Month: April 2016

When we first started Improvisation and Reflective Practice I believed I wouldn’t enjoy it because I’ve always struggled to improvise and always hated not having some kind of plan to my movement, however slowly over the module I have found myself enjoying some of the tasks. Even though I wouldn’t say I’m still totally comfortable with improvisation overall, I do find it easier to move within the space now. Particularly the tasks from the last two or three weeks when working with scores and different varieties of the scores available to us, I’ve found myself coming away from class feeling more positive about my progress.

I’ve found that my range has expanded greatly since starting this module and I think it’s because throughout we’ve had to challenge ourselves and how we’re comfortable moving. So although sometimes I’d start a task with habitual movement I would find myself expanding the movement I’m doing and working with one sequence for a longer period of time and playing around with different scenarios.

Looking back over the module I wished I’d worked harder at the start of the semester and been more motivated during class. I know I struggled to get myself working in class sometimes but it was because I was surrounding myself with negativity and always coming to class unprepared to work hard but as the semester progressed and I found myself being more positive I found it easier to enjoy the class and to work more outside the studio.

Improv has been a huge learning curve for me because I never realised just how much it could help develop my skills and performance as a dancer and was always narrow minded when I thought about it. I found improvising easier once I started enjoying the tasks more and being more open minded with what the class was about. Hopefully I take what I have learned this semester to improve my work over the next 3 years.

Thomas Lehmen Task

In this task we were in groups of four and each had to be labelled as the movement maker, the interpreter, the manipulator and the observer. Below is a list of who I worked with and what we each were in this task.

Movement Maker   =   Elycia

Interpreter               =   Emily M

Manipulator            =   Emily D

Observer                  =   Me

To start the task the movement maker would be in the space creating movement, the interpreter would then join in after a few minutes and interpret what the movement maker was doing. So in the case of our group Emily M joined Elycia in the space and followed her movement. At the start Emily looked like she was just copying Elycia’s movement but then she began to change the dynamic of the movements or work on a different kineosphere to Elycia which showed a good compliment to the movements they were each doing.

This continued for a short period of time before the manipulator (Emily) joined and was manipulating the movement makers sequence by giving different instructions. When observing this next part of the task it was clear that Emily D was letting Elycia figure out the manipulation for a short time before giving her something different and not bombarding her with lots of different instructions, which was interesting because it gave Elycia time to figure out what to do and how to move and it also gave Emily M a chance to briefly observe Elycia as she thought through it before she started to interpret the movement once more.

Towards the end of this task Emily D gave the instruction for Elycia to lead with her ankle while keeping the top half of her body attached to the floor. Elycia said she enjoyed trying to figure an instruction like this out because it was so precise and different that it took her a while to find some kind of connection with what she was doing. At this point it also became apparent that Emily M, as the interpreter, was also using a different body part, as well as a different kineosphere, to interpret some of the movement. This was interesting because anything Elycia did with her leading ankle, Emily would copy but stood up, if Elycia’s foot was on the floor, Emily’s would be in the air and if Elycia’s was in the air Emily’s would be on the floor. When we were told to find an ending for the task Elycia ending with her leg in the air and Emily copied this and finished with her leg in the air too.

Nancy Stark-Smith’s Underscore – Reading and Task

We started this task by reading about Nancy Stark-Smith’s Score in groups, then had to create a score using some of her underscores, as well as thinking about the RSVP cycle from the previous week and time, dynamics, influence of movement in space, spatial relationships and combatting habitual movement. Stark-Smith explains that the underscore is “a framework for practicing and researching dance improvisation” and that it “guides dancers through a series of “changing states.”” The underscore we were looking at looked like this:

         

Last week’s reading about the RSVP cycle was useful when creating this score as it gave me something to think about. We also needed to think about time, dynamics, influence of movement in space, spatial relationships and combatting habitual movement.

After looking at these for ideas we began to discuss and create our score as a group. First we discussed splitting the room into 3 (half and two quarters), as there were 3 other groups in the room and they would work in each section within these groups. The purpose of our score was finding the connection between person, time and object while challenging habitual movements.

Firstly we liked the idea of attraction and repulsion from the underscore and thought it would be interesting to see how two different groups handled this so we gave one quarter attraction and the other quarter repulsion to work with.

The group working with attraction had a completely open score to interpret and during observation we could see that the tendencies of this group was to copy or compliment whoever they were attracted to within the other group.

The group working with repulsion also had other instructions to follow. They were only allowed to work in a medium to high kineosphere and they were given different imageries to think about throughout the time they spent in the section. We chose the high kineosphere because over the semester it has become apparent then when people improvise they spend a lot of time working on the lower kineosphere and use it as a comfort zone so we wanted to challenge them even more. The imageries we used were quite adventurous such as embodying a worm as this is typically one that would immediately draw you to the floor.

The last section of the room we set to work with a ball to bring in Stark-Smith’s idea of connection and touch; and as well as imagery and the instruction of no hands to be used when passing the ball around the group. When observing this group I found

Each group would spend around 2.5 to 3 minutes in one section before rotating round to participate in another section and all groups would have the chance to work in each section once. We also set one instruction that was to be followed by all groups. For the first minute spent in each section the participants must feel the time and hold 6 counts of stillness when they thought the first minute had passed. Looking for this in the task you could tell that the groups were either focusing on their separate instructions or trying to feel the time for 1 minute.

At the end of the score we asked the groups some feedback questions and they responded really well to our questions and made some interesting observations of their own movement. Most people agreed that the ball was a distraction from improvisation and found they were focusing on moving the ball as opposed to moving their bodies too. Whereas, others argued that it helped them explore movement on a different level to what they’re used to.

If I was to recreate a score, I would look at ways of simplifying the score as this proved to be quite a difficult score for the groups to follow.

Bibliography

Stark-Smith, N. (2008) Caught Falling: the confluence of contact improvisation. Northampton, MA Contact Editions.

This week’s reading was about Anna Halprin’s RSVP Cycles. RSVP is an initialisation for what the four components of the cycle are.

• R = Resources = the most basic materials we have at our disposal. These include human and physical resources and their motivation and aims.
• S = Scores = the word is derived from its original use in music which makes it possible to instruct groups of people to carry out prescribed activities. They delineate place, time space and people, as well as sound and other related elements.
• V = Valuation = a coined term meaning ‘the value of the action’ or the analysis, appreciation, feedback, value building and decision making that accompanies the process of creation.
• P = Performance = the implementation of the scores which includes the particular style of the piece.

In this reading I also found that Halprin makes some interesting points about scores, she says that “scores act as a starting point to stimulate and channel the groups expression in the direction of an overall intention but without determining the end result” (Halprin with Stinson in Worth and Poyner, 2004, 122) so when creating a score we shouldn’t necessarily think about how we want it to look, we should focus on how we want it to go which regard to the instructions we use/give and resources we have available. Halprin also says that “each score needs to have a personal meaning for the participant, but the dance as a whole must have a universal meaning for the witness and group as well” (Halprin with Stinson in Worth and Poyner, 2004, 122) which is useful to us when creating because it makes us think about how our score will be interpreted by the participants and the people watching, so if we think something could be interpreted differently to how we want it to be interpreted we can make the appropriate changes or alter a certain instruction.