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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- The first person entered the space creating material using habitual movements.
- The next person to enter is the interpreter, this person had to interpret the habitual movements.
- Then another person enters with some new habitual movements.
- Another interpreter then enters the space, however they can interpret whichever moves they wish to.
- 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.