quodlibet:

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.

Great take on contact improv. I’d like to see video of this.

• Reblogged from quodlibet