“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.