The following message was posted to: dance-tech kent and all, I probably should have been more specific, improvisation has become something of a dirty word 'in the uk', as it is true that "movement improvisation" is generally more accepted in the european continent. "contact improvisation" however seems to be departing further and further from it's original form. for purposes of information my own work (theories) on improvisation / emergence, and development of epikinetic dance technologies / autonomous improvising avatars, is a direct result of my study with lisa nelson (and to a lesser extent conversations with steve paxton). lisa also introduced me to your own writings on technology and improvisation (which reminds me of my pet 'to do' project mapping out the lineage of dance technology and dance tech practitioners). the two books you mentioned are indeed very good, for those interested they are; Albright, Ann Cooper and Gere, David (Eds) (2003) "Taken by Surprise: A Dance Improvisation Reader". Wesleyan University Press. ISBN 0819566489 Foster, Susan Leigh (2002) "Dances That Describe Themselves: The Improvised Choreography of Richard Bull". Wesleyan University Press. ISBN 0819565512 matt (the longer response can be found here [http://www.scottsutherland.com/dancetechnology/archive/2003/0623.html] and a example of how epikinetic dance technology might be used for 'improv' with real dancers can be found here [http://www.scottsutherland.com/dancetechnology/archive/2003/0614.html]) (if you are trying to follow these longer threads if might be worth looking at [http://www.scottsutherland.com/dancetechnology/archive/2003/] i also use it to see if any postings have missed my inbox) --- Kent De Spain <despaink@earthlink.net> wrote: > > Matt (and everyone), > > Thank you for that explanation. It helps in > my understanding of > what you are trying to get at. It is interesting > that you say that > improvisation has "become something of a dirty > word." Lisa Nelson was > just telling me that she thinks that "movement > improvisation" as > opposed to "contact improvisation" (a very specific > practice) is > finally getting more attention. She thought, > particularly on the > European continent, that there was a growing > interest. In America > there was also the release of two excellent books > that can make some > connections between "emergence" and improv: Taken by > Surprise (a > compilation of improv writings); and Susan Foster's > recent book (I > think it was called "Dances That Create Themselves" > or something like > that) about the late Richard Bull's work (he was > brilliantly aware of > how to delegate artistic control and stimulate > emergent > "choreography" based on improvisational > instructions). Another > interesting connection between the two approaches > can be found in > several Contact Quarterly issues from the early to > mid '90s. That was > when the late John Marinelli and I were writing a > number of articles > based on the application of new scientific paradigms > (including chaos > theory and quantum theory) to improvisational > moving. It is > interesting to see these ideas surface again in > conjunction with the > dance and technology explorations. Kent De Spain > > by way of dance-tech-admin@dancetechnology.org > wrote: > > >The following message was posted to: dance-tech > > > >Johannes and Kent > > > >I will get back to you with full response but a > short response > > > >improvisation has become something of a dirty word. > I thinks that's > >why we have the label 'emergence' essentially there > is no difference > >between the original practice of say paxton and > nelson (not what > >contact and improv have become) and what is > happening in 'current' > >emergent practice. movement naturally has emergent > properties > > > >jane updated her web site: > > > >In my PhD I aim to investigate through theory and > practice a strand > >of dance-led interdisciplinary arts practice which > uses scientific > >theory as a compositional model, with a view to > developing, refining > >and/or extending choreographic practices which are > grounded in > >emergent principles. > >In scientific terms, emergent systems self-organise > from the bottom > >up and are subject to; neighbour interaction, > pattern recognition, > >feedback and indirect control. (Johnson, 2001, > Holland 1998). > >Emergent performance is neither precisely > choreographed nor > >improvised but involves the following of simple > rules by performance > >elements (dancers), which result in complex and > unpredictable > >results (the performance). Choreographic > investigations into such > >practices are gradually developing (Hagendoorn > 2002) [src: > >http://www.janeturner.net/current.php (scroll > down)] > > > >both paxton and nelson drew on scientific > principles, perception, > >motor control kinematics etc [see also: > >http://dancelab1.dance.ohio-state.edu/~barrios/cord.html] > the direct > >links from improv to emergence are there but very > few seem to be > >willing to recognise that 'emergence' is the > scientific or > >theoretical contextualisation for improv rather > than a new > >methodology for moving. scientific applications > need careful > >consideration and study (ie fractals which I > believe are almost > >impossible to implement in dance), sci art should > embody a rigorous > >understanding of both practices. > > > >the tools to view imporv and emergence (as they are > currently > >practice) are the same, because they are of the > same lineage. > > > >matt > > > >---------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- The Dance-Tech mailing list has recently moved to a new address. To post a message, send email to dance-tech@dancetechnology.org. To unsubscribe, send email to lists@dancetechnology.org, with the words "unsubscribe dance-tech" in the message body. ----------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/03/04