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.