Dance Improvisation and Reflective Practice

Banes, S. (2003) Spontaneous Combustion: Notes on Dance Improvisation from the Sixties to the Nineties. In: Ann Cooper Albright and David Gere (eds.) Taken By Surprise: A Dance Improvisation Reader. Middletown, CT, USA: Wesleyan University Press, 77-85.

Buckwalter, M. (2010) Composing While Dancing, An Improviser’s Companion. USA: University of Wisconsin Press.

Charlie Morrissey (2011) Moving Men – Performance at Dampfzentrale, Bern. [online video] Available from https://vimeo.com/18838343 [Accessed 22 March 2015].

De Spain, K. (2014) Landscape of the Now. USA: Oxford University Press.

GentlyUsedMusic (2010) March2Marfa 2010 – Performance Excerpt. [online video] Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvrfKq3fjVE [Accessed 22 March 2015].

Husemann, P. (2005) The Functioning of Thomas Lehmen’s Funktionen. Dance Theatre Journal, 21 (1) 31-35.

Lavender, L. and Predock-Linnell, J. (2001) From Improvisation to Choreography: the critical bridge. Research in Dance Education, 2 (2) 195-210.

Little, S. (2010) Creating the Reflective Student-Practitioner. Australasian Drama Studies, 57, 38-53.

Midgelow, V. L. (2012) Dear Practice… The experience of improvising. Choreographic Practices, 2 (1) 9-24.

Movementresearch (2014) Chris Aiken and Angie Hauser Movement Research at the Judson Church 1-13-14. [online video] Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEYAcBS1_ZQ [Accessed 22 March 2015].

Ribeiro, M. M. and Fonseca, A. (2011) The empathy and the structuring sharing modes of movement sequences in the improvisation of contemporary dance. Research in Dance Education, 12 (2) 71-85.

Worth, L. and Poynor, H. (2004) Anna Halprin. London: Routledge.

Experimenting with improvisation over the series of weeks has been the most rewarding challenge, opening my eyes to so many different methods of improvisation and developing my movement vocabulary and creative ability. My development has been hugely reinforced by learning the strategy of reflection. Reflection was something I felt would be particularly hard for me however has really led me to think deeply about my own personal experimentation. Boud stated that “reflection involves taking the unprocessed, raw material of experience and engaging with it as a way to make sense of what has occurred” (Boud, in Little, 2010, 41) which I felt influenced the way I looked at reflection. This taught me that reflection involves closely looking back at what has happened and trying to decide what the experimentation meant to me and what it showed. It has provided me with the means to pose questions on myself as well as improvisation to enable me to expand my learning and find out about myself.

 

I discovered that the most effective strategy to generate new unhabitual movement for me was the use of imagery. Retouching upon imagery this week taught me it could also be used to develop movement so that it isn’t habitual rather than just used to generate movement. This would help me in creating coherence throughout my movement while making every improvised motif different and original. I then used this further in our own scores, creating movement based on the different imagery so that the movement I performed throughout the piece was varied but had an intention.

 

Reducing habitual movement has been one of the greatest challenges for me as my original feelings to improvisation were centred on what was right and what was wrong. I feel that my practice has developed to a point where my habitual patterns are much less evident in my performance however can come back when I feel stuck. However, I have learnt that I have tendency’s to favour strategies, particularly thick skinning, making them become habitual for me. My habitual preferences have therefore shifted so the movement I perform generally has changed however new ones have developed. This is something I would like to continue to develop so that every performance I produce is new and innovative.

 

Adding music to the improvisations had a really interesting effect as I discovered it changed the way the performers danced, personally leading me to return to habitual movement. I learnt this was because there is a natural instinct to go with the music and by focusing on fitting movement to the music I resulted back to my old habits in movement. This is another thing I would like to develop further. I would like to discover strategies in which I can ignore the music, holding my focus on movement generation so that I can create contrasts between the movement and the music.

 

I also learnt that there are so many different ways to form a relationship with other performers, such as impulse and interpretation, that all create completely different effects. Learning the new strategy of tracking a partners head, pelvis or both was really interesting as it was a method I would never have thought of myself. I found it was often quite difficult to keep contact when the other performer would move a lot and also I found it really hard to track them when the distance was increased and the hand was dropped. I attempted to use this strategy within the pop up scores and the open score of the jam however I found it difficult to make it clear this was my intention when I wasn’t physically touching or next to my partner. I discovered the most effective way of using this strategy for me was by moving into my partners hand, allowing them to support my body at times and then moving away to create contrast. I then developed this when I used my hand as I tried to provide support for the other dancer, particularly when tracking their head, while in some ways using the strategy to manipulate them.

 

For this, however, I discovered a high amount of awareness to others is needed, which is an aspect I would like to develop further. This was needed so you could sense where your partner would move or go in order to keep a close track which was very difficult. I feel developing even further skills of awareness will enable me to form relationships stronger as I would be able to see and sense what the performers would do and create a connection. I also want to discover ways to be openly aware to the composition of the space while performing as I have found over the weeks it is still difficult to design the space effectively when you are performing. I have developed these skills when viewing and entering the piece however I would like to be able to transfer this to when I am always performing.

 

The main thing I have learnt over the course of experimentation is the importance of the audience. Within improvisation, contrasting to many other dance forms, the roles of the audience and performer are often of equal importance. Ruth Zaporah states “the audience, and me, and the forces that are floating through the room are all interacting with one another to create the content of the evening” (Zaporah in De Spain, 2014, 65) which supports my discovery about the audience. This idea shows that the audience has an active input in the work and can affect what happens within the piece. I discovered that effective improvisation often uses the audience, whether it is to affect the movement the dancers are performer or the space they are in. this was seen in one of the group scores where audience members were required to call out and the performers would have to respond appropriately. Experimenting with the pop up scores at the end showed me the different positions of which the audience could be in, whether they view from the front or create a corridor or are moving through the work. Each of these placements affects the intentions of the work and the space in which the performers use as they need to engage the audience from whichever position.

 

The final big discovery I have made has been about time. This is that the difference between felt time and actual time is incredible and particularly in improvisation. “Body time is measured from the internal sensing of time as opposed to the time on a clock; it can be much slower or pass more quickly than clock time” (Buckwalter, 2010, 60) which became evident in improvisation as there would be no way of measuring the exact time when performing. Often dance works are choreographed down to the second so that they fit in a set time and that the work is a set length beginning to end, each section or appropriate lengths. However I have learnt that in improvisation it is nearly impossible to judge time and I would get lost within the score, finding it finish much earlier than I expected and before I felt I was ready or done exploring. This really surprised me in week 4 where we attempted to calculate time without clocks. Buckwalter suggests “dancemakers use cues from the body or improvised material as the timekeeper” (Buckwalter, 2010, 60) which is something I have found particularly hard. Sensing the appropriate length of the piece and using this to find development and natural endings is a challenge as sometimes the cues from the body wouldn’t be evident even too me. I would like to learn more about, performing scores of varying lengths in order to find developments and experimentation’s earlier in the score in order for each score to have a clear intention even when it is only a minute long.

 

In my further studies I will use the strategies and modes of improvisation in generating new and innovative movements with a clear intention. I will particularly use imagery to emphasise the intentions while also using improvisation when I feel stuck in choreography. I will improvise without music and add music later to avoid habitual patterns to arise. Using methods of tracking back will allow me to remember what I performed while also filming to find particular parts that I liked; I discovered that it was easier to remember the parts of the sequences that I liked. Reflection would then be used in the form of ‘pow wows’ to look back and develop my pieces further, making them more compositionally interesting. I feel what I have discovered are keys to producing new choreography that will engage and audience and make them ask questions on my works.

 

Buckwalter, M. (2010) Composing while dancing: An Improviser’s Companion. Madison, WI, USA: The University of Wisconsin Press.

De Spain, K. (2014) Landscape of the Now. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.

Little, M. (2010) Creating the Reflective Student-Practitioner. Australasian Drama Studies, 57 38-53.

Beginning this experimentation by looking back at Nancy Stark-Smith’s ‘Underscore’ enabled me to explore how this method can be used to generate connections with other performers, while also discovering how natural it feels due to her creating it based on natural observations. The idea that when you leave the score and stand around the side you are still involved in the performance was hard to grasp. This is due to me finding myself getting engrossed in the performance that is happening and I would be focusing so closely that I would forget to be readily available to respond to the piece as a whole and also the way I was presenting myself to other performers and audience members. Stark-Smith discusses how she rehearses an audience to make them receptive to her scores, “I feel a great desire to get to a point where the work is accessible in the performance” (Halprin in De Spain, 2014, 67). When in the score I felt that losing the connection mean’t that I wasnt making the piece accessible for the audience, losing Stark-Smith’s intention for her scores.

 

I found that this score process allowed for a high amount of exploration and composition, where if I didn’t know what to do or that the piece was becoming ‘stuck’ I could return to the earlier stages such as exploring the lower kinesphere or skinesphere or even agitating the space. The score therefore allowed for tracking back to generate a starting point which you could explore and generate into composition. I learnt that as the piece continued over time it developed and improved in terms of conscious relationships and connections being made and intentions with new ideas to form. From this I discovered that it takes a while for empathy to become tangible and awareness to others to fully open and develop. However, once it had developed there was an increase in phrasing and reaction to one another which created interesting and unique connections. Within the work everyone had very different artistic voices which I found added to the piece, as it created contrasting moments and innovative sections that with less performers or similar styled performers, may have reduced. I discovered that therefore the piece wouldn’t get stuck in one place for the whole time and was continually developing.

 

Following this, we went back and valuated our RSVP scores together as a group again to find improvements. The decisions we came up with were:

 

Within our work we reduced the amount or freedom and added some more structure, removing of the full freedom in movement and creating movement makers who come up with the material as we previously learnt through Thomas Lehmen’s scores. There would be two material makers and all other performers would interpret the movement they generate and in stillness would stop to observe the performance to decide what was needed and what we could add. I discovered that by doing this there would be more coherence throughout the movement across performers so that a group relationship and stronger connections could be built.

 

We then re-performed the piece attempting to put into practice the valuation. Through filming and watching back the performance I made notes of what I discovered worked effectively and what I felt we still needed to improve or include in the score. I have included this below, with the first list being positive feedback and the second negative:

 

Lavender and Predock-Linnell discuss the importance of criticism in improvisation, suggesting that the work itself after discussion will always show developments “It is usually not long before unfolding works-in-progress begin to suggest their own possibilities to artists who must then ‘listen’ to these and consider them in light of their own intentions for the piece” (Lavender and Predock-Linnell, 2001, 203). Valuation of the piece after watching it back on video provided means for this too happen. I agree with their idea in that I felt by watching the piece and unfolding it the work began to “speak-back” (Lavender and Predock-Linnell, 2001, 203) which opened my eyes to what could be altered and improved, what was working and what wasn’t. I feel criticism is very important in the development and improvement of a piece of work; to find the faults and highlights.

 

Continuing with our own scores in the jam was really productive for me, as it gave time for further discussion and valuation in the group to gain more improvements. We began our discussion by going back to our original intention- to create a piece that is interesting. We defined what interesting meant, deciding that it meant unhabitual, different and unusual; we want to create something the audience has never seen before. From reflecting on previous performances we learnt that keeping moments of unison and stillness was effective for our intention as unison and stillness are often hard to find in improvisations. This is due to everyone having their own ideas and intentions within the score that other performers wouldn’t necessarily know. We also acknowledged that thick skinning was still the habitual strategy for creating connections and therefore we would continue to remove this.

 

A new strategy that we established in the valuation was involving the beginning of the piece. We noted that in general scores begin with separate people, often starting with less people in the space and more join as the work builds. To avoid this we discovered that a more interesting different way to begin would be for all 6 performers to start in a clump together, with some form of contact to another performer, and then to move away from this. This would therefore be the opposite of normal scores. We thought that contact is much more interesting to watch and therefore we would try to create moments of contact throughout, using impulses and finding points where we could create clumps and shapes as a whole group. Starting the piece in this way and including the ‘clumps’ into the work, we felt, would make the movement more distinct and enhance awareness; we would need to be aware if contact was forming and we could physically feel someone touch us to change strategy.

 

The final decision we made was to remove of the ‘movement makers’. We reflected back on this idea and decided that it wasn’t the best strategy to gain coherence in the movement between the performers. We decided that a more interesting method would be for all the performers to have their own strategy to generate movement. Examples of strategies could be only moving the lower kinesphere, having legs of knives and the upper body being spaghetti or all the cells in the body having a race. At moments of contact in the piece performers would change the strategy they were performing and also change their dynamics. This would keep the piece moving and changing, making it interesting for an audience. We could therefore also use certain moments and strategies to connect with the audience. When watching ourselves performing I found that quite often I lost contact with the audience and would forget to purposefully connect with the audience. De Spain discuses “an increase in energy or intensity when you are in front of an audience” (De Spain, 2014, 61) which is something I would like to discover in my practice, finding ways I can connect with the audience. I feel this would boost my performance as I can use the audience to motivate and energize me, heightening my awareness, strengthen connections and create dynamic in my performance. The constant changing of strategies to something completely new and innovative would remove the predictability of the movement as any strategy could appear at any time.

 

De Spain, K. (2014) Landscape of the Now. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.

Lavender, L. and Predock-Linnell, J. (2001) From Improvisation to Choreography: the critical bridge. Research in Dance Education, 2 (2) 195-210.

This week was the first time we experimented with more open scores. We built up to an open score through creating smaller 3 Vs 2 scores which involved little movement and developed them into a bigger score. The original version used movements changing between squatting and standing. I found this score challenging in a different way too normal. It was a challenge as it was very difficult not to turn your head and watch the other performers. When in the flow of the score, I found it was easier to focus into your peripheral vision to sense just movement, whether someone was moving to stand or squatting down, however I discovered when I lost focus for even a millisecond I would get out of flow and it would be incredibly difficult to return to the flow.

 

The next development running forwards and backwards was made much harder when the speed of the piece was increased. This led too much less time to think about which way other performers were travelling. This, however, became much more interesting for an audience too watch and the performers became more engaged and energetic as we challenged each other. I found my intention was not to stay in one spot for too long and to be constantly changing which direction I was travelling, in order to keep the pace energetic and flowing. I also had an intention for the group which was to end my movement close to another performer. This meant that when I was about to swap my movement direction or another performer perhaps needed to change to fit the 3 Vs 2 they would know my intentions.

 

When the movement was developed into the score having a trio and two solos the use of thick skinning returned. I found this could be used to form the trio and also made it clear when performers swapped roles. As a new performer joined the trio it would be evident one needed to leave. Through this I discovered that it was much more difficult to move the trio around the space and that it remained fairly on the spot while the solos moved around.

 

The final variation developed to our first fully open score. I found it was much easier to enter and exit in the piece and that it involved lots of change of movement material rather than development, including a wider range of dynamics. However I learnt that it was hard to innovate and transform material and there was more copying than thick skinning. I discovered compositional difficulty as it was hard to imagine the space when performing to create interesting compositions. Being able to step out gave time to view the space.

 

For the first time this week we created our own score based on Anna Halprin’s RSVP scores. Her scores are communal so can be taken to other areas and can either be open or closed. She uses regular people in regular places, “many of whom have no background in dance” (Worth and Poynor, 2004, 113), in attempt to reach the minorities that can relate to the piece and wouldn’t often go to the theatre. Her RSVP cycles “allow even large groups to retain clarity in what is potentially chaotic process” (Worth and Poynor, 2004, 111-112) which was evident when we created our own scores, helping us to learn how to create structured and innovative choreography. I learnt from this that an open score would consist of having no leader and that the whole group would be responsible for decisions, needing to enhance awareness to create a group identity. The performers need to “be aware of the flow between their individual cycle and the encompassing group cycle” (Worth and Poynor, 2004, 112) showing they need to be actively engaged in the group creative process.

 

Here I have made notes using the RSVP cycle method about our piece:

We decided thick skinning strategies had become the habitual strategy in our practice and so removing thick skinning would mean we would need to find new unhabitual ways to build relationships. We also decided not being able to leave would help us engage further in the score and avoid distraction, remaining fully focussed the whole time. In order to create an interesting ending, we decided to bring back the thick skinning for only a matter of seconds and including all 6 performers as we had never experimented with using this strategy with a larger group of people. In order to refine and develop our work, as I have written in my notes, I feel we need to look compositionally and develop the compositional structure and forms, using unhabitual spatial arrangements that often change. We will discuss this further in practice next week.

 

The jam this week was much different to any score I had experienced before, creating a challenge for me. Based on a different score by Nancy Stark-Smith, the jam challenged me due to it being hugely open for movement choices. Due to this lack of structure I felt the piece consisted of a whole group of solos with unclear connections. A positive to this is there was a relaxed atmosphere created and you had time to really be with yourself, where I listened to my body and moved in ways that I felt my body needed. This included stretching through positions too extremes as well as massaging muscles that felt sore. This came across as a level of movement therapy; creating indulging and remedial aspects too expand my personal kinesphere and movement range. However, I found myself stepping back and watching the piece as its happening while still engaging in the movement cycle to attempt to create a whole to the piece. I discovered that my intention was to create a more solid group connection and group intention to avoid it being a cluster of solos. In order to do this I found myself attempting to thick skin or interpret other performers. I learnt that my preference in a performance is a stage that is well composed, neat and tidy, rather than a busy stage with a multitude of things happening. I enjoyed the range of choice in movement due to it helping me to really get to know my body, aiding me in building a deeper connection through my body, however I did not enjoy the lack of structure and form as I felt the piece became messy and over-ornate with too much going on to have a meaning or intention.

 

Worth, L. and Poynor, H. (2004) Anna Halprin. London: Routledge.

In my practice this week I attempted to change the dynamics in my performance. I feel this is the last part of my habitual nature. Due to last week really beginning to lose my habitual movement patterns, developing my improvisations into a much freer generation of new movement, I feel I can move this further by changing the dynamic and the quality of the movements I create and perform. I have a very habitual nature to be balletic and lyrical in my movements and I feel turning to a sharp, strong dynamic, contrasting with my habits, will push my practice further.

 

Relaxation at the beginning of the session greatly helped me to engage the body, finding areas that my body felt needed more focus and attention. Lying on the floor with slow movements enabled me to build the practice slowly which would then help me learn my body’s full extensions through deep indulgence. This led into floor movements and patterns where I felt I could begin experimenting with new dynamic approaches.

 

Starting the experimentation by recapping the strategies of thick skinning and impulse and expanding on these methods helped me to develop on these skills. I attempted to sense where my partner was when thick skinning rather than watching and following their movement, however I found this very difficult. I would constantly be naturally looking back to my partner which I struggled to combat. I had to open my other senses such as hearing and sensitivity to my partner which really challenged me. When experimenting with impulses, I found different imagery would affect the strengths and results of impulses using metaphors like pretending to be a cat, trying to wrestle and pretending to be seaweed. Each of these creates a different type and strength of impulse, with the cat being playful, wrestling strong and the seaweed weak. The image I found easiest to explore was being a piece of seaweed. This is because the dynamic created was flowing and soft, leading to each movement being a result of the last movement meaning I was never stuck unsure where to go next. Contrary to this, I found the wrestling the most difficult image as it was the opposite of seaweed. Due to it having a much stronger more aggressive dynamic the movements became staccato and broken so each new impulse would need to be thought up. There was less flow between impulses and therefore each impulse would be a break. Additionally, I found this image showed me the limits of my comfort zone and required me to push this which was a challenge as I didn’t feel comfortable being aggressive. It was hard to find these boundaries and pushed the extremes, pushing the range of expression that we show and allow others to witness.

 

Experimentation this week was once again a huge challenge. This was due to the use of one of Thomas Lehmen’s score called ‘Functions’ which was created due to inspiration from Niklas Luhmann’s ‘Tool Box’ approach to creating material (Husseman, , 32). Lehmen created the ‘Functions’ score as “an attempt to transpose such a creative tool into the field of choreography and to use it as a source for the collaborative creation of scores” with this particular score including “key operations of communications” (Husseman, , 32). I found this score a challenge due to the set roles of performers for example, interpreter and manipulator, and not being able to deviate from these roles. When viewing the score being performed I learnt that the mediators begin to create a purpose for the material, causing the performers to creatively think about what they are doing. I also found that often the observers appeared to be in the way at times, making the space become overly busy. A discovery I made also was what happened when a performer attempted to resist an impulse that had been created by a manipulator. This was interesting due to the resistance creating a new impulse and a stronger dynamic and creating a more powerful relationship. I found this was more exciting than when performers followed an impulse as it was less expected.

 

When performing, I found that my most frequently used role was interpreter or manipulator. Through this I discovered the difficulty in being an interpreter was that when you were manipulated it was difficult to keep my intentions of developing the movement that was being shown. This is due to the manipulator often preventing me from seeing the material being generated and the need for me to split my attention between them. I learnt however that when the piece was separated it appeared half the performers were soft with the other half hard and I fell into the softness category. This showed me that when I was focusing on the details of the score and the roles I resulted back to my habitual dynamic that I had been trying to avoid.

 

The Jam this week furthered the exploration of this score however the material was generated through the performer’s life pathway. This challenged me greatly emotionally due to the sensitivity needed for each performer. This is due to the task being so personal there was a fear to intrude on someone else’s life and experiences. I found it much harder to be the material role due to not wanting to be questioned and being nervous of what life events others will interpret my movement as. However, I also learnt that often when you do share your experiences and feelings, other performers would be able to relate to them, creating a deep connection between performers through interpretation. I found that when performing the manipulator I could develop the strategy of thick skinning as well as the impulse which I had discovered earlier. Before the jam I would manipulate using impulse due to my mind portraying manipulation as a contact physical movement. However in the jam I found you can manipulate a person simply through thick skinning as by getting in their way and blocking their paths from a close proximity they are forced to change.

 

The piece finished with a solo dancer who was in the role of manipulator which was really interesting to witness and experience. I found the idea of performers manipulating themselves and their own movement really exciting to watch as new, even more un habitual movement would be generated by impulses and prevention of free movement.