A L I V E M AC H I N E
A L I V E M AC H I N E
A L I V E M AC H I N E
A L I V E M AC H I N E
A L I V E M AC H I N E

TIRESIASEleni
Xynogala

2017
2018

PORTFOLIOMA
INTERACTIO N DESIGNCO MMUNICATION

L o n do n Co llege o f Co m muni cation
U n ivers i t y o f the Arts Lo ndon

IN COLLABORATIONWITHROB OT D E SI GNERC H ORE OGRA PH ER
P E RF O RMERC IN E MATOG RA PH ER

Vinze n z R ein h a rdt
A ndre Ka m ien ski - KAM I E N S KI .
A bigai l At t a rd M o n t a l t oCarm e n Pel l on

CONTENTSI N TRO DU C TI O N
BAC KG RO U N D
C O N C E PTI MPL E M E N TATI O N

C O N C LU S I O N
BI BLI O G R APHY

4
7
9
14
15
23
25
31
33
35

The machine
The sound
The choreography
The video

INTRODUCTION“ Fi rs t , yo u bu i l d t h e
m a ch i n e, t h e n i t t e l l s
yo u wh at i t ’s fo r. ”
- C at h e ry n n e M . Va l e n t eTiresias is a blind figure from the Greek mythology, who
can ‘see’ into oneself and find self-knowledge. It is not a
man neither a woman, but an entity which tries to find its
own identity. This installation speaks from the side of atentacular machine. Tentacular beings explore the world
and their self through touch. But the palm has not themeans of covering the whole of the truth. The sensory
perceptions can lead to misinterpretations, as there arevarious aspects of truth and limited sensory experience.
Machines can sense properties of their environment.
TIRESIAS is a self-actualising machine that tries tounderstand properties of itself. The knowledge that
TIRESIAS infers is reflected into the environment in theform of sound-waves as an approach to materialise themachines’ perception about itself.

An unusual duet co-performs for self-actualization throughsensory experience. They explore the blurry lines between
human and non-human, between the physical and themechanical. The work is based on the blind prophet
Tiresias, who creates his own identities, escaping thedistinctions of man and woman.
This portfolio is the documentation of the project called
TIRESIAS, that developed for my final major project during
my MA Interaction Design Communication at London
College of Communication. Here you will find the process
of work, which includes contextualization, research,inspiration, conceptualization, design prototyping andexperimentation. My role as an interaction designer was
the synthesis of different parts, such as the narrative, themachine making, the choreography, the sound, and thefilming. This project developed after the research conductedin the parallel Critical Context Report, which was entitled
Alive Machines.

BACKGROUND
Located in theoretical ideas of cyborg and animism, thepurpose of the research was to explore the ways in which
we can avoid dualities of human and non-human entities
and find new interesting relationships between different
actors. Escaping the distinctions of human and machine,
the cyborg creates its own identity.
In my practice, I am not looking at the robot as a tool
but as a creative entity. Creative machines are capable toexpand the script they are given by their human creator.
Their movements are uncanny - human in motion, but
inhuman in form. However, we have the tendency toimpose creativity and attribute personality in machines
because it is easier with this way to explain behaviour.
Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that allthese sophisticated machines, are biased and result of
human programming. But we can discuss further anddesign interesting connections and interactions with theseconvincingly ‘alive’ robots. Instead of looking at them astools, we can try to face them as equal collaborators andsee what new creative ideas we can develop with them.
7

Wh at i fa ro b o t
b e h ave dl i ke ap e rs o n ?

Wh at i f h u m a n s
we re m a d e t ofunction asi f t h ey we recomponents ofanother entity?

CONCEPTThe concept started developing after our decision to create
a continuum robot. This robot mechanism is inspiredby nature, as it looks and moves like a snake, octopus
tentacle or elephant’s trunk. We created a physical structure,
because of the superiority of the moving embodied robots,over computer programs. So, we first started designing
the robot and then we allowed the robot to define what it
wants to be.
During the concept exploration, I came across with the
3x3 gridded matrix, a methodology that comes from the
University of Cambridge that allowed me to speculate on
the different scales and possibilities of my project. The
project could be something that is in my comfort zone
and with mediums that I am familiar to use, but it could
also be something more experimental or speculative. In
terms of the audience, it could be made for the exhibition’s
audience, but also for field’s experts or an imaginary weird
audience. All these projects made me consider my context
and the plurality of possible decisions for my narrative.

9

Where is therobot? What is
the audience?
How does therobot interact
with the humanco-performer?
What is theintensity of thisco-performance?

Theo Jansen,
Strandbeest, 2018

Fredrik Rydman,
Performance with
IRB 6620 robot,
2018

Experimental

Rosie Mcginn,
HOWSE, 2018

Joseph Malloch
and Ian Hattwick,Instrumented
Bodies, 2013

Zimoun, 2015

Memo Akten,
Forms, 2012

Experimental

Speculative

University of
Tokio, DRAGON,
2018

Deus Ex Machina

Obviousp ro ject

Dimitris
Papaioannou, The
Great Tamer, 2017

aud i enceSpecialist
Art & Design

The ideal decisions for my context would place therobot in a Greek ancient theatre. Hanging it from an
old mechanism, like Deus Ex Machina - god from themachine, implying the idea that some people claim thattechnology will save humanity. In this way, I would like toallow the theatre audience to interact with the machinegod. For the human-machine interactions, I would like to
use sensors that could recognize humans’ gestures andmotions, in order to interpret the idea of communication
between them. In this way, the co-performers would act
together and separate, improvising and synchronizing,
making the audience to consider the machine agency andunpredictability.

This self-reference and self-consciousness are also called
strange loop, which means that the machine finds itself
back where it started..

However, our concept changed these context ideas andlead the robot in introspection and self-realization at
an exhibition’s place and audience. The final concept
consists of three parts. The tentacular machine that tries
to achieve self-perception, the limited sensory experiencein exploring the truth and the creation of identities thatescape the traditional distinctions of human and machines
Donna Haraway (2016) claims that “The tentacular are notdisembodied figures; they are cnidarians, spiders, fingery
beings like humans and raccoons”. The tentacle is an entitythat tries to feel through touch. Tentacular thinking inspired
us for creating a tentacular machine that explores itself
through touch.
11

M. C. Escher, Drawing Hands, 1948
The concept that we finaly developed is inspired by two
different stories, an ancient Indian parable and a Greek
myth.

The six blind men and the elephantOnce upon a time in India, there were six blind men. The
men were curious about how an elephant looks like. So,
the men went and found an elephant and started touching
it. The first man touched the side of the elephant and said,“The elephant is solid as a wall”. The second man thattouched its trunk, supported that the elephant is like a
giant snake. The third one touched its tusk and said: “It is
sharp like a spear”. The fourth man touched one leg andshouted, “What do we have here is a tree”. The fifth man
touched its ear and he came up with the conclusion thatthe elephant is like a huge fan. The last man, touched its
tail, saying that “The elephant is nothing else but a rope”.
The men started arguing and wondering what the elephant
is like. Finally, the men realised that each of them touched
only a small part of the big animal and only if they put theparts together, they will see the truth.

12

Tiresias
One myth says that Tiresias came upon two copulating
snakes and struck them with his stick. The goddess Hera
was displeased by this action and cursed Tiresias bytransforming him into a woman. Tiresias lived as a woman
for seven years until she came across two copulating
snakes and this time she did not strike them. This act had
as a result that Tiresias was transformed back into a man.
The Indian ancient parable inspired our installation interms of the limited sensory perception. The sensual eye
is just like the palm of the hand. The palm has not themeans of covering the whole of the beast. The sensory
perceptions can lead to misinterpretations, as there arevarious aspects of truth and limited sensory experience.
We called our robot TIRESIAS, inspired by the blind
figure from the Greek mythology, that is looking for selfknowledge. It is not a man neither a woman, but an entity
which tries to find its own identity.

Top: Hendrick Goltzius, Tiresias
separates the snakes, 1590
Bottom: Johann Ulrich Kraus, The
Metamorphoses of Ovid, 1690
13

IMPLEMENTATIONThe mach i n e
Vincent and Emily

This project interprets very successfully the concept ofa human relationship, as the couple sends signals andseems like each partner answers to the other. The sounds,
the human-like motions and the interaction with theaudience give to the robots an inherent liveness. We were
inspired by the elasticity of this mechanism, as the actionsof the couple become at the same time smoother andunpredictable. We also liked the aesthetic choices of the
project, to leave uncover the motors and the electronics,
and as a result to achieve a non-anthropomorphic
outcome.

Carolin Liebl, Vincent and Emily, 201315

i n s p i ra t i o nCarolin Liebl in collaboration with Nikolas Schmid-Pfähler
created two self-willed robots that communicate between
them and with the environment. They communicate theirthoughts and emotions through sounds and motions- controlled by their motors. They capture sounds andmovements via sensors and react on those signals
unpredictable.

Fearful Symmetry
A mechanical machine in form that moves with soft,
human-like motions, interacting with the audience’s
gestures and looking like a living organism. This projectchoreographed with the collaboration of a team of
puppeteers giving the machine its uncannily humancharacter. We had the opportunity to speak with theLondon-based artist Ruairi Glynn, who directs theInteractive Architecture Lab at the Bartlett School ofArchitecture, University College London. He advised us tobuild our concept in the idea of puppetry, where the object
is manipulated from the machine puppeteer. We interpreted
this technique, as we chose to mount all the mechanism
at the top in the construction and handle the tentacle fromthe motors attaching them threads.

Ruari Glynn, Fearful Symmetry, 2012

i n s p i ra t i o n

However, our approach differs from this project in termsof materials, structures and interaction choices, becauseof the self- actualization concept and our vision for the
robot to touch itself. Our robot needed to have a more
flexible structure so as to be able to touch itself, but also
to create more intense motions and spirals like dancing
motions. Our concept didn’t also require interaction withthe audience, as the robot performs a self-perception
narcissistic action.

Continuum Robots
The continuum robot is a flexible structure with a large
number of degrees of freedom. Its construction is basedon a segmented backbone (figure 5). Specifically, thisstructure consists of a backbone, and a serial connectionof joints attached to the backbone, that create segments.
Finally, the construction includes threads or cables
connected to the joints, that are operated to move by
motors and deform the backbone’s shape.

Clemson tentacle robot
This mechanism has been created by many practitioners,
designers and engineers with different approaches. So,
we tried through our research and experimentation withthis tentacular logic to take the decisions that fit betterwith our concept and make the robot moves smoothly
and with expanded motion range. The kinematics of thisconstruction has a specific range of moments that we
tried to expand it in order to allow the machine to touch
itself. The existing continuum robots that we came acrosswith don’t cover the range of the motion that we tried toachieve, so we inspired by them, but we also tried throughour experiments to contribute our interpretation to thismechanism.

Andrew L. Orekhov, Vincent A. Aloi, D. Caleb Rucker,
The kinematic range of a continuum robot with twointermediate disks and 6 degrees of freedom, 2017

i n s p i ra t i o n

Ruari Glynn also proposed us to look at the twelve
principles of animation so as to apply some of themin the robot’s motion. For example, the principle ofanticipation, iwn which when you go to move you firstmake an opposite movement, as when you go to jump,
you first squash. In the same way, we try to make therobot move using some motions that are close to humankinetics. The gestural interaction with the audience is afeature that I would like to implement in the future for myconcept of communication with the human co-performer.

We also created a motor package using a wooden piece,
where we attached the motors. In the beginning, weused three motors that each one actuated one cable that
was actuated all the segments of the backbone. But later,
making some research we experiment with a different
approach. The paper Synthesis and analysis of a flexible
elephant trunk robot (Yang et al., 2005) describes thecreation of a continuum robot in which each cable actuates
each trunk segment and each motor actuates one cable.
This means that there is a high degree of manoeuvrability.
This construction helped us to experiment with thetechnique of using different cables for different segments
so as to have higher freedom and manoeuvrability,
especially in the last segment, that tries to touch the partsin the higher backbone.

p ro t o t y p e s

In the beginning, we started our first iteration with a metalthin compression spring for backbone, acrylic disks forjoints and three nylon threads for cables. We tested how
it works just using our hands to pull the cables and wereally liked the motion. Reading some papers and watchingsome videos about different techniques and materials that
we can use, we started experimenting. We specifically useddifferent kinds of springs (compression, extension,) for the
backbone, in different sizes and flexibilities. We also trieddifferent acrylic and plastic joints, with the same size or ina pyramid structure. But also, other kinds of cables, such as
nylon string and archery kevlar string.

During the experimentation, we came across with manydifficulties, that we couldn’t imagine from the beginning.
For example, for the cable routing problem, we tried somedifferent configurations, such as inside and outside of
the backbone, or a crossing cable configuration (Case etal., 2017), such as the one described in Reducing Actuator
Requirements in Continuum Robots Through Optimized
Cable Routing. It was really difficult to handle the cables, as
they had unpredictable behaviour, stacking in the motors
sometimes. That’s why we needed to create some spools
to control their movements. Each motor has one spool that
controls one cable in our construction. However, inspiredby a robot interpretation (The Wandering Engineer, 2018)
we also tried to connect in one motor two different spools,that create a crossing cable configuration. The result wasinteresting, but it wasn’t helping to achieve the goal of therobot’s touching each self.

19

p ro t o t y p e s

We tested different setups for the tentacle. It could be
structured to stay either up or down or to the side. We
kept it looking down because it was the easiest way tomanipulate it. However, this brought other difficulties, suchas the hanging of the construction, which demanded many
regulations for the safety of the robot, the working process
in a ladder and the health of the people that are around it.

Vinzenz worked in the design of the construction in
Cinema 4D, making a 3D model and the 3D printing
parts, such as the spools’ cover and, the joints
between the springs and the disks. He programmed
the robot’s kinematics in Arduino for the prototyping
phase, and he created a very useful communication
between the Arduino and the Cinema 4D software,that it can help us in the future to control the physicalmodel, having a very realistic digital model. He finally
took care of a lot of the orders of different materials
and electronic components that we used.

final construction

The final construction consists of 7 circular joined
plywood disks, in which are attached 9 motors, 9drivers, 2 power supplies and 1 Arduino, and a flexible
tentacular construction of 14 segments, made of 14
circular compression springs, 27 plastic joints and
14 acrylic disks. There are 3 levels of motors and ineach level, 3 motors are attached in plastic mounts
that reduce the sounds of the motors and keep themstable. One thread is attached from the spool that isconnected in each motor and it comes all the way
through the construction, ending up to different
segments of the tentacular structure. The size ofthe installation is 40x200x40cm and the weight isestimated about 15kg.

My role in the robot’s construction was the design of thelaser cutting components, such as the spools, the disks
and the power supply covers, but also the design of the
CPC cutting for the motor’s base. I had many practicalresponsibilities during the compositions of the final
structure, such as the attachment of the motors and thespools, and the threads’ configuration. I also worked in
the animation of the digital model that Vinzenz createdin Cinema 4D and I experimented with some alternative
digital approaches in Maya software. Unfortunately,
we didn’t succeed to interpret a very useful model forthe kinematics that we wanted to operate, because ourphysical model had many material constraints and design
complexities. So, I worked with the Arduino code toprogram the motions and the choreographic scenarios that
I wanted to succeed. I tried to create different motions andmovement durations and intensities, that could fit also withthe dancer’s choreography. This process was mainly basedon observation of the robot’s range of movements.
21

final construction

Both of us worked in the painting of the wooden parts
and the composition of the whole structure. We faced
many difficulties in the composition, as it was a very
close structure that was difficult to intervene and change
things. Also, the construction had many details that
we did not take into account from the beginning andbrought difficulties. As a result, we had to redesign somecomponents or correct some of them which extended theconstruction timeline.

final construction

Vinzenz’s vision to achieve expanded motion range, so as
the robot to touch itself didn’t work. Probably, the weight
and length of the construction are two negative factor
for this motion, but also its flexibility creates a spiralmotion that doesn’t allow the motor to touch itself. We
plan to experiment more with the structure of the robot,
adding two motors that handle only the last segment of
the tentacle - the tip, attaching the manipulating cables
separately, in the outside of the tentacle, in order not to
impact the other segments and not to be affected by them.
After testing this idea manually, we found out that if thethreads are independent of the rest of the construction, we
will succeed our goal.

The s ou n d
Robot’s and human’s sounds are used to create asoundscape. The robot creates its own sounds, thatcome from the way it operates, especially the sound of
the motors that make it move. When the robot touches
itself, it creates also sound that comes from the contact
between the different materials that is constructed of.
The human partner also contributes to this soundscape,through breathing sounds, which are connected withhuman emotional states. In this way, empathy grows
between the dancer and the robot as they connect withthe physiological experience of another. The human andmachinery sounds are combined between them in order tocreate a new identity for the partners, without distinctionsof human and non-human. Both partners become thesource of weird sound that reveille this marriage between
physical and computational.
We decided to use sound as a way to visualize the factthat it touches itself, but also the touching intensity. At the
beginning, we regarded different sensors that we could use
to show the touching data, such as colour, light flex sensor,
and also different visualizations of these data, like colours,
lights, graphics, but we ended up with sound because it isan embodied medium that contributes also in the narrative
23of an ‘alive’ machine that moves and as a result it createssounds.
I had never before worked in sound, so I came in touchwith some sound designers from LCC that helped me torecord the different sounds that I needed for my concept
with a Zoom Recorder in a quiet studio. I recorded
different body sounds, such as my breathing, heart beating
and finger knocks. I also recorded the robot’s mechanicalsounds of the motors’ operation and its materials. ThenI synthesized these sounds in Adobe Premiere, creating
different soundtracks.
I started experimenting with MaxMsp and a contact
microphone in order to manipulate the robot’s sounds
in real time. I attached the microphone at the end of therobot’s tentacular structure. The microphone recorded
sounds of the environment, adding to them some digitaleffects, like echo and delay. In this way, the robot selects
and process properties of the environment. Every timeit touches itself, it sounds like communicating verbally,
playing randomly one of the tracks that I recorded. The
sounds recorded also from MaxMsp and synthesized in
Premiere for the video of the performance.

t h e reis an
i n h e re n t
l ive n e s s
in them a ch i n e

The ch o re ograp hy
The goal of the choreography is to create questions of who
has the agency and who follows whom. But also, to blurthe distinctions between physical and mechanical, creating
an interesting unusual duet of two bodies that are separate
and united at the same time.
For the choreography, I collaborated with the choreographer
Andre Kamienski from the dancing company KAMIENSKI.
and the dancer Abigail Attard Montalto. In the beginning, I
shared with them a lot of information about my researchbackground and the concept that I wanted to achieve. Then
I participated in the choreographic process, in terms ofnarrative instructions and storyboard.
Observing the robot’s shapes, I tried to translate them in
2D graphics in order to use them with the choreographer
and interpret them in dancing postures and movements.
The robot that we created has a straight body that looks
like a spine with a great range of flexibility. The humanbody consists of many parts that could be presented asstraight lines. So, the human performer can interpret theshapes of the robot not only with the whole core but alsowith individual parts, such as the neck, one leg or one
hand. The goal of the choreography was to create both25

similar movement patterns that are inspired by the robot
motion, but also oppositions. In this way, the dancer can
explore new ways and qualities of self-realization, and at
the same time, the combination of the performer’s kinetics
can create interesting new shapes that we hadn’t imagine
before, or we couldn’t create without a robot entity.

Valtari

Sigur Ros, Valtari, 2012

i n s p i ra t i o n

Sigur Ros’ opus Valtari, choreographed by Sidi Larbi
Cherkaoui and directed by Christian Larson. In this film,
we can watch the dialogue through movements andgestures between two human beings that move with acapturing animal way. Specifically, we see a male andfemale dancer copying each other’s motions, before uniting
to become one seamless entity of moving parts.

This film captures powerfully the passing throughthe stages of individuality and loneliness to dialogue
and appreciation. Two bodies become one, respecting
each other and trying to play their role in this gesturalcommunication. We can also observe the scaling oftension, from neutral to passionate and to empathize withthis metaphorical interaction.

Seven Stages of Tension

NeutralThe dancer begins in a state of full awareness, before
everything changes. The audience watches a humanbeing that expresses through contemporary dance andbody gestures.
Alert
Suddenly, the dancer comes across with the machine.
She starts to express curiosity about it, observing its
kinetics.

27

i n s p i ra t i o n

Jacques Lecoq developed an approach to acting using
seven stages of tension (Farmer, 2015). Inspired bythese levels of relaxation, I developed some of them forstructuring the choreography. Then, I discussed thesetensions with the choreographer, and we ended up withthe following structure:Suspense
Dancer’s body starts to react, in order
to communicate with the machine.
She tries to interpret some robot’s
postures, starting from small body’s
parts to the whole spine.

Passionate
The tension has exploded out of the
body and it’s difficult to control. There isa blur line between the human and themachine. The robot is human in motion
but inhuman in form. The dancer seems
like a human being that is transforming
into a robot, due to the kinetics that she
copies from the machine.

TragicThe body cannot move anymore, it ispetrified. The dancer is also becoming
like the blind Tiresias. She stops caring
for the other entity. And she ‘sees’ inside
her, wondering what her identity is andwhere the line is between human andmachine.

29

After Andre created the initial choreographic skeleton, theycame in touch with the robot. It was really shocking towatch this unusual partnership with the similarities in the
motions and the oppositions in appearance. Even if therobot kinetics were choreographed, there were momentsthat the dancer and the viewers felt like the robot reallysees the dancer and approaches her or mimic her. Abigail
adapted her postures and their intention, trying to follow
the robot’s choreography.

p ro c e s s

The choreography started in a dancing studio. For Andreand Abigail was something new to collaborate with arobot. I tried to avoid the easy way of creating just a solo
for one dancer. So, we agreed that the routine will bechoreographically flexibly for change and improvisation. In
the beginning, before they came in touch with the robot,
we tried to explore ideas and postures of the robot’s
spirals that can be translated into human postures. They
placed a scarf in the floor and tried to interpret with theirbody the shapes that it can take. It was a very creative
process that helped a lot in the choreography.

“ Wh e n yo u d o n ’t u s e
wo rd s, yo u e n d u p
u s e a rch e t y p e s, t h at
re m i n d s yo u t h e G re e k
my t h o l ogy. ”- D i m i t ri s Pap a i o a n o uThe vid e o
For the video shooting, I collaborated with Carmen Pellon
and her assistant Marina Lewis. Before the shooting day,I met with Carmen so as to explain her the concept, show
her the robot’s and dancer’s choreographies and plan theshooting. We agreed to the performance shot list, including
wide or close static shots and some dynamic shots, butalso the mood of the film and its visual style. Regarding
the minimal and dark style that we chose for the film, weorganized the technical equipment, that included a SonyA7s, Samyang prime lenses and white lighting from theceiling. The day of the shooting we used a lot of light’s
diffusion filters to achieve the mood that we had designed.
In the video, I wanted to focus on the similarities of thedancer’s and robot’s spines, so I draw the dancer’s spine,using a stencil technique with a sketch that was inspiredby the robot’s tentacular style. It was a very successful
choice, as it helps the viewers to make the connection
between the different organisms, and also helps thedancer to feel that a new characteristic becomes part ofher body.

31

The shooting day was a self-realization of our work as
we observed the behaviour of the people that helped us
in the shooting. They knew that the robot is a mechanicalconstruction, but they demonstrated that they feel that it isan alive entity, calling it ‘him’ or ‘baby’ and talking to it. This
supported our animistic approach to attributing humanbehaviour in animate beings. Another factor of our work
evaluation during the shooting day was the realization of
the machine’s disturbing character. It seems like struggling
to move, and its construction makes noise, that creates afeeling of empathy, hiding a threatening narrative.

After the shooting, I edited a first edition of the video. The
unusual duet was very inspiring for the cinematographer
and for me so as to approach the ideas of oppositions
and different organisms that melt and become one.
Combining these images with the recorded sounds theresult captures very successfully the creation of complex
relations between organisms and the exploration ofinteresting identities.
Here you can see the first edition of the video:
https://vimeo.com/302664005

32

CONCLUSIONTIRESIAS is not a tool, but a creative entity that can standnext to a co-performer and defend the manifestationsof choreographic thinking. We took the human’s dancing
qualities out of the body and put them into a machine,where it can manipulate in a way that the human had
never danced before. In this way, the robot can inspire
the human co-performer and vice-versa. This work is
still work in progress that can be improved, having thepotentiality of adding interesting interactive functionalities.
However, it can be already evaluated as a successfulinterpretation that supports my research about Alive
Machines through creative practice. The purpose of myresearch was to explore the ways in which we can avoid
dualities of human and non-human entities and find thetechniques to assign agency to the co-performers, creating
embodied intelligence with complex interactions.
To do so, I created and choreographed a moving nonhuman entity that performed with a human dancer. In thisco-creation, I added the sound that comes from physicaland mechanical sources, so as to blur the lines between
human and machine. The unusual duet co-performs for
self-actualization through sensory experience. The robot
explores the environment and itself through a microphone.
The concept is based on the mythology about the blind33

prophet Tiresias, who creates his own identities, escaping
the distinctions of man and woman.
The outcome was a synthesis of many parts and cameup from the collaboration of many people. The machine
was made by the collaboration with Vinzenz, whose role
was determinant in robot’s design and development. We
succeed to create a moving entity in a short period of time,
experimenting with many approaches, building multiple
prototypes and testing different animation practices. We
faced many difficulties, and we had many failures during
our experimentation, but we worked hard, learning newthings, and helping each other to overcome the problems
and find solutions or alternatives. The performance wasmade by the collaboration with the choreographer Andreand the dancer Abigail, that empathized and got inspired
from our work, the concept and the planed storyboard,and interpreted the idea of TIRESIAS in an astonishingway. The video of the project filmed by Carmen, that has aprofessional background in cinematography and achieved
to capture our work, adding a dynamic visual identity inthe whole project.
Personally, I learned many new things in technical andanalytical terms. I developed my skills in the design andconstruction of the physical model, I experimented withanimation software, I programmed a robotic choreography,
I recorded and designed the sound and I edited thevideo. But probably, the most important was my role in
the project management and the synthesis of all thesedifferent parts and people. I had to analyze the concept
and communicate the storyboards of my ideas so as tohave successful collaboration and achieve the desired
outcome. I really enjoyed having this role, as I dealt withdifferent circumstances, synthesizing the interaction
between the different parts and people that put theirexpertise so as to achieve to make my project stronger.
The work evaluated, through the observation of people’sinteraction with the robot and the performance. People
tended to attribute human characteristic to the robot andfaced it as a living and threatening organism. The viewers
were impressed by the way that a non-anthropomorphic
entity moved natural and looked like having agency anddevelop an equal dynamic partnership with the dancer.
The work is going to be exhibited as an installation of therobot and the performance’s video projected in the wall
next to the robot. The interaction of the audience with therobot will give us valuable experience for improving ourconcept and the robot’s functionality, in terms of giving itinteractive and reactive behaviour. The most important is
to bring discussion about the potentiality of a robot thatlooks alive and behaves like a dancer’s co-performer thatcan expand the script and becomes creative.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akten, M. (2012). Forms. [online] Memo Akten. Available at: http://www.memo.tv/portfolio/forms/ [Accessed 25 Nov. 2018].
Case, J., White, E., SunSpiral, V. and Kramer-Bottiglio, R. (2017). Reducing Actuator Requirements in Continuum Robots ThroughOptimized Cable Routing. Soft Robotics, 5(1), pp.109-118.
Farmer, D. (2015). Seven Levels of Tension. [online] Drama Resource. Available at: https://dramaresource.com/seven-levels-oftension/ [Accessed 11 Nov. 2018].
Haraway, D. (2016). Tentacular Thinking: Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Chthulucene. [online] e-flux.com. Available at: https://www.e-flux.com/journal/75/67125/tentacular-thinking-anthropocene-capitalocene-chthulucene/ [Accessed 11 Nov. 2018].
Glynn, R. (2012). Fearful Symmetry. [online] Ruairi Glynn. Available at: http://www.ruairiglynn.co.uk/portfolio/fsymmetry/[Accessed 11 Nov. 2018].
Hannan, M. and Walker, I. (2003). Kinematics and the Implementation of an Elephant’s Trunk Manipulator and Other
Continuum Style Robots. Journal of Robotic Systems, 20(2), pp.45-63.
Jansen, T. (2018). STRANDBEEST. [online] Strandbeest.com. Available at: http://www.strandbeest.com/ [Accessed 11 Nov. 2018].
Liebl, C. (2013). Vincent and Emily. [online] Available at: http://www.carolinliebl.de/vincent-und-emily [Accessed 11 Nov. 2018].
Mcginn, R. (2018). Work. [online] rosiemcginn. Available at: https://www.rosiemcginn.co.uk/copy-of-context [Accessed 25 Nov.
2018].

Orekhov, A., Aloi, V. and Rucker, D. (2017). Modeling parallel continuum robots with general intermediate constraints. 2017 IEEE
International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).
Papaioannou, D. (2017). THE GREAT TAMER. [online] Dimitrispapaioannou.com. Available at: http://www.dimitrispapaioannou.
com/en/current/the-great-tamer [Accessed 25 Nov. 2018].
Sigur Rós. (2012). Valtari. [online] YouTube. Available at: https://youtu.be/wfJVAoTE2PI [Accessed 25 Nov. 2018].
The Wandering Engineer. (2018). Robot Tentacle/Trunk with Arduino - Version 1. [online] Available at: https://thewanderingengineer.com/2014/02/08/robot-tentacletrunk-with-arduino-version-1/?fbclid=IwAR2KFPcbwDbCwj71D1m99SO9_gffU1bm5IOul16-yDGDCadSfE49SxGKP4 [Accessed 12 Nov. 2018].
Wooten, M. and Walker, I. (2018). Vine-Inspired Continuum Tendril Robots and Circumnutations. Robotics, 7(3), p.58.
Yang, J., Pitarch, E., Potratz, J., Beck, S. and Abdel-Malek, K. (2005). Synthesis and analysis of a flexible elephant trunk robot.
Advanced Robotics, 20(6), pp.631-659.
YouTube. (2017). Continuum robot. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VldqRCAPQzc [Accessed 12 Nov.
2018].
Zimoun. (2015). 250 prepared ac-motors, 325 kg roof laths, 1.8 km rope, 2015. [online] Available at: https://vimeo.com/120363717[Accessed 11 Nov. 2018].