|
Musings
September
29,
2009
Recently,
I was asked what contact improvisation was all about. Well, this was my
reply:
Contact
improv means different things to different people. Fundamentally, it's
about improvising, but using the physical contact between 2 (or more)
partners as a score for the improvisation.
For some, it's a
physical practice/meditation. For others, it's about
learning about their own body and perhaps even their own
personality/desires/fears. Some use it as a choreographic tool whereas
perform it as it is. Others do it as an alternative to other physical
activities -- either because it's gentler, or because it's more
risky/exciting. Some people love it, some people can't stand it.
To me, at the very moment of writing this,
contact improv can be
thought of as the tao of dancing/moving. It's not exactly definable,
but it's definitely definable at that very moment when two bodies meet
in space.
Looking back at this
response, I'm still not
satisfied
with it, perhaps stemming from the attempt to set into stone an
impermanent art form.
- David
September 2, 2009
Recently in
July, I had a short dance/movement piece performed at the Short+Sweet
Dance Malaysia festival. The piece, although rooted in improvisation,
was more of a mixture of different movement forms that I had been
exploring recently, which eventually made the piece quite fixed in its
structure.
After the run had ended, I was scouring the net for any writings on the
piece and stumbled upon this quote from an audience member's blog:
They
were jumping over and off and rolling over each other. It didn't look
like some choreographed piece but it looked really fun. To me, the
piece was about courage and trust. You gotta trust your friends that
they will catch you and you have to trust yourself to take the first
leap.
Whether
trust comes before or after you take the leap, the leap itself is
courage.
It was
such a pleasure to read the comment because it was most unexpected.
This was because throughout the festival, which was more of a
competition, or treated as such by most of the participants, my mind
was centered around thoughts such as "Are we good?", "What
will people think of us?", "Will they like it?" What was lost amidst
all these thoughts was the piece itself. And what it meant to the
audience.
Revisiting the quote today leaves me thinking about trust and courage
-- words that are commonly bandied about as recipes to success in any
situation, be it social, economic, or personal. It never occured to me
what, if there was any, the link between the two qualities is. Courage
is by no means an easy thing but it's nothing that a little will power
can't muster. Trust, on the other hand, seems to have some sort of
prerequisite before it is able to be invested in a person or situation.
So what does it take to trust someone?
The answer, I think, can be gleaned from the quote above -- You can't
trust someone without first trusting yourself. And how do you know if
you trust yourself? Trust, after all, is just a word unless put to the
test. I think courage is a good barometer, or more specifically, a
courageous act. I mean, how can you make a courageous leap, unless you
trust yourself to do so? Likewise as the catcher, you can't just make a
courageous attempt to catch a leaping partner unless you trust yourself
to catch them safely.
A courageous leap is not just a trust in oneself, because when viewed
from the perspective of the other person, is a trust in them as well.
This then signals to the other person to be courageous themself,
"They're putting their trust in me, so I have no reason to not trust
them." Therefore, metaphorically and literally speaking, a courageous
act is what is needed to spark a chain of trust in those around you.
Having said that, the one thing that contact improvisation teaches so
well is the skill to land safely, in the event of a fall. Having
responsibility for the other's safety, means first and foremost, being
responsible for your own safety. This then eases the mind of your
partner as they won't have to feel like they have to take this burden
solely on themself.
This
does seem to imply one additional ingredient to the equation though --
generosity. But I'm
going to stop here and leave the ruminating for you to continue. :-)
All in all, I'm glad to have made the leap.
- David
July 6, 2009
Musings from Shueh
Miin, an audience member of David Lim and Low Shee Hoe's contact improv
performance at Improv Lab@FINDARS, The Annexe, Kuala Lumpur, July 2,
2009:
Loved the way
David
and Shee Hoe reacted to Melvin's music. It was artistic and
entertaining (to achieve both of these elements is usually very hard).
Was there a theme? Although Melvin did some variation, it was for very
short moments, and then he went back to flowing melody/sounds for David
and Shee Hoe to move. Loved the ups and downs of the show; ups - when
the guys were more aggressive in their contact plus throwing each other
against the wall (that was quite an impression), down - when they were
more grounded, soft contact, on the floor etc - this was a nice
contrast. By the way, was there a story line? I thought David
resurrected Shee Hoe from the dead to communicate with him, but then he
got aggressive and went overboard, and David tried to send him back but
he got a replacement instead (the mat salleh from the audience) and in
the end...did David send him back to the wall?
Newer
musings
Older
musings
|
|
|