the philosophy of movement
The port de bras and the coolest new lift you just learned in contact class have just as much to with contact improvisation as the fist bump. All three can be done while in contact and while improvising.
All three events are small bit of choreography that can be done inside the larger frame of contact improvisation.
The more closely linked an event is to memory, the more choreographed it is. The less connected to memory, the more improvised it is.
Experimentation is the sending before the presenting. Pre…before, or occurring before in time…experimenting is the sending before the before sending…do a little algebra and sending equals sending. There proven, put a fork in it. We’re done here. Where is that avocado with the beer in it?!?
Experimentation is also the setting up, the creation of known conditions, knowing what elements you have in play and setting them free. Improvisation is experimentation, the only real form of experimental work. If someone has set/created/ossified something, they are not experimenting in their work. Unless of course they are forcing the experiment into/upon the viewer. Create something known, a choreography, for lack of a better word send it before an audience or present it to an audience, a somewhat known entity (No, you say…really…don’t you keep seeing the same people at shows and everyone is pretty much dressed alike…). The experiment is then what happens between those two entities. The problem with many choreographers who call their work experimental is that they don’t realize that their work isn’t, it’s just trendy and using the adjective du jour. It would actually be experimental if they were thinking of their relationship to the audience.
In the not so distant future, within 5 years I’d say, a contact improvisation duet will happen on a stage. It will receive great accolades and fanfare. Critics and arty folks with indeterminate European accents and thick black framed glasses will talk about the brilliance of the choreographer, how cutting edge and brilliant she or he is. The choreographer will be praised for discovering new ways of movement, and entering uncharted waters of aesthetics challenging what people think of as dance.
But, the piece will not be labeled as contact. Improvised, yes, as that is becoming more the trend here in Europe on the big money stages. And the choreographer will personally not have done contact improvisation. The dancers, maybe. Probably a few classes. I doubt that a really famous and funded choreographer would know any people who are really good at contact improvisation, that bastard child of the dance art world, and would have to use ballet-gone-release dancers who can partner.
Using language riddled with isms and dead French thinkers names, this choreographer will bring the tools of CI into the brighter wider better funded stage. Using words ending with “icity” and words with “post”, “pre”, and “neo” suffixes, the choreographer will dazzle us and amaze us with a new dance frontier.
Will it be Forsythe, or Le Roy? Bel, maybe. How about Wade? Sehgal?
From an email to a friend – (with some additions)
I think that we are not “post” anything, only “pre” what is coming down the pike. I think that “post” implies that whatever we are past, what tools, logics, and aesthetics we explored in the past are over and no longer relevant. But love stories are not gone. Dances about the human condition are still being made. They are not being created with Graham technique, but with release, CI influenced deconstructed ballet choreography. So why if the logic(topic) of the piece is basically the same, but the tool used is post – or contemporary we do not call the piece modern? What criteria are we using to define work – the tools used, the logic expressed, or the aesthetic used?
Every age, -ism, and ide[a]logy that is created doesn’t die out but becomes part of the available pallate(sp?) palette, incorporated in to what people have and can use, expanding the reified world.
We all get hung up in the details as opposed to viewing the relationships among the details. Heidegger, after all, said that existence is defined by relationship to.
(function(d){ var js, id = ‘facebook-jssdk’; if (d.getElementById(id)) {return;} js = d.createElement(‘script’); js.id = id; js.async = true; js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#appId=262956197058132&xfbml=1”; d.getElementsByTagName(‘head’)[0].appendChild(js); }(document));
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?
Below is a reworked critique of a dance piece I saw in 2009. This was part of my application for the SODA program here in Berlin. Here is the “original“
Accords by Thomas Hauert/Zoo, which I saw last summer during Tanz im August, consisted of sections delineated by performers entering or exiting the stage through the spaces between the back panels. The movements within these sections were governed by either the simultaneous initiating and halting of movement, flocking, or awkward partnering. Flocking is when people move in a clump changing spacing/facing with no discernible leader. Awkward partnering is skilled bodies coming in contact in an improvised manner consciously eschewing the Contact Improvisation movement paradigm.
As someone who performs and teaches the tool of improvisation, I appreciated the clarity in this improvised performance. It is very satisfying to see an improvised piece by people who have been working together for more than just a handful of rehearsals. All to often, improvised performances have three rehearsals. During the first one, half of the group doesn’t show and the half who are there just talk. For the second rehearsal 80% of the cast is there and some dancing actually happens. The third rehearsal is on stage in front of the audience, i.e., the performance. In Accords, the hours sweating together in the studio came through during the performance. I saw no moments of searching or moments of awkwardness when performers are in between inspirations.
Dance improvisation is a nascent art form. Because of this, there are many assumptions about improvisation and its uses. The three main assumptions about improvisation are that it is not supposed to be rehearsed, be well produced, or have a point. Also due to the newness of it, improvisation based work is in a vicious cycle. The work is underfunded, therefore the work cannot be well rehearsed and produced. The work is not rehearsed, so the quality is not consistent. The quality is not consistent so producers and curators do not want to show the work. The work is not shown, so artists making improvised work can’t get funding. They can’t get funding so they can’t rehearse. The cycle continues.
Thomas Hauert, it seems, has been able to break this cycle and to get beyond two of the three main assumptions about improvisation. His piece Accords is well rehearsed and has a high level of production value. The lighting was not left over from the previous performance. The costuming, consisting of black mesh body suits over primary colored pants and shirts, was not thrown together right before the performance. The set, more than just a black box, was simple — black, one meter wide panels, each the height of the stage. The panels, which covered the back wall, were wide enough apart for the performers to slip between them. At times acting as either a visual backdrop or an obstacle course for the movement, the set was well integrated into the performance.
Where Hauert failed was topic. His piece had all the production value of a choreographed piece, but not the point of a choreographed piece. An improvised piece can have just as much of a point as a choreographed one. What was Hauert trying to reveal to the audience besides the tool of improvisation? Is it the means or the end? If improvisation is what he was trying to show the audience, he succeeded. We saw people improvising. But listening skills and group awareness in and of themselves do not make a good piece. If all it takes to make a good piece using improvisation is good listening skills then any sequence of memorized movement is good choreography. This, we know, is not the case. Even if improvisation itself were the topic of the piece, nothing was developed strongly enough to become the point of the piece. The dancers did not work flocking, group timing or any of the tools I recognized for such an extended period of time to take it to a new level.
Maybe Hauert intended to provide the audience with an enjoyable visual and auditory experience for 90 minutes. As an artist using similar tools, I want to see the tools create something besides themselves.
Below is my personal statement that I wrote in applying to the SODA program here in Berlin.
My interest in the S.O.D.A. program stems from a desire for a more profound connection and dialog with the dance/performance community. I am looking for thoughtful, candid feedback about my work that is more constructive than the often superficial comments traded after a performance. I am also seeking the tools -language, books, other minds – with which to understand and view my own work better. I am hungry for the same level of rigor and feedback in the studio and theater as I got when I was studying biochemistry at U.C., San Diego. Over exposure to acetone will destroy your liver no matter how you contextualize it.
What I am hoping to gain from the S.O.D.A. program is the same kind of discourse I had in the lab. Working individually or in groups, we evaluated and discussed each other’s methods and findings. I hope to interact with people of similar interests(performance, dance, presence) from varying backgrounds(age, country, training) in a focused yet open environment. I hope hat they know and have experienced will open my eyes and increase what I know and will experience.
My artistic skills, capabilities and development have been driven by my proclivities. I am drawn to the tool of improvisation because it keeps my mind constantly engaged, constantly sensing and interacting with my environment. Having studied other approaches to improvisation, such as Action Theater and the Viewpoints, I am more drawn to the tool of contact improvisation. I find that it is the clearest model with which to examine performance variables in relation to improvisation. This is not to say that I am only interested in unfettered vague improvisational work. In fact, quite the opposite. My work, though improvised, can be quite restricted. In Any Fool Can Think of Words that Rhyme the three dancers are restricted to moving one joint at a time. In A2Zed/Nexus one point of contact is maintained and returned to as much as possible. Other limitations or choreographies for my work involve the lighting, body tone, or staying still and grunting.
I am also drawn to the tool of improvisation because there is an assumption that improvised work has no point to it or thought behind it. Sadly, most of the work out there professed to be improvised does not have a point other than it is improvised. The artists are so enamored of the process of real-time composing, that they forget that the tool of improvisation can be used to create something other than itself. Anvils can be used to create other things besides anvils. I, therefore, make a point of creating work that has a very definite concept outside of improvisation itself.
Just as I was drawn to study biochemistry to understand how the mechanics of life work, I am drawn to the theater to understand how it works. I am interested in the underlying structures of theater and their relationships. Currently, my specific area of interest is the function of a title. Is a title a sign to tell the audience what the performance is about? Is it a lens through which the audience should view the performance? Neither function I find satisfactory. If a title is to tell an audience what is happening, there is no room for the audience to participate, for them to create an event within themselves initiated by what is on stage. On the other hand, if the artist uses the title as a lens, the artist runs the risk of being too vague, leaving all the work of creating the performance up to the audience’s imagination. If the artist is too vague then the audience could just as well stay home and imagine their own performance. Truth in Advertising, my most recent production, arose out of confusion about this function. The concert consists of seven pieces, each with two titles. One title is straight forward, the other title more obtuse. For example one piece is titled Man Grunting and Distillation – This piece is a distillation of the collective human experience of cruelty – cruelty that we experience from direct or inadvertent action of others and cruelty that we consciously or unconsciously inflict upon others. The intention of Truth in Advertising is to lead the audience to question the function of titles.
If art, as Brecht said, is a hammer with which to shape society, I would say that I aspire to be a hammer that shapes the hammer that shapes society. I say this because I make work in response to my environment. Observing the patterns and trends in the work around me inspires me. I aim to create work that leads my peers to question the tools and possibilities they are using in their work. I created Do You See What I See?, a series of performative still-lifes which bombard the audience with biographical information, as a response to all the intensely biographical work I was seeing in the San Francisco Bay Area. I created the sound score for Content with Content from descriptions in a film catalogue. By incessantly telling the audience what the piece is about, the sound score forces the viewers to question what any piece is about. I created Sentimental Pussyfooting: a study in plagiarism because I was tired of hearing “Oh, that’s been done.” The basic dance formula has been done again and again and no one complains about that. In Sentimental Pussyfooting I used pieces that have been done as points of departure, showing how much more there is left to investigate within ideas that “have been done”. Yoko Ono’s Cut piece, Paul Taylor’s Duet, and John Cage’s 4’33” are some of the pieces I used.
By surrounding myself with curious intelligent artists, I hope to gain new insights and avenues of inquiry into the inner workings of dance and performance. The S.O.D.A program will be the hammer that shapes the hammer that shapes the hammer that shapes society.
Are Tango and other forms of social dance ruining Contact Improvisation? Ruining might be a strong word. How about changing it in a direction I do not like? Expanding maybe? No, I think that I will stick with ruining. And I will explain why. From my small exposure to the CI world, I see the form being “ruined” by social dance forms. Ruined, I say because their influences are not expanding the range of the form but changing the bulk of how it is practiced.
At the jams in Berlin (granted this is a small slice of the CI pie), I see more and more codification of CI. I see person X and know what five moves he will do with a woman. And this person is also practitioner of Tango. I see person Y and know what 5 moves she will do and end up on person Z’s shoulder.
I am not saying that we shouldn’t have habits. Habits are fun. They are enjoyable and give us a benchmark of how we are progressing. They show us how “good” we have become at something. But is that the goal? Is the goal to know how good we are at something? Is the goal of CI to practice moves that we know and have an enjoyable experience? Is CI a product or a process?
I would say that for more and more people it is becoming a product. This might have been what Danny Lepkoff was talking about at Freiburg this year. CI has basically become another social dance form with set moves and gender roles. People go to the jams to engage in a certain movement style and do certain moves, basically a milonga with baggy pants and a less structured frame than the tango.
And as more and more people engage in social dance forms, they bring however un/consciously the values from those other forms into CI and expanding CI. Just as someone who studies Karate or Judo will bring values from those physical practices into CI. Or Alexander techique. Or opera singing or Feldenkrais. All of which people are un/consciously bringing values from those practices into CI. And I hope those values are always brought into CI. This problem, that I see(and I might be the only one) could be a result of not knowing enough about tango. I might need to expand the side of the G.U.T. triangle between logic and tool of tango. Hmm…
Anyways, I just worry that people are reducing CI to a set of movements, basically to small snippets of choreo that they then improvise with.
