Albright, C. A. and Gere, D. (2003) Taken by surprise: A dance improvisation reader. Middletown: Wesleyan Press.

Bannon, F. and Holt, D. (2012) Touch: Experience and Knowledge. Journal of Dance & Somatic Practices, 3(1/2) 215-227.

Brown, B. (1997) Is Contact a Small Dance? Contact Improvisation Sourcebook, 1(6)72-75.

Christenson, N. (2009) The play of weight. [online] Available from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ltq6y06E8ew [Accessed 12 November 2014].

Curtis, B. (1988). Exposed to Gravity. Contact Quarterly/ Contact Improvisation Sourcebook I, 13 156-162.

Hassmann, J. (2009) Explorations within the Small Dance. [online] Available from http://www.contactquarterly.com/contact-improvisation/webtexts/view/explorations-within-the-small-dance.php [Accessed 17 October 2014].

Heitkamp, D (2003). Moving from the Skin: An Exploratorium. Contact Quarterly/ Contact Improvisation Sourcebook II, 28(2)256-264.

Lepkoff, D. (1999) What is Release Technique?. [online] Available from http://www.daniellepkoff.com/Writings/What%20is%20Release.php [Accessed 25 October 2014].

Lepkoff, D. (2005) The Movement of Attention An interview with David Lepkoff. [online] Available from http://www.daniellepkoff.com/Writings/Daniel%20Simone%20Interview.php [Accessed 10 October 2014].

Lepkoff, D. (2008) Contact Improvisation: A Question?. [online] Available fromhttp://www.daniellepkoff.com/Writings/CI%20A%20question.php [Accessed 25 October 2014].

Omegabranch (2011) Contact Improvisation Mirva Mäkinen & Otto Akkanen. [online] Available fromhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMLbWxujoGw [Accessed 13 November 2014].

Paxton, S. (2010) Steven Paxton’s “Interior Techniques” Contact Improvisation and political power. The Drama Review, 54(3)123-135.

Ravn, S. (2010) Sensing Weight in Movement. Journal of Dance & Somatic Practices, 2(1)21-34.

Stover, J. (1989). Some Considerations When Structuring an Improvisation (to be seen by an audience). Contact Quarterly/ Contact Improvisation Sourcebook II, (14)185.

Woodhull, A. (1997) Centre of Gravity. Contact Quarterly/Contact Improvisation Sourcebook 1(4)43-4.

To begin the lesson we participated in an exercise that involved the use of spirals. In pairs, we were required to stand back to back and our aim was to activate our spine by keeping in contact with our partner but moving in different directions around the space and formulating different levels. Personally, I was surprised by this exercise as I felt that my movement potential increased and I found that my partner and I were engaging in a fluid performance because the connection between the spines made it easier for me to move around the space. Furthermore, this exercise entailed me to vary the use of my dynamics. In contact improvisation I predominately move around the space at a slow, sustained space however the spiral task allowed me to move at a more faster pace and it was seen that me and my partner were travelling from one end of the room to the other quite quickly.

The majority of the lesson included creating and refining our contact scores that were to be performed at the open studios. My group collectively decided that it was necessary to add more rules so our score appeared more varied. Therefore, we took this time to adjust our score, responding to any feedback and refining any parts that looked messy. Our final, developed score included the following rules:

• A minimum of four dancers had to be out of the space at all times
• Everyone would start out of the space then one dancer would begin the score by entering the space and when this solo is occurring, another dancer must enter to form a duet
• The aim of the duet is to travel to the opposite side of the room
• If a third person joins the duet to form a trio, they must initiate the change of direction and level. However, dancers should be interchanging the levels at all time but if they haven’t been able to vary the level then the person entering the space would be a cue for them to change the level
• Every time an individual entered the space, they would have to make up their own role to influence the dance and this should change every time they go in
• The score would end with the ‘small dance’. It was not set when the dance ended but when you felt ready to stop dancing, therefore not everyone would stop at the same time but it would be a matter of listening to the group and one by one each person would stop moving until the dance came to a gradual stop

Each group in the lesson performed their score twice to the class and once each group had performed they would be provided with constructive feedback and then were given the chance to perform their score again to respond to feedback given. The first time we performed our score it was noted that we could have used the space more effectively because as a group we have a tendency to clump together, usually upstage centre dismissing the downstage area of the space. As a result, as a group we felt that instead of having a minimum of two people out of the space at all times, which was included in our original score, it was more beneficial to have a minimum of four dancers out the space. This is because the audience will be given more time to focus on certain solos, duets and trios that were being devised in the space and they would feel less overwhelmed as there would not be too much happening. Additionally, to use the space more effectively, we noted that we should make use of all the empty spaces available and this make the space feel less crowded.

Another point of feedback that we got given was to allow the audience more time in watching the duets, solos and trios. This is because if a duet was occurring, people in the group would tend to enter the space to form a solo and the audience may be distracted from the duet to focus on them. Therefore, if something interesting is happening in a duet or trio, we should allow the dancers to proceed with what they are doing so we don’t take the emphasis away from them and then make a decision on when it is right to enter the space. Furthermore, when trios were happening in the space it was noted that one person would automatically become the under dancer and have to take the weight of the two over dancers. As constructive feedback it was decided that if a dancer was to enter a duet they did not necessarily have to put weight on them or force to become the over and under dancer, they could simply support the duet by offering certain surfaces and structures.

Open studio performance

As part of the open studios, we were required to perform our contact improvisation scores in our groups. As the audience entered the space we were in mid flow of a contact improvisation jam. Once all audience members had taken their seats in the studio, each dancer left the space individually until all dancers were out of the space and then we could begin our score. I felt parts of this performance were successful but there was aspects that I think I could have performed better or I have shown evidence of in class. During the performance, I felt that I utilised the space well and I distributed the role of the under and over dance equally, stepping away from my role and primarily being the under dancer. Additionally, in class I have noticed that I usually stick to performing on the floor but in the performance I discovered that I varied the levels more and there were many moments that I would stand up and perform at a higher level. On the other hand, there were parts that I didn’t feel were as effective as they could have been. This was because when I was performing the score, half way through I forgot some of the rules so I primarily engaging in just random contact improvisation. As well as this, I do not feel as if there were many uses of lifts. Therefore if I was to perform this again in the future I would ensure that I would try to incorporate more lifts to make it exciting. When I stepped out of the space during the score it was interesting to see how focused everyone was. As I was watching it appeared that everyone was aware of which parts of the space were free and where each dancer was in the space. Also, I felt when I was performing with other dancers in my group it was apparent that they were focused on what they were doing and they were listening to my body in order to create a safe and interesting duet or trio.

At the beginning of today’s session we began watching the round robin that we participated in from the previous weeks. It was interesting to watch this to see how I moved during contact improvisation, as when I am moving in class I feel quite clumsy. However, I perceived myself to be quite fluid in my movements than I initially thought when I watched myself on video as I could see that I maintained a equal role of being the over and under dancer. It was surprising to see how comfortable I was working with people I have rarely worked with before, as this would be something I would be reluctant to do at the beginning on the semester. Additionally, it was encouraging to see that I am now able to smoothly transition between the roles of the under and over dancer and give my weight safely to others rather than just reverting back to the under dancer, which used to be a continuing habit of mine. I feel I can improve on creating different surfaces with my body to receive people’s weight on. This is because when someone gives me their weight, I create a stable base for them but I appear to be just a static object. Therefore, if I was to continually move with my partner by creating different surfaces for them to give me their weight, the contact improvisation would appear to be more interesting and fluid.

The first exercise was aimed at exploring the idea of ‘hooking’. As a collective group we appear to use hooking in our ‘jam’ sessions as a way to move our partner around the space. However, this has an impact on how our partner can move and they are constrained to where there partner wants them to go and therefore restricts them from moving freely. We explored in our partners the idea of  hooking where one partner would be the under and use their arms and hands to control the over dance and vice versa. After proving our restricted this felt, we then develop them by dismissing the idea of hooking and allow the over dance to move freely. It became clear that by not using hooking it was much easier to move with your partner because you could easily alternate the roles of the over and under dancer and create more opportunities. This is something that I would like to pay attention to when I am performing contact improvisation as I have realised that ‘hooking’ isn’t necessary as I can just listen to my partners body and where they want to move and immediately respond to it.

One exercise that we attended to in this class consisted of a floor exercise, experimenting with our pelvis through space. A common collective fault in contact improvisation and one I noticed that I don’t do personally is effectively using the pelvis to move on and off different bodies. Therefore, this task was used to develop the idea of moving with our pelvis first to move on and off bodies fluidly. The next exercise consisted of exploring this idea in partners to ingrain this idea of safely moving with our pelvis into our minds. Partner A would create a surface for partner B to execute their pelvis on and become the over dancer. Initially, I found it difficult to throw my weight onto my partner, pelvis first, as I was worried that as a duo we would collapse and I would hurt my partner. However, after I attempted this a few times I was able to relax, let my body lead the movement and I became more comfortable with the idea of letting my pelvis initiate the improvisation. This exercise enabled me to understand that if I was lead from the pelvis it would create more opportunities for me to move with my partner. As well as this, it would allow my partner to feel when I have arrived at their surface so as a duo we can explore how this can initiate movement and proceed further into creating an improvisation duet. This is more beneficial than just launching myself unexpectedly at my partner as I am maintaining a safe practice and it gives my partner time to react.

This exercise was then developed into leading with the legs. Therefore partner A would create a stable base whilst partner B would initiate movement from the legs to execute themselves on and off their partner’s body. Personally, I felt less comfortable leading with my legs, especially when my partner create higher surfaces for me to move onto. On the other hand, it was exciting to see how I could create better contact positions by initiating movement with my legs and letting the rest of my body follow. Also, it enabled less weight and pressure to be applied to my pressure as before I was putting the majority of my weight onto my partner by leading with me pelvis. The final contact exercise that we explored was the notion of pouring our pelvis onto our partner. This sensation of pouring your pelvis onto your partner allows you to maintain a sense that you have arrived safely onto your partners back and so you partner can listen to your body and know that you have arrived safely. It becomes more effective than just launching yourself onto your partner and rushing to create some form of contact with them because once you have placed yourself safely onto your partner, you have created more opportunities to move.

Towards the end of the session, we formulated an contact score in our groups to be performed at the open studios. As we devised our contact score, the reading by Jamie Stover Some Considerations When Structuring an Improvisation was taken into consideration. A contact score can be structured in a variety of ways. A score can be based on a formal, relative structure that allows the audience to see the action better and is not altered throughout the performance or a score that has no performance purpose and no reliance on rules but individuals in the dance can influence changes and alter parts. My group decided to create a score that was based around a loose structure and some required rules. When creating our score, it was essential that we filled and emptied the space, fulfilling the idea of spatial rhythm that was discussed in class. Our contact score was based on the following principles:

• A Maximum of eight dancers had to present in the space at all times, there can be less but no more eight
• Maximum of two dancers sitting out of the space at all times
• When one dancer enters the space, another dancer must follow to form a duet. Upon entering the space, they are required to maintain contact and travel to the opposite side of the room
• There are opportunities for solos and trios in the space but when a third person joins the duet to form a trio, they must change the direction and momentum of the dance

Our score will be developed further and refined over the next couple of weeks in preparation for the open studios but one aspect that we need to take into great consideration is the levels we use. It was apparent to the people watching that we all have a tendency to move along the floor, dismissing the idea of using higher levels. Therefore, as a group we need to ensure we are using a range of levels as well as a range of dynamics to make the improvisation more creative and interesting.

Bibliography 

Stover, J. (1989). Some Considerations When Structuring an Improvisation (to be seen by an audience). Contact Quarterly/ Contact Improvisation Sourcebook II, (14)185.

My groups focus for this week was the question ‘Is it possible to do lifts with the same intention and fluidity in trios that it is in duets?’. From our own experiences in contact improvisation we have discovered that it is easier to perform lifts in a duo than in a trio, as it always seems that the third person who is trying to incorporate themselves in the lift gets left out. Therefore we wanted to explore this idea further in our groups and experiment with easier ways to perform a lift in a trio without making it feel clumpy. Our research lab included experimenting with lifts that we had previously learnt in class but we adapted and developed them to integrate a third person, which led to a concluding improvisation jam to demonstrate our discoveries that we made during the lesson. This lifts that we explored in relation to our questions were the back bend lift, the crucifix and the hip to hip lift.

Firstly, we experimented with incorporating a third person into the back bend lift. We attempted this by seeing if we could have two people as the base rather than one whilst they took the weight of the over dancer. Initially, this worked well with Ellie and I being the bases and Becky being the over dancer but it appeared to be quire difficult when Beth and Ellie were the bases because of the vast height difference. However, we discovered that it was important for both people as the under dancers to be positioned equally by ensuring their pelvis were at equal heights so therefore height and position was an important factor in making this lift effective. As the under dancer I could feel that the over dancer felt uncomfortable until we altered our position and it became easier for us all to perform the lift.  To develop this we tried to experiment with a different way of incorporating three people into the back bend lift by one person taking the majority of the weight. This involved one person resting their torso on the back of the under dancer to carry the weight of the over dancer on their back but they also became the over dancer as the weight was transferred on the back of the third person as two people were lifted off the ground by the third person creating the supportive, stable base and the under dancer. This lift was more successful than the previous attempt, as a new, interesting lift was created but the over dancer had to ensure they create a strong base.

Another lift that we explored was the crucifix lift. This was adjusted and developed from the original lift of when one person would be held underneath their armpits by their partner, as they jumped up in the air and were pulled back into the space by their partner. This lift was developed by one person supporting the over dancer by the shoulder blades and incorporating a third person into the lift to support the weight.  Personally, I felt that this lift was not as successful as the others because it appeared not the have as much fluidity as the others and we found it difficult to get out of the lift and bring the over dancer back to the group again. One reason we discovered for this is that the third person tends to support the weight by holding onto the over dancer’s leg, which limits their movement as they are restricted to where they can move to so it is difficult for them to position themselves to get out of the lift and this result in the lift looking less fluid. Finally, we experimented with the hip to hip lift and we adapted this differently to integrate three people in it. The weight was not supported by the hips but the shoulders. This involved one person taking the weight of the over dancer and transferring the weight of the over dancer into the third person so the lift can work as a trio. Originally, we discovered that this lift consisted of one person taking the majority of the weight and the third person just supporting so it wasn’t as effective as we hoped. Therefore, we decided that to incorporate three people into this lift, one person could perform the lift with another person, creating a duo and then transferring the weight of the over dancer into the third persons arms so they then become the under dancer and then they carry on the improvisation or turn it into another lift. We found this was more successful than trying to attempt lifts with two people being a supportive base and having one over dancer.

Once we had explored and experimented with these lifts, we performed a short improvisation jam to communicate our discoveries. To begin with we found that we were not looking for opportunities for contact but instead we were just rushing into a clump in the space and forcing a trio out of that. However, we then realised that we should not think about it and if there is a moment for contact we should not rush it but work with it to see where it could take us. Similar to experimenting with the hip to hip lift, we found that as soon as contact occurred the third person would support the weight of the over dance with their hands by holding their legs and this restricted the movement available for the over dancer. Therefore, we attempted the jam again and paid specific attention to this idea and instead of using arms for support we tried to use different body parts other than the hands and arms, which in turn made the contact more interesting but also didn’t limit movement as more opportunities were created. As a result, we found that lifts could include three people in a variety ways but it is primarily up to listening to other people’s bodies and having spatial awareness at all times.

As a group we formulated a series of questions in relation to our contact research lab:

Can you interchange the role of the lifter and who is being lifted?

Can you pass on the weight of the lift from one person to another?

How can you explore lifts in trios without resorting to to grabbing the legs as a way of support?

How can trio lifts initiate from the floor and move upwards and travel across the space?

This weeks jam was completely different to the previous jams I have been involved in, as it consisted of being blindfolded so no of the class knew where they were in the space or who they were working with. Initially, I was very hesitant to do this because I strongly dislike performing with my eyes closed but I found myself easing into it and creating new movements. It was interesting to step out and watch the group perform in a blind folded jam as some parts looked choreographed but of course they weren’t as no one knew where they were in the space. As no one could see, it was evident that people were’t thinking about what they were doing but instead if they felt a bit of contact they took it as an invitation and moved with it, which resulted into something intriguing. It was clear that people were using different body parts to initiate movements, creating new surfaces and different ways of moving were constructed.

We began today’s session by watching two contact improvisation videos, both looking at the play of taking and giving weight. In both videos, it was evident that the partnerships were fluid in their movements and alternated their roles as the under and over dancer. In the first clip, it was clear that the male was predominately the over dancer, subjecting the woman to the role of under dancer. However, there were movements were the female dancer did support the male dancer (Neige Christenson, 2009). On the other hand, the role of the under and over dance in the second clip was equally distributed (omegabranch, 2011). When I was watching both clips of contact improvisation, there were some similarities in the way each partnership moved. I could see that the dancers would continually stay in contact at all time, initiating movements with different parts of their body. Observing these clips inspired me to experiment with this type of movement. This is because when I perform I usually become the role of under dancer and create a static supportive base for my partner to move over. However, the clips made me aware that I can still move, even though I am the base and that will encourage my partner (the over dancer) to follow and move with me to create a more fluid piece. Both duets continuously used different parts of their body to provide bases and structures for their partner, as they succeeded not to lose contact.

As a class we used this idea of keeping contact with your partners at all times through a series of exercises. Firstly, we began with an exercise of rolling on the floor, experimenting with the notion of reaching into the space with the legs and arms. Furthermore, we practised different rolls across the room in groups of four, such as the banana helix. The banana helix roll consisted of crossing one hand over the over, reaching out into the space with the underneath arm and pushing the top leg over the underneath leg to turn the body over. Initially, as I repeated this movement I began to feel quite queasy but I discovered a new type of roll that I could incorporate and translate into my body rather than consciously rolling on the floor on my back, which is a habitual pattern of mine. The next exercise involving getting into partners and one partner lying on the other’s stomach, centres pressed together. The duet was initiated from the under dancer performing a small dance with their stomachs, which led to the over dancer responding so they too performed a small dance with their stomach. This led to a shared rhythm between me and my partner and enabled me to listen to their body to follow on to the next task of the duet. This small dance was developed into an exercise where the roles of the over and under dancer alternated without loosing contact. I find it quite easy to stay in continuous contact with my partner rolling on the floor, as I was able to engage and listen to their centre and focus on where I needed to move in the space in order for them to become the opposite role. However, this task was developed by gradually coming up to standing. At first I found this quite difficult as my partner and I were unsuccessful in moving from the floor to standing to begin with as it took us many attempts. I think it was due to the fact I have a tendency to lock my legs resulting in my feet not being stable, which therefore impacted my ability to move around the space and provide different structures for my partner. In relation to Bruce Curtis’ article Exposed to Gravity, he states “when you are in the present moment and listening to your partner’s body, the point of contact can bridge the empty space between your bodies until the dance brings you both home again”. I thought about this idea during the exercise, releasing that if I was to relax and listen to my partner’s body’s and their intention of where they want to move then I can use different surfaces of my body to stay in contact with them and create a successful duet.

The next part of the lesson focused on more advanced lifts, integrating the idea of going up from the previous lesson. We began with a simple back lift that involved one partner providing a stable and steady support and lifting their partner over their back. It was important that the partner being the support ensure their pelvis was lower than the partner they were lifting in order to carry out the exercise safely. In this lift, I feel I was able to take on both roles effectively and it was one I thoroughly enjoyed. As I continued to practice it I found myself being lifted higher as I became more confident in giving my partner my weight and I was aware of where my pelvis needed to be placed in order to be lifted. This led me to find it easier to balance on my partner’s back for a longer period of time. Another lift that I enjoyed is the jump lift. This consisted of placing my hands under my partner’s shoulder blades and giving them support as they jumped in the air and allowed me to pull their weight back into the space.

The final lifts that we learnt appeared harder than the previous ones as it took multiple attempts for me to accomplish them. This paperclip lift involved one partner placing their right arm over the back of their partner, which leads partner A to rest their arm pit on the shoulder of partner B. Partner B then supports their partner by wrapping their hand around their partner’s waist and connecting their pelvis to their partner, ensuring their’s is lower to create a stable base. Partner A then leans sideways into their partner and uses the momentum, with support of partner B to lift their feet off the ground. This is one of the lifts I felt most uncomfortable with, as it took me a while to lift my feet off the ground. I am quite concious of being lifted so I usually take the role of the under dancer when the integration of lifts are required but I would like this to experiment with this idea to push myself and include them in the contact improvisation jams. I was more confident at being the lifted than I was at being lifted as I provided a steady base but I think that was my unsuccessful attempts were due to my placement of my pelvis on my partner so it restricted me lifting my feet off the group. On the other hand, as I gradually poured more weight into my partner, I found myself becoming more successful and I believe that with more practice I can execute the lift more effectively. The other lift that I found difficult was the shoulder lift, as it involved being at a much higher height. Although I found these lifts particularly difficult, I would like to integrate more lifts into my performance as I am interested in exploring more with levels as I tend to stay quite grounded and move further away from my habitual movements.

At the end of the lesson, the class participated in a round robin. I have never been involved in a round robin so it was interesting to experience this and have the chance to observe class mates. At the beginning of the semester I would be reluctant to involve myself as I would be aware that people were watching me and I wouldn’t want to embarrass myself. However, I didn’t feel bothered about involving myself in my circle, it was just a matter of finding the correct time to go in and perform. However, as I was watching the round robin I realised there wasn’t a right time to go into the circle, it was more about taking the invitation and involving myself. Throughout this experience, I used more levels, pushing myself to work at a higher level and performing at much faster pace than previously. This was evident in the counter balance when Alice and I ran across the room and rolled on the floor at a faster speed.

In this week’s jam my initial aims were to alternate my roles equally as an under and over dancer and incorporate lifts. I didn’t feel successful in this jam as I felt I only incorporated some of my aims. My role as the under and over dance were equally distributed and I initiated the majority of movements with different people I don’t usually work with. Although I did find it difficult to initiate lifts, which is mainly due to the fact I am still hesitant in incorporating them into my improvisation but I also struggle to include them because I frequently find myself on the floor and I am unsure of how to get from the floor to standing. Therefore, this is a hurdle I need to overcome, as I aspire to include them in my performance.

Bibliography 

Omegabranch (2011) Contact Improvisation Mirva Mäkinen & Otto Akkanen. [online] Available fromhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMLbWxujoGw [Accessed 13 November 2014].

Christenson, N. (2009) The play of weight. [online] Available from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ltq6y06E8ew [Accessed 12 November 2014].

Curtis, B. (1988). Exposed to Gravity. Contact Quarterly/ Contact Improvisation Sourcebook I, 13 156-162.