How did the oral presentation go? I'm a bit late doing this last post but I think with time to reflect I'd say I found the oral presentation one of the most difficult elements of the course. Trying to edit down everything you need to explain down to 10 minutes is tricky. I was really down to the bare bones of the inquiry in 10 slides, but still wanted time to talk about the most important literature.
I've have taken out videos in slides 9 and 10 for ethical reasons I don't think they can be shared online, but it was a video of my class and a video of some choreography I've been working on.
I did two artefact projects in the end and can't attach the first as it has videos from my classes, but I will add the second video which was to demonstrate where I am in my journey in choreography. This piece is something I am working on and am improvising more myself to create new movement for the project. It is not an improvised piece, but some of the movement is a product from me improvising with the idea of the 'metamorphosis' project in mind.
Before looking at how dance practitioners use improvisation it was important to me to look at the founders of improvised dance as we know it in our training today. I explored the background of improvisational dance and contact improvisation. Up until the 1960’s the western world was not used to seeing any sort of improvised or pedestrian movement in a dance concert. Thanks to dance makers such as Steve Paxton, Barbara Dilley, Simone Forti, Nancy Topf and Lisa Nelson audiences today are exposed to improvised movement. Between 1959 and 1965 Steve Paxton was a member of Merce Cunningham’s and Jose Limon’s companies, both of them architects of modern contemporary dance. During this time in New York he established and coined the term ‘contact improvisation’ as a method of improvised dance. In the above video I am particularly interested in the section in where he speaks about how modern dance looked in the late 1950's. 'It was about 50 years old and most of the pioneers were still alive' he speaks about how it was politically and socially relevant. It is also interesting to hear about how Merce Cunningham was viewed skeptically by the modern dance world at that time when he was first established (watch from 22minutes).
Steve Paxton here defines contact improvisation as they invented it.
‘Contact improvisations are spontaneous physical dialogues that range from stillness to highly energetic exchanges. Alertness is developed in order to work in an energetic state of physical disorientation, trusting in one's basic survival instincts. It is a free play with balance, self-correcting the wrong moves and reinforcing the right ones, bringing forth a physical/emotional truth about a shared moment of movement that leaves the participants informed, centered, and enlivened.’ (early definition by Steve Paxton and others, CQ Vol. 5:1, Fall 1979).
In Melinda Buckwalter's 'Composing while dancing' (2010) Steve Paxton speaks on improvisation taking a form.
'The relation between form and improvisation is intrinsic. In normal life, plans (envisioned forms of action) are the primary motivator of many tasks, interwoven with moments when unexpected events require intuitive or reflexive responses. Sports, for example, often have rigorous rules defining what is to be done and how it is to be accomplished, yet rely on improvisation to soar beyond definitions into the unforeseen, improbable moments which bring the crowds to their feet and a collective roar to their throats.'(Paxton, S taken from 'Composing while dancing' Buckwalter, M 2010).
Most significant and thought provoking for me was Paxton's experience of improvising to the Goldberg variations by Bach in 1986-1992 (Watch the above video from 58 minutes). In an article which I found in the New York Times, Siobhan Burke reviews Paxton's 'Selected Works' a selection of four works displayed in 2014 at 'Dia:Beacon' in New York. In the article she speaks about the Goldberg variations that 'essentially had no structure, no rules. “Except for the most general one,” he [Paxton] clarified: to do it differently every time."'Below I have found a reworking of this piece. On viewing it I questioned how Paxton's work in improvisation is often for a purpose for performance as opposed to being strictly internal. Although he, or his dancers, are creating in real-time it is affected by the external motive of creating a piece for audience.
This purpose behind improvisation is essentially contrasting to the view of Maxine Sheets-Johnstone (The Primacy of Movement, 2nd Ed. 2011).
'Whatever the framing rules might be that act as a constraint upon movement, the aim of the dancers is to form movement spontaneously. It is to dance this evening’s dance, whatever it might turn out to be. In view of the uniqueness of this evening’s dance — as of all this evening’s dances — the common aesthetical question of ontological identity does not arise. In other words, being the only one of its kind, this evening’s dance is not measured against or viewed with respect to other performances nor is it measured against or viewed with respect to a score.' (Sheets-Johnstone, 2011 pg.420)
Now this is interesting and could be argued to be a conflicting view in regards to the Goldberg variations. Like much of Paxton's work these improvisations to Bach's music were viewed by an audience. They were also ofcourse affected and inspired by the music, which in turn would affect audience perception. Furthermore the dancer uses alot of codified movement - movement which is not pedestrian and is a clear product of past training. This could be thought of contrasting with Sheets Johnstone's view of improvisation as unaffected from the outside and as a mode of thought: 'thinking in movement'. However, as Paxton points out in the video 'the body is a repository and one of great scope', so therefore I believe it is very difficult to not move as a dancer once this has been learnt. So though in this case affected by the music, in my view this dancer and Paxton improvise as a way of thinking in action but also as a way to create choreography and a performance.
Just checking in to see who else is coding their qualitative data and how they are going about it?
I found a useful resource - 'The coding manual for qualitative researchers' by Johnny Saldaña. He explains comprehensively the focus of coding and also the many different methods to go about it. It also made me realise there will be differences of opinion on how to code an interview as it is underlined my personal opinion on what are the most significant themes, phrases etc.
‘A code in qualitative inquiry is most often a word or short phrase that symbolically assigns a summative, salient, essence-capturing, and/or evocative attribute for a portion of language-based or visual data’ (Saldana, 2013).
Another reference which has helped in the process of analysing has been Mason's 'Qualitative researching'. 'The answers to questions about how and what to compare must be driven by your research questions and your intellectual puzzle, but also are likely to be influenced by the ideas and theories you develop in the process of generating and analysing data'. This was helpful as what I have found is that what has come from the research is that I've questioned certain areas I didn't foresee, and now have opinions I would like to explore further that I had never thought of before, So, the coding process as part of analysing can only begin now I have had a chance to really process the findings. It hasn't been until I have listened back a few times to the interview that I notice opinions and ideas I may have ignored the first time. Those nuances have helped me find important themes that have arisen.
In Saldana's guide he speaks about the possibility of having a theme, and a secondary theme, like a sub title that can be used in parallel. I've adopted this method as i had broad themes and more subtle phrases or ideas that lay under the same idea, but were slightly different in opinion, or emotion for example.
This was a first draft to work out my understanding
This is how the coding matrix will look, with themes above and then sub headings
This is a 'structured' improvisation that I filmed in the studio this week. I say structured as I knew and had chosen the music beforehand which inevitably meant that I had imagined how I might dance to it when listening to it beforehand. After I finished improvising I wrote notes on all the factors that came into play while I was improvising. I compared it to the categories that Nakano and Okada named as the areas of attention dancers noted on their reflection in improvisation. I found that 'interaction with oneself' played a massive part. I noted that portraying a mood or feeling was most important to me. Factors such as the light, space and music affected this.
I thought about how developing areas noted in their categories could improve my improvisation. 'Switching'... could I change the texture of the movement more and the rhythm to make it more dynamic rather than getting stuck at a certain pace. 'Continuation', Lisa Nelson speaks about how various choreographers approach time in their improvisation with dancers. Could I push the boundaries of when is a natural start or finish... what happens if I improvise for longer than I would normally feel comfortable with?
For anyone with interest in dance in education or improvisation in any art form!
What is really interesting in this talk by Peter J Lovatt is how he highlights how structured dance and improvised dance differently effects our cognitive problem solving. When practicing structured dance we become quicker at solving problems with one answer. When improvising we become more creative and faster at answering questions with multiple answers.
This video had further convinced me of the importance of the practice of improvisation when teaching dance. When learning structured dance we are only utilising a fraction of our movement potential and testing ourselves physically and mentally to half of our ability.
I am in the process of fine tuning my interview questions. I am currently reviewing Lisa Nelson's 'Composing while dancing' and also looking at Twyla Tharp's 'The creative habit'. Both pieces are adding to the questions that I wish to ask. The hardest part I have found in planning the questions is to allow them to be informed by the literature, but to still be open enough for all my participants to answer. My interviewees are experts in their field but come from different dance backgrounds, and I don't want them to feel as if they are being questioned on their artistic process against something I read. These are the questions I am planning for my interviews next week. Please give them a read... dance background or not this could be for any arts based practitioner (if you change dance or choreography to whichever art medium you work in!) Are the questions clear? I will explain how i got to these through the literature throughout the next blogs and review.
I want to talk to you mostly about improvisation as a dance making method, particularly how you use improvisation to create your own choreography. I'm also interested in your route into choreography today, and how you structure improvisation with dancers in your rehearsals or workshops.
I know that you trained at... and have worked with... and have a background in... can you tell me about your route into choreography and your inspirations and influences to where you are today?
Can you tell me about how you utilise improvisation in the creation of choreography?
What have been the main influences you experienced that changed how you view and practice improvisation?
Do you have any warmup or activities that bring dancers to a state of mind and body preparedness?
When working with dancers in a workshop, or rehearsals, what boundaries or structure do you set in improvisation?
Tell me about your projects working with people who are new to dance. Does your approach to improvisation change when working with novice dancers?
From my own experience teaching, I have found that children are more fearless when I introduce improvisation, despite their background in dance and whether they have danced a lot beforehand. What are the main challenges and benefits you have found when working with non-dancers using improvisation to create dance?
11/03 update!
After looking at Jo Butterworth's interview with Lloyd Nelson one more time and also after reading a few more interviews with choreographers, I am learning from the terminology that is widely used. Instead of focusing on the inspirations and influences as my first questions, I want to get straight to the subject of artistic process. So I will change my first question to:
Can you give me some insights into the artistic motivation for your choreography?
Now that I am planning my interviews with choreographers, I am reading and watching as many interviews as possible with choreographers on their artistic process. Although these questions and themes are not necessarily the same as my planned interview I still found this insightful in how a question can spontaneously lead into the next, creating an open atmosphere.
Akram Khan is a hugely influential choreographer, performer and director. I found his insight into collaboration particularly interesting. Can we learn from the collaboration? Can we teach each other something? Perhaps if we can see what will happen, it may not be the most interesting...
The section on the current financial climate and how it has affected new choreographers was thought provoking. Yes, it may be harder now than before to gain funding, but that shouldn't be a deterrent. People will always create art. The founders of contact improvisation had barely any money behind them but still managed to help shape contemporary choreography and training today.
Is anyone else conducting interviews for their inquiry? Any helpful sample interviews or research is welcome ;)
