Improvisation and Reflective Practice

I began improvisation with a bean bag surrounded by negativity for the practice, believing it to be just movement for movements sake.
Nine weeks later, I could not disagree with my first thoughts more.

Structures and modes of improvisations seems a small term when I consider how much I have learnt:
I can track mine and others movement, bringing moments back later on in a score. Or deviating away from them completely.
I can hone in on different parts of a score, pay attention to different things. The feel, the look, the sound that something makes.
I can experiment with different forms, The Underscore, Funktionen, Pop Up Scores, even my own.
I can play with space, I can stay away from the habitual and experiment with spatial limitations. Or play play with complete openness .  
Time in choreography means you must dance for three minutes exactly. In improvisation I can go with or against what feels natural.

Pop Up Scores. 

Components of the score are left down to chance. The random picking of a card.
3 Dancers
8 Minutes
Perform in the round
CD 2 Track 4
The audience will walk through the space.

Last week I noted that I would use Anna Halprin in understanding the audience/improviser relationship, that I would open my eyes and see the audience. This week, because of the in the round and audience walking through the space, I can do this. Whilst performing, I see the audience moving around different parts of the space or looking at me or the other performers at odd angels. Then I realise that this is what they find interesting. So at these moments in time, I track what is happening and find similar to ways to move or form developments of that, because I know that, that is what my audience want.

Music made an appearance this week, for the first time. It seems odd, especially  when we have been performing in silence for so long. But I can understand why music has not come around sooner. In improvisation it is easy to be consumed by the music, to just go with it, following the rhythm or the feel. But this becomes tiresome and boring, especially if this music relationship remains the same. Period.

There is a lot more to learn about music and aural accompaniment when it comes to improvisation, I realise this from just touching upon it today. So I will pose these  broad questions ‘How (in improvisation) can we use music beyond just going with it? Do we use similar music relationship concepts like we would in composition? If so, how do we do so? 

The Jam.

Essentially the score was an open one.
Everyone would have a solo which would be happen in a chronological order, dictated a number chosen at random.
Music can be chosen at any time by picking cards.
Other components can be decided by a performer picking cards at anytime, these include movement and audience.

The first issue with this score was card picking. When a card was picked and announced to the audience and performers, it was difficult to hear due to the volume of the music. This would cause the performers to stop their movement and ask what the card said. This meant that the work lost what it had already established. From this it was difficult resume the score or pick up from where was left. It segmented the score and gave the feel that there was several scores within one.

I feel that in improvisation that I do not know how to use music, I noted this in our previous lesson. Music lead me to the habitual and literal. This is something that will only change when I know how to use the music. When I can answer the questions I posed earlier.

As a final note, it only seems fitting that I end  this with the words of De Spain, the person I began this journey with.

“When you enter notice what you can, move however you want, honor those who have come before you, then forget it all and find your own path.” (De Spain, 2014, 173).

 

De Spain, K. (2014) Landscape of the Now. New York: Oxford University Press.

My thoughts on attachment have changed. I have always thought thOat bringing a movement or idea back to be a negative. But why does it have to be? It does not have to be the same when we see it again. I realise that it helps to bring things back, its brings an underlying theme of content.

So I put this into play in Nancy Stark Smiths ‘The Underscore’.

We are moving through the score according to its structures.
…Skinesphere —> Bonding with the earth —> Agitating the mass —> Low kinesphere —> High kinesphere…
And then we move into an open score. Its time to play.
I use the movement ideas that we have just played with in the underscore. There is no limitation that says I can’t do this.
I start playing with ‘agitating the mass’ in the same way I did in the beginning, but then I combine it with ‘low kinesphere’, this doesn’t make it the same or an attached movement. It becomes a development of something that already existed, it shows my ability to track movement. It became a manifestation.

I now understand attachment. I have reached the end of my journey.  I can generate new movement without attachment and I can create manifestations of existing material. I now realise that I can have the best of both worlds.

Our score Part 2…

In order to overcome ‘it works better on paper than it does in practice’ we changed several aspects of our score but it still tended to our motivation of habitual movements.

• All 5 performers are present in the space, no exists or enters at any point.
• All 5 performers are moving in the space.
• When someone sees a performer repeating a movement or records a pattern in how they move, that performer announces a limitation that prevents the other from becoming habitual.
• The limitation can range from the dynamics, a body part, a place in space or levels.
• Each performer must actively see the performers and the space around them.

We have freedom in our score to move how we like but through structure we must adapt our movement on announcement of a limitation.
I can express all manners of movement without fear of falling into the habitual, as I know as soon as I do, someone is there to stop me.

Last week we focused on an individuals habitual movements and this is where the issue of audience/performer communication was blurred.
So this week in our new, refined score it tends to an individuals habitual movements at that moment in time as opposed to a general habitual movement vocabulary.

I recognise that there is further room for development within our score. It seems that our focus is very much internal, and toward the score. So, to develop this, we should involve the audience.
We as performers perceive things differently to how an audience sees them, they may be able to see different habitual movements in that moment that we cannot.
The audience could announce limitations to the performers.

I want to take time to talk about the relationship between the audience and improviser. 

Kent De Spain notes “to the extensive list of complex elements and issues that make up improvisational process, you add the inescapable awareness of being observed.” (De Spain, 2014, 60)
I reiterate that list de Spain talks about is extensive to say the least. To name a few: tracking, attention, intention, space, movement, structure… The list is ongoing.
To face this issue I will take a leap out of Anna Halprin’s book, she notes that she no longer judges herself on looking good. I too am over that. But she in concerned about the audience perception. She will leave the house lights on so that she can see her audience. I need to be able to see my audience. (Halprin, 2014 cited in De Spain, 2014, 62)

Our Score returns in The Jam for Part 3… 

Following on from Part 2 our score still attends to habitual movements and its structure is still the same.  It is within the limitations where the development has come. Limitations can still be announced but there is also the presence of instruction.

For example:

‘Person A form a duet with Person B using impulse’

or

‘Person A enter the space’.

or

‘All performers must perform on the right hand side of the stage’

This extends the vocabulary of the score, it now deals with formations and space, not just limitations and the habitual in movement.

Our score could be never ending, it could go on, and on, and on, and on , and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on…

So there is 5 pauses that will occur in the score.
They can be dictated by a performer or themselves.
When there is a fifth pause, this signals that all performer must find an ending for the score.This can happen instantly or go on for an undetermined length of time.
This development clearly deals with the ending, but also in finding moments of stillness as up until this point our score had none.

Next week I want to be more conscious of my dynamics and the groups dynamics, at the moment it is all one level it does not change. I also want to play with isolating body parts and focusing on miniature movements. I want to be able to just use a thumb or the wrist. And finally I want to use jumps more, this could help with the dynamics. This is what I aim to work with in Week 9. 

 

De Spain, K. (2014) Landscape of the Now. New York: Oxford University Press.

 

Part 1 

1.1

There must always be three dancers in a squat position and two in a standing position.
You are stood in a line.
You must use your peripheral vision.

1.2

There must always be three dancers at the back and two at the front.
You must use your peripheral vision.

1.3 

There must always be a trio.
There must always be 2 solos.

1.4  Anything Goes… 

An open score with no restrictions.

Thoughts

I raise the issue of attachment yet again as this week I feel I have taken a step closer in combating the issue.
I see in 1.4 (the open score) that a trio is always present, perhaps this is because it was established early on and people feel comfortable in the safety of a trio.
I find myself trying to destroy the trio, using impulse to pull people away. Old me would have been happy for the established grouping to remain. New me wants rid.
But it doesn’t work out, as soon as I’ve taken someone away, a new person is there to take the place. It was almost as if the trio had become habitual to the score, to me it became its defining feature.

In retrospect I question why I did not bring back any of the features of sections 1.1 and 1.2. I am still questioning it now.
If I had, maybe the transitions from each step would have felt more connected. But we can never no for certain, the moment has passed.
The only conclusion I can arrive at is that an open score is too open. At the moment anyway. It seems odd that there are no restrictions or limitations to movement. I had too many ideas to put into play, I need to be more selective of what I bring to the score.

Part 2:

Write down your thoughts on improvisation and come up with a question or  statement.

Through improvisation are old habitual movements replaced with new ones?

I pose this question as I was uncertain of the answer. In improvisation we find new and interesting ways of moving, but do the movements filter into our way of moving , merely leading to a new habitual movement vocabulary. I intend to find the answer in these remaining weeks.

Create your own score.

We followed the framework of Anna Halprin and her RSVP cycle.
R  is for the resources available to you.
S is for scores, which dictated components such as time and space.
V is for valuaction, the feedback throughout the process.
P is for performancce.  (Worth and Poyner, 2004, 1112)

What is your motivation? Habitual movements.
What resources are available to you? 5 dancers, with a common interest in the habitual.

Our score is as follows:

* One person enters the space, using their habitual movements.
* An interpreter enters the space, they interpret the movement of the habitual mover, showing how habitual movements can be taken and changed, so that they are not so habitual.
* Another habitual mover enters the space.
* Another interpreter enters the space.
* A manipulator enters the space.
* Any person may then leave the space and enter in a different role.

Limitations:
* There must only be one manipulator in the space.
* The manipulator cannot use their hands to manipulate.
* The manipulator can use their voice.

Our score takes an influence from Thomas Lehmen’s Funktionen (Husemann, 2005)

It works better on paper than it does in practice. 

Issue 1 – It is hard for the audience to identify the habitual patterns of the performer.
Issue 2 – The movement of the habitual mover and interpreter are too similar.

Next week we will aim to make the score function more clearly.

 

Husemann, P. (2005) The Functioning of Thomas Lehmen’s Funktionen. Dance Theatre Journal, 21 (1) 31-35.

Worth, L. and Poynor, H. (2004) Anna Halprin. London: Routledge.

Thick Skinning and Impulse Part 2.

In realising last week that an internal focus prevented me from effectively thick skinning, this week I ‘opened my eyes’. I became more aware and observant of my partner moving around in the space allowing me to trace her.

So what happens when the one thing you rely on is taken away from you?

Emphatic choreography happens, “co-built relational activity that emerges from dance improvisation” (Riberiro and Fonseca, 2011, 81) I realise that I do not need to actively see my partner to sense or know where she is. We developed a shared sense of meaning, and an understanding for how each of us moves around in the space.

The thing that I noticed in impulse this week is that where an impulse is received tends to remain the same. The same:
Shoulder
Arm
Leg
Head
Hip
How can this change before the concept loses its impact?
The person sending the impulse can change the body part they send the impulse with.

With this new addition I felt that I was using my entire body more, I was sending impulses into my partner with body parts that I would not have thought to use previously.
The movement felt more connected, I could use the body part that was most readily available to me, rather than relying on a hand that hinders movement  efficiency.

Thomas Lehmen’s Funktionen

There is a material maker. They put the movement in the space.
The interpreter interprets the movement of the material maker.
The manipulator adapts the movement being performed, changing their space or prevent them from execution an action.
The observer watches what is happening in the space.
The  mediator asks questions to the performers and audience about what they see in the space. (Husemann, 2005, 32)

Cycle 1 – each of the above must happen in a chronological order.
Cycle 2 – after each role has entered the space, the performers may leave and enter as a new role.

This score seemed quite challenging, largely because it was so different to all the scores we had done previously. However, when performing the score I was quite surprised.
I found myself deviating toward two particular roles, material maker and manipulator.
For material maker I liked the idea of bringing something new to the space and showing something different from what was already there. If I found that the pace was quite slow, I could bring in  quicker movement  or contrasting dynamics.
For manipulator, I liked the idea of getting in the way of someone’s intentions, forcing them to change or adapt their movement accordingly.
I steered away from the other roles, the mediator role in particularly, I found the prospect of talking on a microphone quite daunting.
The actual role of a mediator was however quite interesting, asking questions allowed me, the audience and other performers to easily see what was going on in the space, and the different relationships between the performers.

It’s the wrong week to tackle attachment.
The Jam.

Thomas Lehmen’s Funktionen score was used again for this jam, it followed the exact same principals as the last. Though where the movement came from differed from previous weeks. The movement was personal to me, it came from a map of my life.

 

Map of my life.

 

We would then use the pathway as inspiration and the movement would develop from what happened at the different point in my life.

As said in the previous week, I need to able let go of the attachment I feel to my movement. Due to the nature of this score/improvisation this was not possible.  I had a personal connection to the movement, so there was no way I could become unattached to what I was doing.

Becoming unattached is still my goal. 

 

 

Husemann, P. (2005) The Functioning of Thomas Lehmen’s Funktionen. Dance Theatre Journal, 21 (1) 31-35.

Ribeiro, M. M. and Fonseca, A. (2011) The empathy and the structuring sharing modes of movement sequences in the improvisation of contemporary dance. Research in Dance Education, 12 (2) 71-85.

Weird imagery leads to an interesting movement vocabulary.

Your arms are spaghetti, you legs are knives.
Your head must move in the opposite direction to your stomach.
Your left hand must always be four inches away from your right elbow.
Your stomach is a washing machine, your arms are hanging out the washing.
Your nose is low, your lower body is higher.
All the cells in your body are having a race.

Now travel.

This tasks allowed imagery as a way of initiating movement. This was a good exercise in terms of deviating away from habitual movements as the imagery given was so abstract, there was no possible way in which I could use my habitual movements whilst still relating movement to imagery. I found in this task that I initiated movement from different body parts more, not sticking to the same arm or leg. This is largely because the imagery given, planted body parts that I would not usually think to use, like the elbow and nose.

The last set of imagery, the race, was perhaps the most interesting to engage with. I have noted in recent weeks that when I am improvising, I tend to move at slow pace. The idea of a ‘race’ immediately screams fast pace. Within this imagery, I performed  the whole section at a higher level, my habitual tendency within space would usually be to use both the floor and standing movements equally.

Audience expectation is never the dancers intention. 

Our first score included seven dancers, and was ten minutes in duration, and the initial image would be that the head had to be as close the coccyx as possible.
I watched this ‘as an exterior image, what is seen from the audience’s perspective’ (Buckwalter, 91). This is the first time I have done this, so far I have always been a performer in the score.
In previous weeks that majority of movement present in the space has been unison and copying. This week we were to deviate away from that using devices such as retrograde, echoing, diminishing or increasing the size.

Something I found personal to me whilst watching this score was that I did not notice dancers enter and exit the space. I think this was because, as said above, in previous weeks most of the space was occupied copying and unison, so when a dancers entered and exited this was the thing that became noticeable and stood out. Therefore this week, I became more engaged in what was occurring in the space and what devices were being used.

As this was the first time that I have watched a score from the exterior perspective, I was amazed at how many different possibilities there are in the space. But perhaps what is more interesting is how the dancers defy the audience expectation. There was several points in the score where I thought a duet or some form of contact would occur, but it never did.

“Dancers necessarily share experiences and skills during the improvisation practice. This sharing is what gives sense to the dance both for those who dance and forthose who observe it and it requires observation, cooperation, acceptance and adaptation.” (Ribero, M and AGAR, F, 2011, 79)

These words embody my experience in both watching and performing a score.
I see the dancers observations of space, time, movement and dynamics.
I see the cooperation of feeding off and interpreting each others movements.
I see acceptance in the audience, accepting that there expectations will not be met.
I see adaption in ther performers, adapting when something gets in the way of there intention.

The Jam. 

In an impulse I have no control over my movement, everything is initiated from someone else. I like this concept. It leads to new and interesting discoveries in movement.
If my partner shoots an impulse backwards through my shoulder, I cannot travel forward.
If my partner passed through a heavy impulse in my back, I cannot move softly.

I cannot control the outcome.

In thick skinning, I trace my partner around the space. There is a connection between us both. I take the essence of my partners movement and follow her round the space. Though we do not touch.
With my partner moving around the space constantly, I found it difficult to track. I need to open my eyes more and become more aware of the space  now that contact has come into play, I figure that my focus has been more internal, because most improv’ has been as a soloist.

I don’t like the Tide in, from recent weeks in improvisation I have come to realise that I have issues with attachment. I don’t let things go easy.
Why would I willingly want to wash something away and then forget about it completely?

I can see how it can be interesting to completely abandon something and find something new.  I need to learn to relinquish attachment.

Buckwalter, M. (2010) Composing While Dancing, An Improviser’s Companion. USA: University of Wisconsin Press.

Ribeiro, M. M. and Fonseca, A. (2011) The empathy and the structuring sharing modes of movement sequences in the improvisation of contemporary dance. Research in Dance Education, 12 (2) 71-85.