Hi everyone! Just wanted to post this, if you have any time for weekend viewing. It's a fantastic speech on education and creativity... it's about 20 mins long but definitely worth watching. In keeping with our interests in dance, creativity, education, and even discipline!
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/66
Enjoy, and have a great weekend:)
N.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
mildly organized thoughts
I found myself relating very much to the article as a dancer. In contrast to Sarah Rosner, I have spent much of my dance career taking ballet, jazz and classic modern dance techniques. I was very much reminded of ballet, but I was also reminded very much of classic modern dance techniques! Consider a Graham class: it is not enough just to contract and release. One must cup the hands just so, tilt the head just so, as was the case in many of the directions for activities in the reading.
Also, I was reading information on Laban (as many of us were) for Rose Anne at the same time. The specificity in Laban's work could be used to the same end! And consider how much more disciplined dancing bodies could become if we all worked from highly specific notations!
Despite the obvious links to classical technique, I found certain other ideas even more interesting to consider. For example the idea of coercion - that the power structure is being so fully and well imposed because of the fact that it's being slipped in the back door, so to speak. "Small acts of cunning endowed with a great power of diffusion, subtle arrangements, apparently innocent, but profoundly suspicious," (p. 139). It's not being beaten into people, it's "proper" execution is being rewarded. It is being made convenient. I think that these ideas have a very great relationship to the more "open" versions of modern and contemporary dance technique. Even when we are not working from highly stylized and codified techniques, we are still being instructed by a teacher, being ordered into levels, being auditioned for placement and so on. Therefore if we are properly disciplined in WHATEVER is the "proper" kind of "technique" (even if that is merely a general body awareness?), we are being subject to a certain power structure based on WHO decided what is "proper".
Also, Foucault talked about scenarios in which individuals were more fully controlled when their superiors created living arrangements for them to remain grouped together and within the confines of the institution. This is most perfectly exemplified in colleges and universities. It is also exemplefied in the traditional arrangements of dance festivals. You travel to the festival, and you live and work with dancers, in the place where the dancing happens, for as long as you remain at the festival. This can also happen when a company tours - wherever they go, their bookings are together. You are never separated from your fellow dancers. Or the choreographer.
Which brings me to my most troubling point. How does one act as a choreographer and not play into this power dynamic? Regardless of what technique or style one is working in, choreographers tend to want specificity from their dancers. I know I do. But attention to detail is, according to Foucault, one of the greatest arenas for control. In an article I read this summer, Anne Bogart wrote, "Art is violent. To be decisive is Violent. . . . To place a chair at a particular angle on the stage destroys every other possible choice, every other option." Choreographer Stephanie Skura wrote in "The Politics of Method": "Dance is political not only because of its subject matter but because of the way dances are made, how they are structured, and what they show about people relating to each other." She goes on to discuss the manner in which dances are traditionally made: an idea, often even including movement/steps, comes from the choreographer, who then sets it on the dancers. So the dancers are doing her/his idea, and often even her/his steps. She questions, I believe rightly so, how a dance with liberal subject matter and ideas can be made with a conservative use of bodies - how a dance can be "about" not exploiting individuals, when all the dancers line up and move in unison or careful canon in traditionalist spatial design.
There are other ways to think about dance and power relationships, however. As Sarah Rosner pointed out, more and more dancers ARE being asked to be part of the creative process, to improvise, etc. Even the idea in modern dance that anyone who can dance can make dances is infinitely more democratic (in its true sense) than ballet traditionally has been.
There is definitely power that a dancer gains by having a "disciplined" body. The greater a dancers awareness of her own body in space and time is, the greater her own capabilities to make decisions with it are. Even in a class or a traditional choreographic setting can be seen this way. If a dancer has training in multiple forms and styles, is versatile, then she can choose to portray a choreographer or teacher's directions in any of those ways. For example, in any given combination, I have the power to control whether my foot is pointed flexed, winged, sickled, relaxed, or in constant motion. The teacher or choreographer can present me with directions and images, but ultimately, I have enough control over my own body to make a choice about the status of my foot. I can choose to disobey.
This calls to mind Teaching Conference. Rose Anne has been describing the teaching of creative movement to young children as a process of guiding them to their own movement and their own creativity (as opposed to giving them steps). Similarly, I overheard Barbara talking to one of the ballet 3 students, telling her that her goal is to lead the students to the place where they can be asking the questions of technique for themselves, and she doesn't point out the questions, but rather just helps guide them to the answer that works for them. Emily has said similar things to me. Sarah Lawrence, I find, is an interesting institution in that it guides you through self discovery. Yet it is a long standing institution. I'm not sure how I reconcile these ideas yet.
I feel as though I'm starting to ramble, so I'll just say one more thing:
I am frightened by how docile we have become as a people. Granted, we no longer sit "just so" at our desks. But generations of training and docility have effectively bred rebellion and dissention out of us, I fear. (I'm sure this also has to do with the disappointments of past rebellions and revolutions - such as the deaths of JFK, Dr. King, and RFK in such short succession during the '60s). We are so docile that we are apathetic. We don't know how many of our rights are being usurped in this time of war, and we don't care to find out. I think that being part of the internet generation affects our apathy as well. We post a bulletin on facebook or myspace instead of going to a rally. I am sure that books could be written on the correlations between apathy and the under-active, undersocialized bodies of our current age.
I think that's it for now.
Also, I was reading information on Laban (as many of us were) for Rose Anne at the same time. The specificity in Laban's work could be used to the same end! And consider how much more disciplined dancing bodies could become if we all worked from highly specific notations!
Despite the obvious links to classical technique, I found certain other ideas even more interesting to consider. For example the idea of coercion - that the power structure is being so fully and well imposed because of the fact that it's being slipped in the back door, so to speak. "Small acts of cunning endowed with a great power of diffusion, subtle arrangements, apparently innocent, but profoundly suspicious," (p. 139). It's not being beaten into people, it's "proper" execution is being rewarded. It is being made convenient. I think that these ideas have a very great relationship to the more "open" versions of modern and contemporary dance technique. Even when we are not working from highly stylized and codified techniques, we are still being instructed by a teacher, being ordered into levels, being auditioned for placement and so on. Therefore if we are properly disciplined in WHATEVER is the "proper" kind of "technique" (even if that is merely a general body awareness?), we are being subject to a certain power structure based on WHO decided what is "proper".
Also, Foucault talked about scenarios in which individuals were more fully controlled when their superiors created living arrangements for them to remain grouped together and within the confines of the institution. This is most perfectly exemplified in colleges and universities. It is also exemplefied in the traditional arrangements of dance festivals. You travel to the festival, and you live and work with dancers, in the place where the dancing happens, for as long as you remain at the festival. This can also happen when a company tours - wherever they go, their bookings are together. You are never separated from your fellow dancers. Or the choreographer.
Which brings me to my most troubling point. How does one act as a choreographer and not play into this power dynamic? Regardless of what technique or style one is working in, choreographers tend to want specificity from their dancers. I know I do. But attention to detail is, according to Foucault, one of the greatest arenas for control. In an article I read this summer, Anne Bogart wrote, "Art is violent. To be decisive is Violent. . . . To place a chair at a particular angle on the stage destroys every other possible choice, every other option." Choreographer Stephanie Skura wrote in "The Politics of Method": "Dance is political not only because of its subject matter but because of the way dances are made, how they are structured, and what they show about people relating to each other." She goes on to discuss the manner in which dances are traditionally made: an idea, often even including movement/steps, comes from the choreographer, who then sets it on the dancers. So the dancers are doing her/his idea, and often even her/his steps. She questions, I believe rightly so, how a dance with liberal subject matter and ideas can be made with a conservative use of bodies - how a dance can be "about" not exploiting individuals, when all the dancers line up and move in unison or careful canon in traditionalist spatial design.
There are other ways to think about dance and power relationships, however. As Sarah Rosner pointed out, more and more dancers ARE being asked to be part of the creative process, to improvise, etc. Even the idea in modern dance that anyone who can dance can make dances is infinitely more democratic (in its true sense) than ballet traditionally has been.
There is definitely power that a dancer gains by having a "disciplined" body. The greater a dancers awareness of her own body in space and time is, the greater her own capabilities to make decisions with it are. Even in a class or a traditional choreographic setting can be seen this way. If a dancer has training in multiple forms and styles, is versatile, then she can choose to portray a choreographer or teacher's directions in any of those ways. For example, in any given combination, I have the power to control whether my foot is pointed flexed, winged, sickled, relaxed, or in constant motion. The teacher or choreographer can present me with directions and images, but ultimately, I have enough control over my own body to make a choice about the status of my foot. I can choose to disobey.
This calls to mind Teaching Conference. Rose Anne has been describing the teaching of creative movement to young children as a process of guiding them to their own movement and their own creativity (as opposed to giving them steps). Similarly, I overheard Barbara talking to one of the ballet 3 students, telling her that her goal is to lead the students to the place where they can be asking the questions of technique for themselves, and she doesn't point out the questions, but rather just helps guide them to the answer that works for them. Emily has said similar things to me. Sarah Lawrence, I find, is an interesting institution in that it guides you through self discovery. Yet it is a long standing institution. I'm not sure how I reconcile these ideas yet.
I feel as though I'm starting to ramble, so I'll just say one more thing:
I am frightened by how docile we have become as a people. Granted, we no longer sit "just so" at our desks. But generations of training and docility have effectively bred rebellion and dissention out of us, I fear. (I'm sure this also has to do with the disappointments of past rebellions and revolutions - such as the deaths of JFK, Dr. King, and RFK in such short succession during the '60s). We are so docile that we are apathetic. We don't know how many of our rights are being usurped in this time of war, and we don't care to find out. I think that being part of the internet generation affects our apathy as well. We post a bulletin on facebook or myspace instead of going to a rally. I am sure that books could be written on the correlations between apathy and the under-active, undersocialized bodies of our current age.
I think that's it for now.
Thought this might be interesting
Hey guys -
I found it on free NYC, and it looks pretty cool.Have you heard anything about this Tony?
Post of the reading to follow (soon, i promise!)
- Sarah A.O.
Interference Opening
Date: Thursday, September 27th - Nov. 10th
Time: 6:00pm
Location: Eyebeam (540 West 21st St)
Cost: Free
"Eyebeam is pleased to present Interference, the second in a series of three group shows commemorating the organization's unique role in supporting artists experimenting with, and critically examining, the impact of new technologies in creative endeavor. The show will feature eleven artists and collectives whose projects tackle the ever-shifting boundaries between public and private space and consider the ways in which these limits are understood, utilized and represented. Employing a diverse array of media and strategies including data visualization, performance, community engagement and intervention, the artists address issues of autonomy and access, in some cases becoming actors within the very environments they describe." The opening reception will be followed by a live VJ performance as collective montage by Angie Eng, Benton-C Bainbridge and Caspar Stracke. All Ages
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Docility and Dancenicity
So here are some of my thoughts on the first part of the assignment: Relating dance to Foucault's "Docile Bodies". I was intending it to be short, but somehow I predict that shall not actually happen!
I initially did not think it would be easy to compare an article on discipline and punishment with dance... how would the writing give me material to work with in regards to an ART form? However, as I started reading phrases and words began to jump (jete?) out at me: "grace", "power over the active body", "art over the human body", "details", "distribution in space". These are just a few of the many I actually underlined. If you were reading those words out of the context of the article, what subject matter would automatically come to your mind?
I found the section regarding the making of the soldier's body to be very applicable to how we work with our bodies as dancers. These men of the 17th-late 18th centuries were molded into figures with upright postures, programmed steps and structured attitudes; compare to ballet, especially, where all of these are instructed from an early age. Even the goals are similar - achieving honour and respect (of movement), grace, alertness, agility and strength. The quote on pg. 136: "A body that is docile that may be subjected, used, transformed and improved", is applicable to any dance class or performance, even improvisational. We are constantly subjecting our bodies to our aspirations and limitations, using the body and our knowledge to further its abilities for the task at hand, transforming it (whether in attitude or structure) to execute movements and improving it for the short-term goals and the long-term benefits.
Foucoult discusses discipline as domination. Although I cannot make any perfectly tangible connections here, I did think that his notes regarding obtaining effects of utility through the elegance of discipline (pg. 137) inspired a similarity to be reached between this and the use of discipline to attain the aesthetic rewards that dance has to offer. Dancers and choreographers
can work themselves to the bone to discover the most fleetingly beautiful line, moment of contact or significant gesture, but that feeling of having utilised our body and accomplished this makes every second of frustration and pain worth having lived through.
To move into choreography for a bit, the development of discipline reminded me of the development of modern dance. They both originated in scattered locations, were prone to imitation (e.g. Ruth St. Denis imitating dances of various exotic cultures), were distinguished from each other by their applications (Anna Pavlova creating ballet's accessibility throughout the world, the disparity between Martha Graham's use of breath versus Doris Humphrey's), and both adopted their own methodologies (Cunningham/Limon/Balanchine technique). Dance, also, was "adopted in response to particular needs" (pg. 138) - Isadora Duncan's need to create simple dance as expression; Graham's need to develop a representation of modern/current America through dance, while using it to deal with the advent of world wars.
Towards the end of the article, Foucoult describes how activity was controlled. In ''The temporal elaboration of the act'', there is a description of requisite steps for marching troops of the mid-eighteenth century. The detail of the measurements, time and movements involved is astounding. It is comparable to any advanced ballet class or staging of a work such as Humphrey's ''The Shakers''. It can even be applied outside the art of dance - for example, to playing one of Rachmaninov's Piano Concertos. It is that level of exactitude, required to provide the quality and expression desired.
It is possible to draw comparisons to dance through mentions of distribution in space and/or relation to other objects in space (pgs. 141 & 164), especially as far as creating and observing choreography is concerned. An aspect of rhythm can be inferred from the discussion - "the place [the body] occupies, the interval it covers, the regularity, the good order according to which it operates its movements". Instead of reading that the body can become part of a machine, we can think of it as part of an impressive piece of group choreography, whether in unison or not (this especially resonates for me after watching 'Water Study' & 'Chronicles' today in Dance History class!)
Discipline, in no matter what context, provides humanity with a framework... a structure, if you will. It institutes foundations and principles which can be utilised to gain knowledge. This can be applied to any aspect of life, whether as one that exhibits these qualities or does not. It was especially poignant to read this on a level where dance could be discovered within the words. I just find that I am refreshed to think that fortunately, dance today has many aspects which use discipline in a less invasive fashion. Modern techniques exist that are based on natural states of breath and emotion. Ballet companies finally are learning to prioritise the health of their dancers. Therefore, while discipline of the techniques can still be retained, the discipline of the humanity and art involved is constantly being redefined.
In a coda of a conclusion, one last little thought from pg. 141 that made me chuckle: "Napolean did not discover the world; but we know that he set out to organise it". And what better prominent dance figure does that portrait of a major historical disciplinary figure bring to mind, than the man who decided to codify and organise dance... Rudolf Laban!
-- Natasha:)
I initially did not think it would be easy to compare an article on discipline and punishment with dance... how would the writing give me material to work with in regards to an ART form? However, as I started reading phrases and words began to jump (jete?) out at me: "grace", "power over the active body", "art over the human body", "details", "distribution in space". These are just a few of the many I actually underlined. If you were reading those words out of the context of the article, what subject matter would automatically come to your mind?
I found the section regarding the making of the soldier's body to be very applicable to how we work with our bodies as dancers. These men of the 17th-late 18th centuries were molded into figures with upright postures, programmed steps and structured attitudes; compare to ballet, especially, where all of these are instructed from an early age. Even the goals are similar - achieving honour and respect (of movement), grace, alertness, agility and strength. The quote on pg. 136: "A body that is docile that may be subjected, used, transformed and improved", is applicable to any dance class or performance, even improvisational. We are constantly subjecting our bodies to our aspirations and limitations, using the body and our knowledge to further its abilities for the task at hand, transforming it (whether in attitude or structure) to execute movements and improving it for the short-term goals and the long-term benefits.
Foucoult discusses discipline as domination. Although I cannot make any perfectly tangible connections here, I did think that his notes regarding obtaining effects of utility through the elegance of discipline (pg. 137) inspired a similarity to be reached between this and the use of discipline to attain the aesthetic rewards that dance has to offer. Dancers and choreographers
can work themselves to the bone to discover the most fleetingly beautiful line, moment of contact or significant gesture, but that feeling of having utilised our body and accomplished this makes every second of frustration and pain worth having lived through.
To move into choreography for a bit, the development of discipline reminded me of the development of modern dance. They both originated in scattered locations, were prone to imitation (e.g. Ruth St. Denis imitating dances of various exotic cultures), were distinguished from each other by their applications (Anna Pavlova creating ballet's accessibility throughout the world, the disparity between Martha Graham's use of breath versus Doris Humphrey's), and both adopted their own methodologies (Cunningham/Limon/Balanchine technique). Dance, also, was "adopted in response to particular needs" (pg. 138) - Isadora Duncan's need to create simple dance as expression; Graham's need to develop a representation of modern/current America through dance, while using it to deal with the advent of world wars.
Towards the end of the article, Foucoult describes how activity was controlled. In ''The temporal elaboration of the act'', there is a description of requisite steps for marching troops of the mid-eighteenth century. The detail of the measurements, time and movements involved is astounding. It is comparable to any advanced ballet class or staging of a work such as Humphrey's ''The Shakers''. It can even be applied outside the art of dance - for example, to playing one of Rachmaninov's Piano Concertos. It is that level of exactitude, required to provide the quality and expression desired.
It is possible to draw comparisons to dance through mentions of distribution in space and/or relation to other objects in space (pgs. 141 & 164), especially as far as creating and observing choreography is concerned. An aspect of rhythm can be inferred from the discussion - "the place [the body] occupies, the interval it covers, the regularity, the good order according to which it operates its movements". Instead of reading that the body can become part of a machine, we can think of it as part of an impressive piece of group choreography, whether in unison or not (this especially resonates for me after watching 'Water Study' & 'Chronicles' today in Dance History class!)
Discipline, in no matter what context, provides humanity with a framework... a structure, if you will. It institutes foundations and principles which can be utilised to gain knowledge. This can be applied to any aspect of life, whether as one that exhibits these qualities or does not. It was especially poignant to read this on a level where dance could be discovered within the words. I just find that I am refreshed to think that fortunately, dance today has many aspects which use discipline in a less invasive fashion. Modern techniques exist that are based on natural states of breath and emotion. Ballet companies finally are learning to prioritise the health of their dancers. Therefore, while discipline of the techniques can still be retained, the discipline of the humanity and art involved is constantly being redefined.
In a coda of a conclusion, one last little thought from pg. 141 that made me chuckle: "Napolean did not discover the world; but we know that he set out to organise it". And what better prominent dance figure does that portrait of a major historical disciplinary figure bring to mind, than the man who decided to codify and organise dance... Rudolf Laban!
-- Natasha:)
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Simple Timing
Here are two simple timing mechanisms. Build both of them and explain what they do. The code for these is in the comments section of this post.Which do you think is better (more computationally efficient) ? Build a simple mechanism using two "line" objects to have a number go from 0.0 to 2.0 in 5.5 seconds and then back from 2.0 to 0.0 in 2.0 seconds.
Read the help patch for "line" to start you on your way.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Dance is a Discipline
Here are pictures left out of the English edition of Foucault's Discipline and Punish. You can see them all HERE.
Okay smarty pants, a few questions:
What does Foucault's section on docile bodies have to do with dance?
What does it have to do with technology?
What does it have to do with pedagogy?
What does it have to do with power and politics?
What kind of power does our dance technique give us?
Extra credit:
Find Arbeau's 1589 dance manual online.
Post some of its pictures and use some language to put it in the context Foucault's docile bodies.
Okay smarty pants, a few questions:What does Foucault's section on docile bodies have to do with dance?
What does it have to do with technology?
What does it have to do with pedagogy?
What does it have to do with power and politics?
What kind of power does our dance technique give us?
Extra credit:
Find Arbeau's 1589 dance manual online.
Post some of its pictures and use some language to put it in the context Foucault's docile bodies.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Welcome
Hello everybody. This is where we are going to conduct out of class discussion. Everyone should check their email to get the invitation to the blog. Follow the link in the email to open your own blogger account. Then you will be able to contribute to this conversation.
You should also open up an account at Blip.tv. There is a link in the sidebar.
Here is a picture of a dancing bear. Get the movie by option-clicking the image. Or you can follow the link and save it from the Quicktime menu.
Now check out the comments section below to see some more action.
You should also open up an account at Blip.tv. There is a link in the sidebar.
Here is a picture of a dancing bear. Get the movie by option-clicking the image. Or you can follow the link and save it from the Quicktime menu.
Now check out the comments section below to see some more action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
