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.