Month: November 2015

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.

This week we mainly focused on our research labs. Each group had half an hour to carry out a workshop, consisting of tasks based around the points of interest we had brainstormed with the previous week. As a group we questioned whether consciousness benefitted or obstructed improvisation and whether the senses played a part in this idea of consciousness and how improvisation would be affected if we removed one. After meeting again and developing points further we also wanted to explore the idea of a ‘meaningful’ initiation of contact, so asked ourselves what makes something a meaningful point of contact?

Our first task observed the idea of consciousness and how this affects an improvisation. It involved four individuals walking around the space with their eyes shut. They would walk around until they met another body, when they did they would connect through a hug and after the connection was established they would melt to the floor remaining in contact. Once they reached the floor they would begin to improvise keeping their eyes shut. The remaining dancers would sit around the space, four would watch the improvisation and the other four would shut their eyes and only listen to the sounds which occurred in the space. This task involved a type of danger because of having the sight removed. This was touched upon in one of the readings when it was said that when the dancer is put into an unfamiliar environment (one which may be considered dangerous) it reveals ‘a level of physical functioning that is ordinarily unconscious and material that is typically avoided in performance.’ (Lepkoff, 2008). In other words the body tries to protect itself from harm and therefore relies on reflexes when put in a perceived emergency situation. I found this exercise very interesting to watch. I felt individuals were more comfortable improvising with their eyes shut and after receiving feedback from the group this was definitely the case. The dancers tended to work in a closer proximity than usual and we concluded this was because they were relying on touch as their primary sensory input and form of communication. Individuals even said how they had to focus on the sensation of movement rather than the look of it due to the sight being removed, therefore non-habitual material was produced. As for the external observers, most people favoured watching the improvisation occur as the majority felt disconnected from the improvisation when just listening. Only one out of 12 people said they preferred listening to watching. This individual expanded saying she preferred listening as it revealed another dimension to contact improvisation. She explained how she found it quite haunting and that you could hear the improvisation build and progress even though you couldn’t see what was happening.

Our next task revolved around our second research point: initiation of contact. While brainstorming we questioned what made contact meaningful, was it the pressure of contact, the speed that it was initiated? The task started with pairs, one individual watching while the other improvised. Like tasks we’ve taken part in previously we asked the observer to shout stop at random points during the improvisation. We then told them to go up to the paused dancer and to apply a point of contact to any area, varying the pressures to see how much was too much pressure. Once they felt happy with their experimentation with pressures in this position the improviser could continue with their movement. They did this for a couple of minutes and then were asked to switch roles. Dancers found the back of the knee was a particularly vulnerable place to give pressure whereas the back and hip could take more pressure and therefore more weight. People also said they tried to vary their points of contact by applying touch to different body parts. We asked whether anyone felt like applying pressure with another body part other than their hands. They said they felt uncomfortable doing so because with your hand you can sense the amount of pressure you’re applying whereas with (for example) the foot you may apply too much and cause harm. The majority of people also said the idea didn’t cross their minds, which actually suggests we are quite habitual with how we use our hands and initiate contact.

Afterwards we asked them to find another partner and this time one individual would stand still while the other would initiate points of contact as quickly as they could. While this task was being carried out we found people weren’t really thinking about the contact they were creating and were just slapping the other person’s body more than anything else. It wasn’t until we told them to think about the purpose of the contact that they felt it was meaningful and this was very evident in the feedback we received.

We then moved through the other group’s research labs and took part in their tasks. The first group had us begin sitting back to back with a partner with our eyes shut. We were told to start improvising keeping our eyes shut. After a couple of minutes we were told to find another body to improvise with. I found it very difficult forming a connecting with another person. Because you started off back to back with your first partner you had a rough idea of where they were and knew where your connection was being made. Whereas with your second partner the connection was being made not knowing where the rest of their body was. The task continued and we were asked to switch partners again, at this point I wasn’t sure whether I was just returning to a previous partner and at one point I think three of us were improvising together not realising there was more than just one other body.

Two groups were interested in the use of eye contact and how this affects the improvisation. In one groups exercise we were told to duet purposefully making eye contact with our partner; maintaining this eye contact throughout and then were told to improvise avoiding eye contact by directing your focus away from your partner. I found this off putting and semi awkward. Maintaining that level of eye contact is very intense and intimate and I also felt it was somewhat intimidating. On the other hand, I tend to improvise and move in the direction I face and it was hard to stay connected when I avoided eye contact. The other group had us split in two lines facing each other. You were asked to hold eye contact with the person opposite you. We were given various types of imagery to focus on such as; imagine the person opposite you is your worst enemy. I found this task very challenging. I didn’t find the imagery helped me stop laughing. I think because I knew the person and had formed a relationship with them I found it difficult to put another feeling to their face. Maybe if it was someone unfamiliar this task would have been easier.

 

Lepkoff, D. (1999) What is Release Technique? [online] The Movement Research Performance Journal. Available from http://www.daniellepkoff.com/Writings/What%20is%20Release.php [Accessed 17 October 2015].

Lepkoff, D (2008) Contact Improvisation: A Question? [online] Available from http://www.daniellepkoff.com/Writings/CI%20A%20question.php [Accessed 17 October 2015].

Lepkoff, D. (2010) Contact Improvisation: A Question? Postscript [online] Available from http://www.daniellepkoff.com/Writings/CI%20A%20question.php [Accessed 17 October 2015].