improvisation

As this week was our final improvisation class, we embedded most of the exercises and strategies into one lesson, in order to show how we have improved over the nine weeks.

 

The first exercise revisited Nancy Stark-Smiths underscore. Starting on the floor this time, made me feel more grounded and ready to dance as it helped me to stretch and feel what my body needed to do in order to be ready. I felt a lot more confident this time around in the score, as I allowed myself to adjust to my bodies needs and let myself go, which helped me have more freedom within the way I moved. Towards the end of the score different ideas were thrown in, for example we had to imagine that our left side was crumbling away and our right side was stretching out. This was fun to do as it helped me to think outside of the box in order to create different movements. Finally, standing with a different posture to your natural one was interesting as it made me realise how bad my posture actually is! This is because I chose to stand up as straight as I could, and this felt a lot different to my normal posture. We then had to decide on fifty different variations in order to get out of the position we was in, returning back to our first position between each one. I found this very difficult as it was extremely hard to think of so many different positions without returning to the same ones, especially in the short amount of time we had!

 

We also were introduced to a new exercise which involved the pelvis and the skull. During this we had to keep our hands on our partner’s pelvis and skull at all times while they danced creating a duet. I found this very enjoyable, however it was extremely hard because you had to more or less guess where your partner was going to move to next, so that you could follow and not let go of them. This involved a lot of focus and attention. However I think this will help me a lot during open scores when creating duets/trios as I can incorporate this movement.

 

I think that this time around our group score worked so much better! We introduced our own ending, which meant that we wouldn’t know how long it would definitely last for. Although I think that this worked a lot better as it made us more focused and aware of what was going on. Also making the limitations more dynamic worked a lot better as it made it more interesting to dance and to watch as it gave us more of a structure.

 

I really enjoyed working with the pop up scores, mainly because we were allowed the use of music. Although I do feel that the music does affect the improvisation, because dancers tend to go with the flow of the music, rather than using the freedom of their bodies.

 

The idea of a pop up score followed on into the jam. This week we created a 30 minute score, where we all had to include a solo each. We could also shout out limitations from some pieces of paper located at the front of the room. These limitations also included use of music. Again I didn’t enjoy having music in my improvisation because I feel it really limits you and your movements because I feel like I have to be in time with the music which affects the improvisation. Doing my solo was very daunting because we had to perform them in a certain order, which I didn’t enjoy because I didn’t feel ready to do a solo, as normally I like to join in when I feel is the right time and when I am ready to dance.

 

I have really enjoyed learning these new skills and creating new discoveries about myself and my own body. These past nine weeks have really helped shape my understanding of improvisation and I feel I have learnt so much! Before starting improvisation, I had no idea what to do in order to be able to improvise, and I think this is because I used to see improvising as a scary situation because I didn’t know what strategies were involved and how to move my body in a free flowing way and I also wasn’t confident enough to do this. Whereas after learning and experimenting the different structures and modes over the nine weeks, I think that I am more confident as a dancer and this will help me in the future, because as we learnt at the start when throwing bean bags around, improvisation is everywhere and not just in dance.

This week we carried on with Nancy Stark-Smiths underscore, which is based on connections. After doing this score for a second time, I feel I relate to thinking and feeling, as during this score I think I try to feel the movements more and try to go with what my body wants and how my body wants to move, instead of thinking about the movement itself. I really like the fact that in the score, even if you are standing in the wings, you are still a part of the score and your attention needs to be as awake as the people in the space. I feel that during the second time we did the score I was more confident and I think this showed throughout as I tried to get more involved by entering and exiting more as I was more aware of what was going on around me, so if I saw someone do a movement I liked, I would find the right time to enter the space in order to develop the movement.

 

Developing our scores from last week was the next part of the lesson. We decided to develop our score further by changing some of the limitations, this is what we decided:

• Everyone starts onstage
• All perform non-habitual movements
• If you see someone do a habitual movement you have to shout out their name and a limitation (i.e. Rachel – Don’t use your arms)
• They then had to incorporate the limitation into their movements

We then performed the scores to our peers whilst recording it, so that we could watch it back to see what we can improve on. After watching the score back I feel we need to make more relationships between one another, for example create more duet and trio improvisations within the score. I also think that we need to experiment with levels more in order to create more dynamics. Also, I think on the areas where we thick skin one another I feel that we need to get closer to each other in order to make it clearer to the audience. In order to improve the score even further, I think we need to be more aware of one another and I think this can be done within the limitations. As if we make the limitations more imaginative by incorporating space and duets/trios this will be more affective and enhanced. After a period of time the score does become quite predictable, this is because of the limitations, as we tended to repeat the simpler limitations. Whereas, I think if we make the limitations more creative and interesting the score will become less predictable and more interesting to watch.

 

In the jam this week we carried on improving our scores. After watching the scores in the lesson we all agreed that we needed to make the score more interesting. So we decided to change some of the structure, so that we had more freedom and possibilities to play with. We decided that:

• Only one person starts onstage
• That person then has to shout someone else’s name in order for them to join in
• Once everyone has entered, anyone can enter and leave at any time they feel is necessary
• We aren’t allowed to copy during duets/trios
• We have to play with space more
• Make the limitations more dynamic
• Play with speed more.

 

Hopefully these new limitations will develop the score even further, as well as create new and different dynamics throughout.

This week’s work focused on a reading by Anna Halprin. The first part of the lesson was simple, yet interesting to take part in and to also observe. The exercise was split up into different stages as follows:

 

1. Five dancers had to stand in a line facing forwards, throughout the exercise there had to be always three people squatting and two people standing, however, performers could change position whenever they wanted to and the performers had to use there peripheral vision to notice the movements. I found this stage good and useful as it helped me to use my peripheral vision more, although, it was very hard to know when people were going to change positions. Also sometimes two of you would squat to replace someone else, however last minute the other person would change their mind, which made me have to react faster.

 

2. This then developed onto the second stage, where the dancers had to walk backward and forwards, however there had to always be three dancers walking backwards and two dancers walking forwards. Again, noticing the movements using your peripheral vision. I found this stage a lot easier than the first because you could see more people within your peripheral vision. I also felt that if you were the person in front, you were more dominant because the people at the back would just react to whatever you did.

 

3. The next development included one trio and two solos throughout, however you could again change it up whenever you wanted to. This stage was more open as you could create your own moves. I didn’t enjoy this stage as much as the others as I felt it was a lot harder to see what was going on because the trios weren’t very clear, also for example I would be totally engaged in my own solo and then turn around and realise there is no trio happening, so I would have to change my intention in order to complete the task set. However, when I found out their always had to be a trio, I imagined three people copying one person, so that they were all doing the same movements. Although, this didn’t happen. Instead people were playing with ideas more and using impulses and thick skinning which made it a lot more interesting.

 

4. The final stage was an open score. This meant that dancers could enter and exit at their own will, and anything could happen on stage. This gave us a lot more freedom and I enjoyed this more than the last stage because if you saw a movement you liked, then you could join in and make a duet, which could lead onto many other things. Also if you felt it was time to leave the space then you had the freedom to do so.

 

The final part of the lesson was influenced by Anna Halprin. We focused on her RSVP Cycle, which stands for; resources, scores, valuaction and performance. This final task involved us creating our own score based on what questions each individual had about improvisation. My question was based on something I read previous to the lesson which was by Ribeiro, M. My question was: ‘Are the moves you create in an improvisation classed as choreography as it isn’t previously choreographed?’ I still am yet to learn the answer to this question, however this question relates to the score we created, as our focus was on habitual movements. I feel this relates because when we improvise most people tend to do habitual movements when they run out of ‘choreography’.

 

So, our motivation was habitual movements, and we had five dancers as a resource and we were creating a score which we would perform and then evaluate and talk about afterwards. We based this on a score by Thomas Lehmen which we had previously learnt about.

 

1. The first person entered the space creating material using habitual movements.
2. The next person to enter is the interpreter, this person had to interpret the habitual movements.
3. Then another person enters with some new habitual movements.
4. Another interpreter then enters the space, however they can interpret whichever moves they wish to.
5. Finally a manipulator enters, this person can manipulate what is happening in order to make the movements less habitual.

 

In order to change roles, the person has to leave the space. However once each role has entered in order, the second time around can be in any order. After performing this score I feel that it didn’t work out as well as it should have. I don’t think there was a clear difference between each role, and the habitual movements didn’t look clear enough for the audience.

 

This week’s jam was a lot different to the previous weeks. We focused on a score by Nancy Stark-Smith, I really enjoyed this, as everyone was in the space throughout the whole score. This made me feel more involved, as I didn’t have to worry about finding the right time to enter and exit. Throughout the score I felt very relaxed and calm, I think this was due to the fact that I was allowed to move in whatever way I felt my body needed. I also felt that I was a lot more engaged and aware of what I was doing, however at times it felt like I was inside of my own bubble.

 

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

Ribeiro, Monica m.; Fonseca, Agar. Research in Dance Education, Jul2011, Vol. 12 Issue 2, p71-85

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

This week’s lesson focused on (the German choreographer) Thomas Lehmen’s scores.

 

Carrying on from the jam last week, the start of the lesson was based on thick skinning and impulse. However, this time we had to use impulse whilst representing different things at the same time. For example a cat, wrestlers and seaweed. I found this task very difficult, because I felt that it was hard to get into the mind of a cat, whilst thinking of what impulse movements would represent it correctly. I think this may be due to the fact that I was conscious of people around me and I was worried about what my movements looked like to watch from an audience’s perspective. Whereas, I now know that I should have forgotten about everyone else and focused on what I was doing.

 

During the scores I found that they were a lot more interesting to watch when the dynamics changed from slow fluid movements to faster military moves. This makes me think about something someone said during the lesson. They said that you should never abandon what you’re doing, do something different within your solo. I feel that I can relate to this, because I am one of those people that, whenever I start to feel like I’ve been doing something for too long, instead of changing the dynamics of my movements, I am more likely to leave the space completely and leave a gap for somebody else to change it up.

 

We ended the lesson with a score which also carried on in the jam, which was explained in the reading prior to the lesson. The score included 5 basic functions: material, interpretation, manipulation, observation and mediation. I found this score very interesting as it was something I have never done before. However, I felt myself sticking to what I am most comfortable with which was observation, whereas I know that I should’ve put myself out of my comfort zone and may be used my own material. I think that this is due to that fact that I’m not as confident as some people, so I tend to take a back seat, although I know that this is something I shouldn’t do and need to work on.

 

The jam also included an exercise which was inspired by a performance called ‘Still/here’ by Bill T Jones. This involved us mapping out our journeys on a piece of paper, stating the highs and lows we have faced. We had to walk our paths around the room and really get into the mind set of emotions. I found this task very interesting and different as it came with a lot of emotions, however it was good to be able to include these feelings and emotions into our improvisations.

 

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

Who would’ve thought that jamming to your favourite song would be classed as improvisation?

 

The first part of our class didn’t even feel like a lesson. The aim was to dance around to the first song that popped into your head. Swapping songs with a partner was the best part as it was hilarious how many peoples song was ‘Uptown funk’! This task was useful as it got us warmed up for the lesson in a different more interesting way than normal. The reading for this week asked us “can we call choreography what we see when we watch a dance improvisation?” (Ribeiro, 2011, p72) and in my opinion I agree that we can call it choreography, purely because even if the movements weren’t already choreographed prior to the performance, the dancer is still making the choreography within the improvisation.

 

Imagining our bodies in different situations was also an interesting task as it was something I had never experienced before. Firstly we had to imagine that our top half of the body was made out of spaghetti and the bottom was made out of knives. You can imagine how confusing and difficult this would be! We then had to imagine that our left hand had to stay four inches away from our right elbow at all times, and we had to improvise a dance like this. During this, I found myself doing more habitual moves because I felt restricted. So the easiest thing to do was to link moves I already knew would work with these limitations. The last one was the most challenging of all because we had to pretend that all of the cells in our bodies were having a race with each other. I found this very difficult because how on earth do you make your body look like every cell is moving? This is a question that I thought about a lot! In the end I realised the easiest thing to do was to move my body as fast as I could, which made me do more non habitual moves which is the key for improvisation. This exercise made me reflect on something I read in ‘Composing while dancing’ (Buckwalter 2010), the author says that “While there is one image, there are two different perspectives” (Buckwalter, 2010, 91) this links me back to the task we were set because whilst I am creating these different interpretations of movement, other people might see a different perspective of it.

 

The next exercise involved standing in a diamond shape. In this task we had to copy movements off of the person you were facing. Whenever the person you were copying from changed to face another person in the diamond, then you had to change what you were doing and copy the next person. This was challenging because you had to pay close attention, so that you didn’t miss the changeover between people. This carried on and developed into different stages. In the second stage, you had to still copy the person. However, you had to make the movements smaller, I felt this stage was easier because there was no right or wrong way to do it because it was your own interpretation. I found it more difficult in the next stage when we had to make the movements bigger, because the movements were already relatively big. So I found it very hard to think outside of the box in order to emphasise the movements.

 

Observing the final task was very intriguing because I had to observe seven dancers use exiting as a strategy but in there theme, they had to find as many ways for their heads to touch their sit bones. I noticed that the dancers were unsure at first as to how they would do this and you could see this through their dancing as they used slower moves so that they had time to think about where to move to, so this meant they weren’t technically improvising as they used habitual movements. This then led onto me being one of the performers, however this time we had to include the fast cells theme from earlier on in the lesson. I felt that it was hard for me to enter the space because I didn’t feel connected to the other people on stage (although the observers did see connections).

 

This week’s jam was completely different to normal. The focus was on thick skinning and impulse. This was something I had never done before and I found the thick skinning especially difficult. I felt that it was hard to stay close to a dancer and compliment their moves without actually copying them. However I really enjoyed the impulse task! I think that this was because you literally had to let your body relax and move wherever it needed to, so this didn’t involve much thought.

 

Buckwalter, M. (2010) Composing while dancing: An improviser’s companion. Madison, Wis: The University of Wisconsin Press. Pages. 90-105

 

Ribeiro, Monica m.; Fonseca, Agar. Research in Dance Education, July 2011, Vol. 12 Issue 2, p71-85