This week we looked at the score we improvised in last weeks jam, which was Underscore by Nancy Stark-Smith. Throughout I felt like it was difficult for me to use a range of movements which I haven’t used before without going back to habitual moves. I found two sections of this score useful to me. This was where you only used your lower part of your body and then your upper body. This allowed me to use my bodies full potential, it opened my eyes to use different movements which I haven’t discovered. I found that the score at the end gave me freedom as I was allowed to enter and exit the stage when I liked. I was able to bring in new material meaning I could play with the change in dynamics. I also thought it was very structured too as when I entered the space I always interpreted the movement which was already there. Not many people came into the space with new material. I felt like the attention was the same for the people in the wings and the dancers on the stage, as even if you was not on stage you was till part of the score. This meant that you have to put your full attention where ever you was during the score.
Halprin says ‘it’s an exploration. I’m exploring, and my mind is directing me now’. (Halprin in De Spain, 2014, 122). Half way through the score there was a turning point as many dancers came into the space and played with the timings and dynamics this changed the score to make it more interesting and gave it an expression. I feel like everyone in the score started to explore with their bodies and expressions and this made it interesting to watch.
When revisiting our RSVP score we made some changes to our strategies. We changed the duration to five minutes and thirty seconds we feel like this was the right amount of time as nine minutes felt too long. We decided for two people to be the material maker. These two people made up the material and the other four dancers interpreted or manipulated the material. The material makers were also in charge of the stillness in unison. If we had created a unison in stillness we had to sense from the other dancers when to start moving again. This score was very structured and you did not have much freedom to do your own movement and you have to follow by many different rules. I enjoyed performing this score as you had to work as a group and have lots of contact throughout. I thought I could be creative in the way I interpreted the movements which I found interesting. We thought about our form throughout and we wanted it to have more of a chaotic feel as from previously performing it, the movements was soft and slow meaning it did not have any excitement.
When watching the video I felt like it was clear to see that we was interpreting the material. The stillness and unison in the material was nearly at the same point. This showed that the teamwork and contact between all of us was strong as if it wasn’t we wouldn’t of been able to get it at the right time. Even though our form and structure was correct and it made our initial intention clear, which was how to make a score interesting. I felt like the movement was very static most of us did not move as much as we would have liked. There also was not any contact between us all which is something next time we could look back on and figure it out.
In the improvisation jam we refined our own score. We decided to start in a small group and all of us have to have contact with at least one person. This is something which we haven’t done in a score before so we thought it would be interesting. All five of us decided to have different strategies for example I would explore my lower kinesphere and another member in the group would lead their movements with their elbow. Charlotte would initiate the contact between us all, this could lead into a group contact. We have decided to keep the stillness and unison the same as we thought this was working. As well as the duration being only five and a half minutes and having the limitation of not thick skinning.
De Spain, K.(2014) Landscape of the now: a topography of movement improvisation. New York,USA: Oxford University press.