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.

Styles of Dance

Jazz dance has Fosse, Simonson ( the only two I know of) and I sure many more styles

Modern has Horton, Graham, Limon.

Ballet has Vaganova, Cecchetti, Russian, Danish, English styles, to just name a few.

Yoga has Vipassana, Hatha, Jivamukti, Svaroopa, Ashtanga, Bikram and…

Say Jazz, modern, ballet, or yoga and most people will have some idea of what you are talking about. Might not be exactly what you mean, but in the ballparl

Contact Improvisation, as of know, has one name. Yes, there are regional styles – West Coast, East Coast, European. But as CI is so young compared to the other movement modalities mentioned (how old is Yoga?!?), it has not been around long enough to change and become codified.

Eventually Contact Improvisation will become codified and that is just as good as it is bad. Codification can lead to clarity, but also to ossification. Codification can then also let practitioners of the form reject was has come before and discover new ground within a form. If CI does not expand and grow (some people might see this as becoming something else and the death of the form) it will stagnate.

I look forward to how many styles and flavors of CI there will be in another 38 years.

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