Maybe this is a good way for me to put together a further step that includes or refer to Sophia and Antonio's notes. Let's talk about the Macro. I've been talking a while with Scott about this macro: it has many description problems. 1) lack of an extension "command" (assuming that a plié is a flexion), or, in other words, this is not a Glissade, this is a "Temps lié". Glissade and temps lié have exacly the same pattern except the extension timing. If you do dégagé while you shift your weight from une foot to another you're doing a Temps lié because the temps lié has a grounding (bottom-up) dynamic while the glissade has a lightening dynamic (top down). So, while you are making the firs dégagé with the left leg (line two), you are supposed to strech your right leg. (It's funny to ee what someone "forgets" because you can see the way he feels his body) So if the dégagé is done at the same time of the first plié this is a "Temps lié". If the dégagé is performed during a leg extension (after the first plié) this is a "Glissade". >on glissade; >do fifthposition >do plié (demi) while plié do degagé (my left leg) > while degagé (away) > put the weight of my body from my right leg onto my >left leg >do degagé (my right leg) while degagé (away) > return the foot of my right leg infront of the foot >of my left leg >do plié (demi) >end glissade; > 2) Lack of dance (sorry, no command here) Assuming that we have a perfect script we're still missing the dance. We have the right choreography, the right procedure, but how about interpretation? How about the lifez we give to a choreography? How about the quality of grounding or suspension we can have in arms and head and looks? Aren't these parts of the body participating? Is a dance professors someone who transmits procedures? Or is the procedure transmission just a way to share or awake a dance state in a student? Let me put it this way. Every script we can make (of course including my exemple) is the choreography, but it's like a score in music: it's not music, it's notation. ------------------ To go with Sophia I agree that ballet has basic signifying elements as steps (remains the problem of interpretation of steps, again, the problem of dance), but if we assume this how to consider a step in Judson church pasta cooking as a dance performance? What is there a basic elements? Pouring salt into water ?(be careful with your answer I'm Italian.... sensitive to pasta cooking). As you say in contact flux is a what matters, but I'm not sure that CI's sens is only there. Plus I don't know if you say the word Flux referring to laban's definitions or Kestemberg's, and this is a problem for me becaus I don't know how to go on on this not knowing more precisely your point of view. In any case in CI, as you said, the shape doesn't matter (this means procedure's scripts description like systems). This is enough for me to say that Dance (as I'd say Language or blindness, considered as abstract categories) is not a language per se. Some dances are languages that can use linguistics and instruments that are referring to meaning, syntax analysis and so on. Because dance appears to me more a state of sensitivity than a phisical procedure assembley or body practical discipline. Antonio's point is very interesting to me as a research, and I look forward to see the database that's coming out in may, but there is first problem for me in segmentation: Where a "microdance" starts and ends? The question is liked to a linguistic thinking, because stilness (remember the thread?) is a myth. Or we can say that even in a still a silent body something is creating meaning and modulating it through time? I think that in dance we cannot even start to analyze meaning (from a scientific point of view if we don't calculate ALL the tensions that participate. More precisely I think that we should observe six domains Skeletal (what mocap captures) Muscle tensions (what EMG captures) Diaphragm use (no capture at the moment or maybe with echography) Respiration (I can't say here why we distinguish respiration from diaphragms as two separate domains of analysis. We consider at least four diaphragms, and they all have different respiration) Perception settings (same thing, too long for this mail. We consider that foveal way of looking is bringing inside a bound flow preferred potential, to speak with Kestenberg's categories ) And (finally) expression. This is becaus expression cannto be considered without all the rest. But all the rest is not universal, expressiveness is definitely linked to a relationship with the environnement. So, to conclude, All of these domains (divided into further detailed layers) are "readalbe" or interpretable only INSIDE a particulat cultural group and moment (space and Time). I'm sorry It took so long. It's an interesting question for me and I'm full of questions Cheers -- _______________________________ Armando Menicacci (Paris 8 University) 75 rue Caulaincourt 75018 Paris Home +33 (0)1.44.92.97.37 Portable +33 (0)6.07.62.66.86 armando@noos.fr _______________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/04/02