Contact Improvisation

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].

 

 

 

‘In other words we learn to use our bodies in necessary and efficient ways in order to relate to our environment and a moving partner.’ (Brown, 1997, 73)

This week we began the session by standing still with our eyes closed. We were told to stand as still as possible to ‘Sense the weight of your body’ (Ravn, 2010, 21) and experience the presence of our body in the space. This exercise made me really aware of my shifts in weight and how much I move even when I try to be still. This whole task was influenced by Steve Paxton’s Small Dance (ZayacZhe, 2009). Whilst I was watching the video for the first time I was a bit confused as to what it was trying to show. However once I did this task I gained understanding on the matter and what it was trying illustrate. Your body is constantly moving, even if you are unaware of it, the body is constantly re-aligning itself. This movement isn’t necessarily visible to an external observer, however I became aware of the ‘internal kinaesthetic sensations’ (Ravn, 2010, 21) when taking part in this exercise.

We then went into our warm up where we travelled around the room walking, taking in our surroundings and bringing our awareness back into the space. After a while we began to incorporate a roll down into our walking where we’d roll down, go out into plank and then walk our hands back to our feet and roll back up to continue walking with purpose and intent. This developed into downward dog where we’d walk through the feet, walk the feet to our hands and roll back up. Next we travelled across the space using this idea of ‘grounding’ our bodies, a concept which was spoken about in the reading Sensing Weight in Movement (Ravn, 2010). We started with moving across the space on our hands and feet as our four points of contact, we were told to keep our pelvis low and the movement fluid. This then progressed into bent leg cartwheels and handstands with straight legs and legs in second. The last few exercises all possessed an aspect of upper body strength, which is something I lack.

We began improvising in partners where we brought back an aspect of a task visited in week 2 where we’d shout stop and our partner had to pause so we could find a point of balance. This time however we both were moving and partner A (the person who would pause) wouldn’t announce their moments of stillness. Instead person B had to sense their pause and react to it. This is another task involving this idea of non-verbal communication. Instead I’d have to keep an external awareness where I’d use ‘the other dancers’ way of moving […] as information for my own movements.’ (Ravn, 2010, 22). In other words, I’d use the tactile sensory input as my invitation for support. As usual I preferred being the under dancer and found when I was paired with someone who was comfortable to put their weight on me and be the over dancer the improvisation seemed to flow more freely as they were less hesitant or conscious. This is something I think many people struggle with when it comes to contact improvisation. The reluctance to put your full weight on someone else, means you hold back and therefore inhibit the movement being produced but also the experience you have. I remember in the second week when we we’re introduced to this idea of under and over dancer and how I was heavier if I was tense and if I didn’t fully relax my weight onto the under dancer. Personally this is what I think holds me back, ‘how the weight of the body is perceived from within’ (Ravn, 2010, 23), how I internally sense my weight on someone else and how I comprehend my weight to feel. Even from my experience as being the under dancer I know I’m not the only person who feels this way, even if it hasn’t been said.

The next task was more of a trust exercise more than anything else. We all stood in a circle and one person would move into the centre of the circle to then begin a count down from three to one. In this time the individuals standing on the outside would move to stand behind them. The central dancer would begin to fall backwards and the others were there to help support the fall. You’d gently place the dancer on the ground supporting every bit of their body and then return to your original position. I was more than happy to help support another dancer, but I did not have a go at being the actual centre dancer. This developed into two groups where one dancer was lifted up by the remaining bodies (in my group there was 7 supporting dancers). One dancer would stand in neutral as the rest of us placed our hands on various bits of the body and as the individual dancer fell backwards we would gradually lift her up above us and carry them around the space. We also took turns holding various bits of the body and some areas require more strength (upper legs) whilst others require more care (head). It really made you think about how you’d apply your points of contact and how much force or pressure you’d exert to form a connection but to not cause harm. We all had the opportunity to experience being the dancer who was lifted and for me this was a nerve wracking experience. However, as stated in one of the readings, it is possible for anyone to lift anyone, it’s to do with ‘the body’s construction more than the body’s strength’ (Ravn, 2010, 24), and in this case I had 7 other people lifting me.

After this we split into research groups and in this group we began mind mapping questions we individually had asked ourselves over the previous weeks in contact and points we had risen in our blogs. This made me realise a lot of my worries other people shared and put my mind at ease a little. Some of our questions and points linked. I think it became clear as a collective we were all still interested in our movement being produced, whether this was habitual or not, the ‘questions of aesthetics and creativity still remain’ (Brown, 1997, 74). However, when we began expanding on our questions and points we found two stood out. We brought up the importance of the senses and whether we rely on some more than the others and what would happen if we took one or multiple away. The second point was focusing on this idea of consciousness, which was brought up in one of the previous readings, and whether it benefits improvisation or not.

 

Brown, B. (1997) Is Contact a Small Dance? Contact Improvisation Sourcebook I, 6, 72-75.

Ravn, S. (2010) Sensing weight in movement. Journal of Dance & Somatics, 2 (1) 21-34.

ZayacZhe (2009) steve paxton. Smalldance

. Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sJKEXUtv44&feature=youtu.be [accessed 13 October 2015].

This week we began the session by reflecting on this week’s reading Steve Paxton’s “Interior Techniques” by Robert Turner (2010). We all said how it spoke very much about the importance of touch when it comes to improvisation and also the reluctance to use it in everyday life and how this is what causes apprehension when it comes to contact improvisation.
Afterwards we watched some video examples of contact improvisation. Magnesium (Paxton, 2006) was one. I found there was minimal movement when the dancers moved by themselves however when they met another body it became quite high speed. I felt like there were underlying themes of pushing, pulling, rolling and spinning. One particular move stood out to me and it occurred a couple of times during the improvisation. While in contact with each other (using the arms or hands as a point of contact) a dancer would rotate and swing round another, causing them to descend to the floor and spin around on their back. The standing dancer, still rotating, would then pull the dancer back up lifting them form the floor to standing. This move was always executed with a strong, meaningful connection between both dancers.
The next improvisation we looked at was by Blake Nellis and Brando (Aaron Brando, 2010). I found this improvisation to look weightless and effortless as if they were moving without thinking. One move seemed to flow into the other as if it was choreographed. You could see the incorporation of under and over dancer and the transitions between the two changing between the under and over dancer was seamless. While watching it I asked myself how can I make my movement flow like that?
Personally I preferred the look of Blake Nellis’ and Brando’s (Aaron Brando, 2010) steady and relaxed approach to improvisation in comparison to Magnesium (Paxton, 2006). One thing I noticed in both pieces, was something we are told to focus on and that’s our intention behind our contact. Whilst watching, I could see they initiated their movement and points of contact with purpose and force. Even if in the second improvisation it looked delicate, they were certain with their movement and I think this is what made it so effective. The fact that they were so sure in their movement and what they were going to do made me feel at ease, they performed their movement with confidence. In the reading it was said ‘dancers learned to have confidence in their “choices”’ (Turner, 2010, 131), is this something I will learn? Will I ever be able to move as freely and as relaxed as that?
Our warm up task was a challenging one. We began in neutral to bring attention to our bodies and then were asked to roll onto one side to lie in foetal position. We did this and sped it up until a point came when we were told to begin moving without taking your head off the floor. How could I move without taking my head of the floor? It took me a while to get into the flow of this. I struggled to move into higher levels and mainly kept the movement minimal, however, I asked myself ‘what were the unexplored possibilities of movement’ (Turner, 2010, 126)? The more I thought about it the more I made sure every single surface of my skull had made contact with the floor and therefore I could happily say I exhausted the movement possibilities.
Our first hands on task involved us cradling another person’s head in our hands. Person A would lie on the floor and person B would sit behind them. Starting at the shoulders, person B would stroke their hands up the neck of person A to the side of the head and gently, without assistance lift their head off the floor. As person A, I found this very relaxing although I did struggle with letting go of my head, not because I didn’t have trust in my partner, just because I found the process of fully relaxing a body part quite challenging. However, as person B I felt I held some kind of responsibility, the head is a very precious part of the body. I was very nervous about moving my partners head and whether I wasn’t being gentle enough or I was holding it at an awkward angle. It really did make you think about how you apply your touch. From this, Person A was asked to begin moving, starting slowly with minimal movement and then developing to bigger movement travelling around the space. Person B was told to keep contact with person A’s head. When I took on the role of person A, I found it really brought my awareness to the head, a part of the body which might usually be forgotten. This meant there was a major reduction in my habitual tendencies. This especially was the case when person B was told to give a little guidance and somewhat persuade your direction, this also meant I would initiate and lead movement with my head. From my experience of being person B and guiding I found this rather therapeutic. It meant, from an external perspective, you could cause the dancer to create interesting movement patterns they wouldn’t have necessarily thought of. Was this a duet in itself? A point we drew upon from the reading was this idea of control in improvisation, ‘assuming authority or submitting to it’ (Turner, 2010, 124), suggests this idea that when you’re improvising as a duet one person takes lead and controls the direction of the improvisation. It doesn’t necessarily mean that person is always in control, more of the fact that someone will be leading while the other is surrendering to it. In this exercise even though person B wasn’t dancing as such, they manipulated person A’s direction of movement and therefore contributed to the movement being produced.

For our next exercise we were asked to get into pairs and create a point of contact between our heads. Without losing this connection we were told to start improvising. In the reading is say’s ‘The understanding of personal space is social/habitual and since the habit is defensive, having that space invaded can be shocking’ (Turner, 2012, 125). During this task I could definitely relate. Having to keep such a tight proximity with someone for an elongated amount of time was quite daunting especially as it was the head/ face, which is quite an intimate body party. This being said, it definitely pushed us to the limit of our movement boundaries and allowed us to produce really unique movement. After a while we were asked to switch body parts, my partner and I decided to go for the elbow. I think this was quite a safe choice in comparison to the head or the back/ thigh lets say, especially as it meant I could still move my lower half in isolation to my partner. We were then asked to change partners. This threw me as it meant you then had to once again form that connection with someone and begin to create this flow of movement, which for me takes a little bit of time to get used to. However, the change did mean you could experience different bodies and the way different people move which opened my eyes to more material. As the exercise progressed the exercise developed into changing the points of contact rather than just holding one. This is the first time I’ve properly felt like I was taking part in a contact improvisation because of the freedom we had and from the sort of movement being produced.
Following this we did an exercise which focused on how we use our focus and eye contact as a tool for communication. We were instructed to walk around the space and make eye contact with who we passed. This progressed into us holding the eye contact for an elongated amount of time, almost so you felt uncomfortable doing so. Once this had been established we started involving movement. On your own accord you’d make eye contact with someone, follow them and then copy the movement they produced before separating and continuing with your different paths. This exercise made me realise how much can be said through just the eyes.
The last exercise was a weight-baring exercise, where one person would make a base by being on four points, where by the knees and the hands were parallel and touching the floor. Another person would line themselves up, in the same position, next to the first individual. They would then lift the arm and leg which was furthest from the other person and rotate themselves round so they were facing the ceiling. They would at this point be making contact with each other’s back. The person doing the rolling would take a moment here and fully rest themselves on the other person. They would then continue moving to roll off on the other side in preparation for them to then be the support. I found this quite easy because I have quite a tall back so I could easily roll onto and off my partner, however, my partner even said how she struggled because of the height difference. is this something I need to consider when improvising?

 

Aaron Brando (2010) Contact Improvisation: Blake Nellis & Brando @ Earthdance. [online Video] Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQRF2sLK1vY [Accessed 7 October 2015].
Nelson, L. (dir.) (2006) Contact Improvisation Archive DVD #2: Magnesium, Peripheral Vision, Soft Pallet. [DVD] East Charleston: VIDEODA.
Turner, R. (2010) Steve Paxton’s “Interior Techniques”: Contact Improvisation and the Political Power. TDR: The Drama Review, 54 (3) 123-135.

‘We diminish or become fearful and so do not teach and learn with touch, we devalue one of our most basic and informative sensations.’ (Bannon and Holt, 2012, 219)
This week we looked at the idea of being under and over. Our attention once again focused on this idea of touch and the value of it when connecting with someone else, ‘touch that stimulates awareness’ (Bannon and Holt, 2012, 216). We spoke about it in relation to this week’s reading (Touch: Experience and Knowledge) and agreed touch is needed in contact improvisation for ‘affective communication’ (Bannon and Holt, 2012, 220). It was also brought to our attention the trust and support we need to have in each other and the value we need to have not on just our own bodies but on the others around us.
The class began with an exercise that involved us connecting with other bodies. Similarly to last week the task incorporated this idea of pushing and pulling. We began by moving around the room which slowly progressed into a jog. We were encouraged to go up to another person and touch them on the shoulder, this contact initiated them to ‘melt’ to the floor where they would just lie still in neutral. Another body would then come along and pull them up off the floor for the process to start again. About 15 people were doing this at one time. While this was going on we were urged to think about the intention behind the touch, ‘the quantity of touch’ (Bannon and Holt, 2012, 216), and how it resulted in the other person melting to the floor or being lifted from the floor. For me I tried to make sure my contact on the shoulder was strong and forceful and when lifting people from the floor I would use my pile so I had a strong base in order for me to be able to lift the other dancer up without requiring their help. This task helped us prepare our bodies for taking other people’s weight.
Another task which got us thinking about how we would take another person’s weight, as well as how we would distribute our own weight onto another person, was when we experimented with a move which involved two bodies, one lying on top of another. This task also introduced us to this concept of the under and over dancer. The under body would have all of the over bodies weight on top of them. The under body then had to roll causing the over body to roll off them. I felt very self-conscious about putting all my weight onto someone else, so I somewhat held back from doing so. This actually put more stress on the under body than if I just let my weight go.
Finding new points of contact with each other we moved on to our next exercise which involved us being back to back with another body and improvising using this idea of under and over. We did this numerous time with different pairs. I found that automatically one individual in the pair would somewhat take control and lead the improvisation and this would go back and forth throughout. Initiating the movement using under and over as the stimulus meant you and your partner would have to decide who was going under and who was going over without verbally discussing it. In an improvisation how do you decide who’s the under dancer and who’s the over dancer? I personally prefer being the under dancer because I would rather take someone’s weight, so I would always manipulate the improvisation to make sure it moved in the direction that meant I was under. This sort of meant I was trying to control the duet and for a duet to be successful it has to be a conversation, involving two bodies and two minds. When I was with someone who preferred being the over dancer, the improvisation came a bit more freely without disruption and dispute, whereas when we both wanted to be the under dancer there was a conflict of interests and ideas of where this improvisation was going.
Like last week, in pairs, we would observe one another looking out for habitual patterns. Once this had been done we repeated the exercise however this time we would randomly shout stop, your partner would pause and you, using their body as a structural starting point, would find moments of contact. You could lean, balance or even fully rest yourself on the other person. We then switch roles. When I was initiating points of contact I was hesitant to put my full body weight on another and this meant I held back in what I was doing. Therefore I found myself doing similar movements which weren’t far out of my comfort zone, how do I gain the confidence to give my weight to someone else and be more adventurous in my movement?
Our last exercise, once again, involved us taking and having someone else take our weight, but this time it was in the form of counterbalances. I found for these to work you needed some individual muscular strength. We did these back to back, moving forward and backwards and sideways, as well as doing side by side counterbalances. I really struggled. I found the back to back one moving forward and backwards, when I was the one moving backwards (with someone behind me) the easiest. Probably because, once again, I was semi in control. How do I let go and allow another person to lead? The other counterbalances either I physically didn’t have the strength to continue with or I couldn’t synchronise the balancing with my partner.
This session really made me question my contact improvisation abilities, for me to improve I have to remove this mental block which is stopping me from giving my weight to another person. Is this a lack of trust? The reading highlights the importance of trust in relation to being touched, ‘Touch allows you to connect with another, from my experience it has helped me engage with my group member to a higher level of trust.’ (Bannon and Holt, 2012, 221). It also speaks about touch as a ‘vulnerable commodity’ (Bannon and Holt, 2012, 219) and I believe this is the issue. I feel vulnerable when resting my weight on someone. Maybe as the week’s progress this will become less of an issue and I can begin to experiment more when moving with others.

 

Bannon, F. and Holt, D. (2012) Touch: Experience and knowledge. Journal od Dance & Somatic Practices, 3 (1/2) 215-227.

After over four months off I was slightly apprehensive for my first improvisation session back, especially as this time the module means you can’t just rely on your own body. This week’s readings I found a particularly interesting insight into the fundamentals of contact improvisation. They made me really think about how last year during improvisation I would often shut out the world and do my own thing to try and escape from the idea that people might be watching me. This year, obviously that’s not an option, as it is necessary to observe and communicate with others in order to be successful. Moving from the skin (Heitkamp, 2003), I personally found thought-provoking. I could really relate to way it spoke about the skin as a connection between the external world and your internal self.

‘it is through it that we connect with the outer world, that we touch and experience our environment.’ (Heitkamp, 2003, 257)

This same reading continued on to say how touch is considered the ‘primary means of communication’ (Heitkamp, 2003, 257) in contact improvisation. This related to many tasks we encountered in our first improvisation class. One exercises involved you following someone improvising (person B) or being followed while improvising (person A). Person B would touch areas of the body person A had exposed while improvising. I found myself, as person B, being very careful when touching regions as I didn’t want to affect their movement, and from my experience as person A I found it did influence my next move. Reflecting back on it, I found the external stimuli quite helpful and this sensory input meant I wasn’t doing all the decision making myself, therefore I wasn’t humouring my habitual behaviours.

We started the session off by lying on the floor in neutral. We were told to isolate and press areas of our body into the floor without involving the other regions around it. I found certain areas were easier to tense and push into the floor without disturbing the rest of the body than others. Was this the same for everyone or is it just the way that my body moves?

Once we had done this working through the body from feet to the head, we were asked to curl up into a foetal positon. We then changed over to the other side moving through the neutral position. The process was then sped up. We were told to move as a reaction, to make it the most efficient movement rather than causing strain on the body by moving suddenly between positions. I found this helpful for preparing me to more as ‘we do not begin to move from zero’ (Paxton, 2003, 176). Using this same concept of being relaxed and elongated in neutral to being curled up and contracted in foetal, we were asked to travel around the space drawing upon this idea as the influence of our movement. The movement produced often originated from this notion of pushing and pulling against the floors surface. I tried to make sure while moving I involved every part of my body to make sure I felt the sensation of pushing and pulling throughout the entirety of myself. By doing this I was also able to feel what felt ‘normal’ and what didn’t. It brought to my attention my habitual movement patterns and when I reached a position which I wasn’t fully comfortable with I tried to indulge further into it to see what new movement possibilities I might be able to explore.

This idea of habitual movement was touched upon in our next task. In pairs we were asked to observe each other improvising and to try and pick up on the others individuals movement habits. This task was good for finding out something about the way you move but also useful for finding out how others tend to move as well. By coincidence my partner and I had quite similar movement tendencies. We found that we didn’t incorporate our upper halves much and we tended to stay very grounded. I feel it’s easier to improvise when on the floor as there is another surface to support yourself off, whereas standing up I’m likely to be very cautious of experimenting with my movement. Maybe this is something contact improvisation will help me with as another body can be used as a support or surface to push, pull, lean and suspend off.

Our last task involved a lot of trust in ourselves and the others around us. The reading Drafting Interior Techniques by Steve Paxton (2003), spoke about this idea of trust in contact improvisation. It brought up the ‘unpredictable nature of improvisation’ (Paxton, 2001, 180) and I believe this is why so many people are nervous or apprehensive about the subject itself as it puts you in a somewhat vulnerable position. We were told to close our eyes and walk slowly around the room, we were asked that when we met a body, we stopped and hugged them. To quote Steve Paxton ‘trust was missing’ (Paxton, 2003, 181). The interaction with another person was more of a pat on the back than a hug, so we were asked to do the same task again, but this time you had to hold the hug for what was considered to be an uncomfortable amount of time and our bodies had to be touching. While carrying out this task I remembered what I had read in the Moving from the Skin (Heitkamp, 2003) reading and how it spoke about being able to ‘close our eyes or cover our ears but we cannot “turn off” our skin’ (Heitkamp, 2003, 261) and this was definitely noted in this exercise. I could relate to what the reading was saying and how if one sense is removed, the others are heightened and this was definitely the case. A combination of sound and touch were my new eyes. I would often stop if I heard something to avoid collisions and if I felt something (which wasn’t a person) I would redirect myself away from it. I personally struggled with this as instantly I felt very wary of everything going on around me. However, in improvisation, especially contact improvisation, you have to have trust in the setting you’re in, the people around you and of course yourself.

 

Heitkamp, D. (2003) Moving from the Skin: An Exploratorium. Contact Quarterly/Contact Improvisation Sourcebook II, 28:2, 256-264.

 

Paxton, S. (2003) Drafting Interior Techniques. In: Nancy Stark-Smith (ed.) A Subjective History of Contact Improvisation. In: Ann Cooper Albright and David Gere (eds.) Taken by Surprise: A dance improvisation reader. Middletown, CT, USA: Wesleyan University Press, 175-184.