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.