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].