This time, I was still thinking about the reading from week 5. I was looking what we are doing during the impro class and impro jam and wondering: so can we call it choreography? Basically, I was imagining myself as an spectator who comes to see an improvisation performance or in other words- live art. Through our works in the studio, I believed, that yes, we can still call improvisation choreography, but then, when I tried to make connection and find relationships between some performers on the stage and I got lots… Firstly, you are never sure if somebody will react to your responses. Secondly, what if your response will be such an weak and trite, that after one movement phrase, you will feel useless on the stage? I was wondering if the audience could see those “awkward” moments and if yes, would they be happy in the end of the dance? I’m sure that professional improvisers spends loads of time practising in case to find connections and relationships…
The task by Thomas Lehmen was quite difficult for me. How could you relax and follow somebody (imitate) when you never know who is going to stare at you or ask you random questions… And also, how these questions would sound if the audience asked us?..
In general, I really enjoyed Monday’s class. The collaboration with Lauren helped me to find my impulses and maybe individual movement. I always find something new in my when I have to dance/work with other person. But it is so strange, because in other classes, I think working in pairs is just destruction for your own creativity. But here…somehow bodies are the tool to find the creativity in you and your movement/ response/connection…
Bibliography
Husemann, P. (2005) The Functioning of Thomas Lehmen’s Funktionen. Dance Theatre Journal, 21 (1) 31-35.