New Items for DNB Theory Bulletin Board

New Items for DNB Theory Bulletin Board
Submitted by Ann Hutchinson Guest – January 10, 2003

[Ann Hutchinson Guest says the following items need to be discussed for the revision of the LN textbook. For further items see Guest, Body Portions thread, January 10, 2003; Guest, Spatial Locations and Directions thread, January 10, 2003].

ELBOW FLEX WITH CHANGE OF DIRECTION

Starting with the arm out to the side, Ex. 1a shows the elbow folding two degrees and moving to place low. Are these two separate movements or does the elbow move to place low and fold at the same time?

In the case of 1b we agree the chest contracts as it moves forward high. In 1c it is a fold instead of a contraction. Does this work similarly regarding timing? Or is it seen as two separate movements - folding first, then inclining?

Ex. 1b has a long established understanding that the X is a pre-sign to the direction symbol and not a separate action. Does this equally apply to the folding sign? Does the folding sign need to be written adjacent and linked to the body columns, as in 1d? This question has come up with 1a. To show simultaneous movement do we need to bow the two indications, as in 1e?

THICKNESS OF MEETING LINE

In the Calaban examples for showing over which side of the body a contraction occurs, I had asked for slightly thicker lines for the meeting lines, as in 2a. I think they are more easily distinguished. The thicker line also stems from the initial objections put forward that use of the meeting line for focal point orientation, as in 2b, might be confused with a repeat sign. By making the line and the focal point dot thick enough, 2c, this concern disappeared. In 2d the meeting line was mistaken for the indication of lower arm.

One of the advantages of our system is that thickness of line has not conveyed a difference in meaning. This may be a rare exception.

THE TERM ‘BENDING’
In the 1970 Labanotation textbook the term ‘bending’ was used in the chapter on flexion and extension. This word is used in the studio and classroom in a very general way, any form of flexion is called bending; in itself it has no specific meaning. For the revised textbook we are trying to be more specific so that each term relates directly to the form of movement being described. I have therefore avoided using ‘bending’ and have consistently used ‘contracting’, ‘folding’, ‘curving’. ‘Folding’ is being applied to the single joint, while ‘curving’ seems more appropriate for multi-jointed parts. For the spine, ‘arching’ can be used, particularly in the backward direction.

It would be good to hear the general consensus on this. Now is the time to clarify these questions.