Buckwalter, M. (2010) Composing while dancing: An Improviser’s Companion. Madison, WI, USA: The University of Wisconsin Press.

De Spain, K. (2014) Landscape of the Now. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press

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

Midgelow, V L. (2012)  Dear Practice … : The experience of improvising. Choreographic Practices, 2 (1) 10-11.

Ribeiro, M. M. and Fonseca, A. (2011) The empathy and the structuring sharing modes of movement sequences in the improvisation of contemporary dance. Research in Dance Education, 12 (2) 71-85.

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

To say that my thoughts and feelings have changed towards improvisation since the first week is an understatement.

 Feeling nervous and out of my depths, I entered my first lesson. Not knowing what to expect, or how I was ever going to be able to think of new movements on the spot without thinking about what I was doing.

 Now, leaving my last improvisation lesson nine weeks on, I feel confident and brave, to try new ideas, to not think about them. Who cares if I look stupid? If I feel confident in the movement and my ability, then who’s to say it is wrong?

I feel like this module has helped me grow as a person, as well as a dancer.   It has made me become a stronger person, who is not afraid to contribute my ideas into a score, even if it changes the meaning and intention. I have even taken risks, which I never would have done when we first started.

Pop up scores…

 The score was essentially down to chance this week.

You would pick a card to do with:

Number of dancers

Length of time

Performance space

Music

Audience.

 These essentially created a structure for the score.

In the pop up score where I was a dancer, the audience were allowed to walk through the score. This brought back Anna Halprins idea of having a connection with the audience. I felt like for the first time I could really connect with the audience. Halprin says that “If I were to be concerned about whether they liked it or not… that would be a terrible distraction.” (De Spain, 2014, 62). I think this quote says it all. I felt this sense of relief when I gave up worrying about what I was doing. Having the audience walking through the score enabled me to really connect with the audience, and in some way I think that because I believed in my movements, they believed in it too.

I now want to talk about my experience of improvisation in relation to the learning outcomes.  

It is hard to comprehend just how much I have learnt over the module…

 How to track others and my own movements, so that I can bring them back and re-visit them when I feel like it is the right time.

How to have an intention, and how to attend to this through movement, dynamics and even sound.

How to use form and structure to create an interesting improvisation

Time. How I can play with time, or play it safe.

I feel like these structures and modes of improvisation, have opened my eyes to how improvisation isn’t just about creating movements on the spot without any prior judgement.  Its about how you can explore these things, without worrying or thinking about them.  I’ve really enjoyed using these structures, and I feel that I have improved drastically when it comes to how we undertake and comprehend the tasks given.

Being given starting points in improvisation often increased my ability to improvise successfully. For example….

“There must always be one trio and two solos in the space.”

Being given this starting point, gave me a reason to improvise. It gave a drive to my movement and so what I was doing became more exciting and innovative to the audience.

At first, I was using starting points as this, the drive for my movement. But as the weeks passed, I was using them as a point of reference. As I became more comfortable in what I was doing, I was more confident that I could use the starting points in a different way… maybe not using them straight away, but I always knew I could refer back to them, even in the weeks after when I was stuck for ideas.

In this weeks jam, I reflected on how much my self and group awareness has evolved and increased…

In the first weeks, I only thought about what I was doing… going back to the notion of “Do I look stupid? Is what I’m doing wrong?”

Whereas now, I am constantly looking for new and exciting ways to involve my own improvisation with that of others, to create relationships within the scores. In the final jam, I was always looking for new duos, trios and groups to join, so that we could create something new and exciting. I think this will be extremely helpful when moving onto Contact Improvisation next semester.

This also links with how I applied compositional elements to my solo and group improvisations…

 For example… If the score were happening in one area of the space, then I would create something new in an area, which had not yet been explored. Towards the end of the module, I explored space a lot more within the last weeks, and my one regret is that I had not done this previously. Out of everything we have learned in this module, my awareness of the space around me has improved the most. Previously I had been afraid to use areas of the space where no one else was, due to the fear of people judging my movements. But now, this is what I enjoy the most. Having a vast area of space to explore, either as a solo or a group ensemble. This to me, as both a performer and audience member, could make or break an improvisation piece.

I believe that this blog, has aided me greatly within my experience of improvisation…

It has made me think about what I was doing, and how I could improve… whether this be to do with movement, compositional elements, or how I could get over my fear of entering the space and doing it “wrong”.

It has helped me develop my skill of reflection, by not ignoring the things in which I could improve on. Having this here through my journey, heightened my awareness of my body, which will aid me greatly in modules to come as well as my career.

Nine weeks was definitely not enough.  I feel that if i had more time with this practice, then I could have vastly improved from where I am now.

I am intrigued to learn more….

“As a framework the RSVP Cycles allow even large groups to retain clarity in what is potentially a chaotic process.” (Worth and Poyner, 2004, 111-112).

Opening the session, we discussed the reading about Anna Halprin’s RSVP Cycles, which I found really beneficial during later tasks.  From the reading, we learnt that Halprin’s scores were often ritual based. We also read about the ‘Circle the Earth’ scores, which included “over 100 people, many of whom have no background in dance.” (Worth and Poyner, 2004, 113). “Many of the scores in this were “already set with some of those virtually closed.” (Worth and Poyner, 2004, 113). However we learn that this is because it helps to “channel the groups expression” whilst giving the improvisation some direction.

I found that the tasks set were challenging.  First we had to stand in a line, facing forward.  Our aim was to have 2 people standing and 3 people squatting at all times, which had to be achieved using our peripheral vision and our senses.  I found that this helped me to gain a greater sense of what was happening around me, without directly having to look around.  We then followed from this with us again standing in a line facing forward.  This time, 2 people had to always be in front, and 3 behind.  This again increased my awareness of what is happening around me, however I found this more difficult as I could sense people hesitating, which made me hesitate as to whether I should move forward or not.  We then took part in an open score, where anything goes.  We could enter and exit whenever we wanted, and bring any new material.  The open score brought about different dynamics, as you were more aware of what the space needed when you were observing from the side.  However, when you were in the space, you had to be aware of everyone else in the space, any movements which you could add to, any dynamic qualities which were missing, as well as whether the space was too crowded or lacked a certain element.  I really enjoyed participating in the open score as I could add anything I wanted, and it had more freedom than any of the previous closed tasks.

Referring back to the ‘Rsvp cycles,’ within the “Circle the Earth score”, ‘RSVP’ has a specific meaning. This has been altered and “varied slightly over time according to context.”

“R Stands for Resources” 

“S Stands for Sources”

“V stands for Valuaction.”

“P Stands for Performance.”

We then had to apply the principles of the “RSVP Cycles” within our own group scores.  (R)First, we were asked to write down a question, in relation to our thoughts and feelings about improvisation.  My question was… “How are we meant to not refer back to our habitual movements whilst improvising?”  I often find myself rushing back to my habitual tendencies whenever I can’t think of my next movement, and so this is the first thing that came into my head when we were asked about our thoughts and feelings.  We then began to create a score in our groups, exploring the similar topic in which we had all asked a question about.  Ours was habitual movements, and so we began thinking about how we could show the difference between habitual, and non habitual movements, as well as how we could change someones habitual movements.

(S)We started to think about how we could show this to an audience using improvisation in a score.  From this, we decided to re-visit some of Thomas Lehmen’s Functions:

1.Material

2.Manipulator 

3.Interpreter

We decided that the ‘material’ would consist of our habitual movements, and once one person had entered doing this, a second person would enter being the interpreter.  To relate this to habitual movements, we decided that the interpreter had to interpret the habitual movements in a non-habitual way.  A third person then entered with more material, and following this, the manipulator, who could not use their arms, as we thought that this would provoke habitual tendencies.  Then the last person would enter being an interpreter.  Once all 5 roles had been taken in the space, we could leave the space, and enter as a new role, so that everyone had a chance to be the material, interpreter and the manipulator.

(V) In my opinion, there are a few things in which we could change to make our score more effective and exciting for the audience to watch. For example, when we performed our score, it was difficult to tell who was doing which role, as we had not previously discussed what our habitual movements where.  I think that when we develop our score, we should discuss this to enable the identification of the role to become more clear.  I also think that we should have more than 3 roles, that after the first round when the roles are established, we can change and swap within.  This would make the score more interesting for the audience to watch, and it would be clearer as to what the intention of our score was.

Overall, I felt a lot more comfortable and confident within myself and my movement, and I felt that I could contribute more to the group, as my understanding of improvisation is becoming clearer.

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

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

 This week I opened my eyes. To the space, to the movement and to the people. 

Taking part in the tasks that involved a partner, really enabled me to do this.  When thick skinning, I found myself constantly aware of what my partner was doing, so that I could actively follow this.  In a reading, it talks about empathy as “the link between dancers in contemporary improvisation” “co-built relational activity that emerges from dance improvisation” (Riberiro and Fonseca, 2011, 81), and later goes on to say that in an improvisation, an “empathic choreography occurs based on collective intelligence that generates a temporary structuring of movement sequences built at the present moment, without the mediation of words.” (Riberiro and Fonseca, 2011, 81).  I found that this summed up my experience when working in a partnership, as we actively had to collectively generate a movement sequence, that was only temporary, without using our voices or any signals.

When impulsing, it was easy to spot which parts of the body we found it easiest to send the impulse with.  These tended to be the hands, legs, arms and head.

I guess this was because it is the easiest and most habitual way to send an impulse, and perhaps this made the improvisation in partners habitual.

To change this, we had to change the part of the body we impulsed with, which opened various new opportunities for exploring new movement.  I felt like the movement became more fluid, as we were not looking for how we could impulse with our hand when the other person was behind.  The movement became more connected, and so did me and my partner. We were working together to find the most interesting way to impulse during our improvisation, and this made it an interesting task.

Thomas Lehmen’s Functionen.   

I really enjoyed this score, I constantly found myself hesitating as to whether I should join in or not.

Cycle 1:

A person enters the space with material.

A second person enters to interpret the material.

A third person enters to manipulate both the interpreter and the material creator. 

A fourth person enters and observes everything happening in the space.

A fifth person enters, to mediate everything in the space.

Cycle 2:

Anyone can enter the space in any role.

If you are in the space and want to change roles, then you must first leave the space.

Personally, I found it difficult to enter in the first cycle, as I was unsure as to what role I wanted to take part in.  However, in the second cycle, I felt more confident in my ability to perform in any role that I chose.

I found myself constantly drawn towards observer and material.  I liked the idea of bringing new ideas into the space, as well as observing the growing ideas.

The Jam. 

We again focused on Thomas Lehmens Functions,but this time, the movement came from our own life stories.

My story.

I found this extremely interesting, however I felt hesitant to go in and interpret anyone else’s story, as I felt that I was intruding on their personal life events.

Overall, this week I felt less confident that other weeks, however i’m still not entirely sure why.

•  Ribeiro, M. M. and Fonseca, A. (2011) The empathy and the structuring sharing modes of movement sequences in the improvisation of contemporary dance. Research in Dance Education, 12 (2) 71-85.
• Husemann, P. (2005) The Functioning of Thomas Lehmen’s Funktionen. Dance Theatre Journal, 21 (1) 31-35.