For dance class we read the beginning pages of the book “Emergent Improvisation: On the nature of spontaneous composition where dance meets science” by Susan Sgorbati with Emily Climer and Marie Lynn Haas. The three main ideas that stuck with me was:

1. “When my students, Marie Lynn Haas, and I began to write this chapbook, we looked to refine a language that could articulate the communication processes that occur in our practice. When we first imagined who our audience might be, we thought they will be dancers, particularly improvisers, since movement has been central to our discoveries. But finally, we see it is for anyone interested in a dialogue about improvisational processes and the meaning carried within them, whether scientists, musicians, or city planners. The phenomenon of ‘Emergence’, when a new pattern is created because the sum of our interactions is greater than any one of our individual contributions, is an experience we want to share with all who might be interested in this journey” (Sgorbati pg 6). This is one of the ideas that seem to continually slip the mind. Who is the audience that a dancer is performing to or the author is writing to. It is easier to think of the author to audience ratio, but when it comes to dancing we forget mostly about the audience consisting of many more people than only dancers. While this is in relation to an author and their audience when it comes to dance shows many dancers go to dance shows or people that love to immerse themselves in the ideas and concepts of dance. It gets difficult over the years to think of the audience including those that are not in the profession of any part in show business. This feeling transfers to books about dance as well because of how mainly dancers read books about dance. The idea of those not in the dancing profession watching a performance or reading a book is an interesting idea that should be remembered any time there is a dance performance or book that is created for public viewing and reading. Anyone could be an audience member and one must take that into consideration when creating any type of art form.



2. “…improvisation…was always a part of dancing. But the idea to take it seriously as a form for performance– that there are skills involved, that it could be practiced, that musicians and dancers were working as equals– was radical for the contemporary dance scene at the time”(Sgorbati pg.11). Again this reminds me of the idea that the Africanistic style of dancing was created by improvisation when in reality it wasn’t. African style dancing does have steps to perform to specific beats, but the idea of “Improvisation” not being taken seriously just has a profound impact on how I see dance today. By which I mean the idea that improvisation could have been not considered a serious dance form is a bit foreign to me. I do not want to forget that idea and keep seeing this as an important idea that should not be forgotten. Comparing how Improvisation was thought of in the past and how the dance is seen today is a part of the history of dance as well as the world. To forget this idea is to not realize the struggles of those that fought for the freedom of their own dance form so that I could learn those dances and free my own dance spirit today.



3. “He compares evolution to the creative process in a dance that has no meaning meaning or direction, but is just itself. I do not agree about ‘no meaning or direction’, however he is probably speaking in a scientific linear sense, rather than a metaphoric or symbolic expression of meaning” (Sgorbati pg.12). This was said in response to Brian Goodwin’s essay “Biology is just a Dance”. While I see what Susan was saying that dance does have meaning and direction even in improvisation I still see that Goodwin’s idea could be considered metaphorical. While to the dancer there is a sense of direction while dancing to the rest of the world that direction is a mystery much like the idea of evolution to those that have not heard of the concept before. The dance and the idea of evolution is there and it exists, possibly in it’s own little world beyond our understanding in that moment, but it is in front of us and has it’s own meaning or direction separate from our understanding. He wanted to emphasize the idea of randomness that life has to it’s own pattern and while this does seem to have no direction the end result is something a random assortment of components that come together to create a meaning or reason for the “random” events and occurrences. At least that is what I get from Brian’s argument even though it seems I am taking Susan’s side. I really have to read the essay to say if this is what Brian meant or if this is just Susan’s side.

