It is absurd to suppose that purpose is not present because we do not observe the agent deliberating. Art does not deliberate.
– Aristotle, Physics II.8, The Complete Works of Aristotle Vol. I. The Revised Oxford Translation, ed. Jonathan Barnes).
If Art does not deliberate and choreography can be seen as a form of deliberation, is, then, choreographed dance not art?
Is the art that choreography generates, then, the un-deliberated performance of its execution?
Does this mean, then, that the purest artistic form of dance is the least deliberated, i.e., absolute improvisation, when the phases of exploration, experimentation, and execution collapse into a singular event?
I propose that there are 9 ways* to change the type of movement material with any given moment in an improvised dance.
If we are to take a dance of 10 minutes in length and say that the dancer can change the type of movement material every 30 seconds then there are 19 moments when the change can happen and have movement afterwards.
This means that there are 9 to the 19th power number of dances that are possible to create.
This leads us to
possible different dance choreographies if we are to look at moments of change in movement material.
*These changes will be elucidated later on. Stay tuned!
It could be argued that dance has its origins in emotions. Movement (dance) coming from the need for survival (Sheet Johnstone 1966). The need to move towards food, towards mother, away from danger, predator, fire, etc. Similarly food could be seen as the stuff that satisfies the need for nourishment.
Food, however, has ceased to be simply nourishment. Think of all the cooking shows, and kinds of food that people eat that have little or no nutritional value. Food as entertainment and enjoyment. Also the food geeks who research how to do different processes and aren’t directly interested in food as nourishment. Think of Nathan Myhrvold, Microsoft’s first CTO, who made that huge cookbook. Food as a means of epistemology.
So why is dance still so heavily associated with movement’s origin, emotion, and seen less as a means of epistemology?
These are some thoughts in response to an article by Larry Lavender Predock-Linnell and Jennifer Predock-Linnell, From Improvisation to Choreography: The critical bridge, Research in Dance Education, 2:2, 195-209. A link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14647890120100809.
I felt inspired to share a few of my thoughts about their article because I feel that the authors have limited notions of the possibilities of improvisation.
“composing in the sense of shaping and forming movement material, and criticism—observing, describing, analysing, interpreting, evaluating, and revising both the work in progress and the completed dance.”
Using the two descriptions above I would say that improvisation can be viewed as simultaneously composing and critiquing a dance. The only element of critiquing a dance that it not possible while improvising is revising. Granted an action can be re-done, but the observers will see that, so probably not revising of material, but revisiting of material.
The authors quote Nora Ambrosia – “‘Improvisation and creative movement are two dance genres that do not necessarily require participants to have a background in dance technique. … These two genres are focused on self-expression and self-exploration’ (p. 87).”
Here a bias. One, improvisation is not a genre. Choreography is not a genre. They are, I would propose, a temporality, a relationship to time of process of the creative act to when the products of the creative act are observed. (re: the three phases Exploration, Experimentation, Execution). And as being a relationship in time, improvisation is not focused on self-expression and self-exploration. Choreography also does not require a background in dance technique. All you have to do is remember what you did and do it again. Training/technique helps both.
and this – “… that improvisation exercises do not sharpen students’ awareness in any lasting way either of their own aesthetic values or those of others, nor do they compel students (mentally or physically) to exercise and test their ideas about dance as art.”
Did the authors ever think to question their method of improvisation pedagogy and what exercises they used? I would say that improvisation affords the dance maker plenty of opportunity to test ideas about dance as art, by allowing her/him to simultaneously compose and critique work. Improvising in the studio also has the benefit of having an audience, i.e., adrenaline, thereby creating a situation that is more similar to an actual performance.
“In short, improvisational work…generally does not develop in students the kind of critical consciousness that we think is imperative to their future success as choreographers.”
– see the point above
“while the dance world (particularly in academia) has long been deeply invested in promoting the idea and value of self-expression…”
This quote to me shows one thing that is wrong with dance education. It is seen as having an end goal, not as a means for knowledge production or investigation. What professor of structural engineering or radiology would say that they are invested in promoting the idea and value of self-expression? Who wants a dentist that went into dentistry for self-expression?
“dance—rooted in bodily experience, and committed to the idea of the body as expressive of the range of human feelings and emotions”
This is another example of limiting the possibility of what dance can be used for. I am not denying that dance can be used to express the range of human emotions, but there is so much more.
“Because we think they should, we argue that pre-choreography training—i.e. training in improvisation…”
I would say that choreography can be used as pre-improvisation training. Choreography can be used to get a dancer out of habits of movement, as can improvisation (Re: Chaos dancing, fussy, neuro, etc). Both temporalities can inform each other.
By viewing improvisation as being in service to choreography, the authors, to quote Foucault, treat choreography as the “as the primary law, the essential weight of any” dance making practice. The authors attribute certain values to a relationship of time and unnecessarily limit the uses of dance and dance improvisation. They also have not investigated/questioned/problematized their relationship to and use of improvisation enough.
And to those who might be tempted to criticize [improvisation] for concerning itself primarily with the analysis of the discontinuous, to all those agoraphobics of history and time, to all those who confuse rupture and irrationality, I will reply: “It is you who devalue [choreography] by the use that you make of it. You treat it as the support-element to which everything else must be related; you treat it as the primary law, the essential weight of any [dance-making] practice; you would like to analyse every modification in the field of this inertia, as one analyses every movement in the gravitational field. But according this status to [choreography] you are merely neutralizing it, driving it out to the outer limit of time, towards an original passivity. [Improvisation] proposes to invert this arrangement, or rather (for our aim is not to accord to [improvisation] the role formerly accorded to [choreography]) to play one off against the other; to show how [improvisation] is formed in accordance with the same conditions and the same rules as [choreography]; and how it enters the field of [dance-making] practice. – pg 174
Foucault, M. & Foucault, M., 1972. The archaeology of knowledge ; and, the discourse on language, New York: Pantheon Books.
“[Pollock’s] control became so adept that his critical decision-making process became all but instantaneous, and thus virtually invisible, inviting the erroneous observation that there was no critical or conscious decision-making process at work.”
– pg 203 from Larry Lavender Predock-Linnell & Jennifer Predock-Linnell (2001) From Improvisation to Choreography: The critical bridge, Research in Dance Education, 2:2, 195-209.