Contact Improvisation

Reflecting on the course of this module I’m surprised at how quickly it’s gone. I remember the first week worrying about having to dance in such close proximity with another body whereas now it feels like second nature. I no longer walk into contact class expecting the worst and feeling apprehensive. Contact improvisation made me realise how meaningful touch is and the importance of it as a form of communication. I remember in week 1 saying my way of feeling comfortable while improvising was to shut off the outside world, but contact improvisation has opened my eyes to the many possibilities available while improvising if you take in and are aware of your environment. We normally began class by walking around the room as a way of becoming aware of the space and the people around you. This would gradually develop into initiating contact whether it be physically or through the eyes. Developing an awareness for others was definitely something I experienced during this module. We learnt to perceive people and our environment while having one of our most vital senses removed (sight). If we think about the idea of removing sight, it puts the individual in a very vulnerable position. To think all the way back to week 1, where we all had a distinct lack of trust in each other, to now when we are happy to improvise with another person or be led by another person with our eye sight removed.

For me the hardest thing to come to terms with during contact improvisation was that you couldn’t just rely on yourself. I struggled when it came to giving another person my weight and believed they wouldn’t be able to take my weight. At the time this worry caused me to feel very tense and actually made it harder for another person to lift me. As time went on I became less and less cautious of giving my weight to someone as it happened more frequently. When we were introduced to going up and started trying out some of the lifts my initial worry was falling or being dropped, however once you’ve made a mistake one or two times you begin to worry about it less and just thrown yourself into the movement. This dislike of giving my weight to someone else was something I overcame and now feel quite happy with doing, that being said I still prefer being the under dancer.

When I used to think about improvisation I very much cared about how it looked. I would always think about the aesthetics of a movement rather than the internal kinaesthetic sensation. As the module went on I began to think a lot more about how it felt and this diverted me away from my habitual movement. I realised just because you weren’t thinking about how it looked didn’t mean it looked bad. One thing that did make improvisation a struggle was when you were having an off day. Certain days the movement just didn’t seem to flow and this made me very tense. I felt as if my partner could pick up on my feelings or even worse an external viewer. This caused me to avoid contact with other people as I felt more comfortable (when in this mind set) dancing on my own. We would often discuss how we felt after exercises and jam sessions and people would often voice if they felt this way. I couldn’t usually tell if anyone was feeling this way unless they said and this made me realise that just because I felt like this it didn’t necessarily mean it looked that way.

One thing as a group we struggled with was entering. We would normally say after a jam how we found it difficult to re-enter the space after exiting and how we struggled to establish a connection with someone when you just entered the space. During the course of this semester we conducted research labs where we could run exercises on particular topics we found interesting. Many groups decided to focus on this idea of entering and gave us tasks where we had to think about entering the space in any way we wanted other than walking/ running or entering the space with another body. By walking or running we made entering the space a lot harder for ourselves as ‘we do not begin to move from zero’ (Paxton, 2003, 176). Entering the space already moving or with another body means we already have an intention and then you can adapt and change depending on what’s happening in the space around you.

During my mid-term feedback it was noted that I didn’t include much dynamic variety while improvising. Usually, I improvise at a slow and steady pace and I would generally opt for a slower, softer dynamic, especially at the beginning of the term when I was cautious of people around me. This is something I feel I’ve improved on especially as more aspects of contact improvisation have been introduced. This conversational side to contact improvisation, which we were introduced to in week 7, caused me to produced movement at a quicker speed with a faster, sharper dynamic. I also found by changing my dynamics I would produce new innovative movement. If I stuck to my habitual speed, I was more likely to produce habitual movement. By changing my movement quality I not only challenged myself dynamically but also in terms of my habitual tendencies.

In general I’ve become a lot more aware of my body; the way it moves, what it’s capable of and limitations or weakness I wasn’t particularly mindful of. It also makes you think about how others move and brings awareness to other people’s bodies and how you might interact with them. I particularly liked experiencing being a part of a choreographed duet. This, along with scores, made me aware of the more structured side to contact improvisation and I think it’ll affect the way I choose to choreograph in the future.

 

This week we started moving a lot quicker in comparisons to previous weeks. We began with finding ourselves in the space by walking around and then began to initiate points of contact through hugging. We were then asked to create structures in the space that people could then use as a support for a lift or weight-bearing. The combination of tasks caused this to progress into a jam. This threw us in at the deep end a little bit because there was very little build up towards the jam. Although, upon reflection, when asked how we felt about starting the session in this way, I said how I actually quite liked it because you came with a fresh mind set and you weren’t particularly thinking about thing’s that had happened previously, so I felt freer to do whatever movement I wanted.

We then recapped some weight-bearings and lifts we had carried out in a workshop we attended in Nottingham the previous Saturday. The workshop was held by the company Dance Four, who are particularly interested in contact improvisation and the workshop consisted of us learning new ways of exploring this idea of the under and over dancer. There were particular structures that became consistent throughout the workshop, one of which was the table top position which we’ve visited in previous weeks. This table top position, requiring the under dancer to create four points of contact with the floor (hands and knees) and maintain a flat back, was commonly used as a base for the over dancer to than roll, cartwheel or backbend over. Once we recapped these we were asked to travel down the room with our partner incorporating these lifts and weight-bearings. I found this surprisingly easy, as initially my worry was that I didn’t know how I would incorporate these into a jam, but the conversation between me and my partner seemed to flow and there was a constant change between who was the under and the over dancer.

After this we moved into our research groups and started performing our own scores. Each group came up with a score for the rest of us to improvise. In each score we were given certain guidelines as to what we could and could not do. The first group’s score was called Half Way Point and involved onlookers forming a line in the centre of the space as a way of dividing the space into two halves. Four dancers started in the space (I was one of these dancers). Other dancers, who began along this half way line, had to enter with another body or they could be forced into the area by a dancer who was already in the space. I found this score particularly interesting to take part in because even when observing you were always in the midst of the action and it never felt like I wasn’t involved. I also found it helpful entering the space with another body, because you entered with a connection already established and I found this easier to make movement flow from. At one point three of us entered the space together. This moment was predominant for me as instead of us continuing to dance as a trio, we split apart and had moments dancing as three soloists, a duo and a solo and occasionally we’d create lifts and weight-bearings using the three bodies, however we never moved as a three. Our attention however remained focused on this partnership and how we could move in and out of contact with each other.

For our groups score we chose to concentrate on the idea of spatial awareness and the consideration of others. We decided the space would be divided into quarters and everyone had to enter at the top left corner. The quarters were marked out using tape so everyone could distinctly see the boarders between the separate areas. We told everyone to gradually filter in and that you could only move into the next quarter once there were more than four people in the space. This cycle continued so only the next quarter could open once there were more than eight people in the space. Once you were in the space you weren’t allowed to leave because you could only exit through the top right hand corner. This caused people to diffuse through the space, creating a flow of movement and a flow of bodies entering and exiting the space. From an observational perspective I found it really interesting to watch. The way our group had envisioned it and the way it was carried out was completely different. People were hesitant to enter at first, which was predicted, but once people started entering they filtered a lot quicker through the space than expected. Even though there were enough people in the space to open the last quarter, everyone avoided using that space, why was this? From watching I also found that even though the space became open, there was still a clear divide between the different quarters. Individuals often used the tape as a boundary to move towards and away from; some individuals marked out the outline of the tape by walking along it. So was the last quarter avoided because it was seen as the final step before leaving and people didn’t want to leave?

The last hour we had the opportunity to work on our duo’s. As part of our assessment, we have to come up with a choreographed duet which shows a combination of things we’ve learnt throughout the module, including innovative discoveries you and your partner came across in the exploration process. Georgie and I found recording ourselves improvising and then developing movement helpful, as this meant we could make sure the movement flowed. We explored the idea of tracing another person’s movement, surfing and conversational improvisation but also incorporated lifts and weight-bearings. We focused on dynamics as this was something we both struggled with during this semester in improvisation and wanted a chance to fully explore the range possible.

 

Stover, J. (1989) Some Considerations When Structuring an Improvisation (to be seen by an audience). Contact Quarterly/ Contact Improvisation Sourcebook II, 14, 185.

This week we got into our research groups again. One group looked at the idea of entering an improvisation and making a connection with someone. We, as a class, were split into groups of five and stood at opposite sides of the room to each other. The individuals carrying out the research lab told two people to enter the space. We were asked to enter in a way other than walking/ running. We were then told to initiate contact with the other person in the space, improvise for a bit before leaving the space. This task was to help us with entering the space in new and interesting ways, as in previous weeks we’ve mentioned how difficult as a group we find it to enter and exit a jam. Personally the reason I find it difficult to enter a jam is because I struggle to make contact with people who are already in the space. I find it hard to initiate or find a connection with someone who is already moving with a purpose. So in this task when we were told to enter the space with another person, we entered with the purpose of connecting with the other and therefore I didn’t feel like I could apply it to a jam. However, it did make me think about how I physically entered the space. By moving in a way other than walking means you don’t have to start from neutral in the space which could possibly help form connections while in the improvisation area.

The other two groups focused on this idea of dynamics, speed and intention. One group did this by telling us to dance at a certain percentage and how we interpreted that would determine our movement speed/ effort. I found at first the higher the percentage was the faster the speed of my movement and the more direct and rushed my dynamics were. It wasn’t until they started adding imagery when I saw it from a different perspective. We were asked to go at 60% keeping in mind this idea that you’re having a race with a snail and loosing. This made me really aware of the amount of effort I put into a movement rather than the speed I carried it out. I found this specific image made my movement very weighted and grounded where as other images such as every cell in your body is having a race made my movement hectic. I found that while the images helped me think about dynamics and effort but by simply changing the dynamics my movement material changed with it. This helped me avoid habitual movement and also getting stuck and repeating myself.

For our research lab we decided to focus on four separate factors, entering, dynamics, upper kinesphere and incorporating lifts. We created two exercises. The first one looked at entering and dynamics. It involved everyone standing in a circle and someone would then enter the middle of the circle, similarly to the previous group by thinking about how they enter rather than just walking in but also thinking about the dynamic they bring into the space. The individual would then improvise in the space, maintaining the dynamic they entered with. Another person could then choose to enter the space although when they did this they had to bring another dynamic into the space which was distinctly different to the last. Whoever was already in the space had to then alter their dynamics to fit the one being introduced. Individuals could enter/ exit whenever they liked and as many people could be in the space at any one time. This task was somewhat a structured score as everyone was involved and had the freedom to join/ exit when they felt like it. The dancers were free to perform whatever movement they wanted, the only restriction was their dynamic quality and the restriction was introduced through the ‘unexpected decisions’ (Keefe, 2003, 232) made by the performers.

The feedback we received from this was positive. People found it interesting to watch and said it made them think about dancing as an individual but still keeping a connection with the others in the space. They said this was different as they tend to shut out the environment when dancing alone, whereas this made you aware of what was going on around you. However some said that it was difficult to notice when someone brought in a new idea and often were so involved in what they were doing that they forgot about changing. Some people did say they felt reluctant to switch between dynamics, especially if you had just established one. Individuals commented on how certain dynamics deterred them from entering the space, especially if it was fast pace as they were tired. We asked whether individuals found themselves copying others movement or being influenced by it as they tried to pick up another’s dynamic. The response was interesting and people said if they felt the dynamic was clear they could easily interpret it in their own movement, whereas if they were unsure on the intention of the dynamic they found themselves embodying the other person movement to try and gain clarity.

As a class we all find ourselves depending on the floor when improvising, so our second task focused on the idea of improvising when standing. We asked everyone to stand at one end of the room and to travel into the space individually. Shortly after we said for another body to follow and to instigate a connection. The pair then would duet in the space and before they were allowed to leave a lift had to be carried out. This would then be repeated with a new body entering the space as the initial dancer left. This cycle would continue numerous times. We told people to try and switch between being lifted and being the lifter. From an observational point of view, I felt it was a little forced and people felt rushed to make the lift and leave the space. When receiving feedback everyone said they felt awkward. People agreed that because they knew it was coming, they over thought it and ended up feeling uncomfortable. They felt restricted in the fact they couldn’t use the floor and that they had to perform a lift before leaving the space. I noticed no one chose to stay in the space after performing the lift to continue the improvisation, was this because they felt uncomfortable?

Next week in our research groups we have to come up with a score. This week’s reading What’s the Score? (Keefe, 2003) spoke in depth about a particular example and how a structured improvisation would be carried out keeping in mind set regulations. Just like an improvisation there’s an ‘infinite variety of ways to travel from beginning to end’ (Keefe, 2003, 233), it’s just the set nature of a score allows for guidance during the piece.

 

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.

The session this week started off with a discussion. It mainly revolved around our concerns about contact improvisation. A lot of people after last week’s lesson seemed to have developed worries about the module. A lot of the worries focused on the events which took place in last week’s jam. Last week was the first time a new person (Fenya) was introduced to our weekly jam. During the jam Kirsty and Fenya took part in a conversational duet, where one person would move and the other would then respond to this initial movement. This would go back and forth and the movement would develop and adapt like a conversation. Watching this made the rest of us collectively quite anxious about our improvisation. It was a type of improvisation we hadn’t been exposed to and it made us feel very limited and underdeveloped as contact improvisation dancers. Understandably they’ve had more experience with contact than us so obviously would know other ways to improvise without using predictable material. Kirsty explained how that was the first time she had improvised with Fenya and that she didn’t feel as comfortable performing as she looked. This made me question the whole how it feels vs how it looks theory and whether only we individually can tell when we don’t feel quite right in the movement or if we’re having an off day.

We then watched two duets, one by Martin Keogh and Neige Christenson and one by Mirva Makinen and Otto Alkkannen. Both duets involved a male and a female dancer. The first piece involved a very slow and delicate dynamic, the second was faster pace however still contained a level of fluidity which was apparent in the first improvisation. The main difference between the two duets was that in the first one the male dancer took the lead as the under dancer, whereas in the second piece the female dancer initially took a more predominant role as the under dancer. The roles in the second duet seemed to change more than in the first one. Is it unexpected that she took on this role because she’s female and smaller?

After this we began moving. We were asked to travel across the room and each time we were given different tasks to explore. We were asked to travel making as much noise as possible when our body made contact with the floor. This I found quite tricky because it’s something I’ve been told not to do since I began dancing; ‘there exists a wide array of pre-conditioned responses and behaviours’ (Curtis, 1988) from dance training that may hold us back from exploring new realms of possibilities in improvisation. We were also asked to improvise with the incentive of moving into and out of the floor i.e. constantly changing levels, I found this made me experiment with my dynamics as well. We were also told to explore the idea of twisting and circling the body. We were told to maybe think about this in reference to specific body parts, for example, twisting the spine, circling the foot and I felt this made me aware of my whole self as I would try and twist/circle a different body part each time.

We then moved into partner work where we investigated this idea of surfing. I found this really interesting and liked how two bodies could glide over and weightlessly move/ rest on one another. The way you could interchange seamlessly as the over and under dancer I found fascinating because it wasn’t as if you were ever restricted to one role. We then changed partners and looked at this idea of free flowing movement incorporating Aikido rolls which we have looked at in previous weeks during the warm up. We started off with one individual on all fours in table top position (with a flat back), while the other individual would move themselves over the other dancer and rest their tummy on the other dancers back. The under dancer would then roll forward and the over dancer would move with them. As the roll was carried out the under dancer would switch to being the over dancer automatically and eventually would return to being the under dancer as the rolls completed. We were asked to return to the starting position so the movement could be performed again and for me keeping the connection once the roll had been finished was the hardest thing.

Continuing with this idea of surf and turf, we got into partners and labelled ourselves A and B. Partner A would lie on their backs while partner B would lie on A’s stomach (so the belly buttons were touching). We were asked to lie here and notice each other’s breathing pattern. This links back to a concept we looked at in week 4 called small dance. Keeping this idea in mind we were asked to begin initiating movement from the diaphragm. Gradually the movement got bigger and bigger and eventually we progressed back into this surf and turf movement.

The session then moved into looking at this notion of going up again. We started by looking at this idea of flying back to back. You and your partner would stand back to back. You would initiate the lift by scooping your pelvis underneath theirs to then lift up. While doing this I found that height played a massive factor in the effectiveness of this lift. My partner was quite a bit shorter than me and when she did the lifting we didn’t have a problem, but when I tried lifting her, because her pelvis was a lot lower than mine I struggled to get into the correct position to lift her. When I tried this lift with a taller partner I found it a lot easier and less strenuous on my knees. We switched partners and went into other lifts such as the paper clip lift. Personally I found this lift quite easy because it required lifting from an anchor point, which is a point you can initiate and hold quite a lot of weight. It involved the person being lifted to put their arm over the lifters shoulder, the lifter would then pick up the other dancer and rotate them round. The lifter would hold the dancers hips as a support. If I wasn’t lifting using the shoulder, I think I would have found this harder, simply because I was able to carry quite a lot of weight with my shoulder. The next lift I struggled with, a lot. It consisted of one dancer being lifted and then rotated around the lifter body. My partner and I struggled with the lift itself let alone then being moved around their body. The lift encompassed quite a few of the fundamentals that were covered in last week’s session and both my partner and I sat out the previous week and we felt this impacted us a fair amount.

 

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].

Last week was our reading week and I arranged a tutorial with Kirsty to discuss the module and how I was getting on. During this it was mentioned how I needed to give into my movement and have confidence in the material I’m producing. She asked me to fully explore my movement because at the moment I seem to be cutting it short and we questioned whether this was a confidence thing. Kirsty also said she wanted me to investigate different dynamics while dancing and maybe this change in quality will affect the movement I produce. I will comment on this in the upcoming weeks.

This week unfortunately I had to sit out, however it gave me an opportunity to watch an improvisation class and I found it really interesting to be an observer for a change. A lot of different elements were touched upon but they all focused around this idea of ‘going up’. You could tell a lot of people were anxious about this concept and the idea of their mass being supported by someone other than themselves. This week’s reading Center of Gravity by Ann Woodhull focused around the theory of the centre of gravity in relation to balance and stability, as well as how it affects being lifted by or lifting someone else. At one point in the reading it was mentioned how ‘The height of the center of gravity affects stability. The further your center is above your base of support, the less stable you are.’ (Woodhull, 1997). This gives reason as to why people dislike being in the air, there’s an element of uncertainty and they don’t feel safe. However, does this also give a reason as to why we prefer to improvise closer to the ground? Is it because we feel safer? Is it because there’s another surface to support ourselves off? Is it because there’s less distance to fall?

The session started out as normal with a warm up where the dancers would walk around the space taking in their environment. This progressed into rolling down into plank with press ups to then holding plank and then moved into travelling work. This week seemed a lot more physically demanding than the previous weeks. After this the partner work began. Person A was asked to improvise, producing simplistic movement at a slow pace. Person B was asked to apply points of contact by tracing partner A’s movement and to put pressure on the points movement originated. B’s eventually were asked to not use their hands. This made me think back to our research lab and how no one made the decision to initiate contact with another body part. This then developed into using any area to make contact and began to incorporate the idea of pushing between the two points of contact. This introduced the idea of counterbalances and moments of contact which have resistance. There was then a moment of reflection and individuals said they felt as if they’re weren’t feeling the movement and it was as if they got stuck. From an external perspective, I never would have noticed, especially as it didn’t look awkward. This made me question my thought process when I improvise and whether when I feel uncomfortable is this portrayed through my movement or is it something only I’m aware of?

In pairs the next task involved one partner resting on hands and knees to create a table top position. The other person had to rest on their back. The connection was made and the weight of the person was established for the under dancer. The over dancer then had to try rolling over the under dancers back. This from observation was clearly easier said than done. I think a lot of people struggled with being upside down but on top of this they were unable to see behind them and this meant automatically the body tried to protect itself. Developing on from this, they tried to balance on the back of their partner using their stomach and were asked to test the point of contact and push the point they balanced on. This produced the effect that the over dancer was weightless and most pairs seemed comfortable with this weight baring.

After they tried counterbalances and lifts which travelled around the space. One involved the pair facing each other holding hands and one partner would pull the other to cause them to move, the pair would rotate as this happened and then were in reverse for the roles to change. This progressed into the individual being pulled to lift their outside leg which gave the impression the dancer was jumping, when in fact most of the effort came from the partner doing the pulling. Then they tried running and jumping at their partner. From previous experience I know this can be quite overwhelming because you feel like you’re going to run straight into your partner so you tend to slow down and this means you don’t have enough momentum to be lifted high. Other lifts and counterbalances were investigated but all, obviously, involved a mutual effort and attention from both partners.

As the class went on confidence seemed to build. After a while a connection was created between partners and this meant you were able to invest some trust into another person to lift you. You could tell it was a semi daunting task when they were asked to change partners. Thinking back to the reading, I felt this was because they had identified where their partner’s centre of gravity was and therefore knew where to rest, lift, move from etc. At the beginning of this session I felt I was going to feel very nervous for next week’s class, when in fact, after observing my fellow class mates doing lifts and exploring this idea of going up I was excited to experiment with it myself.

 

Woodhull, A. (1997) Center of Gravity. Contact Quarterly/Contact Improvisation Sourcebook I, 4, 43-48.