Every CM session has its own character springing from shared choreographic principles (see notes on choreography). The 2010 CM had.....
Questions, recurring...leading to more questions...
•How do I go from concept to physicalization of the concept into dance? If I have only bones, breath, muscles, energy and the environment in which we are living.
•What is the TIME-frame of the dance? Circular, linear, endless, stops, passes in a flash, is just a flash, 2 hours feels like forever, 1 minute feels like forever, can be subdivided The world you’re living in has a timing in it, tempo in it. Tempo has only a certain amount of plasticity, once you set it up. The internal tempo of sections can change but still the whole work has a Time. What is the time frame of this dance?
•Approaches: Are you working from blank space and filling it? Are you working from action and/or image and/or idea? Are you working with patches that will eventually connect together? Are you working from start to finish? from last to first? Other approach? •Do you have a preconception of the piece/world as it will be when the piece is “finished”. •What do you like about the piece (ideas- details of the action - interactions – images – smallest detail or largest stroke...)? (e.g. “all I really like is the moment when the two slide into the upstage left corner and shake”, “I like the idea that the place has walls that the audience doesn’t see”, etc etc...) •What advances the information for the audience? Whether you like it or not
•What is the energy of the place? What is the expectation of the place? What is the energy of the things in the place? Is this place all 90 degree angles? Is this place mostly curved?
•Who are the people in the world? What is the relationship of the people in the world you create to the people who are watching from outside the world (audience).
Claire French (choreographer) Justine Chambers, Brenna McLaud, Heather Laura Gray (interpreters)
Beginning: Came with an intellectual concept (the moment of forgetting) and a task for the interpreters (learn a phrase, then forget it). Lots of attention was on Texture (subset of sensation of Action) and Rhythm (subset of Time). Primary worlds were the internal world of each dancer.
Challenges: • to stick to what the idea IS (moment of forget) not its reverse (not remembering) • to physicalize the theme with internal actual physical performable repeatable actions that give information about the theme. • to find clear symbols, not semaphoric movement (i.e. semaphoric: action that looks like it’s meaningful but few, or no one, understands).
Development/skills: • identifying physical sensations that dancers can conjure and use as sources for movement development • when a moment “reads thematically” recognize the how the movement principles are interacting in order to build more clear material.
Ida Meftahi (choreographer) Meaghan Guisti, Marlowe Porter (interpreters)
Beginning: Working from a narrative and from a pre-existing “world” (scripted story). Work was to tell the story with stylized gesture (dance). Major issue was determining what conventions she should use to stage her dance drama.
Challenges: • To reconcile how pedestrian and theatrical action can live on her stage simultaneously. • To find sophisticated movement material for the dance of the main character • To share her understanding of the dance’s physical world and her embodiment of the story to interpreters who did not know the material intuitively.
Development/Skills: • Crafting dance-drama, using known dramatic conventions, and making conventions particular to the piece 2. intellectually understanding the choreographic principles operating in the “world” and using that information to build the dance material and the whole piece 3. teaching personal movement to interpreters, 4. recognizing interpreters contributions and building on them.
Janine Saarinen (choreographer) Jennifer Hum, Alex Bascynskyj (interpreters)
Beginning: Came with a finished piece that was non-character-based. Her goal was to continue learning about non-character–based choreography.
Challenges: • To choreograph with abstract movement • To go right back to roots of impulse to determine action/movement • To find inspiration and interest in the simplicity in order to build more • To trust the interpreter to collaborate and help develop the root explorations • To persevere
Development/skills: • To see details in a simple action • To build sophisticated action from core sensory-based movement • To evaluate and choose material that has potential for development • To develop with the interpreter a shared understanding of the process and the material • To know when to change directions in the process.
Tracey Norman (choreographer) Jesse Dell, Sky Fairchild-Waller (interpreters)
Beginning: Began with a whole dance inspired by an intellectual concept: “mapping” and “cartography” and a relational concept “how we find our way and how we get lost”. The first sections had implied meaning, text in the middle made the relationship between the people concrete.
Challenges: • To decide, beyond the concepts, what the dance is actually about, see the whole country and find out what the narrative really is • To see what the action tells/convey • To determine what information has to be added • (duration) To decide how long something really needs to be?
Development/skills: • Embodying an intellectual concept • Understanding the whole world and knowing what information to make visible when • Say what you’re doing, do it, don’t repeat it (relates to duration).• Knowing when enough research has been done to start crafting.
Lisa Weiler (choreographer) Anna Stanutz, Joy Lee (interpreters)
Beginning: • Came with a physical query (when take senses away, how does dancer dance?) and movement studies exploring the question. Began with making action with real sensory deprivation (e.g. blindfold), she built many studies and eventually inverted the theme to “sensory overload”. Once she understood better what the world was, she was able to then go back to internal sources to develop more sophisticated movement material.
Challenges: •To determine essential core material • To choose material that you can fully commit to • To visualize the stage world that the dance can live in • To identify the movement principles in each sensation (from the theme) and make the movement material from that.
Development/Skills: • Understanding that the work is about what is on stage, not about the personal attachment to the ideas • Recognize what the physical action is conveying thematically and rename the intellectual content • Create dance from internal sensations
Mentors:
Maxine Heppner (lead) Susan Lee, Takako Segawa, Jessica Runge
Studio Coordination and Creative assistants:
Janina Kowalski, Joy Lee , Maurice Bourne, Lo Bil, Shannon Roszell, Sarah Senechal, Wendy O’Hara, Danielle Ferrier, Anna Ross, Alex Baczynskyj , Sara Waldston
Technical associates:
Kevin Macloed (theatre tech), Christos Giotis (media)
Venue:
Pia Bouman School for Ballet and Creative Movement
SUPPORTED IN PART BY THE ONTARIO ARTS COUNCIL AND THE CITY OF TORONTO THROUGH THE TORONTO ARTS COUNCIL. Thanks to Canada Council and the BC Arts Council for recognizing the value of the experience by awarding travel grants for travel from Vancouver for established artists Claire French, Justine Chambers, Heather Laura Gray, Brenna McLaud.
