End of Class Thoughts

The semester flew by! 

I feel like I’ve come away with both artistic and technological incentives to continue art-making via collaboration.  I’d like to further explore how technology may either completely influence content and process or simply serve the role of documenter and distributor of art.  My goal is to learn how to use Final Cut Pro next for video projects and more sophisticated editing possibilities.  I’m also inspired to take a step back from technology completely for a while to consider how collaborative content is formed and developed without the auspices of technological enhancement.

For the last couple of classes, our group experimented with media, the internet, collaboration, improvisation, and the idea of constructing narratives for performance. Each of us planned an improvisation activity for other “players” to perform in the class.  These were structures to improvise within that took on the loose form of a narrative (beginning or exposition, middle or rising action/climax/conflict, and then an end or resolution).  We were each given roles that called for musical attention, vocalizations, or movement (often taking the form of miming gestures, attention to space, embodying various efforts, or interpreting a variety of stimuli to produce a physical response). I found myself thrown into several pieces that asked me to take on various characters, embody different states of being (try and translate the idea of “extended techniques” in music to dance), sing, make sounds, and read poetry.  With minimal rehearsal and a reliance on group improvisation, I felt the constant need to connect with the other performers in the moment to sense when narrative checkpoints materialized and then naturally dissolved.   

My piece “Mary had a little Lamb” asked for a narrator, a dancer, and a pianist.  The three of them improvised within the following directions:

Part One:  NARRATOR introduces the scene by slowly saying “SNOW AS WHITE” in a deep voice.  DANCER slowly encircles narrator softly gesturing with reference to images from the children’s tune “marry had a little lamb.”  PIANIST plays first three notes of tune “marry had a little lamb” slowly and sustained (nearly unrecognizable).

Part Two:  NARRATOR says “little lamb, little lamb, little lamb…” over and over like a broken record.  DANCER speeds up circular pathway and makes movements more jagged.  PIANIST plays the song backwards as fast as possible (which causes irregular tones and rhythms to occur as the pianist works out what it is backwards on the spot).

Part Three:  NARRATOR says in plain clear voice at medium pace the first part of “marry had a little lamb.”  DANCER stands still next to NARRATOR and uses gestures that match up with the words.  PIANIST plays the “marry had a little lamb” song plainly and directly.

I had no clear vision of what this “narrative snippet” would look like, but I thought the performers made it unique and realized it both fully and humorously.        

For the next couple of months I’ll be located in Athens, Ohio.  I’d be happy to collaborate with others online (iChat/ Skype/ Blogging) and open up a window to share and explore this new space.       

Online Rehearsal and Performance

GREATdance Blog

On GREATdance.com there are several interesting examples of dance artists who are using the internet as an alternative venue, way to get feedback, or collaborate with other artists.

Check it out at the link below:

Dancing into the Future: Video Archive

Group Improvisation Ideas

For a final group project, we are setting up a collaborative improvisation with mixed-media.  For the next couple of weeks we are going to generate materials to integrate into our performance environment, practice working and improvising with each other, and develop some basic structures for our final performance.  I think that it might be useful to either develop a score of structures or games or develop a list of structures (that we all understand) to choose from and also decide on a rule for starting and ending each structure.  

Some Group Improvisation Exercise Possibilities:

1-  "dubbed movie"

Two or more people perform a mix of movement/ dance/ acting in front of an audience that provides a live sound score of text, music, human-made sound effects.

2- "walking and stopping with peripheral vision"

A movement activity where the whole group lines up shoulder to shoulder, keeps their focus straight ahead, and simply walks from one end of the room to the other while trying to stay in exact unison.  

After the group feels comfortable and in-synch with the walks, another variation on this activity is repeating the walks going backwards and forwards and trying to play with the speed of the walks.  Another variation is to allow individuals to make the decision to drop out of the group whenever they want and either stand in stillness or move around the space but the rule is they have to re-integrate themselves into their space in the line as the group sweeps back.  Multiple people can drop out at a time.

3- "circle polyrhythm"

Everyone stands in a circle and one person establishes a steady down-beat.  Then everyone individually adds their own rhythm.

4- "distorted mirroring, or distorted call and response for a whole group"

For partners, one partner is a mirror and takes the contributions of other partner and changes one or two aspects of it (could change the pitch, volume, speed, reverse it, alter the phrasing or accents, shape, direction, effort, part of the body or any other creative abstraction).  This could be done with a variety of things like movement, text, or music.  This can also be done with a group with one person offering an idea and then the rest of the group simultaneously responding with a distorted version of that idea.

5- "mixed media echo"

Everyone picks a different form of communication that is different from each other (dancer, singer, using just hands, using an instrument, using a voice, drawing...) and one person performs a short idea and the next person tries to translate that idea through their mode of communication however they can.

6- "programmatic voice over narration"

Half of the class improvises a dance or music experience while the other half narrates out loud attempting to develop a related story.

7- "near and far"

Everyone decides on a person to either try and be very close to or stay away from at all times without telling them.  

8- "manipulated movers"

Need about six people.  Two people try to be very impressionable while two other people try to direct their movement or actions.  Simultaneously, two other people attempt to speak for the manipulated movers.

    

Intimacy Across the Internet Project

This video documents some impressions on intimacy from an across the internet collaboration with my professor and HyeWon, a dance student in California.  Here's another recap of our method for generating material and collecting footage:

1) We discussed intimacy themes--shared emails, images, and movies that  helped us better define and understand the meaning of intimacy (2-3 weeks).

2) Dr. Gilbert composed music that dealt with the themes of intimacy and sent it to HyeWon and I to listen to and absorb.

3) I reacted to the musical compositions by recording some variations on piano then manipulating them digitally with Audacity.

4) We all connected via Skype video chat (HyeWon in California on one end----Dr. Gilbert and I on the other end).

5) HyeWon performed a dance in CA picked up by her built-in iSight webcam, while we recorded that live performance in NYC by pointing an external digital video camera at our computer screen (2 mins).

6) I performed a dance that responded to HyeWon's material that was recorded by two cameras:  one by Dr. Gilbert, the other through the computer to computer Skype video chat that HyeWon pointed her external digital camera at in CA to record her computer screen (2 mins).

We tried to achieve an intimate connection with several barriers and filters between us:  we were on a not-so-steady wireless internet connection that distorted and pixilated our images, we recording the dance events through two filters (the video camera) and the (computer screen), we could not hear each other speaking if we were far away from the computer, HyeWon and I had never met and we talked very little about this project, the musical influence on the dance came from our memory of Gilbert's theme because we did not play with it on site, and of course, there was the actual distance or space and time between us.

I was really excited to see the resulting footage that HyeWon recorded of us in NY from CA.  What was recorded seemed like a completely different world.  The distortions altered the colors and the feel of the performance space at NYU's Pless Hall completely--it made the colors cooler and less industrial.  I wonder how the bright, open, and beautiful outdoor space in CA that Dr. Gilbert and I saw and interpreted differed from HyeWon's reality... 

I thought it was important to exaggerate the distance and distortion between us when putting together this iMovie document of our collaboration.  With the idea of intimacy so completely abstracted by how we set up this project, I felt that the search for intimacy was ultimately a journey and choice made by the other, the observer, the watcher, the recorder, or the interpreter.  I think I also learned a lot about how media and means dictate the process and product of an artistic project like this...how technology can take on a life of its own and work as an equally valid and important collaborative voice.  

Reflection on Intimacy Across the Internet Project

After a couple of weeks of brainstorming via email, chats in class, personal consideration on intimacy themes, collecting images and ideas off of google, and tests of technology, we prepared ourselves for a brief and open-structured encounter on film and across the country.  I thought that overall this work required an interesting kind of quiet energy to remain clear and patient with technology and each other.

The environments that we placed ourselves in to communicate with each other were less than private and intimate.  Dr. Gilbert and I were located in Pless Hall at night, which felt like a large illuminated display case.  There are two walls of open window at the corner of Washington Square Park, so people both inside the building and outside on the street have a view of the space.  A handful of late-night study groups were chatting and had spread out their laptops, text books, and binders full of paper over a couple of tables.  This was midterm week.  For HyeWon in California, she was outside in an expansive area of campus with interesting modern architecture covering a student walk way and little green quads in between.  We saw a few people milling around the space or walking by. 

Without any discussion on how we were approaching the theme of intimacy in our movement, we let the logistics of the technology we were using dictate the entire process.  Before Dr. Gilbert got the camera rolling on HyeWon, she performed a beautiful dance thinking we were ready to observe and record.  Her dance was not lost though, it seemed to happen just for me to watch in the moment, and I used it to learn about her stylistic tendencies, playful choices, and sense of ease and flow.  To be honest, I felt a greater sense of intimacy as the observer than I did as the performer, especially for the couple of moments when HyeWon performed for the first time without knowing the camera wasn’t ready yet. 

In terms of my movement response to HyeWon's dancing, I don’t know if it was because I was experiencing flu symptoms or just general fatigue, but I didn’t feel as though I conveyed a coherent idea.  I felt awkward and only able to react to one or two of HyeWon’s movement ideas (hiding behind pillars, sense of on-going flow, and crossed or hugging arm gestures).  Even though I had these feelings of disconnect, I am interested to examine the footage to see what HyeWon and I might have shared on a subconscious level.

The next step in this process is to edit the footage gathered from both ends of the computer and see how they interact with the intimacy-themed, delicate and contemplative musical themes that Dr. Gilbert composed.  I was interested in collaborating and reacting to both the dance and musical contributions, so I worked with the musical material on the piano, improvised, recorded, and digitally manipulated the recordings from a feeling-based understanding of intimacy.

Intimacy Key Word Google Image Search

This is a basically a slideshow of images found via Google image searches.  The keywords searched were terms I related and associated with the idea of "intimacy."  Keywords included:  Closeness, Diaries and Journals, Eye Contact, Censoring, Embarrassment, Opening Letters, Secrets, Touch, Conspiring Children, Touching Nature, Vulnerability, Family, and Friends.  I thought it was interesting how certain visual ideas and themes were present among several of the searches:  hands, close proximity, crossing or overlapping limbs, small and delicate things.  The sounds were produced using FLOW 3.4.   

Cunningham's Biped

Merce Cunningham - Biped
Uploaded by rybthr

This excerpt is from a 45 minute Merce Cunningham piece:  Biped (1999).  (First performed:  Merce Cunningham Dance Company, Berkeley California)

Cunningham uses chance operations as a collaborative style.  Artists work independently to produce a certain length of music or dance, and then they come together.  For Biped, Cunningham collaborated with music, costume, and visual artists.  Pail Keiser and Shelley Eshkar developed a video motion capture technique to produce the effect of digital bodies echoing the live dancers onstage.  Gavin Bryars produced the music, which paralleled the conceptual idea of the dance:  live performers with electronic equivalents for each instrument.  Gavin Bryars was a contemporary of John Cage—Cage had collaborated with Cunningham for decades. 

At the Merce Cunningham Dance Company homepage, you can read a little bit more about the piece:  http://www.merce.org/thecompany_r-biped.html  

(Part Two) Improvisation/Collaboration Kevin Response

Kevin also asked how can you make use of transitory material from an improvisation in other work?  Countless choreographers and artists utilize improvisation and experimental approaches in their work.  When you have a record of the improvisation (via memory and experience or actual audio/visual recording) you can try to recreate an event (if it’s for a performance piece) or use the actual recording of the improvisation to manipulate and edit into a larger work incorporating various technology resources.  Improvisation can also be used as a structure for performance.  I use it to generate material during dance rehearsals, but I’ve also used structured improvisation on stage for parts of dance pieces where movement doesn’t have to be entirely set.  Sometimes I use this to create a desired random effect.  Other times I just use it to demand a high level of thoughtfulness, spontaneity, active engagement, focus, investment, or natural ease in a movement idea on the part of the dancer or group of dancers.  I would love to know how this idea about performance quality might exist similarly for other forms of art.

Knowing when to generate a new idea and let something that is not exciting the instincts or inciting development dissolve is an important skill in improvisation.  Those types of decisions happen in context.  In collaboration, the material is in the hands of the group consciousness; and even if one person chooses to drop an idea and pursue a new one, someone else in the group may still remain fixated on the previous idea.  I think that’s okay.  Group consciousness is also supposedly taking care of overall composition.  How do you know when there is a group consciousness?

Some other questions to consider:  How much freedom do you allow in improvisation?  Is it true that the less experienced the group of improvisers (either with each other or with improvisation in general) the more structure/ rules needed to create a successful improvisation?     

As improvisers, do we want absolute creative freedom or limited freedom?  What do set parameters and rules help us accomplish in an improvisation?  Generally, I think they guide the material in a certain direction, and they also guide the overall composition (keeping it in some sort of check).  Maybe they also guarantee a certain amount of coherency and success as long as the rules are universally understood and applied (by the improvisers).  When can we stop having to decide on rules openly and just let them form naturally?

An improviser’s freedom or ability to rely solely on instincts versus censoring ideas is in constant flux.  I think it’s all based off of our immediate interpretations of the generated content.  In an ideal situation...We sketch and re-sketch and redefine rules to further shape new ideas.  All the while we are trying to connect to some sort of primordial collective or group consciousness.  We re-interpret, further, respond, repeat, and rehash other people’s ideas. We are generous with other people's ideas that run through our own modes of expression.  

Some of my friends/teachers have given me this advice regarding group improvisation: Try not to throw out too many ideas or worry too much about creating something out of nothing.  Creating on the spot is a risk, but get it over with and more importantly try to build on what you see.

Many artists and researchers have written about improvisation in various fields (theater, music, dance) and contexts (education, performance).  I am interested in finding more material on this, particularly regarding group improvisation across different media/ genres/ fields.  Anyone have any specific suggestions?  Thanks. 

(Part One) Response to Kevin on Group Improvisation/Collaboration

My classmate Kevin wrote about the feeling of dissatisfaction after an improvisation on his blog.  Then he thoughtfully posed the following interesting questions:  How can total strangers create relevant art via experimental means?  How can you make use of transitory material from an improvisation in other work?  How to make impromptu art-making more valuable? 

I too have been involved in improvisation experiments that felt awkward for me or “didn’t go anywhere.”  Sometimes I blame the overall group dynamic (i.e. an inability to listen or sense each other, issues with people’s styles and personalities, and lack of experience with improvisation or risk-taking in general).  Other times I blame differences in interpretation of the rules, or even a lack of structure in the framework for improvisation that’s decided on.  Sometimes I also just blame the universe, time of day, elements outside of any one or any group’s control like fatigue, general malaise, or even bad luck. 

It seems that Kevin and I both agree that improvisation is experimental.  Believing that an improvisation has completely “failed” though probably suggests that the improvisers expected a particular kind of result.  I think that improvisation can sometimes function as a learning tool in that way.  Since it’s an experiment, it’s somewhat trial and error and can be useful no matter what the outcome as long as you can analyze what happened, learn from it, and move on.  Letting an improvisation session naturally “fail” can be a great way for students to start discussing improvisation strategies.  It can also open up a discussion about what constitutes dissatisfaction in an art-making experiment?  Are you disappointed in the product?  Did it not take on a meaningful structure?  Did it not subscribe to a particular aesthetic?  Did it not develop?  Why?  Or, are you disappointed in some aspect of the process?  Was there a lack of connection or communication with others?  Was any particular part of it valuable if not all of it?  Addressing these questions can help improvisers learn how to set up the kinds of limited structures/rules they need to produce a more specific or desirable result.

I would hope that eventually improvisers can build up to a place where the only structures needed are “there’s a beginning and an end in this space. Go!”  And then, a group of experienced improvisers (people who understand the nature of improvisation and can strategize well with others…even if they are strangers and don’t know each other personally) can successfully create valuable work together.  They can work through fleeting structures that develop naturally (as the improvisers recognize and contribute to what’s going on) and then allow those structures to dissolve or eventually change into a different set of fleeting rules as individuals make decisions that impact the group.  The underlying idea of collaboration, to me, is that individuals make decisions that affect the group (no matter how abstractly that resonates in an improvisation I think that is basically what is going on).  If an individual does something that is never addressed by the group (or at least one other collaborator in the group) in any way, then there is some sort of disconnect.

To me, improvisation is the most satisfying when those around me are listening, sensing, and reacting with each other.  I've also heard the idea that improvisation is about building a temporary world with improvisers imagining and collaborating within that world as a community.  So, how long does it take to build that community?  What does it take to get that community to understand and function creatively within a set of parameters or rules?

It probably takes years to build a strong community, but just seconds to build a community.  One quick way to build a community is to stand in a circle so everyone can see and have each individual enter the center of the circle and offer a short phrase (musical, rhythmic, dance, a gesture, a posture, some dialog, an I am a___ statement etc..).  After one person performs the whole group repeats the phrase.  This way everyone can unite and practice the task of mimicking and inventing. 

If you’re in a chaotic mess of an improvisation…I think you can actively try to make a group improvisation feel more valuable to you by seeking out someone else in the group who you’re either instinctively drawn to or see/hear doing something that you find evenly remotely interesting.  Try and develop a connection with that one person.  There are a lot of ways to try and connect: eye contact, gesture, touch, facing the person, or moving closer to them in space.  More importantly you try to connect to them with an action by following what they’re doing.  One easy way to do that is by directly mimicking whatever it is they’re doing.  Another easy way is to try and deliberately oppose whatever they’re doing repeatedly.  Hopefully they’ll notice you and immediately understand the relationship you’ve established because of its simplicity and continue to play along.  Then hopefully more people in the group will notice this duet forming which will prompt them to decide how they want to react or join in.  Identifying possible relationships in the group is a useful tool; being aware of others trying to form a particular kind of relationship with you is also vital. 

I agree with Kevin in that as a class we should start collecting strategies/ ideas for improvisation:  anecdotes that we find useful about an approach to improvisation and useful examples of rules and structures for improvisation (games/ activities/ prompts etc.).