Throughout this lesson we concentrated on duet work and the Thomas Lehmen score. From doing the duet work I learnt a lot about myself as a dancer and working with a partner. I learnt that I have to be aware of my partner so we don’t collide and to make sure we have contact with each other which doesn’t have to be necessarily physical contact but eye contact. When participating in the task impulse we had to visualise being seaweed, wrestling and kittens. My partner Charlotte and I found the seaweed exercise the easiest. We felt like we had more time to see what we were doing, this could make it more interesting for the viewers. As we had to visualise we were seaweed we found our movements very fluid. We realised that the impact was just as important as the impulse. We showed the dynamics of the reaction through our impact. If our impact was fast it wouldn’t have fitted with the task meaning we had to think all of the time.
We found the wresting task more enjoyable. When doing the impulses we had no time to think of what the impact was. Meaning it maybe didn’t look aesthetically pleasing as we had no time to think what it looked like because of the fast pace we were going. I found it hard to not use my hands to do the impulse as this has become habitual for me. I tried to use different body parts to see what the reaction would look like. I used my leg and pushed on Charlotte’s lower back. This didn’t have a strong effect as if I was pushing with my hand. When performing the thick skin task, I found this hard to dance as I struggled with movement material and how to connect with my partner. I felt out of place in this task but feel with more practice I will become more comfortable.
The Thomas Lehmen score, I found very hard to understand when talking about it but once I had watched it I understood it more. There were five main parts and one person had to start as each. These were material, interpretation, manipulation, observation and mediation. When I had watched the score I found that when there was more than one observer. It made the piece boring as not enough material was going on in the space. When more material came in it made the piece more exciting to watch. When I took part in the score I found it very easy to enter and leave the space. Even though the structure was very strict I found it easy to go in and out as there was so much going on in the space I could add and reduce the dancers and material. This could only happen during the second round. In the text it says ‘the fact that openness of the system includes the possibilities of surprise.’ (Husemann,2005, 33). I felt like this was true as in this score it always had an elements of surprise. Whether it could be the quick dynamic changes or even how many dancers were on stage, to how many dancers are doing a certain part. The possibilities of this score are endless and to me this is what makes it interesting as you just don’t know what is going to happen next. The Thomas Lehmen score is something which is new to me. I found it an interesting subject and thoroughly enjoyed working within the score. I feel like it has opened my eyes to new and exciting ways of improvising and the many different structures available.
During the improvisation jam we concentrated on our own life pathways and danced the Thomas Lehmen score again using our own pathways as inspiration. When doing this score I found it interesting to see everyone in the score as there was more going on in the space. I would have like to have seen all of the dancers go into the space at the same time as the different parts and seen what would happen. I imagine that it would be chaos because there is so many parts which people could have been.
When using my own material in the space I found it more personal to me. I felt like every time I went into the space to manipulate someone I was intruding in their lives but also being a part of it. Throughout the score I noticed I was the manipulator more than any other as I felt like I could bounce of their ideas and make the piece more interesting. The dynamic changed from slow to sharp as something which stood out to me when manipulating. The part I tried to avoid was the mediator as I don’t like talking in front of people as I have a slight speech impediment and this would be more on my mind rather than what was happening in the score.
Husemann, P. (2005) The Functioning of Thomas Lehmen’s Funktionen. Dance Theatre Journal, 21 (1) 31-35.