Emotional Improvisation

From an article on the movie “The Rise of the Planet of the Apes” in the most recent New Yorker:

“If invention, wild and free, yet tied to emotion and philosophical speculation, is given a chance, digital filmmaking could have a more brilliant future than any we can now imagine.”

Replace the word invention with improvisation and digital filmmaking with performance:

If improvisation, wild and free, yet tied to emotion and philosophical speculation, is given a chance, performance could have a more brilliant future than any we can now imagine.

Taking the form of one idea and replacing some of it’s parts can lead to interesting thoughts. Improvisation, as it is mostly taught and perceived, is about being wild and free. Emotion, as I read it here, is not the happy or sad generic reading of it, but the faster processing aspect of the human mind. An emotion is really a bundling of thoughts into one package. For some people, such as myself, those packages take a while to unpack. But I digress.

Ensemble Thinking is an improvisation based modality that uses the conscious mind to train the emotional mind. When on stage, a performer trained in E.T. doesn’t have to think about where the hotspot is, but feels it allowing him or her to more quickly respond. E.T. allows the improvising performer to be more emotional about the performance.

Improvisation can benefit from more philosophical speculation – why are we improvising, when are we setting the number of performers, the costumes, the performance space and time, but not setting the spatial and kinespheric movements? What are we trying to convey, reveal to the audience? What do we want them to walk away with? Why should they give a damn? Is improvisation the means or an end?

Night of Fire

How long before Xavier Le Roy puts this on stage?

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9ALaS8lHGM&w=425&h=349]

Another definition of choreo and impro

Choreography and improvisation are both a set of rules to follow during a performance.

One is usually a longer more detailed set; the other is shorter.

One has a wide range of acceptable outcomes; the other has fewer.

Dance is a Visual Art

Here are some links to compositional ideas for painting and photography that I think apply to dance. Especially in relation to the instant choreo composition modality of Ensemble Thinking.

The Rabatment of the Rectangle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabatment_of_the_rectangle

The Rule of Thirds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds

The Rule of Odds
http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11475/what-is-the-rule-of-odds

Placement of Elements
http://painting.about.com/od/composition/ss/composition-painting-elements.htm

The Painting’s Secret Geometry
http://www.francois-murez.com/composition%20en.htm

p.s.
if dance is a visual art, why are the people who watch it called an audience?

Definitions of C and I

Choreography:
That which has a higher degree of reproducibilty a larger percentage of the time.

Improvisation:
That which has a lower degree of reproducibility a smaller percentage of the time.

Critique of piece I saw during the S.O.D.A. audition

In order to relate what I saw without being descriptive I will offer a short list of whats that I saw:
1. a tattoo
2. a cube
3. black tape
4. gestures
5. white tape
6. a hypodermic needle
7. blood

My feedback about the piece would be to simplify. The piece has at least three different pieces in it – Man with Cube, Man with Tape and Man with Needle. He should pick one of them and investigate it more deeply. I would suggest that he keep his manipulation of the tape to a minimum and not rearrange the tape once it is on the wall. Also I would suggest that the black tape movement section occur further downstage facing the audience. The tape is already abstract and geometric and his focal and spatial choices re-enforced that. Maybe it was his intention to replicate the impersonal nature of the tape. But what I saw was more of a coping mechanism than an artistic choice.

Black tape plus movement plus white tape plus the downstage space plus low level movement plus text plus needle plus blood. Eight dimensions in all. Is this piece, then, about the progression towards the multidimensional, the ultra dimensional he said he was seeking? I do not know. I can not say whether or not this piece worked as I do not know what he was trying to achieve. I can say whether or not I liked the piece. I did not. But whether or not I liked it is of little importance. I can say what it made me think of. The use of the cube made me think of Donald Judd. The black tape pictographs on the white wall made me think of Lawrence Wiener and Robert Motherwell. The piercing of the skin made me think of Chris Burden and Marina Abramovic.

Any of these references, though, is at best a stretch and more present in my perception of the performance than in Riccardo’s presentation of the piece. This brings up the question of what does an audience need to know about the work. Do we need to know what the artist knows? Do we need to have the same frame of reference? Do we need those references to get out of the piece what the artist put into the piece? Is it important for the viewers to get what the artist is saying? Or is the artist creating something for us the respond to with our own references?

Despite not liking it, I feel that of the pieces I saw yesterday this piece had the richest vocabulary to be investigated. And I intend on taking his Man with Tape piece and investigating it further.

Ephemeral Art

(Written in 2005, recently found when looking for something else.)

How long do you gaze at a tangible art piece?
How long do you look at art?

Dance is not ephemeral if looked at in relation to a larger scale than it is usually viewed. When people watch a dance they spend more time watching it than they usually spend looking at a painting or sculpture in a museum. But the dance can be considered ephemeral if what is important are the details of it. Those fleeting movements/moments, but the structure of the piece will hopefully throughout the piece and that will be at least 5 minutes, much longer than most people spend looking at the Mona Lisa or a Picasso.

Those paintings are just as ephemeral unless you own it or live in the same city as the painting. But then do you measure ephemerality(?) in in terms of a work’s self or in relation to the viewer. Yes, the dance comes and goes, but so do the viewers. And a painting does not go, only the viewer. But what is a sculpture if not viewed? Nothing. it is merely the possibility of something to be viewed. But any dance piece, once conceptualized and rehearsed(known) becomes the possibility of something to be viewed.

Dance is considered to be ephemeral because the reason for most dances existences, the minute details of the choreography, are ephemeral, they do not last past the duration of the viewing. But what could last for the duration of the viewing and beyond is the conceptual construct of the piece, of the performance elements. The more definite they are, the more definite the zusammenhang, the more tangible the performance.

To summarize – All arts are equally ephemeral. It depends upon how long the viewer is looking at them.

The Three Stages of Creation

There are three stages of conscious creation, though unconsciousness can factor into them.

They are exploration, experimentation, and execution.

I had a good description of the three written down in a notebook during a caffeine fueled frenzy after a Klein technique class at Labor Gras, but, alas, that notebook is AWOL. Here is a link to an earlier posting on the subject from ’08

Their4, I will begin again.

Exploration is the first stage. It is search before the research. It is the hearsal before the rehearsal. It is the discovery of what exists around you, whether you are in the studio or sitting on the subway thinking about your project. It is discovery/invention of what tools you will be using in your project. Also exploration is the rejection of tools. A work of art is more about what it is not than what it is. Granted all types of infinities exist some are just larger than others.

Experimentation is the second stage. Once the tools have been selected/created, their relationships can be investigated. (Uh oh, passive voice) How do the tools interact? Are you using them as tools or have they become logics or aesthetics? Experimentation is also the stage in which you can begin to figure out more in what direction your project will go.

The final stage is execution – when the work is presented before an audience.

I would say that in the choreo/impro spectrum the size of the triangle is larger towards the choreo end and approaches a dot towards the impro end. But choreo could be made as something to experiment with during the execution phase, the logic of that piece then being more improvisational.

All three phases can happen at the same time or separately. In more traditional (choreo’ed) work, there is more linear progression from exploration to experimentation to execution.

Below are two pictographs about this triumvirate. One has the three on a Cartesian co-ordinate system and the other as a simple triangle, which can be mapped on to the co-ordinate system. I find that the co-ordinate system can be a little misleading as it implies a “0” in relation to the three elements, which as I think about it now does make sense, so maybe it is not so confusing. A work of art that has no exploration, no experimentation and no execution would be not. What would something that has an infinite amount of each?

The first pictograph has the term “Sprecta of Deliberation”. I borrowed and expanded the term “Spectrum of Deliberation” from Nina Martin. I expanded it to Spectra” as I believe that there is a greater than one dimensional difference between choreo and impro.


I appreciate any thoughts and feedback on this subject.

Investing in an Improvisation

Language is a powerful tool. And as with all tools, it is empowering and limiting at the same time. After teaching at Dance Ranch Marfa BERLIN and performing as part of the performance marathon at Ponderosa, I have been thinking about the word “invest”.

What does it mean to invest in an improvisation? To invest in material? Other terms for a similar idea are “t0 mine that vein” of material. Again the idea of “going in” is present. The idea of “going in” in relation to an improvisation is telling. Why do we need to go in, to invest in material to create and develop material? It shows an idea that to create and develop material we need to shut out and remove ourselves from outside stimuli. I can’t think of a more limited place in terms of external stimuli than a mine. Why would we want to work/improvise/create from a place of limited awareness and options?

The idea of “investing in material” leads spatial static work. Going in…into a black hole that sucks you in. Somewhat dramatic of an image…

And if the rest of the ensemble is there to take care of the space, the composition while you and partner(s) invest in material, that leads to even further imbalance between the investors and the ensemble. The investors implode and the ensemble waits for them to resurface.

Take the word “invest”. INvest. How about OUTvest? How would we outvest in material during an improvisation?

Why can’t our awarenesses go outwards when we are mining material in an improvisation? Why isn’t the spatial care taking of the ensemble the mother lode to be mined?

Some other nascent thoughts-

using the Four Winds in CI to explore spatial awareness.
mining the space metaphor relating to Cloud City in Star Wars