Rigor + Anarchy in Improvisation
By Ellen Slatkin
I’ll start with a couple of relevant definitions. I think a lot gets lost in translation when we talk about improvisation because we’re not clear about what we’re referring to. When I use the word “improvisation,” I am not referring to content. I am referring to a method implemented to explore different techniques and aesthetics, to achieve different goals. A state of improvisation is simply being ready for what is going to happen while it is happening. Somehow improvisation is falsely associated with a particular aesthetic: generally directionless, wiggly, illegible. If that association is dispelled, if the way we define and talk about it changes, I believe improvisation can be implemented widely and become more deeply ingrained in every practice; everything will be richer. At least, it’s something that’s become inextricable from how I practice.
At the core of how I approach movement are rigor and anarchy.
When I say rigor, I mean doing it on purpose. I use improvisation as a method to explore the nuance and extremities of physical capacity. Recently, for example, I’ve used it to explore exhaustion, through constant falling and getting back up again. I emphasize specificity - it is not “anything goes.” It is “anything is possible through loyalty to this methodology.” I use improvisation to react to falling and getting up, over and over and over again.
Credit where credit is due: many of my personal dogmas I have learned. Hagit Yakira (Israel, UK, Norway) introduced me to the expansiveness within falling and recovering. Hilde Ingeborg Sandvold (Norway/Denmark) showed me the magic of anarchy in practice. David Zambrano (Venezuela, Belgium) showed me how to apply rigor to the study of spontaneous performances to find hundreds of different selves.
With David Zambrano, I worked for 60 days on improvised performance. It was grueling, methodic, at times agonizing work, because of the specificity it required. In the first weeks while working solo, we focused on “changes.” Every time, spanning from five minutes to three hours, had to TOTALLY, TOTALLY DIFFERENT. I’ve heard many times that “every improvisation is different inherently because it’s improvised.” I guess you can see it many ways, but I think that assumption is both dangerous in that it can lead to laziness, and completely untrue. To be different requires it to be something in the first place. This means it needs to have intention, direction, to be composed and communicated consciously, and that requires some kind of rigor. Anything most certainly did not go. It’s incredible to watch someone have complete control over their body and communication, to transform themselves purposefully. What I am saying is when you want to reach a goal, rigor can be applied as much to improvisation as to anything else to achieve it.
Anarchy is important because it allows you to place what you need within what you have. This is not the opposite of rigor, but the motorcycle’s sidecar. In the circus of freelancing, I’ve found it a great tool to find continuity throughout ever-changing projects and performances and workshops and teaching. I’m always working on something that I will be working on regardless of where I am. Right now I’m stuck in Denmark because the world is broken and I’ve become obsessed with how much power I can produce from my legs to jump up onto something. I’d be doing the same thing (secretly, in different ways) if I were in a ballet class, or if I were touring a piece, or if I were teaching floorwork. I do this with rigorous improvisation.
Find something you’re obsessed with, try to put it everywhere to figure it out from all possible angles. Improvisation is an angle, tool, method to be able to do this with some levity and joy. Rigor is not just about repetition, anarchy is not just about rebellion. They are active choices, thoughtful ways to implement improvisation as a method that can provide depth of study regardless of where or how you are studying.
Ellen Slatkin is from Berkeley, California. She began her contemporary training at Shawl-Anderson Dance Center and in the ODC Dance Jam, and has been dancing in the UK, Europe, and Canada for the past six years. She has performed for Second Hand Dance (UK), Clod Ensemble (UK), Arch8 (NL), Julia Bengtsson (SWE), Chloë Lum/Yannick Desranleau (Canada), David Zambrano/60 Days of Improvisation, and is currently working with Hilde Ingeborg Sandvold (DK/NO) in Copenhagen.
----
Related posts:
A Dozen Questions about Improvising (Actually, A Baker's Dozen) - Jill Randall
--------------------
Comments