(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.).