G.U.T is this.
An aesthetic has no inherent tool or logic.
A tool has no inherent logic or aesthetic.
A logic has no inherent aesthetic or tool.
Titles
Title = intention or context
Yes?
No?
CI
Contact Improvisation:
2 or more dancers sharing weight experiencing gravity.
Abstract Narrative
Is “abstract narrative” code for “I am not sure what I am doing”?
Choreo vs. Impro
The glass is either half full or half empty.
Wrong. It’s both. Those two states are not mutually exclusive.
Been thinking about choreography, improvisation, definitions a lot since M2M ’09. Had an “aha” moment the other day driving home. No piece is either choreographed or improvised. All pieces are both. Even the most rigorously choreographed piece has a vast number of variations each time it is performed. And each improvisation has a lot of choreography i.e. habit, physical limitations etc.
Also the question of which elements are improvised and which are choreographed arises. For several years, Lower Left has been choreographing pieces using the lights. We predetermine(choreograph) what the lights will be and how long each will be on and what the transitions will be. What our bodies do within those lights is improvised. But then there is the question of habits and current injuries and what other information we have been taking in recently. All those elements can limit or choreograph us.
In fact with each improvisation each piece that people claim is “open” has a huge amount of predetermined factors:
-Gravity
It will still be same throughout the piece. There might be some fluctuation due to the moon and the earth’s spinning core or other factors. But essentially the same.
-The Theater
Not many pieces change venues partway through. How many improvisations have decided to leave the building completely? (How about choreographing a piece but improvising the theater/location?)
-Performers
yes, people do enter and exit the performance space, but they are still the performers. How do we improvise the performers. Beside the names in a hat thing, because that is from a predetermined set of performers.
–Costumes
The pieces I have been in that had costume changes were choreographed as were the costume changes. I haven’t been in a single improvisation in which I had the opportunity to improvise my costume. I have disrobed, maybe that counts. But never had an improvisation with costume as an equal improvisational element. Must look into this.
-Bodies
I always (for the most part) have the same body. I have never been able to grow extra legs on stage. Never have I seen anyone improvise on stage how many limbs s/he had.
Every piece is choreographed and every piece is improvised. The question is what elements are the choreographed ones and which ones are the improvised ones. And the next question is how tightly each one is improvised and choreographed.
function fbs_click() {u=location.href;t=document.title;window.open(‘http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=’+encodeURIComponent(u)+’&t=’+encodeURIComponent(t),’sharer’,’toolbar=0,status=0,width=626,height=436′);return false;} html .fb_share_button { display: -moz-inline-block; display:inline-block; padding:1px 20px 0 5px; height:15px; border:1px solid #d8dfea; background:url(http://b.static.ak.fbcdn.net/images/share/facebook_share_icon.gif?8:26981) no-repeat top right; } html .fb_share_button:hover { color:#fff; border-color:#295582; background:#3b5998 url(http://b.static.ak.fbcdn.net/images/share/facebook_share_icon.gif?8:26981) no-repeat top right; text-decoration:none; } Share
The Positions of the Human Form
360(shoulder) x 360 (shoulder) x 135(elbow) x 135(elbow) x 360 (wrist) x 360 (wrist) x 360 (spine) x 360 (hip) x 360 (hip) x 135(knee) x 135(knee) x 360 (ankle) x 360 (ankle) x 360 (head) =
12,143,953,109,659,430,000,000,000,000,000,000 body positions
Assuming 1 postion/sec (31,449,600 seconds in a year)
386,140,145,173,847,400,000,000,000 years for 1 person to do all positions.
These are rough calculations that do not take into account several factors. The fingers, the face, the wide range of mobility of the spine, the various sizes of circles that each rotation joint can do.
If you wanted to see how many possible positions there are in a duet, square the large number at the top. A trio – that number to the third power… a quartet that number to the fourth power etc.
Adding in costumes, lighting, repetition of movement, sound…there are an infinite number of dances possible.
Which leads me to a question of value. If so many dances are possible, how do we determine the good ones? Value and quantity usually have an inverse relationship – the greater the number of something, the less that something is valued. Take grains of sand and diamonds.
Are all of the dances that have been created of equal value because there are vastly fewer dances that have been created in comparison to dances that have not been created? Is every dance you will see in your lifetime of equal value?
Choreography
Choreography –
c.1789, from Fr. chorégraphie, coined from Gk. khoreia “dance” + graphein “to write.” Choreograph (v.) is from 1943.
If this is true then Laban was the first (and only?) choreographer.
Classifications
Thought of a way to classify dance companies into classical, modern, post-modern:
Classical – named after a place -> Ballet Russes, American Ballet Theater
modern – named after a person -> Martha Graham Dance Company, Paul Taylor Dance Company
post modern – named after anything else -> Lower Left, Body Cartography
Is this true for every case? No, but I think there is some truth to it. Takes us back to the question of what defines classical, modern or po mo. Is it the tool, the aesthetic or the logic? See picture below for relationship. Much work done now is still modern in terms of logic but the tools are different than the tools of traditional modern. Maybe that is what contempory work is – modern/classical logic with post modern tools.
Hold With the Open Hand
read it here
Sentimental Pussyfooting – post show
The show is over. Came and went like a firefly in the night, ahhh the poetry of it all. Well, at least no one told me how poetic the show was this time. Hate that term. So vague, kinda like saying congratulations after a show. Nice but meaningless. I am thankful for all the people who came, but disappointed at all the people who didn’t. This town, this bay area is so not curious about dance. Dancers do not go see work of people they don’t know unless that person is famous. I remember one time talking with another choreographer in a taco shop on Mission, talking about seeing work. He said that after seeing all the work that his friends are in that it is hard for him to go out and see stuff by someone he doesn’t know. He might not like it. LIKE IT? The point isn’t to go see stuff because you like it. The point is to go see stuff to see what other artists in your community are up to, to see what they are thinking about. Granted no one is thinking about anything in this community, so maybe that is why people don’t go see dancers others than their friends.
But I am thinking about something. Sentimental Pussyfooting is a brilliant show. It might not be entertaining, but I am not looking for entertainment in my art. If I wanted entertainment, I would stay at home get stoned and watch a movie. The show has a focus, looks at older work in a new light, a coherent aesthetic. It’s not about love and communication, blah blah blah.
Going to a show this Thursday at Dance Mission. Not friends with any of the people in it, as far as I know who is in it, but I am curios to see what these people are up to, to see what they are thinking about. Might not like the show, but I am not going for a good time. To stay engaged and connected I need to see what other people are up to.
If you do not actively see work, go see all different shows, what does that say about your process?