Analogies between site-specific Choreography and Landscape

Architecture
E-mail conversation between Christoper Bate-Williams (landscape architecture) & Kristin McGuire
(dance), 22/02/2010

Kristin McGuire: […] I found that “site work” is perhaps something, which site-specific
choreographers and landscape architects do with the same concerns: Transforming or
animating a given site, adding some content to that site, creating a design for a site etc. -
whatever you would like to name it. Choreographers basically put dancers in a site and make
them move in response to the site just like landscape architects put/arrange e.g. flora in a site
and make it grow and develop according to the conditions of the site.
Christopher Bate-Williams: Completely understood: as I say elsewhere, my work could be described as
the choreography of different materials using different tools and influencing the behaviour of people.
[…]
I might be totally wrong and I might have a huge misconception about your profession and if
that is the case then we can stop here. But if you can see some similarities in what “we” do
then I would appreciate your help:
No misconceptions at all, so let's carry on...
I have thought of a few questions, which are all based on trying to find some analogies, similar
practices, thoughts, concerns, methods etc. between site-specific choreography and landscape
architecture. It would be so interesting for me to explore your answers and see how your
practice could potentially inform mine.
As in my covering email, I've recognised for a long time the way that all artists / designers use almost
identical processes in producing their work. Hopefully my attempts to respond to some of your
thoughts may follow on. […]
One of my understandings of dance is that there are comparisons to be made with sculpture. Rehearsal
day was a bit “make-it-up-as-you-go-and-see-what-works” improvisational which is fine.
As for site-specific I think it worked, by chance or not. The space you used was surrounded by static
sculpture that, wherever sited, will continue to exist. To me, dance is among other things a complex,
interactive and moving sculpture, usually set to music.
The elements are the dancers, the choreographer's skill is in guiding each dancer's movement and the
interaction between each element: each-other and the music to provide a greater, dynamic sculpture.
[…]
Here are some questions, which you might want to answer in order to give me an idea of how
you go about making your work:
The very essential question thus is “how do you go about creating your work?” but as this is
probably a little too general I tried to find some more precise questions.
Ok here goes...
If you took your clients’ wishes out of the equation (architects told me that they very much
base their ideas on the clients’ instructions) what would you look for in a site to kick off your
creative process? What would you look at in order to get inspired for ideas?
I find with my own work, and architects' have the same thoughts, that it's helpful to work with
constraints and opportunities. The constraints may be the limitations imposed by the site or the brief
imposed by a client. The opportunities may be some kind of potential asset on the site such as perhaps
a stream or a piece of woodland or some distant object that could be a landmark or visual target or a
wonderful view. As the 19th century landscaper Lancelot Brown said, “I perceive that your land has
capability”, hence his nickname.
I'm trying very hard to envisage a site with no assets and no constraints, since I haven't yet had that
challenge. In the past, architect colleagues, designing for example housing layouts for greenfield sites,
have asked me in desperation to add some fictitious features so that they have some constraints to
design around.
Do you have a very clear idea/vision about the result of your work when you start? If yes, what
generates that vision?
About half and half. Some schemes present very simple problems and therefore quite easy solutions. I
find it quite easy to sketch these on the spot. Others are more complex and I do “scribbly” composite
sketches with coloured inks to clarify my thoughts. These are solely to capture the idea and have very
little resemblance to reality, just thoughts caught in sketch.
I have a very visual brain and memory, which is quite difficult to describe though I hope you'll
understand.
How do you usually want the result of your work for a site to be different from its original
state? I am thinking that your creation/design/architecture might be e.g. complementing or
contrasting etc. the original site?
Without exception the stuff I do on sites that already exist have problems that the client wants to
resolve. The work I've most enjoyed has involved the regeneration of degraded urban areas. This has
involved architects restoring the buildings, me and colleagues trying to make the spaces between the
buildings work (one of the best definitions of landscape architecture in my world is “the planning and
design of the space between buildings”).
There was always discussion with the inhabitants and wherever possible their ideas were taken on
board. The results of these projects were welcomed by the inhabitants.
[…]
Could you imagine that your process is actually very choreographic in a sense that your
landscape architecture will make people move in certain ways just like choreographers make
people move in certain ways? I mean as a choreographer I tell my dancer e.g. “Walk along the
side of the stage, sit down and lift your head”. As a landscape architect you design a park with
a path and a bench. This design will make the pedestrian “walk along the path, sit on the
bench and look at the sun”. The architecture commands the person in it to move in a certain
way.
This is perhaps one of the most fascinating of our dialogue because the analogy is so precise.
Ideally my version of choreography starts with the arrangement of spaces, usually the spaces between
existing buildings. Dealing with the spaces between existing buildings is one challenge.
There is also the challenge, in new development, of having the opportunity to play with building
volumes and positions in order to create a series of spaces in which to continue the choreography in
organising the street elements. These elements may be “street furniture” otherwise known as seats, bus-
stops, cycle-racks, lighting, waste-bins and so-on. These can be off-the-peg or, ideally designed (by me..)
to be site specific.
The most important of the “elements” is as you say, the human.
One of the most interesting series of lectures during my course concerned behavioural psychology
related to “people's response to their immediate environment” or something very similar.
Unlike you in choreographer mode, as a landscape architect I'm not in a very strong position to tell
members of the public to behave in a particular way.
What thoughts/ideas/methods are your creative choices based on?
Notionally my creative choices are based on the constraints and opportunities that we talked about
earlier. However there is one constant that recurs in some of my designs. I'm not one for obeying or
setting rules for design, but I confess to having used Fibonacci's Golden Section ratio 1 : 1.618 [see
annotations at the end] just because as a spacial proportion it works. I used it often when there was the
lack of a challenge or constraints. It worked though...
Do you work with the mood of site, its history, its physical structure, its weather conditions
etc.? I assume yes […], so my actual question here is how do such parameters influence or
shape your final design?
All these are important, especially any ambience the site may have for whatever reasons.
There is this big difference between architecture and dance, which is time. Architecture is
“only” three-dimensional, whereas dance is four-dimensional, because it evolves through time.
As choreographers we have the fourth dimension to play with, architects don’t have that as
much.
I'd only disagree in the rather pedantic sense that any functional building involves people and their
movement. Maybe this comment is no big deal.
Landscape architecture, however, I think is four-dimensional again because it changes
according to the seasons and has some live to it, which keeps evolving throughout time. So,
there is a really interesting question for me here: How do you manipulate that fourth
dimension? How do you creatively manipulate or control the changes that happen to your work
through time?
For a landscape architect the time / season element is one of the most difficult aspects in that after the
design and implementation has been completed, forever afterwards the maintenance is in other people's
hands. In normal circumstances we provide a management plan which specifies minimum standards for
maintenance. This is much more important for organic material than for inorganic stuff. The
management plan is very specific as to maintenance regimes which clearly specify the timing and
procedures needed. Sadly, after handover to a client, occasionally all this falls by the wayside and by
then the work has ceased to be my responsibility.
Is there any method/strategy that landscape architects use in order to create their design for a
given site, which choreographers could employ for the same purpose - creating movement
designs for a given site?
This is a difficult question in so many ways that once again it's fun to try to find a meaningful answer.
Most “given sites” will have their own characteristics and we react to these. Some characteristics may be
positive, the rest less so. Having said that, a huge number of sites close to home would benefit from
your attentions, possibly in the same slummy areas that I'd like to improve... After all, choreography is a
big concept!
I will find an interior designer and ask similar question in order to cover inside and outside
space. […]
Kristin, I really appreciate the fact that you've chosen to ask for my thoughts. Thank you:
Annotation:

Golden Ratio
In mathematics and the arts, two quantities are in the golden ratio if the ratio of the sum of the
quantities to the larger quantity is equal to (=) the ratio of the larger quantity to the smaller one. The
golden ratio is an irrational mathematical constant, approximately 1.6180339887. Other names
frequently used for the golden ratio are the golden section (Latin: sectio aurea) and golden mean.
Other terms encountered include extreme and mean ratio,[5] medial section, divine proportion,
divine section (Latin: sectio divina), golden proportion, golden cut,[6] golden number, and mean of
Phidias. The golden ratio is often denoted by the Greek letter phi, usually lower case (φ).

Fibonacci Spiral

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio (Retrieved 22/02/2010)