 2009). Our programmatic hypothesis is that audience responses are part of a bi-directional system of real-time audience-performer feedback that distinguishes live from recorded performance. Nonetheless, audiences have notoriously recruited other means of signaling their responses including the organized and carefully timed use of apparently innocent activities such as coughing ( Broth, 2011 Wagener, 2012). The primary conventional opportunity for members of an audience to express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a performance is through applause and/or cheering. In many live performances, audiences are separated from performers seated in the dark observing the performance. We draw on these findings to argue that collective stillness is an especially salient signal of audience engagement. In addition, we found that while there is no systematic relationship between audience and dancers movement, hands seem to play an especially significant role since they move significantly more compared to the rest of the body. The results show that audience clips with the lowest overall movement are judged as displaying the highest engagement. ![]() The meaning of audience movements were analyzed by comparing clips of the audience at moments of maximum and minimum movement to expert and novice judges. Video recordings of performers and audiences were analyzed using computer vision techniques for extracting face, hand and body movement data. Here we investigate the range of visible real-time movements of audiences in four live contemporary dance performances. This communication is part of what distinguishes live from recorded performance and underpins live performers' moment-to-moment sense of how well a performance is going. Do these movements provide clues to people's level of engagement with a performance? Our basic hypothesis is that audience responses are part of a bi-directional system of audience-performer communication. Some responses are obvious, such as applause and cheering, but there are also many apparently incidental movements including posture shifts, fixing hair, scratching and adjusting glasses. In live performances seated audiences have restricted opportunities for response. 2Risk and Information Management, School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.1Cognitive Science Research Group, School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |