Research Questions and Scores

“Okay, ready?”

In preparation for making our own scores this week we read Some Considerations When Structuring an Improvisation (to be seen by an audience) by Jamie Stover. In the article Stover considers what is important when writing a score and asks “How does my dance fulfill or not fulfill existing contextual aesthetic expectations and parameters for dance” (Stover, 1989) which I think is a very interesting question. Usually our scores are done in a circle or as a whole room, there isn’t ever a real audience so we haven’t spent much/any time thinking about tailoring our improvisations to them. But after reading Stover’s article, Perhaps there is a way to shake up our predicable jamming pattern?

Our score, titled ‘The Halfway Score’ required everyone to stand in a line down the center of the room, they had space in front and behind them, and our only rule was that they had to enter the space with someone else. We spaced our score in this way to change the normal aesthetic and therefore expectations of the performers, a decision that was directly inspired by Stover’s article. We developed an entrance strategy because we wanted to know what effect that would have on the movements in the space. We also decided to pre-set some people, not for any particular reason, but just to challenge what we’re used to when beginning a jam. Once the performers were in the space they could dance by themselves or with others and could exit however they liked, but we wanted to be clear that they were not allowed to enter the space by themselves. As a final challenge we used two tracks of music during our score, Whitesuperstructure by Robert Lippok and 404 by Knife Party, with the intention of creating an atmosphere that would hopefully effect the dynamics of the improvisation.

I think our limitations threw people quite a bit, it appeared as if they weren’t clear which space to use, the one in front or the one at the back. The entrance strategy also seemed to confused people initially but towards the end of the score I think everyone had got their heads around it. My guess would be that placing the class in the center created the mindset of being the audience, which would hinder the process of anyone wanting to join in, especially as we pre-set people in the space. From an actual audience members perspective, the front half of the room was the primary performance space and the back half was used much more fleetingly; if people went in it they didn’t stay for very long compared to how long the dancers stayed in the front half of the space. I think this was because people mostly had their backs to it, and I would assume that dancing in it might develop feelings of isolation and separation, due to the fact that it was blocked of by a line of bodies. The thing I found most interesting about our score is that very few people responded to the music in a positive way, Whitesuperstructure is an electronic song that is quite light and repetitive, so it could easily become background noise to the improvisation and not have an effect on the performers. However 404 is a dance track with a heavy beat, so I expected this to motivate the dancers to increase their tempo and use fast, heavy, intense dynamics. But, possibly because 404 is such a dominating track, most of the dancers fought against being influenced by the music and kept at their medium dynamics.

Having done scores a lot in our improvisation module last year I was quite excited to participate in one again, having to deal with limitations and structures was more challenging this time around because I was trying to dance with another person, but still a fun learning experience. For Yasmin’s group’s score we had so insure that there was never more than six people in the space; this limitation helped to motivate me to actually go into the performance, to fill the space that someone leaving had just made. I never liked limitations of how many bodies in the space last year but this time around it didn’t stress me out as I thought it would. Claire’s group’s Sensory Score  involved a lot of changes of limitations and tasks which challenged my improvisation and aided my use of non-habitual movements but I struggled to keep a connection/contact with a partner because we were both listening out for instructions instead of listening to each other. I found my most interesting improvisation came from Becca’s group’s Mouse Trap Score; I was the first person in the space and chose to walk around the parameters of the performance area that they had taped out. After covering the whole circumference, I found myself having a movement based conversation with Nicole. We were almost competing with each other, seeing who could ‘out dance’ the other; I would move, Nicole would respond, I would answer back, she would talk over me, and so on. This was the first time I had improvised like this and it was really fun, my movements weren’t necessarily non-habitual, but they were used in a new organic way which made them feel non-habitual.

 This week is the first time that I feel a sense of achievement with contact improvisation; I have a set of skills that I can list off and know that I can be thrown into a jam setting and make my way through it, although I wouldn’t want to jam with professionals just quite yet! I know how to change the dynamics of my movements, I can improvise on my own or with others, I can give and take weight, and I can enter and exit the space. My backwards rolls have improved, and I can now forward roll and Aikido roll and (attempt) a cartwheel; I now know different ways to use a table top position, and my personal highlight, I can handstand over a partner in table top. I also can stop panicking about trying to make weight bearing happen, as all I need to do is make a frame in the space and wait, or locate someone in a frame position and head towards them. I didn’t think there would be much for me to take from this contact improvisation module, but I’ve actually really enjoyed it and will be sad to not study it anymore, especially as I now feel like I’ve got it.

In terms of progress, I think I have learnt a lot about how to interact with other people over the course of this module. I was very hesitant in the first few weeks to properly approach people, to share an idea with them, or to ask them to respond to my movements. I would say that my personal hangups effected how willing I was to ‘go with the flow’ because I have to consciously stop myself from saying no to people, and to let them be dominant in the partnership. I’m more than happy to take charge, manipulate the movements and lead the improvisation but this module has helped me to fight against this habit and take a more relaxed approach to CI. Now that we’re at the end I can see how much my confidence and self expression when dancing by myself has improved, and I can identify that I have made progress with weight baring, even though I still struggle with giving myself as the over dancer. Also looking back at each week, I realise that I have a tendency to work with a set group of people because I know how they move and can predict their intentions; they’re my ‘safe’ choice. But I believe that I challenge myself more than I used to, and I know that my ability to improvise/enjoyment of improvisation has improved, which is all I could have really asked for.

---

Stover, J. (1989) Some Considerations When Structuring an Improvisation (to be seen by an audience). Contact Quarterly/Contact Improvisation Sourcebook. 1(4) 185.

 

Contact Research Labs – Structuring, Investigating, Performing and Reflecting.

“I’m hearing you, but no.”

I hadn’t thought about it much before, but life is an improvisation. We have structures (scores), routines (habitual patterns),  repeated activities (choreography) and we have spontaneity (improvisation). In Maura Keefe’s What’s the Score?: Structured Improvisation as a National Pastime she discuss the idea of sport, specifically baseball, as reminding her of a structured improvisation, much like life: “I have come to further define the choreography of Baseball as a structured improvisation” (Keefe, 2003, 233). She draws a connection between structured improvisation and baseball because they both have guidelines that are followed over a capped time period that will have an effect on the outcome of that time. Structured improvisation follows a score which will guide the actions and choices made by the performers, and baseball players have a set of rules that create the outcome of a win, loose or draw. While the content of each is significantly different, the fundamental principles of the two are very alike.

In her article, Keefe also says that “while each dancer has his or her own task to accomplish, a particular feature of this improvisation is that one dancer wields a large effect on the actions and tasks of other dancers” (Keefe, 2003, 231). I believe that this relates directly to our own practice because we need to remember that our actions will have an effect of everyone else in the space; and also that we can allow ourselves to be effected by others. I experienced this first hand in Becca, Millie, Sophie and Charlotte’s lab, when we were improvising in a circle and had to adapt our dynamics to each new person that entered the space. In this task I found that I really had to project my awareness into the circle, so that I would notice who the new person to enter was, and what type of dynamic I had to do.

With this being our second and last week of research labs, my group wanted to tailor our thirty minutes to the needs of the class, therefore we focused our attention on tasks that would help everyone get back in touch with solo improvisation, and the use of imagery to aid the transition and development of dynamics. Using a bank of phrases such as “You’re moving through mud”, “Imagine that you’re in water”, “Imagine that all your body cells are racing against each other”, and “You’re weightless on the moon”, we challenged the class to dance as soloists, and then in duets, to respond to the imagery. We also included the task of changing the percentage, both of speed and of effort, to encourage the dancers to develop their movement responses. Working in duets appeared to be the most demanding part of the lab because the dancers had to incorporate reacting to imagery, varying their movement pace and effort, listening to their partner and responding to any physical contact. In most cases, when we asked the class to move at anything above fifty percent, they didn’t include any weight bearing or lift work, whereas when they were working below fifty percent they would do.

In our feedback session it was clarified that following specific imagery during a duet was hard; they either stopped responding to the imagery so that they could listen to their partner or stopped listening to their partner so that they could respond to the imagery. I think this made for a very visually interesting duet because the dancers would keep switching between these focuses and so were moving in unpredictable ways. Other phrases that we used that resulted in non-habitual movements were ‘moving through mud’ and ‘climbing up steep hill’; a lot of the dancers responded, at least initially, with quite stylized pedestrian movements, which haven’t really appeared in our contact practice thus far. My favourite imagery that we tasked the dancers with was “while moving at eighty percent, imagine that you’re in a race with a snail and the snail is winning” because this completely threw everyone and resulted in a range of responses, some pedestrian, some stylized, some released.

I found it quite difficult in this weeks jam to make any connection with people, I’m not sure why, perhaps because I’ve been focused on improving my solo work recently,  I’ve lost confidence in connecting with some one. A lot of times I would look around the space and see lots of huddles of people and didn’t know how to approach them and join myself to that group. I think this is largely because I’ve developed this intense apprehension about being the over dancer; even if the person lifting me has done it before, I’ve suddenly become hesitant and uncomfortable about going up. I don’t think it’s specifically about someone taking my weight, because when we’re on the lower kinespheres I’m fine with giving me weight to people, I think it’s being the over dancer in a lift that unsettles me. I would assume this is because I don’t practice being this role very often, so don’t have much confidence with it just down to the fact that it’s not as rehearsed as being the under.

I really enjoyed when we started to ‘play around’ in the jam; when we bought in the idea of making noise because I felt that the group opened up from the small huddles and I felt that I could  finally make connections with people and not have to overthink the possibility of being lifted. When I challenge myself to make my improvisation more playful I find that stop listening to my conscious thought and find ways to be original in my approach and response to others in the space. I think bringing in this idea helps to lift the energy in the improvisation and if anyone felt stuck, break them out of it and create new pathways and connections.

This Saturday we went to a contact improvisation and paring workshop which took us back to basics and refined our skills with surfing and rolling and introduced us to new ways of using a table top position in a duet. This improved my confidence with being the over dancer and I will definitely incorporate these into my choreographed duet, as Sophie and I want to push ourselves harder in the movements we chose. After having feedback on our finished duet, we have re-worked our beginning to show a stronger, more consistent connection. However, after the paring workshop I’m interested in making further development:

After breathing in our first position, I think we can challenge ourselves but using one of the balanced we learnt at the workshop, I’m thinking Sophie could go into a head stand and kick over my back instead of rolling over in table top? We could also change that Instead of me rolling Sophie away and then walking to meet her back to back, Soph could come to table top position, and I could roll over her, putting my hands down first and bringing my legs over second? I would also like to include the ‘spin on the floor roll’ and also the ‘counterbalance lift at the hips’ that we spent time on in the workshop, as I think these would be useful to us as transitions from our different  sections.

---

 

Keefe, M. (2003) What’s the score? Improvisation in Everyday Life. In: Albright, A. C., & Gere, D.Taken by surprise: A dance improvisation reader. Middletown, Conn: Wesleyan University Press, 229-237.

Integration: Going up and coming down. 

“I can see clearly now the rain has gone” – Johnny Nash

Reading Exposed to Gravity by Curtis and Ptashek was a reminder than CI is supposed to be fun; it’s aimed to be something that anyone can do, so there is little to no need to be stressed out about it. Curtis reminded me of this when he wrote “The method would have to come from my personal experience of how my body moves, not from copying how non-disabled people move” (Curtis and Ptashek, 1988, 156). His words advised me to remember that no two dancers are the same and thus the pointlessness of comparing myself to others because each experience in CI is different and unique to each person. Curtis also talks about “Micro-movement” and “dancing inside the body” (Curtis and Ptashek, 1988, 156) because it is important to find the dance inside yourself before you present it on the outside. If you want your movements to have meaning and be true to you, then you must listen to what is going on inside. If you couldn’t move your body but wanted to dance, what moves would you do, what would you want to express? I think that looking for the dance within ourselves is a good way of tuning into our bodily intentions and learning how to connect to that everlasting energy that our body has – which will help us keep going in hour long jams.

This week I felt a lot more confidence with bringing myself and my ideas into the space; I’ve been almost reluctant before to be too ‘bold’ in my solo improvisations and haven’t felt fully comfortable with seeing through some of the entrance ideas I’ve had while waiting to re-enter a jam. However, this week, probably because we had third years in our class and I wanted to show off, I felt myself release those inhibitions holding be back and just went for it. I let myself make bigger shapes, louder noises, and longer connections; which I think really allowed me to experiment with finding that inner energy and keep going in a 50min Jam. It’s almost annoying that I haven’t been doing this from the start, but I suppose this is why we reflect on each week, so that we can get a fuller understanding of our own practice. Having finally reached this ‘milestone’ of looking forward to a jam, and wanting to dance for the whole hour, I’m truly excited to see what I can bring to the space next time.

We were asked to watch two videos, ‘The play of weight’ by Martin Leogh and Neige Christenson, and ‘Contact Improvisation’ by Mirva Makinen and Otto Akkaen, and reflect on their use of dynamics and dominance. I think in Christenson’s video (Christenson, 2009) the woman has more dominance, because she is the over dancer more often, and initiates herself being the under dancer. I like that when they go into a lift or weight bearing that they’re both still moving; I’ve noticed that when I play with under and over dancer movements, that I tend to stop moving myself, and focus on the task, thus stopping the flow of the improvisation. In terms of dynamics I believe that they had a good range, they used stillness as well as interlocking movements, and because the flow never stopped it was interesting to watch. The second video with Makinen and Akkaen (Omegabranch, 2011) was not as interesting to be because it felt like they kept repeating movements and weren’t exploring anything. I noticed that they didn’t look at each other much which I thought affected their connection; however they did have an equal distribution of under and over dancer, so I wouldn’t say there was a specifically dominant character.

This week saw us struggle with taking weight into our higher kinespheres and I definitely felt this conflict. I wanted to pick people up, to support them in the air, and to safely return them to the floor; but I could seem to get the right grip and found myself working against the momentum. Lifts that require me to be a support post, like the paper clip lift, I’m good with; but one’s like the cradle lift are a challenge. I think this is because I don’t have the courage to take that weight above my centre because I don’t really know what to do with it once it’s there; or if I’m being lifted, I don’t believe that my weight could be lifted up to someone’s shoulder. Not because ‘I’m too heavy’ – I’m over this now – but because I just don’t believe it’s possible, unless they’re a beast in the gym. To quote a popular phrase “Do you even lift?”

Something that I thought I would massively struggle with, but was pleasantly surprised, were the Aikido rolls. When we watched the video I instantly wrote these off, my brain just went “No way. Not a chance. Get me out of this lesson, this is getting way too intense” but obviously I was being over dramatic, because when I actually attempted these with Millie it only took a few tries before we were doing consecutive rolls. The surfing and rolling was another element of CI that I had no desire to try because the video freaked me out, but as soon as I started dancing with Lauren we just went for it and I found myself moving all over the place. We traveled from one end of the room to the other without breaking contact or trying to lead each other and it was such a nice feeling of being completely released and being connected to that one person, that I’m more than happy to do this in every jam.

I think this is a reoccurring theme in my CI practice; Kirsty introduces us to an idea and I decide that it is impossible and that I’m really not going to like it. Then I actually have a go and discover that it’s not that hard, and after a few attempts, realise that it’s quite fun and I don’t even care if it goes wrong because I am now determined to do it until it’s right. You’d think I would have learnt by now to trust that I’m not going to be asked to do something that isn’t possible by everyone in the class, and that I don’t need to panic every time we move on to more complex modes of connection – but no. Maybe next week I can keep my s*** together and not have an internal melt down?

In the jam we were introduced to the concept of dancing with a partner without making physical contact. YES! I’ve been looking forward to this because I’ve been looking for a way to enter a jam without it having to be solo, or interrupting a pre-formed duet. When in the jam I connected with Lauren, and after some surfing and rolling we entered into this non-touching contact, which I really enjoyed. This gave me the opportunity to incorporate breath as more than just initiation for my own movements as well as using the space to change the dynamic of our duet. I also explored this idea with Becca, I wanted to enter in such a way that made someone enter with me, so I chose to stand directly in front of her and essentially ‘get up in her grill’ until she reacted. Because our duet began in almost an aggressive manor, we spent our time dancing together manipulating the space to be close and then far from each other, really testing the boundaries of keeping our connection without touching.

Sophie and I are using this non-physical partnership in our choreographed duet, but so far I’m not sure that we’ve kept our connection:

We’re playing around with the use of breath and going in and out of contact during this section of the duet. I’m now interested to see how this will progress and develop after this week’s exploration; perhaps we don’t include the physical touch for this part at all?

 

---

Curtis, B. and Ptashek, A. (1988) Exposed to Gravity. Contact Quaterly/Improvisation Sourcebook. 13(2) 156-162.

Neige Christenson (2009) the play of weight. [Online Video] Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ltq6y06E8ew [Accessed 15 November 2015].

Omegabranch (2011) Contact Improvisation Mirva Mäkinen & Otto Akkanen. [Online video] Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMLbWxujoGw [Accessed 15 November 2015].

 

Going Up! 

 “The further your center is above your base of support, the less stable you are” – (Woodhull, 1978, 47)

Ow! That’s my summary of this week: ow ow ow ow OW! I did not think that practicing just a few little lifts could cause so much muscular pain, but my god was I wrong; I even have bruises, although one is from where I landed on my own hand, so who’s really to blame for that one?  Going up was never going to be my favourite week as I don’t respond well to being lifted. Even if I know the person is capable, I can’t keep my ‘s***’ together and start making involuntary sequels and tensing up, thus making myself heavier. But actually, this week wasn’t as awkward/intimidating as I thought it was going to be, and I think that had a lot to do with the caring nature of everyone in our class. We’re all really supportive of each other and genuinely want each other to do well and feel confidant with the tasks, which made me feel a lot better at taking a while to get to grips with certain lifts/balances. For example, the table top balances, and the stretched legs on partners hips lift were two that I particularly struggled with and could have easily given up on, but the people around me, and my partner Yasmin were really supportive and helpful which motivated me to keep going.

I was nervous to try pretty much all of the lifts that we were introduced to, but having read Ann Woodhull’s article Center of Gravity I knew that as long as my center of gravity (c.o.g) was “over the point of contact” in the lift (Woodhull, 1978, 44) I wouldn’t fall and my partner would have a better chance of sustaining the position. I also learnt the importance of locking my legs and arms in certain positions, as otherwise I couldn’t hold my own or my partners weight, because gravity would pull me off balance – probably because my ‘c.o.g’ wasn’t ‘centered’, a moment that Woodhull explains as when “the body tends to turn and fall on the side where the center of gravity is” (Woodhull, 1978, 44). Without establishing the connection from my ‘c.o.g’ to my partners, every lift would have been much harder and would have caused much more physical exhaustion. Now that I’ve experienced this side of CI, I’m more positive about including lifts in my choreographed duet; I’m excited to see what positions Sophie and I can create now that I’m going into it with much less hesitation.

By Thursday evening my body was in so much pain that I decided to avoid contacting with anyone in the jam, and would use the time to focus on my own improvisation. After having a tutorial with Kirsty, I wanted to experiment with using my whole body in my movements, so that they could be described as fluid and connected, not arm and leg actions. It was quite hard to do this because at first I wasn’t using my breath – I was trying to connect my waist to my shoulders to my wrists to my neck etc without using breath as the initiation and so struggled to find fluidity in the movements. But once I stepped out of the improvisation and watched everyone else, the penny dropped and I realised that dynamics are not just how fast/slow you move; having qualities like sharpness, elongation, softness and directness (to name a few) also effect the dynamics of an action. Once I started pairing my breath to my movements I found a whole new level of enjoyment with my dancing, and I hope that if I keep working on this relationship I can make significant progress with my own improvisations.

I need to be brave when it comes to partner work – so often I’ll talk myself out of trying an idea because there are too many potential outcomes that are not success. If I find myself in the middle of a group of bodies, why not just pick one of them up? Why not manipulate their movements so that they have to give weight to me? Why not just grab one of them and run away into some open space and start jamming together? Because I’m scared, that’s why. I’m scared that I’ll start jamming with someone and they’ll make a move to pick me up but I’m not very good at being the lifted so I’ll have to awkwardly roll away from them. I’m scared that I’ll be in a balance position as the over dancer and go to get out of it by going upside down and kick someone in the face/fall and hurt myself. I’m scared of failing – which unsettles me a lot because you have to fail to succeed, so it’s easier to stick to what you know and rely on yourself. But I don’t want to keep doing this, so I’m going to try and throw myself into the unknown over the next few weeks. If I don’t challenge myself now I won’t know how far I can be pushed and I’ll regret it.

 

---

Woodhull, A. (1978) Center of Gravity. Contact Quarterly/Contact Improvisation Sourcebook. 4(1) 43-48.