hello everybody this is a response to Armando's original message we could have this conversation in at least two levels: from a specialist point of view or from a 'general' point of view. If we were using the specialist point of view, then we would need some help from linguistics and other disciplines to get definitions or characterisations of 'language'. I don't think we can do this on this list (and i definitely wouldn't be able to contribute from a specialist point of view), so i'm going to mention a few points from a 'general' point of view. So, then, i'm assuming that language is a system of communication. For anything to be a system, there has to be some agreement about what is assumed as basic unit in this system and also the type of organisation of the basic units which needs to be systematic, in other words consistent or emerging from some consistent principles. My thinking becomes a little convoluted here only because i'm trying to create a framework for an interpretation of language as a system which doesn't necessarily rely on fixed units and/or fixed structure, yet on units and structure which have an element of consistency. to bring dance back to this conversation, i'll assume that, in ballet, the units are the 'steps' (or ballet vocabulary) which have even specific names and the coherent organisation relies on the logic of the exercises in a ballet class as well as the choreographic conventions and patterns. All these are more or less 'fixed', we can recognise the 'steps' visually and we can recognise familiar patterns in the organisation of the steps in time and space. i want to suggest the awkward idea that it is possible to assume contact improvisation as a language if we follow the above pattern, yet thinking about units and structures as being 'in flux' (rather than fixed shapes or forms), with a certain consistency in their being 'in flux'. In CI's case, the unit is not the shape of a movement, but the ....movement of this movement.... Contact improvisation is based on the principle of weight exchange which takes place in very specific ways and according to very specific rules (of safety and economy of energy) .... the journey of the movement (during which the body is in constant 'flux') matters more than the specific shapes through which the body travels during this progression. Ballet and other 'fixed' dance forms are not as fixed as they seem. A ballet pose is not a frozen body state, it is a dynamic place because the body pulls towards various directions but the result is balance of the body parts within a shape that the eye of the viewer can catch. We often assume these shapes as the basic units of the ballet language. In contact improvisation, the body pulls in ways that don't lead to balance but to shifting. The emphasis is in the shifting and the units could be assumed as the different types of weight shifting. Similarly to ballet steps which are usually organised in space and time in recognisable patterns (although this is not entirely true in 'contemporary' ballet), contact improvisation weight shifting tend to take place in space and time in certain patterns, which are admitetdly less clearly recognisable than in ballet but they still have some consistency... for the above reasons, i can think of contact improvisation as a language. However, would this conclusion help me in any way? it would only help me if i was looking for codes, symbols or signs. The theory of semiotics emphasises the code, the symbol, the sign. Patterns, shapes, words, anything are all signs of something else. Representation and translation are the main principles. Of course i'm not a serious semiotician here, because simply i haven't got the expertise, so i'm talking semiotics from a relatively 'general' point of view, and i've got no doubt that in 'advanced' semiotics, things are not as simple as i present them here. However, the point i want to make is that i'm not interested in looking at dance as a system of representation of something else (feelings, stories etc...). I prefer to watch the uniqueness of the live body, which is always different and never the same (be it in ballet or contact improvisation) and that there is a direct meaning in this experience. The funny thing is that i would never be able to make this realisation if i hadn't been 'through' semiotics and criticised them. having said all this, i'm now wondering if this conversation has anything to do with this list.... but never mind.... sophia ----- Original Message ----- From: "Armando Menicacci" <armando@noos.fr> To: <dance-tech@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 2:14 PM Subject: Re: COSIGN 2002 - note: not just papers. > Hello, > I don't want to open a big and painful thread, nor I have the > intention to make a fight with Robert that I love as a person and as > an artist and with whom I worked and will work (more post to come > about that), but I'd like to point something in his mail although > it's not the center of Robert's posting. Unfortunately I have no time > to go to make a speach to next COSIGN too. > > I'd just like to ask him (and all) why dance is considered a language > in his (your) mind. I'm not so sure. And for many reasons. > > 1) We should make a difference, in my opinion, between "the dance" > and "a dance ". "The dance" is like "the language" or "the > blindness": it just doesen't exist as it. I think I should explain > priefly my point of view. There are languages, there are blind > people, but "The Language" and "The Blindness" do not exist out ph > philosophical discourse. The latter are abstract categories. In fact > abstract categories do not exist in certains native american > languages... > So my question is (I only have questions) : knowing that cerain > styles of dance (certain dances, certain techniques) are based on a > vocabulary, is "The dance" (as an abstract category) a language? I > have difficulties in thinking Contact Improvisation as a language. > Does it means that Contact Improvisation is not a dance? > > I think I understand Robert's point of wiew: if I don't mistake his > thougt he's pointing the fact that certain dances have a precise > vocabulary (Vaganova's classical technique or Cecchetti's for > instance) and that we might be able to discuss it from a semantic > point of view. I agree wth him but this leads me to another problem > with subsequent question. > > 2) I'd like to make a difference between a choreography and a dance. > Choreography in my opinion is the sequence of certains movements in > time and space, while the quality of these movement is the dance. If > you see a Cunningham's choreography danced by the NYCB or by > Cunningham's company > you see the same choreography but a different dance. To analyze a > choreography from the semiotic point of view seems difficult to me > (should we extract the dance to see only the choreography like a > labanotation score? Is it possible to analyze a dance regardless of > the choreography?). When I go to see Swan Lake I know the > choreography, I want to see the dance (interpretation) of a dancer. > INterpretation is more difficut to categorize as a language.... > > I'm sorry for the questions, but maybe we could work on some of it. > > > > Dance is, after all, a language of > >symbols and -- to my way of thinking, has something important to contribute > >to semiotics. i would like to encourage more dancers to send something in > >-- a piece description with supporting material, video (any format) if > >possible. > > > -- > ______________________________ > Armando Menicacci (Paris 8 University > > 75 rue Caulaincourt 75018 Paris > ______________________________ > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/02/02