quodlibet

inclusive disjunction

are metaphors and matter of equal importance?

is feeling more useful than knowing, even if the feelings are imagined? visualization is effective (that much seems clear) but can it lead to unhelpful confusion.

we often talk about how useful it is to be lost or confused, but that seems to be a place for discovery, not occupation. our imagination can have concrete effects, but the outcomes are usually to do with the self, not others (or matter).

so, should we prioritize the placebo or the proof.

(by ‘proof’ i mean externally-coherent, repeatable, and contextual knowledge. but perhaps that’s unimportant here.)

‘sharing weight’ is something we talk about a lot in contact improvisation (CI). with a partner we lean back-to-back, or head-to-head and share our ‘weight’. the words help us gain a shared sense of self, or a fluid interface between two bodies. we feel the ‘weight’ through pressure.

but is it weight we feel? it’s easy to confuse weight with mass. is sharing mass (or sharing substance) more useful? we rarely share mass/substance in CI, so the term ‘weight’ seems more useful. but asking the question of ‘mass’ clarifies the ‘sharing’.

sharing in CI carries the notion of equality, ‘we share’. but this is only an implication; one dancer can take another’s ‘weight’ (supporting), or dancers can slip in-and-out of equilibrium.

but lets not focus on another route of inquiry too quickly. weight seems more suitable than mass (as a term), but is it good enough?

weight keeps you in contact, and balance with your partner. it facilitates your sensation of the flow of momentum. here the imagination and senses combine to produce a simple flow of information. yet dance with weight, and you recognize you are feeling pressure.

so we confuse weight, mass, and pressure. the confusion lies around forces; weight is product of mass and gravity, pressure can come from many different forces.

‘share the forces’ sounds a little nerdy/geeky. ‘force’ might also lead to the assumption that strength is required. but force is:

Any external agent that causes a change in the motion of a free body, or that causes stress in a fixed body. [nasa]

sharing the ‘forces’ suggests sharing the ‘pulls and pushes’ of movement (a)synchronously. but the language is problematic (although somewhat accurate). we make use pushes/pulls in CI, but our intentions are usually more subtle. pushing and pulling can have negative overtones in dance practice/ideology.

so ‘forces’ seems more appropriate than ‘weight’, but are problematic to visualize/embody. perhaps we can do without both terms by dropping the ‘sharing’.

sharing is central to CI, so what’s the rationale for dropping the term? sharing has always been an option, not a requirement. it simply became the dominant solution to collisions.

solutions are not the form, they are responses to questions proposed by the form.

i’ve already used the word ‘equilibrium’ to suggest a balanced state; but not all CI is static. ‘dynamic equilibrium’ is a rich concept to visualize/imagine; a multitude shifting forces balancing the (active) whole.

but dynamic (kinetic) equilibrium still leaves a ‘state’ and CI is a stochastic process (non-deterministic). The moments of equilibrium in CI are fleeting, not maintained.

so where does that leave me … with students i use ‘weight sharing’ and ‘dynamic equilibrium’ discussing the benefits/problems of each concept.

what i want to find is rich description that can has coherent outcomes. the dissonance of placebo and proof slows down my (embodied) cognition. rather than two mental tracks, i’d rather use one … the extra capacity can be put to better uses.

we stick with metaphors because matter is hard to embody. imagination is simple to perform, the boundaries are flexible. the logic of matter can preclude simple visualization, but some concepts are simple.

metaphor and matter can be balanced. but it’s a rare find, and in this instance one that eludes me.

axial

When asked to explain contact improvisation (CI), most teachers describe its assumed content (e.g. Flow, Weight-sharing, Pouring). Such descriptions are features of CI but not the core concept. CI is not a physical practice, it’s a philosophy for engaging in a physical practice. Put simply, the philosophy of CI invites you to:

explore contact (the meeting of two surfaces) as stimulus for improvisation.

There are (of course) some caveats:

1. The absence of contact is equal to its presence.
2. Moments of contact are explored through, and emerge from Issac Newton’s laws of motion.

The above caveats are the principles of CI practice. In CI philosophy and principles are tightly bound, this relationship allows freedom of interpretation whilst implying a general direction. No practice can be ‘anything’ (or ‘nothing’) because it would cease to be ‘something’.

The skills/concept of weight-sharing, flow, and pouring were developed in response to the philosophy. As such, they should be considered as practical solutions to a philosophical problem. Solutions are unreliable definitions of their instigating problems.

la chute

the subtle sensations of skin-on-skin, offer as much information as a sudden whack. by habit we tend to filter-out the latter.

in contact improvisation (CI) the terms ‘touch’, and ‘contact’ are often interchangeable. in physical practice they imply purposeful, cooperative, or shared actions.

when teaching «dampening» (a form of CI), i use the term ‘collision’ instead of touch/contact’. if everything is a collision you filter the ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ equally. this linguistic turn is a cognitive/phsyical ‘hack’ (behavioral modifier).

rolling and falling are also collisions (with the surfaces they contact). being able to sense your ‘state’ whilst falling/rolling/colliding is core skill in contact improvisation.

typically students are taught how to sense touch/contact in isolated part of their body. skills are learned in pairs so recall is (inadvertently) conditioned to partner work. unable to ‘sense’ alone the students rely on others for stimulation.

‘trust’ exercises are not taught in «dampening»; the mantra is “look after yourself, and you look after others”. students refine their ‘solo’ skills before working with others. after all, how can you learn to fall if someone is always catching you.

the solo skills of rolling and falling (ukemi) are fundamental to aikido practice. the principles, and influence of aikido ukemi were introduced CI by steve patxon. the ‘aikido roll’ of CI and material for the spine (MFS) is known as «zempo kaiten» (forward roll) within aikido.

dampening (like aikido) utilizes a number of falling-rolls that travel forwards, backwards, sideways. in CI the direction of falling is variable, our training should reflect that fact. exploring a wider range of rolls and falls facilitates and applied understanding of physics (classical mechanics).

a basic understanding of physics keeps the dancers safe in body and mind. recognize the principle components of a fall, and you can respond intuitively.

intuition is a form of heuristic ‘knowing that’ (propositional knowledge). intuition is not ‘practical ability’ (per-se), but the ability to theorize. the epistemological ordering of dampening is:

• procedural knowledge - how to perform/apply the skills
• performative knowledge - ability to perform the skills
• propositional knowledge - intuitive ‘knowing that’

when improvising contextual ‘knowing that’ is a highly desirable skill. a single proposition can lead to many routes of practical exploration. procedures can stimulate theorizing, but ‘doing’ is (usually) more interesting to watch.

procedures in «dampening» are based on physical and theoretical principles. for example, procedures for the lunge-forward-roll include:

(practical)
• deep lunge with weight on the forward foot. hands reach long and forward.
• rear leg initiates the rotation, is taken up by the forward leg. keep the limbs extended, eye-line up.
• soften neck and head towards chest, the landing begins on the upper back (third thoracic). smooth contraction to lower lumbar maintaining diameter.
• soft with the skin/body, listen to the small (traveling) collisions with the floor. sense you direction, orientation, and alignment.
• commit to the roll: tense hesitation stops you listening. listening keeps you safe.

(theoretical)
• inertia is the resistance of mass to a change in its state of motion. mass is not equal to weight. mass is constant, whilst weight changes in response to the gravity.
• momentum is equal to mass times velocity (p = mv). force is equal to mass times acceleration (F = ma). acceleration is a change in velocity over time. velocity is the rate of change of position (displacement).
• extending away from the rotation axis increases rotational inertia. or: length gives to more time to think.
• torque applied distally to the rotation axis increases angular velocity. or: pushing-off distally spins you faster.

repeated practice develops experiential, and experimental bodily knowledge. naive expertise is difficult to re-apply and teach. an analytical approach to skills development preserves practical knowledge.

a translucent integration of theory and practice allows students to respond reflexively, and intelligently. practice is research, theorizing CI is practical and active.

dirigibles

most dance students learn diaphragmatic breathing in ‘release’ technique lessons. the tendency to fully inhale/exhale whilst moving can cause problems in contact improvisation (CI).

dumping (suddenly giving your weight) is frowned upon in CI as you can knock the wind out of your partner. in dampening (a CI practice/aesthitc) we use the breath differently to avoid this (and reclaim the dump). but first, lets look at the main approaches to breath and falling in CI:

• inhale, and embrace the fall in light ecstasy.
• exhale, and go with the gravitational flow.

both approaches are useful, but require a ‘full’ commitment to falling. but what if i want to change my mind mid-fall? there is also the problem of colliding mid-fall. exhale on the fall, and you are ‘empty’ at collision (the ‘empty’ torso is over-compressed). inhale on the fall and you are ‘rigid’ at collision (inelastic collisions are to be avoided).

if you inhale on the fall, and exhale at the collision, how do you regulate the exhalation? too slow and you remain rigid, to fast and you get compressed.

in dampening we use a form of rib reserve breathing. this maintains a ‘air cushion’ in the torso, our bodily shock-absorber. we do not lock the ribs up ‘on support’, but leave them flexible like a gas bladder. this means the ribs/spine are not stiff, and we can ‘emergency’ inhale/exhale.

one impact of this technique, is that loud exhalations are (often) absent from falls. even big ones. this can give the (external) impression that the dancers are not using their weight. but i feel this ‘perception’, is conditioning to an aesthetic, in which breath is a marker for ‘gravity’ (even through the two elements are weakly correlated).

understanding weight/gravity does not mean surrendering to them. we resist their effects every day. the important thing to remember is that no one skill/approach fits all solutions. in the moment of improvisation you rely on your intuition (heuristic solutions).

speed metal turned liquid

is sensitivity only gained through s l o w n e s s? current approaches to contact improvisation (CI) would imply so; they begin by listening quietly.

in stillness we can bring awareness to the ‘small dance’. with careful attention we can comprehend the shifts in momentum. the detail of a single sensation, is valued above concurrent sensory clarity.

the ‘lab conditions’ of silent studios, can leave students disorientated in noisy contexts. they begin to favor known vocabularies of weight sharing. improvisation slips into the cracks between floors and backs.

noisy contexts? contact improvisation has a variable signal-to-noise ratio. recreational CI has a strong signal and little noise. the ‘known’ vocabulary and slow/medium speed facilitate sensory comprehension.

when improvisation takes focus, collisions are often fast(er) or unpredictable. here the signal of sensations is smothered in nose; rather than comprehension, clarity is the key. a clear signal can be reflexively responded to, comprehension takes too long.

learning is contextual; my preference is to teach CI in noisy contexts. medium to fast collisions are explored, before slowing down. the first CI work «magnesium» also takes this approach, but the similarity is unintentional.

is ‘embodied sensitivity’ lost by working at speed? no, a forward roll requires you to sense and embody; stop listening and you start hurting. instead of slowing the sensory flow, you learn to ride within it. relaxing in the multitude dilates time; many senses can be attended to.

the main hurdle to starting with speed/noise is confidence. but accepting the possibility of collisions is integral to CI. cosseting students fears constrains their practice, the core skills keep them safe.