Month: January 2015

The aim of this week’s improvisation was to play with modes of inquiry to discover when habitual movement arises and how to respond to it. The use of tracking is highlighted as a key fundamental of improvisation through the book ‘Landscape of the Now’ by Kent De Spain. From this reading, I learnt how there are many strands of tracking with it being described through the metaphor “If improvisation can be seen as a process of mapping the unknown, tracking is the practice of drawing and occasionally glancing at the map.” (De Spain, 2014, 52) To me, this suggested how tracking can become replayed into a practical, through creating an original pattern of movement which is then sporadically referred to and used in the process of further experimentation; mentally documenting what worked, what didn’t, what could be used again and where to go next.

 

A first experiment taught me to really think about the difference between movement and dancing. By speeding up and slowing down improvisations I altered the ability to think and plan which movement I would do next, which movement would look and feel the nicest here. I felt, when the dance was sped up; the ability to plan was lost, with movements coming naturally and being led by the previous movement rather than by thought. This linked to Nina Martin’s idea that not focusing on the movement and just letting it happen led to movement being created. (De Spain, 2014, 101) This made me nervous and led to me repeating movements as I felt what I was doing looked ugly or wrong. This, too me, felt like just movements and no real dance. However, as the speed became slower, I was able to track movements much easier as I could begin to think more about what I was doing and therefore remembered the sequence. This, I felt, was more like dancing, due to it having a sense of being and fluidity throughout.

 

The next task, think imagine do, caused me to feel I was able to combat against the use of habitual movement due to having the time to discover new ways of moving that was not my first instinct. I enjoyed this as it opened my eyes to different places I could take a sequence. Adding Steve Paxton’s idea of ‘not going back’ where every movement had to take you somewhere new and could not be repeated led me to heighten my range of movement. Without the process of think, imagine, do I believe I would have been much less successful in following Paxton’s idea, as the extra time to think allowed me to track clearly where I’d been and what I had already done, finding different movement to perform.

 

The practicing of improvisation through a ‘jam’ was a completely new experience for me and one which seemed daunting. I was anxious approaching this due to being unaware what to expect. Despite this, I found the experience a huge learning curve for my own practice, looking deeper into my movement study than I have before.

The use of silence captured me most, generating an atmosphere that caused me to think and feel every move that I did. Silence helped to pull me away from stresses and negative thoughts of everyday life while leaving me focusing on myself. It caused the experience to be lethargic and at times hypnotic. The use of pacing between each cycle aided this by giving time to think: concentrating on the breath and feeling a deeper connection throughout the whole body. I worked my feet into the ground which made me feel calmer; I could use this time to look back and track what I had done in the previous section. Nancy Stark-Smith’s analysis of a “Zoom function” (De Spain, 2014, 51)  helped me with the tracking of each movement as it teaches that it is not necessary to focus constantly on what you are doing but looking deeper and recognising each movement occasionally. This allowed me to fully enjoy the feeling of each movement flowing into the next, while keeping engagement with what I had done and where I had been. However, I found tracking harder than anticipated as I would begin to get lost in the flow so when it was required to develop the material it felt more disjointed. Slow motion allowed for me to deeply feel all the movements I was performing, finding length and indulgence as each move could be fully extended. This also helped me to find the true size of my kinesphere, teaching me how far my body can reach and stretch too; reaching further than I had discovered before.

 

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

Improvisation. To me, a daunting challenge where there is a need for on the spot decisions and constant generation of new, original movement. What is right? What is wrong? These feelings, inhibitions, influencing my practice. Reading ‘Dear Practice… The experience of improvising’ by Vida L Midgelow (2012) helped greatly in conquering these emotions. She showed that there are moments in everyone’s practice where they feel lost and unsure of what to do next, posing the question “what if nothing happens- what if we are waiting forever” (Midgelow, 2012, 10) when discussing how an improvisation would begin with no plan. Within the article, she shows the dancer answering all her own questions about improvisation, teaching me that “every movement has within it seeds of another movement” (Midgelow, 2012, 13). This showed me that I need not be nervous and to allow movements to flow from one another, going out there with no plan, and not being worried about whether the movement looks ‘right’. I would not be the only one with moments on angst, but to indulge in these moments and allow them to take me somewhere new.

 

Our piece attended to show how the playful action of throwing and catching a bean bag can be changed and structured to create an innovative piece. We created a finite score based on developments of this simple movement, beginning with the simplest form of movement and then moving through the developments. Each pair within the group was performing different developments and began at different times. This allowed for all the developments to build up, creating layers of movement and making the contrasts between each become clearer. We fixed the order in which the developments were shown while also fixing when each new pair joined the group, However, the time in which we changed between each development was unfixed, leaving for the decision of when to move to show the next development a choice made in the performance. Due to the need of each pair changing at a similar time, we discovered there was a need for awareness to others. We added to this, also exposing the need for awareness to space in order to keep the piece moving around the space while not colliding with one another. This, on the other hand, created a limitation as too how explicit the piece was in relation to the intention as the dancers were weaving round each other so each different development moved. This means it was hard for the audience to follow a development clearly and state exactly what development each performing pair was showing. This could have been improved by setting the point in which each pair moved to the next development, possibly including a pause between each. Additionally, it could have been altered so that each pair took a different development and remained on this throughout the whole piece. The developments would have then layered by each partnership joining in on top of the original pair. Although, this would have led to the piece becoming infinite as once the last couple had joined in with the final development as the top layer, it could continue forever too no definite ending.

 

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

Welcome to University of Lincoln Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!