Matter Matters

What compels the belief that we have a direct access to cultural representations and their content that we lack toward the things represented?

How did language come to be more trustworthy than matter? [emphasis mine]

Why are language and culture granted their own agency and historicity while matter is figured as passive and immutable, or at best inherits a potential for change derivatively from language and culture?

How does one even go about inquiring after the material conditions that have led us to such a brute reversal of naturalist beliefs when materiality itself is always already figured within a linguistic domain as its condition of possibility?

– Barad, K 2003, ‘Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter’, Signs, 3, p. 801,

Putting Words in Foucault’s mouth

And to those who might be tempted to criticize [improvisation] for concerning itself primarily with the analysis of the discontinuous, to all those agoraphobics of history and time, to all those who confuse rupture and irrationality, I will reply: “It is you who devalue [choreography] by the use that you make of it. You treat it as the support-element to which everything else must be related; you treat it as the primary law, the essential weight of any [dance-making] practice; you would like to analyse every modification in the field of this inertia, as one analyses every movement in the gravitational field. But according this status to [choreography] you are merely neutralizing it, driving it out to the outer limit of time, towards an original passivity. [Improvisation] proposes to invert this arrangement, or rather (for our aim is not to accord to [improvisation] the role formerly accorded to [choreography]) to play one off against the other; to show how [improvisation] is formed in accordance with the same conditions and the same rules as [choreography]; and how it enters the field of [dance-making] practice. – pg 174

Foucault, M. & Foucault, M., 1972. The archaeology of knowledge ; and, the discourse on language, New York: Pantheon Books.

Invisible conscious decision

“[Pollock’s] control became so adept that his critical decision-making process became all but instantaneous, and thus virtually invisible, inviting the erroneous observation that there was no critical or conscious decision-making process at work.”

– pg 203 from Larry Lavender Predock-Linnell & Jennifer Predock-Linnell (2001) From Improvisation to Choreography: The critical bridge, Research in Dance Education, 2:2, 195-209.

practice it differently

“…when improvisation is practiced as an end in itself it does not do much to develop students’ critical consciousness.”

– pg 204 from Larry Lavender Predock-Linnell & Jennifer Predock-Linnell (2001) From Improvisation to Choreography: The critical bridge, Research in Dance Education, 2:2, 195-209.

Maybe the authors should re-evaluate how they approach improvisation and practice it  with the goal of developing “students’ critical consciousness.”

Seeking Change

“Improvisational performance in dance (like improvised performance in other media) fundamentally seeks to change the audience’s assumptions about what a dance piece might be.”  Sophie Lycouris BA, MA, Destabilising dancing:tensions between the theory and practice of improvisational performance, 1996, pg 177-8.

 

I would propose that was merely one goal for western white concert dancers early on, when they “discovered/invented” improvisation.

Such a “goal” could be said to be the first step for many dance-makers. “Oooh, look at me I’m improvising!” Great, now what? What about improvising are you going to reveal to me? What are you going to do with it? Is it a means? Then what are you meaning? Is it a tool? Then what can you show me about the tool?

I think many people use an improvisational approach to time and the creative process for many other reasons. To ascribe a goal to a temporal tool seems a bit much.

See what is coming

To try to repeat an experience is mechanical sadhana, not spiritual.  You have to keep the experience in your pocket, as it were, and then see what is coming today.  You should not call back yesterday’s experience.  That experience has become finite, because it is recognized.  Keeping that recognition in your pocket, see what is coming in today’s practice.  If you work like that, your practice is spiritual sadhana.  But if you want to repeat today the experience of what was new yesterday, it is repetition; it is not sadhana – it cannot be spiritual. – B.K.S. Iyengar

Equality

In 2011

  • 2.3% of preschool and kindergarten teachers were male (from menteach.org)
  • 2.4% of Fortune 500 companies were female (from the Huff Post)

In 2013

  • 16.9% of corporate boards of Fortune 500 companies were female (from cnn.com)
  •  18.3% of Congress were female (20% of the Senate was female & 17.9% of the House was female) and State Legislators were 24.1% female.  (from the website of the National Women’s Political Caucus)