I find it
very humbling to take on the responsibility of documenting something
historical. I am reminded of the lesson in our theory class about the
importance of multiple stories and the danger of the single story. Sometimes
academic writing feels to me like the ultimate battle of the single story, each
author fighting for their own point of view as if it were fact. I am thinking a
lot about this question: who gets to
define history? I came upon this quote in the novel, A Gentleman in Moscow P.173, by Amor Towles.
“History
is the business of identifying momentous events from the comfort of a high-back
chair. With the benefit of time, the historian looks back and points to a date
in the manner of a gray-haired field marshal pointing to a bend in the river on
a map. There is was, he says. The turning point. The decisive factor. The
fateful day that fundamentally altered all that was to follow.”
This idea
of the benefit of time hit on something important that is swirling around in
the thesis of my thesis and as of yet has not quite allowed me to put my finger
on it….so here I will continue writing to shape thought….Defining something
that has already happened may be astute and capture an element of reality but
it must never be overlooked that it is one person’s perception of a myriad of
experiences that go into any given reality.
I know my
focus at this point is supposed to be on churning out chapters. I have been
working consistently on this task and am always shocked how much time
everything takes. I find that I generally have a creative burst after I have
worked on some academic component of the work For example, I find that digging around in my lit review is
helping me create a vocabulary for the experiences I wish to document that have
felt elusive and beyond words. So, in honor of that I would like to talk about an
article from my lit review entitled Improvisation
in Dance, written by Curtis L. Carter for The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism in Spring 2000 that I
worked on this week.
Curtis has
been a professor of philosophy at Marquette University since 1971 and is
chairman of the university committee on fine arts. He considers himself an
aesthetician and a curator and has been deeply involved in the dance field as
both a critic and a writer. He is also member of the National Executive
Committee of the American Dance Guild. This read was a feast of history,
philosophy and varying perspectives. Ironically, it is unclear to me if the man
has any personal experience with dance himself or just as an observer.
I found
two parallel themes to this article by Curtis. The first is the idea that
improvisation has contributed to the democratization of dance and to the
development of an open form leaving history behind to create new pathways. Yes, those were his words, “leaving history
behind.” I still am stunned as I read it. As you can see, I disagree.
The second
theme takes the traditional forms of dance and music from around the world and
analyzes improvisation within the structures of the lineage it builds upon. I
would argue that at times this opposes Curtis’s first theme in that by building
on a lineage one is automatically incorporating history, not abandoning it.
Carter
asks the question: Why is improvisation important to the arts? He then states
with conviction that “improvisation is a means of suppressing the historical
conscience that is necessary to break the causal chain between existing
conventions and new developments in an artistic practice[1].”
While I agree that improvisation has been one of many vehicles in changing
artistic convention, I do not agree with the assertion that these developments
must be about suppressing the historical conscience.
The
historical landscape of improvisation is important to my work on the Simonson
Legacy project because it is a defining characteristic of both jazz music and
jazz dance. There are several aspects of improvisation that I felt were missing
form Curtis’s analysis. Lynn Simonson often refers to the following terms when
talking about jazz dance and music as it unfolded in New York City and Europe
during the 1970s and 1980s: fusion, cross-pollination, openness to change, exploration and
evolution. Simonson has always focused on the premise of curiosity as opposed
to a nihilistic crushing of the past.
Dance Space Inc., the home of the Simonson
technique from 1984-1999 was a hive of cross pollination and fusion. Simonson
classes ran all day every day. Other studio spaces within the complex were
rented for modern dance in all forms. Ballet classes peppered the schedule. The
third floor of the building housed Lezly Dance and Skate school which pumped
the air shaft full of roller disco, Motown hits and a full roster of Afro
Caribbean and Haitian classes accompanied by traditional drumming. The basement
space was home to Fareta School of African Dance and Drum, offering traditional
West African dance and drum from Senegal and Guinea as well as Samba dance and
drum from Brazil. The dueling rhythms at any time of day within the airshaft of
the building would leave one unsure as to which continent they were on.
It is no surprise that
Simonson remembers the following:
“We watched all of the real jazz teachers start to explore more world
music and slower movement. And more modern movement.
And then we watched the modern teachers get quirky and rhythmical. You know
it’s all exploring. It’s that label thing again. Why does it need a label? And
who is it that’s doing the defining?”
Simonson believes that fusion must be part of
evolution, that there is always change. It’s part of the growth. It’s part of
the exploring. It doesn’t make the past or the new form right or wrong, better
or worse. It just is. Each element is informed by the last and brought forward
into the new. We bring history with us.
I would
argue that in order for improvisation to be a vehicle for change, as Curtis
states, then the foundation rests on history and is carried forward through
evolution. I do not believe that we can discard historical forms completely.
Even if we move in a different direction it is in response to the past,
therefore the past is contained within.
I am
searching for the framework that defines Simonson’s perspective. And I have the
luxury of seeking her approval once I think I have achieved my goal.
[1] Carter, C. Improvisation
in Dance. The Journal of Aesthetic and Art Criticism. 58:2. Spring 2000
No comments:
Post a Comment