Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
This is a new poem that I wrote for Satellite-Dance Theater's new choreography, Vessel
Vessel
Scraping at the bottom
Feet crossed and legs lengthened
Under my weight is the curve
The curving steel and brass and bones
I am carving for a way out
Held down under the ship
under the ocean
Hovering right above where the earth begins
____________________
Oscillating and tripling out underneath
The way of the waves
I can follow through
I can’t find where to meet you
or where to turn to
One on top of the other – it keeps
happening, one on top of the other
one on top of the other
____________________
Where is this place?
(I think it is home)
crossing through
one against two
again and again
one against two
the next/ the next/ the next
____________________
Changing places
around me
everything falls to the right
everything falls to the left
The LAND is 3,999 feet high
(How will I get there?)
I am down below on this ship my grandfather built
The beginning is the ending to what you are giving me
(What are you giving me?)
____________________
In togetherness there is nothingness
____________________
Lines and space and curves and eights and nines and tens
Where one wave doesn’t line up with the next
Where the rhythms are off and struggle to circle back round
The rhythm pulls back and finishes the tarnish on the steel
rimmed
trim
of the boat
We are ALL on this boat
NOT just you, NOT just me
ALL of us
WHOLE body
Our feel tied to its mass as it sinks:
Get out of my hands
Get out of my hair
Get our of my back
I keep going/ keep going/ keep going
____________________
Not all at the same time
Circling for air…
Slowly moving down and looking up
to the edge of the cliff
where I sink, where I try to climb
from the water to the land
asking myself to be
crossed over or crossed under
or crossed off
gone forever…
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Personal Reflection from CITE
July 17, 2010
Reflections on Contact Improvisation in the Academy: An essay review of CITE
From June 17-20, 2010 I attended the Contact Improvisation Teachers’ Exchange (CITE): Contact in the Academy at Connecticut College with about 25 other teachers from around the US (most of whom were teaching in the academy). The following are some of the thoughts and questions that have stayed with me since that conference. I am eager to share them because I have found that, in teaching in academia, it is easy to be isolated and that CQ and CITE events are fantastic ways to reconnect to the truth of the form we love. What I explore in this essay is how the academy is changing my views of dance and teaching. Specifically, post-conference, I am left with these questions:
1. What is important about CI? What is the essential nature of CI that I am trying to teach?
2. How are the values of CI and the academy different yet, on the surface, similar?
3. How does this conflict in values affect me as a teacher? What is the most efficient way to navigate this conflict?
4. How does the form of CI change because the human experience of the teacher has changed?
5. How can the academy better support subjective subjects (such as dance and somatics)?
One of the most important reminders that came out of the CITE discussions was how contact improvisation prioritizes teaching people to be themselves. As those who are familiar with CI know, this idea of self is expressed through community, physical expression, and verbal/artistic sharing. As I travel away from the conference I wonder (perhaps idealistically): Why can’t these important aspects of contact improvisation be an integral part of how the academy functions?
On the surface the academy and CI have very similar goals. Both want to improve the lives of others through information, understanding, fairness/justice, and connection. But, the values and goals of how dance functions within the academy are often not as concurrent as they might seem from the outside.
One of the themes of the conference was framed by the organizers in the form of a question: Will CI be kept alive by the academy? In my opinion, the short answer is, yes, CI in the academy will survive so long as teachers are willing to fight for it. Because of budget concerns, dance is often encouraged to be a part of a larger department so as to not be cut. Thus, dance within the structure of the academy is often set up as a second class citizen to theater, physical education or, in some cases, kinesiology. With the right leadership these subjects can really work well together but the reality is that dance is a deep and intricate subject with several sub-subjects within itself. Therefore mergers and reorganizations (that often seem to benefit the “corporate” interests of the academy more so than the students) frequently can cause dance faculty to veer away from the inherent goals of the subject.
Many of us in the dance world already know that dance (especially dance improvisation) is not a priority to our culture but we keep doing it because it is essential to our way of being. It is easy for a dance teacher within the academy to find herself caught up in the cultural climate such that the ideals of dance and CI are no longer important. “The academy will kill the CI teacher” was how one member of the group from the conference put it. Although teachers are resilient in many ways, the question is clear: Does the form change because the teacher is no longer able to truly model the philosophical cornerstones of CI when forced to meet the corporate regulations of the academy? Again, from my point of view, the answer is still yes. The emotional skills of intimacy that are (hopefully) taught in CI, in the right environment, can transform the identity of the person teaching and learning the form. If these skills change because of the demands of the corporate academy, then the way the teacher teaches changes and thus the form changes.
Although I teach in a small department in a very large public university – where the corporate model is in full effect – I know this model can also have similar influence in a small liberal arts environment. Although on some level this challenge could be for the better (e.g. provoking creativity in the face of competition), it seems to me that it is frequently for the worse because of the human toll - often translating into oppression in the work place. This oppression, in turn, often creates a contradiction of values. It is important for the teacher to interact with the students in the same way in which she interacts with co-faculty and administrators. All to often, however, the teacher is not able to practice what she preaches in the classroom or in the conference room. To model the CI form, one must model community on all levels in order to make the work the in the classroom and the academy effective. Because the CI philosophy of being one’s self and investigating the unknown is the way I want to be and the way I want the world to be, I find the oppressive nature of teaching in an environment that does not prioritize the human effect of the operation very difficult to traverse and transcend.
I frequently ask myself these questions about the academy: How can we as teachers in the academy stay true to the form and survive such tense relations either with other faculty or administrators who have different values? As it was suggested at the conference, we can invite administrators to our concerts and to our classes but when they don’t show up (and often don’t even know where to begin to engage with dance as art) the cycle of hopelessness is easy to accept. We can educate the academy as well but do they know or actually really care about the value of the education that comes through a subjective form like CI? How do we as a CI community convince them?
For most contact teachers the form is personal and essential. The academy, including classical modern dance teachers, doesn’t always connect to something so subjective. This is why it is difficult to fight for improvisational dance in the academy and all the reason more one must try. The fight can ruin teachers and it can also save teachers.
The main CI personality trait that I see changing in people that go into academia, and a topic discussed at the conference, is generosity. Academics often do not tend to be generous toward each other. The ubiquitous in-fighting and political posturing creates an oppressive environment that can only be changed through proactive leadership. Even then, if one is lucky enough to have a proactive leader for dance, it is rarely a stable situation as administrators are often cut or resign and are tested unfairly through the bureaucratic system that leads most to a depleted spirit. How can a system of depleted spirits teach the true meaning and essence of CI?
The real question for me is how can I remain true to myself in this type of environment that does not prioritize the values that I see so vibrantly in most contact communities? How can I help change this type of environment in academia? Can I be one of the surviving contactors that still models the spirit of CI even if I am surrounded by situations that will take advantage of my generosity, courage, listening, vulnerability, and openness? Or, will these traits slowly change under this pressure forcing me to no longer be able to be the person I want to be?
The reality that a dance teacher (especially a female dance teacher) is replaceable and that arts are often a lower priority is a fact that makes one have to work extra hard to fight for his or her job, and/or live in fear that one’s department will be cut. Since higher education institutions are the leaders of the humanities and are the main cultural support and frequent promoters of subjective inquiry, it is surprising to me that the human (emotional/moral) impact of the academy on the faculty is not a top priority of operation. I have noticed in working at different schools that if teachers feel secure and supported in their roll by the institution then they often pass this way of being to the students. Since CI is about support and connection, CI can model an ideal way of operation for the academy, if they are open and willing to listen.
CITE gave me an opportunity to see that there is some hope that the academy is able to listen. The challenges will be ongoing as CI finds its place in the academy.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Audience feedback from my new dance presented at DNA
"In the first section you looked like someone caught in a rainstorm, unsure of where to find shelter. The "ding" element to the music was synced well to your movements. When I saw your face on the screen, it was jarring an broke an illusion, or mirrored your physical presence, in a way, but I interpreted it as you thinking about your self."
"Precision is awesome = sound and movement, the little "tings" that match your action. More of this! Screen images are interesting but too much white space. I really like the moments when you face the audience. Great use of space and floor."
"Human movements to non-human sounds. Snooze button: in and out, off and on. White noise."
"Reminded me of sad/painful memories one would try to leave behind, but maybe that is just me. I liked the rain sound/image... it had some comfort in it..."
"The precise starts and stops of motion with the light/sound of light and the chime stood out and was so impressive. I could see more of those in the piece."
"Very intriguing- Was curious to see more on the screen so it kept my attention. The soft rain sound with the bell sound was unique."
"What's the connection between the screen and the dress? Really like the light and music noise."
"Alone in personal storm. Moments of stillness/reflection. Rich/vibrant. Made me want to breathe deeply to feel the moisture in air."
"I enjoyed when the images on the screen were more faint, ghostly. The beginning of the piece reminded me of a storm at sea, someone trying to gain control. The dress for me was reminiscent of the Wizard of Oz. I don't know why you left the stage at the end. I liked the interaction of the dancer and the sound/images person."
