I began to question the practice behind my work back in May when
I discussed whether the piece would be more successful, in regards to my area
of enquiry, as improvisation or choreography.
I felt it was important to include with the motifs that the
dancer’s and I created along the way, as it was our trace to that space, which
turned it into a place for us. However, in regards to the question of ‘Waking
up the Sleepwalking City’, I felt improvisation was important as I needed the
dancers to be continually responsive to the surroundings to present an ‘awake’
attitude to the city.
As the rehearsals progressed, I began to merge the two
concepts of improvisation and choreography together within a structured score.
I entwined moments of open scores and closed scores, alongside choreography and
speech. I will run you through the piece using pictures to show how each
section was included in this.
The beginning section, where two dancers were on the bridge
and two dancers with the spectators outside the TATE, was quite an open score:
the dancers were told 5 minutes before the piece an object in the surroundings
which they all had to improvise in response to and during that they had to find
4 moments of pause:
The section following, with two dancers using script on the bench, was a closed improvisation, as the script was set and they were using gestural movement to accompany that. However, the two dancers that sat at the opposite side of the bench, where using exaggerated gestural movements in response to the spoken answers, and this was slightly more open:
The dancers then guided the spectators towards the bridge, this was an open score, as their direction was set, but they were improvising with the spectators, pointing and inviting them to look around the site.
The bridge section was set; this is for safety reasons and possible weather restrictions. However, before it was set, as discussed in my post “The bustling Body in the City” (Monday 11th June), the piece was created out of a childlike excitement to climb and explore.
For the flocking, the route in which they travelled round the space was the only part that was set, whereby they had to find a moment of stillness in 4 different locations.
For the choreographed section which followed, the dancers picked a different spot for each performance, and performed the sequence; however, they chose their own dynamics and spacing, in order to accompany their responses to the environment.
The section which included the dancers being attached at the arm, was quite an open score, they had been given different answers to the questionnaires, and learnt the responses, and this section was about them having a task, Alice – to get Chloe to stop, and Chloe - to get Alice to move, and they could use any of their learnt script and any movement to do so.
The final choreography was set, however, it was never taught to counts, but rather they were working as a group and as individuals to accompany each other, but also change the dynamics as individuals:
For the choreographed section which followed, the dancers picked a different spot for each performance, and performed the sequence; however, they chose their own dynamics and spacing, in order to accompany their responses to the environment.
The final choreography was set, however, it was never taught to counts, but rather they were working as a group and as individuals to accompany each other, but also change the dynamics as individuals:
The choreographed sequence made me question the use of traces in the work. Originally, they were used to show the dancers’ connection in that place through a process of movement. However, then who is the piece for? The spectators potentially would just see choreography...
It led me to think whether instead of creating a piece that wakes up the passersby, have I, instead created an improvisational way of working in different sites, which invites the dancer to open up their movement possibilities? The process for me was very rigorous, as each rehearsal was outside, which saw a clear development in each dancer from each of them using their technique training to respond to the surroundings, to them using their bodies to explore differing and more interesting movement opportunities...
However, I think there were successful moments in the piece, which did invite the spectator/passersby to become more awake. Therefore, could that be an outcome of the dancers’ movements being more open and less insular? Could the piece have been an exercise for the dancer which as an result connected with the public?
Something I understood from my preliminary project on this topic, performed on London Bridge in March, (http://www.flickr.com/photos/77909775@N02/sets/72157629211328350/) was that many of the passersby found the flocking very alienating. Therefore, I have been working to make sure the dancers could invite and set up a dialogue with the passersby, in order to invite them to experience their surroundings, which did become successful at certain points (which I will go on to discuss in my next blog).
For me, as a practitioner within the practice, I didn’t choreograph a piece of work and teach it to a group of dancers, I facilitated and taught improvisational techniques in order to further a dancer’s movement potential. So, the practice was movement, using improvisation devices. The practitioner: I developed from experimenting to creating a approach of working with improvisation and site.
It led me to think whether instead of creating a piece that wakes up the passersby, have I, instead created an improvisational way of working in different sites, which invites the dancer to open up their movement possibilities? The process for me was very rigorous, as each rehearsal was outside, which saw a clear development in each dancer from each of them using their technique training to respond to the surroundings, to them using their bodies to explore differing and more interesting movement opportunities...
However, I think there were successful moments in the piece, which did invite the spectator/passersby to become more awake. Therefore, could that be an outcome of the dancers’ movements being more open and less insular? Could the piece have been an exercise for the dancer which as an result connected with the public?
Something I understood from my preliminary project on this topic, performed on London Bridge in March, (http://www.flickr.com/photos/77909775@N02/sets/72157629211328350/) was that many of the passersby found the flocking very alienating. Therefore, I have been working to make sure the dancers could invite and set up a dialogue with the passersby, in order to invite them to experience their surroundings, which did become successful at certain points (which I will go on to discuss in my next blog).
For me, as a practitioner within the practice, I didn’t choreograph a piece of work and teach it to a group of dancers, I facilitated and taught improvisational techniques in order to further a dancer’s movement potential. So, the practice was movement, using improvisation devices. The practitioner: I developed from experimenting to creating a approach of working with improvisation and site.
No comments:
Post a Comment