Jean-Marc Matos - AI and Dance: The Artistic Intelligence in Motion

The Body in Dance and AI

Human movement carries layers of intention and ambiguity. A gesture is never only functional; it is affective, cultural, and often unconscious.

The dancing body thinks without separating thought from action. It produces knowledge through sensation, through weight, through time. In this sense, choreography becomes a form of thinking—one that cannot be fully translated into data without loss.

Artificial intelligence, by contrast, reads movement through capture, abstraction, and pattern recognition. It identifies trajectories, speeds, and probabilities. It can detect, classify, and even predict. Yet what does it fail to read? What escapes its grasp are precisely those dimensions that make movement human: hesitation, inner impulse, contradiction, memory embedded in the flesh. AI perceives the visible trace of movement, but not the invisible forces that generate it.

At the crossroads of contemporary choreography and digital innovation, Compagnie K. Danse foregrounds an artistic practice that doesn’t merely use artificial intelligence as a tool, but questions it through the lived experience of the body in motion. Under the direction of Jean-Marc Matos, the company’s AI-infused works interrogate our assumptions about cognition, presence, and the machine by creating interactions that emphasize not separation but coexistence between human and nonhuman intelligences.

K. Danse, ETERNITY. Photo Credits: Jean-Marc Matos + deep AI.

Can movement be understood as a form of knowledge that challenges dominant models of intelligence?

These works engage the gap between the visible and the invisible not as a limitation, but as a space of artistic inquiry. Rather than using AI to replicate or simulate human expression, the projects create situations where human and machine intelligences encounter one another through the medium of the body. Sensors, real-time systems, and generative processes do not aim to control the dancer, but to enter into dialogue with them.

Our choreographic environments foreground coexistence. The dancer is neither augmented nor replaced, but repositioned and becoming a mediator between different regimes of perception. Movement becomes a site where two modes of intelligence intersect: one embodied, situated, and experiential; the other computational, distributed, and statistical.

In this encounter, choreography expands. It becomes a dynamic system in which meaning is not fixed but emerges through interaction.The body does not simply perform—it listens, adapts, resists, and transforms in response to the machine. Likewise, the machine does not simply execute—it reacts, generates, and evolves within its programmed constraints.

This raises deeper cultural and artistic questions: Can movement be understood as a form of knowledge that challenges dominant models of intelligence? What happens when thinking is no longer located solely in the mind, but distributed across bodies, environments, and technologies? And how can dance reveal not only what AI can do, but what it cannot perceive?

In this perspective, AI does not define the future of dance. Rather, dance exposes the limits and possibilities of AI. The body becomes a critical space—one that reclaims intelligence as something felt, relational, and irreducible to computation.

Here are some examples:

The “F_AI_L” (2024) project

A standalone performance and an installation open to the public.

F_AI_L (2024) is a dance and AI project that questions the fallibility of artificial intelligence when it encounters and enters into an unlikely dialogue with the human body, through an interactive comparison between standardized and unusual movements.

In this project, the AI is conceived as a digital creature, trained on a database composed of a very large number of short dance video recordings, set performed by a wide and diverse public (approx. 5000). The “body” of this creature is omnipresent throughout the scenographic set, expressing itself through images, music, and projected words. The image transforms itself in response to unusual, disaligned movements. An invitation to dance—differently. No prediction is at all possible.

The words function both as an interpretation of what the machine perceives from the movements danced in front of it, and as invitations guiding the participants toward the directions it suggests. The movements of a spectator are captured and interpreted by the AI. The more the AI recognizes a movement as daily and standardized, the closer the body’s representation is to a human, identifiable figure. A body to be displayed… Conversely, the more the movements depart from the habitual and deviate from the ordinary, the more complex the body’s representation becomes, inviting the spectator into an exploration of letting go. A body to be explored…

The dance in this project is nourished by an in-depth research into everyday gestures and attitudes observed in people, in situations where they wait and observe.

More than a simple interaction, the aim is to generate a dialogue with the AI, as it is not possible to predict exactly how it will interpret the training it has received.

Beyond this, the project seeks to understand how an AI functions through the medium of bodily movement. F_AI_L is capable of interpreting the smallest movements—fragments of behavior, all kinds of gestures and attitudes, intentions. An invitation to discover other ways of moving, to explore states of the body, and to develop are lationship shaped by one’s own creative inspiration.

In F_AI_L, AI becomes a dialogic partner rather than an automated generator of form. Here, the AI system trained on vast databases of dance videos interprets and misinterprets the gestures of performers and spectators alike. When movements align with familiar patterns, the AI confidently represents the body in simplified, normative visual forms; when movements deviate, recognition falters and fallibility emerges—producing richer, more complex representations that echo human variability rather than algorithmic predictability. Through this dynamic, F_AI_L transforms AI’s limits into generative artistic material, inviting audiences to explore unfamiliar movement states and re-discover somaesthetic perception.

Discover more about “F_AI_L”

The “ETERNITY” (2025-27)

and ”Immortal(s)” (2023) projects

Where F_AI_L probes AI’s incomplete understanding of the body, ETERNITY (2025–27) imagines a speculative future in which hybrid immortals—“near-humans”—are mediated by AI that coordinates scenography, light, sound, and audience interaction. In this immersive installation, the choreography unfolds within a triangular communication system of dancers, visitors, and intelligent systems. The performance doesn’t just display technology; it weaves it into a dramaturgy of emotion and presence, exploring how human affect might be mirrored, amplified, or eluded by algorithmic processes that adapt in real time to human behavior.

Similarly speculative in narrative yet grounded in corporeal investigation, Immortal(s) (2023) situates audiences in a future where hybrid beings—part human, part AI—are confined, observed, and engaged. Their struggle to reconnect with human experience stages a poignant choreography of memory, estrangement, and desire. By making AI both a character and a partner in collective storytelling, Immortal(s) transforms the machine from an abstract symbol into a relational agency that reflects back human presence and absence.

Both are immersive, site-specific, participatory, and interactive live performances. A speculative and post-human science f(r)iction. Audiences, projected into the future, can, at will, act upon and dialogue with hybrid beings, sort of “organorgs”, enclosed for eternity inside a protective capsule or beams of lights.These creatures are nothing more than one, amongst many “Immortal(s)s”, which has been ostracized. A meeting between two intelligences: the artificial one and the corporeal one.

Sketch for tactile interactive tablets in ETERNITY. Photo Credits: Jean-Marc Matos.

2084, different times, different customs.The Immortals have become circus animals confined in cages and exhibited to the glory of past technology. Visitors can observe and tease them as one would with trained monkeys.The Immortals embody an “almost human” sophisticated AI.They try to relive forgotten memories. They struggle to connect with humans.They await their visiting audiences …

The set is installed inside an immersive 3 walls, video mapped space. Audiences communicate with the creatures via tactile screens, headphones, and contact interfaces.

"Love is the Turing test. [..] This is how we verify life.”
Catherynne Valente, “Silently and Very fast”

“Like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
John Webster, “The Duchess of Malfi”

“Thus, age by age – oh, how soon, my Lord? – Under the art and nature’s scalpel, Our spirit screams, and flesh is worn. By giving birth to the sixth sense’s organ.”
Nikolai Gumilev

Discover more about “ETERNITY”

And “Immortals”

AI and Dance: Embodied Intelligence, Fallibility, and Coexistence

Intelligence is not exclusively cognitive, linguistic, or computational. It emerges across the living world—through movement, sensation, behavior, adaptation, and relational exchange. While contemporary artificial intelligences such as large language models and generative media tools simulate fragments of human cognition, they inhabit only a narrow slice of what living systems know and do. What remains largely unexplored is the intelligence of the body: the infra-language of movement, tension, relational modalities, and behavioral patterning that cannot be reduced to symbols or text. This embodied intelligence, what Jean-Marc Matos and close artistic partner, Antoine Schmitt, term “pre-AI,” becomes the artistic material and conceptual anchor for choreographic inquiry.

Our practice does not treat AI as a decorativeor instrumental technology. Instead, AI becomes a relational partner —not perfect, not omniscient, but capable of fallibility, resonance, and response. Through this encounter, intelligence is not something to be observed at a distance, but something lived through movement, disturbance, and negotiation.

In Immortal(s) (2023), the focus shifts to coexistence and memory. Hybrid beings—part human, part algorithmic—inhabit an immersive environment that evokes speculative futures of artificial longevity and estrangement. Audiences navigate relational thresholds with these beings, whose behaviors are shaped by both learned data and embodied contingencies. Here, we interrogate narratives of immortality and technological mastery, suggesting that being alive together—human and artificial—involves vulnerability, miscommunication, and affective exchange, not mere optimization.

In F_AI_L (2024), the AI’s inability to classify a typical movements becomes the point of creative departure. Trained on vast dance corpora, the machine attempts to interpret gestures but “fails” when faced with deviations, micro-variations, or non-normative physical subtleties. These errors are not bugs to be corrected, but openings for the body to assert its unpredictability, inviting performers and audiences alike to explore movement as an active, abductive, and sensate intelligence. The work reframes AI’s limitations as a destabilizing aesthetic—where machine fallibility becomes a creative partner.

F-Z 25 (2025) foregrounds perceptual extension and somatic resonance. Using gesture recognition, generative audio feedback, and immersive visuals, the work maps the interplay between sensorium and responsive systems. Instead of relegating the body to data points, F-Z 25 treats the moving body as a site of continuous emergence—a generator of qualitative states that resist pre-programmed categorization. Here, the AI is not a director of form but a mirror of uncertainty: it amplifies subtle tensions, foldings of posture, rhythms of breath, and the unpredictable contours of live presence.

ETERNITY (2025–27) expands this inquiry into an immersive scenographic ecosystem where choreography is co-composed between bodies, projected environments, soundscapes, and adaptive AI processes. The performance inhabits a triangular field of interaction: dancer, audience, and intelligent system. Each gesture, glance, and proximity feeds AI modules that modulate light, image, and spatial dynamics, creating a living architecture of perception. ETERNITY reframes the performance space as a shared organism, where intelligence is distributed across bodies and technologies, and where spectators become participants in ongoing negotiation.

Across these works, a shared ethos emerges: AI isn’t harnessed to replace human creativity, but to challenge and reveal it. Instead of automating choreography, K. Danse’s approach positions AI as a collaborator whose limitations, misreadings, and reactivity become vital creative forces. This practice resonates with broader conversations in dance and technology, where artists are exploring AI not as a surrogate dancer but as a catalyst for expanding corporeal understanding and aesthetic possibility.(dancemagazine.com)

In doing so, our works reveal something profound about the intersection of machine intelligence and human expression: intelligence itself isn’t reducible to data processing or algorithmic precision, but emerges—and is experienced—through relationality, unpredictability, and embodiment. In these choreographic experiences, AI doesn’t overshadow the body; it refracts it, amplifies it, and invites us to reimagine what it means to move with others—human, digital, imagined—in a shared present.

Our broader philosophy emerges across these works: artificial intelligence is neither an abstract omniscience nor a threat to human creativity. Rather, AI functions as a relational interlocutor—one whose limitations, misreads, and adaptive processes make visible what is unique about embodied life.

Dance, as both method and metaphor, refuses the disembodied maginary of pure computation, instead insisting on movement as intelligence, failure as aesthetic resource, and coexistence as a choreographic condition.

Thus, the confluence of bodies and digital systems becomes not a zone of replacement but of transformation: a space where embodied wisdom and machine responsiveness coalesce in forms that are speculative, poetic, and profoundly human. Our work invites us to rethink intelligence itself as a lived, relational, and emergent process—one that thrives in the interplay between skin, algorithm, sensation, and shared presence.

Closing Reflection

At the intersection of dance and artificial intelligence, what emerges is not a set of tools or innovations to be summarized, but a field of tensions, encounters, and unresolved questions. The integration of AI into choreographic processes—whether through generation, analysis, interaction, or immersive environments—does not simply expand what dance can do. It shifts how we understand what dance is, and what kind of intelligence it embodies.

In the works presented here, these technologies do not aim for seamlessness or mastery. Instead, they often reveal friction: delays, gaps, misreadings. The sensor does not capture everything. The system does not fully understand. And it is precisely within these imperfections that something essential appears. Misrecognition becomes not a flaw to correct, but a condition to explore—an opening through which new forms of presence and relation can emerge.

What does the body know that escapes capture? What kinds of memory, intention, or sensation remain illegible to computational systems? If AI reads movement as data, the dancing body insists on opacity—on the irreducible complexity of lived experience. In this space, fallibility is not opposed to intelligence; it becomes part of it.

Dance, then, offers a way to think differently about intelligence itself. Not as something located in a single entity—human or machine—but as something distributed, relational, and continuously in motion. Intelligence unfolds between bodies, between systems, between moments of perception and misperception.

Rather than closing with answers, the works described as examples leave us with a shifting terrain of inquiry: Can we embrace what is not fully understood, not fully captured? Can error become a form of dialogue? And can the moving body—fragile, sensing, and always transforming—teach us to recognize intelligence where it resists definition?

In summary, the combination of dance and AI opens new creative and artistic perspectives, providing dancers and choreographers with powerful tools and insights to explore and push the boundaries of their art.

Literary and Speculative References

Bablet, Mathieu. Carbone & Silicium.

Damasio, Alain. Furtifs.

Dick, Philip K. Ubik.

Dos Santos, J. R. Immortal.

McEwan, Ian. Machines Like Me.

Valente, Catherynne M. Silently and Very Fast.

Van Vogt, A. E. Le Cycle du non-A.

Webster, John. The Duchess of Malfi.

Body, Gesture, Images, and Embodiment

Belting, Hans. Pour une anthropologie des images. Paris: Gallimard.

Creissels, Anne. Le Geste emprunté.

Leroi-Gourhan, André. Le geste et la parole.

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. Phenomenology of Perception. 1945.

Varela, Francisco J. Autonomie et connaissance. Paris: Seuil.

Varela, Francisco J. Connaître. Paris: Seuil.

Varela, Francisco J., Evan Thompson, and Eleanor Rosch. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. 1991.

Dance, Choreography, and Neuroscience

Carmona, Carla. “Dance and Embodied Cognition: Motivation for the Enactivist Program.”

Higa, Paula. “The Interface of Artificial Intelligence and Dance.” Proceedings of the Hawaii University International Conferences, 2022.

Philippe-Meden, P., and V. Roche-Fogli, eds. Spectacle vivant et neurosciences.

Stevens, Catherine J., and Fatima Wachowicz. “The Role of Attention, Perception and Memory Processes in Choreographic Cognition: Issues for Research and Analysis.”

Human–Machine Systems, Movement Analysis, and Sensate Machines

Bienkiewicz, M. M. N., A. P. Smykovskyi, T. Olugbade, S. Janaqi, A. Camurri, N. Bianchi-Berthouze, M. Björkman, and B. G. Bardy. “Bridging the Gap between Emotion and Joint Action.” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 131 (December 2021): 806–833.

Kolykhalova, K., G. Gnecco, M. Sanguineti, G. Volpe, and A. Camurri. “Automated Analysis of the Origin of Movement: An Approach Based on Cooperative Games on Graphs.” IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 50, no. 6 (November 2020): 550–560.

Nahmad Vazquez, Alicia, and Wassim Jabi. “Investigations in Robotic-Assisted Design: Strategies for Symbiotic Agencies in Material-Directed Generative Design Processes.”

Reinhardt, Dagmar. “Entangled-Complex Bodies and Sensate Machines.”

Sales, Felype R. “The Philosophy of Neuroscience.”

Förster, Yvonne. “Effects of the Neuro-Turn: The Neural Network as a Paradigm for Human Self-Understanding.”

Bruff, Kyla. “Merleau-Ponty, Foucault, Deleuze: Thinking the Lived, Utopic Body (without Organs).”

Philosophy, Technology, and Posthuman Thought

Ganascia, Jean-Gabriel. Le mythe de la singularité.

Harari, Yuval Noah. Homo Deus.

Haraway, Donna. A Cyborg Manifesto.

Haraway, Donna. Staying with the Trouble.

Haugeland, John. L’esprit dans la machine: Fondements de l’intelligence artificielle. Paris: Odile Jacob.

Hoquet, Thierry. Les presque humains.

Kyrou, Ariel. Dans les imaginaires du futur.

Lyotard, Jean-François. La pensée sans corps.

Sloterdijk, Peter. Écumes: Sphères III.

Stiegler, Bernard. Pharmakon.

AI, Cognition, and Machine Consciousness

Hofstadter, Douglas. Ma thémagie. Paris: InterÉditions.

Kontos, John. “Artificial Intelligence, Machine Consciousness and Explanation.” Academia Letters, 2021.

Korsakova-Kreyn, Marina. “Emotion, Embodied Cognition, and Artificial Intelligence.” Academia Letters, no. 2883, 2021.

O’Connell, Mark. To Be a Machine: Adventures Among Cyborgs.

Shani, Itay. “Three Misconceptions Concerning Strong Embodiment.”

Trujillo Amaya, Julian Fernando. “Radical Embodied Cognitive Science.”

Embodied Cognition, Perception, and Environment

Aziz-Zadeh, Lisa, and Richard B. Ivry. “Embodied Cognition and Motor Imagery.” 2009.

Damasio, Antonio. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. 1994.

Damasio, Antonio. The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness. 1999.

Foglia, Lucia, and Robert A. Wilson. “Embodied Cognition.” 2013.

Glenberg, Arthur M., and Michael P. Kaschak. “Grounding Language in Action.” 2002.

Hostetter, Autumn B., and Martha W. Alibali. “Visible Embodiment: Gestures as Simulated Action.” 2008.

Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. 1999.

Panksepp, Jaak. Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions. 1998.

Wellsby, Michele, and Penny M. Pexman. “Developing Embodied Cognition: Insights from Children’s Concepts and Language Processing.” 2014.

About the artist

Jean-Marc Matos is a choreographer, born in Bogotá, a globetrotter who has lived in eight countries, and currently lives and works in Toulouse, France. Trained in modern dance (in Venezuela, then with Merce Cunningham) and American postmodern dance (Lucinda Childs, David Gordon, etc.) in New York, he creates hybrid choreographic projects (interactive performances, online performances, creations for public spaces) and develops numerous mediation and outreach activities.

He is interested in projects that highlight the confrontation between the body and digital technologies, in order to develop a meaningful choreographic language. His works question the boundaries between fiction and reality, the social construction of the body and its relationship with machines, both abstract and concrete.

Jean-Marc Matos explores fertile intersections between choreographic composition, mathematics, virtual reality, robotics, artificial intelligence, and dance via the internet. He creates immersive performances (“ETERNITY”, “F_AI_L”, “F-Z 25”, “Myselves”, “Gameplay Level2”, “*Magh”, “Monster”, “Metaphorá”, etc.) and works on participatory projects (“Immortelle(s)”, “RCO”, “BodyFail”, “Narcissus Reflected”, “Errance”). He also creates works for public space (“Roue”, “La Lune et au-delà”, “Fées3”).

His works have been presented in major cultural venues such as Le Cube Digital Creation Center (Issy-les-Moulineaux), EDF Foundation, the Louvre Pyramid, CENTQUATRE-Paris, the Research Stage of ENS Paris-Saclay (Némo Biennale), as well as festivals including Romaeuropa (Italy), FIAV (Casablanca, Morocco), among many others.

He was artist-in-residence at the Bogliasco Foundation in 2017 (Dance Fellowship laureate, Genoa/New York). He received the Pulsar Open Art Prize in 2017 (Dance & AI project “BodyFail”), was laureate of the “Phare” call for projects by La Diagonale Paris-Saclay (project “RCO”) and is a partner in several European projects: Metabody (2013–2016), WhoLoDancE (2016–2018), Bodynet-Khoros (2022–2025), and CSGO-Best (AEPYDEA program 2024–2026).

He has also been awarded several Eurorégion Pyrénées Méditerranée grants for projects DisT-Dance (2021), Ada ArtEina (2023), and Cos(ArtEina2) (2025), as well as the “Cultures Connectées” grant (ANDS project, 2022) and the Experimental Cultural Practices grant from the City of Toulouse/DRAC Occitanie (project DANS/E, 2023).

Jean-Marc Matos has created nearly fifty choreographies presented in France and internationally across Europe, Central and South America, the USA, Canada, Africa, Central Asia, and Asia.

He is the artistic director of Compagnie K. Danse.

Website

Instagram