Submitted by Curran et al. - August 17, 2005
[Following is reprint of discussions that took place on the LabanTalk and CMAList listserves in April, 2005].
Discussion 1, by Tina Curran, Ilene Fox, Kris Lindahl, Charlotte Wile, April 6, 2005
LIMS, LOD and DNB have sponsored a series of meetings of Motif Notation practitioners including participants of these organizations as well as other areas of the community such as IMS, OSU and independents. The purpose of these meetings is to identify and map similarities and differences in practice across the various communities. At these meetings, we keep asking what we need to consider as we continue to evolve, develop and refine Laban based theory, symbols and concepts. We would like to pose some specific questions to the community as a whole as a way of opening a broader discussion. We would like to include as much of the Laban community in the conversation as possible. If you are subscribed to both LabanTalk@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu and CMAList@CC.DENISON.EDU, please respond to both. If you are not, we will share your reply with the other list. Unless you ask us specifically not to, your replies will also be archived on the Theory Bulletin Board on the DNB website, www.dancenotation.org. We reserve the right to edit before posting on the Theory Bulletin Board.
1. Should there be a uniform standard that goes across all aspects of the Laban work?
2. Should certain applications (e.g. dance, pedagogy, choreography, movement research, therapy) be more influential than others?
3. Should there be a priority toward using symbology and concepts already in the systems vs. developing new symbology?
4. Should the system contain ways of expressing both generic and specific concepts? Is there a universal way this can be done?
5. Should context affect meaning and how?
6. Should prior publications and discussion be referenced?
7. Should the capacity of current technology (e.g. LabanWriter or Calaban) be taken into account?
8. Would it be useful to have a procedure that is recognized and has authority for establishing uniform standards across all aspects of the Laban work?
We look forward to your thoughts.
Discussion 2, by Jennifer Mizenko, April 6, 2005
> 1. Should there be a uniform standard that goes across all aspects of the Laban work?
Yes - but there is a difference between Motif and Notation. I see it as Shorthand vs. written out sentences. Not sure if this is possible but Motif should have the same symbols as Notation - Notation should just have more symbols and be more specific.
Perhaps that's an over simplification of the problem.
> 2. Should certain applications (e.g. dance, pedagogy, choreography, movement research, therapy) be more influential than others?
No.
> 3. Should there be a priority toward using symbology and concepts already in the systems vs. developing new symbology?
Yes - and perhaps clarifying different usages. (I guess that's the whole point.)
> 4. Should the system contain ways of expressing both generic and specific concepts? Is there a universal way this can be done?
I'm not sure I understand this question. If LMA Theory can be applied to any movement does it matter if the concept is generic or specific?
> 5. Should context affect meaning and how?
Yes, context always affects meaning. Situation always shades, or adds nuance to all communication/movement. I think context should just be written out or explained before the analysis.
> 6. Should prior publications and discussion be referenced?
Yes.
> 7. Should the capacity of current technology (e.g. LabanWriter or Calaban) be taken into account?
Yes.
> 8. Would it be useful to have a procedure that is recognized and has authority for establishing uniform standards across all aspects of the Laban work?
Yes.
Discussion 3, by Oliver Bandel, April 6, 2005
Let me first say, that I have only slightly insights on Laban-Notation, but only in theory, and did not used it. I has used motif writing during the first year of the Laban-education in Germany (I have the first year completed).
So, on some of the questions I don't know how they were meant and how far the meaning reaches.
I came to dance very late (with 32 years) and before has worked only in technically areas and really hated to dance for decades (but always had a link to art (playing drums)).
But let me please, nevertheless, answer here.
> 1. Should there be a uniform standard that goes across all aspects of the Laban work?
Yes. But IMHO it should be considered as a "nice to follow" and not as a standard that disallows people to use the notation slightly different.
A standard has many advantages: You now where too look, if you have questions. And if the standard answers those, then people can use it. And so it makes sense to agree on: OK, let's be standard compliant.
But it may be a hindrance in some specific applications of the Laban-stuff, when the standard is not able to cover some certain aspects of how people use that notation. So, if all what not is standard compliant would be considered as "not Labanotation and therefore nothing to talk about in the laban community", this would not be good.
If certain areas of work or educations and diplomas only use standard compliant education this may be ok.
But IMHO a standard should *help* to be more clear in a working area, and not be considered as a tool of hindrance to very creative people.
But maybe the way how such a standard would be created and *updated* if necessary, can be flexible, so that new or different areas of how people use the LN could be also covered by updates of the standard.
I hope I could explain what I meant.
I'm not clear about how creative or how dogmatic such a standard would be used.
I hope it's a good tool for clearing many questions and to *negotiate* *once* how to use/apply LN, how to write symbols, which symbols to use, and so on. That's much better than doing endless discussions *more than once*.
But what, if some specific ways, some practitioners or researchers or creative artists are using LN (or motif) are *not* covered by the standard? Should them be forbidden to call it LN/Motif?
> 2. Should certain applications (e.g. dance, pedagogy, choreography, movement research, therapy) be more influential than others?
No.
These are subparts of LN. It can be used in many areas, and if possible (or even necessary) to mention these areas of application in such a standard, then it should be done.
But movement has different aspects in all these applications, and nevertheless is always movement as it is.
So, narrowing the focus on only some applications would be the wrong way of a standardization. (As I mentioned it above, when I answered what I think about how a standard can be used in a bad way: too narrow focus, and all people who use LN different will not be standard compliant. So, then such a standard does not make sense.)
> 3. Should there be a priority toward using symbology and concepts already in the systems vs. developing new symbology?
Slightly priority of old symbols, but if they seem to be too odd, and others are already in use, then this standard could say: "do not use for new notations", but also explains the symbols, to be able to also cover historic notations.
And maybe some old symbols should be thrown out immediately, while others may seem to be useful for some years or a decade, while fading out, and others may be useful in general.
Some similar ("same"?) movements would be notated differently, when used in different areas of LN application or depending on context.
A standard should say something about this in general. It maybe disallow it (why?!) to have different notations, or it may allow different ways of notation of the same/similar movement, but explains them in detail (e.g. "in dance it often is written in *this way* because of... and in psychological studies it may better be written as ..., because ... explains emotional foo's and bar's much better..."), or may do not say something about it.
IMHO at least should it be mentioned that there are different notation possibilities, if the standard allows them. And best it would explain this in the application-specific specification of the standard.
IMHO explaining explicitly those different applications and specific way of usage of notation could enhance research in all these areas a lot.
IMHO this is a project on how to push many fields of research and of practical work at once!
> 4. Should the system contain ways of expressing both generic and specific concepts? Is there a universal way this can be done?
I'm not very clear on what you are meaning here. Does it mean that generic notation is the application-field independent way of notation and the specific concepts are, how notation is used in different areas?
If you mean it this way, IMHO standard should have a generic part as well as a/many specific parts. If it is only generic, it may be so abstract that people do not know how to use the standard, and what it does provide for the practical work of a notator (of any kind of application). And if such a standard is used, it will be a dead standard, which no one will use, because it has no practical issues and is only abstract philosophy or something like that.
If it provides good ways how to apply the generic parts in the specific realization, then it will be a lively standard, that often will be read and referred to, and then it will grow and enhance.
Otherwise it's more unread paper.
> 5. Should context affect meaning and how?
How do you mean that question?
That there is e.g. one LNB-staff, and that, when written in standard a compliant way, that the notation has a different meaning in medicine, dance, choreography, therapy..?!
I'm not clear what I prefer or how to use.
If a notation is "absolute" in a way that it will be understood in any context has advantages. But it also is good to have the possibility of using one notation in different contexts and it does have different meanings.
IMHO the context always has effect, but wasn't LN from Laban be intended to be "absolute" in at least such a way that the movement as it is moved is context independent?
IMHO we come to a more philosophical part of the discussion. We may enter the discussion on the things the people like Heinz von Foerster, George Spencer Brown, Paul Watzlawick, Ernst von Glaserfeld, Nicholas Luhmann and many others have discussed about, and that may be called "cybernetics"/"constructivism".
"... a distinction that makes a distinction..."
Where does objectivity begins?
In your head!
You draw a border and then you have "me and the rest". That than is called objectivity: It's a construction.
(But one that is not purely independent of it's environment. But nevertheless it's purely a construction.)
So, where are "specific" and "generic" are different? Where are they the same?
What is context and what is that, what not is context?
(What's the opposite of context?!)
Where is the borderline between context and non-context?
> 6. Should prior publications and discussion be referenced?
Yes, if possible.
> 7. Should the capacity of current technology (e.g. LabanWriter or Calaban) be taken into account?
Sorry for being ugly now: but are LabanWriter and Calaban "current technology", or are they technology from yesterday, but the only "technology" that is called "current technology" in the context of Laban-community?!
What's about the attempts of a LabanXML or something like that? These concepts are much more advanced, but not well developed.
There is a gap (a big one) between what is technically possible and what is really done. I often have complained about this here, and I'm sorry if I bore or annoy you here again with that......but that's, what I think.
If the abstract (generic?) part of such a standard could be so clear that it can be implemented in a computer as a kind of rule based system, but the specific parts so flexible that it can be used in so many applications of notation (where it may be very difficult to use computers and software (of today) to do the tasks of work that will be done in such application-area), then this is, what I would call an elegant standard. :)
> 8. Would it be useful to have a procedure that is recognized and has authority for establishing uniform standards across all aspects of the Laban work?
Maybe specific applications needs specific decisions, what one small circle of people can not decide.
But it maybe makes sense to have peer reviews or something like that.
But it should also be thought about a very open approach like Wiki-based collecting of ideas.
Maybe a mix of different ways: Have the possibility that many people can say something about it, but also a kind of peer review and maybe application specific teams working on the core of the standard and some specific people from all specific application areas are also responsible for working on the abstract standard (the "absolute"/generic part of the Laban Standard).
But it always make sense that the review of the standard will be made publicly. It would be ugly, if some certain people create a standard, and after it is ready, it is a must to use only the standard, but all people who have to use that Laban-stuff in their area would be annoyed by it's useless and annoying negative effects.
So: discussion/feedback to those people who really use the notation (and such people like me - coming from completely different areas, and seeing different aspects) should also be considered.
We look forward to your thoughts.
I hope that my minor English vocabulary didn't distorted to much of what I wanted to express.
Discussion 4, by Martha Eddy, April 6, 2005
[Responding to Jennifer Mizenko's comments in Discussion 2]
[Jennifer wrote]: I'm not sure I understand this question [#4]. If LMA Theory can be applied to any movement does it matter if the concept is generic or specific?
[Martha responds]: I will take a guess at this question, as it seem it may relate to the idea of the phrasing of the analysis. For instance we have found that it is sometimes useful to include the generic efforts being explored in a bow to describe the general gist of a movement vs. the microphrasing of it. Charlotte Wile please helps me here with the name of this bow – I believe you may have introduced it.
In other words - we make a distinction between micro and macrophrasing in an analysis. There should be ways for the reader to know what level of detail they are getting - what degree of the phrasing is being assessed. I am not sure that we have come to consensus on this. There may have been progress that I have missed.
Discussion 5, by Peggy Hackney, April 6, 2005
As always, I love your [Ilene Fox] clarity and your ability to come directly to the point as we are discussing all these Theory things. You were terrific in facilitating the Motif Meeting and keeping us on track.
I will respond to the questions when I feel better. I still have no voice and feel terrible, but it was delightful to be "talking" with all of you at the meeting anyway! The questions you raise are definitely on my mind as I come away from a meeting such as this one. It is obvious to me that we need more time together--both professionally and socially. I hate that I didn't even find out about what was happening in anyone's life!
To all of you LabanTalkers who went to the Phrasing Conference, I am jealous! I would have loved to have been with you! Of course, teaching at Movements Afoot was wonderful too, and getting to see people I haven't seen in ages (such as Cecily Dell, Aileen Crow, and Jacquie Davis) as well as many others was a real treat. I just wish the two weekends could have been separated.
Discussion 6, by Oliver Bandel, April 7, 2005
After I slept about that problem (good morning! :)) I'm now back and want to throw in some things that maybe look like I'm disagreeing on my last mail. (But only in specific, not in generic parts ;-))
> 3. Should there be a priority toward using symbology and concepts already in the systems vs. developing new symbology?
Slightly priority of old symbols, but if they seem to be too odd, and others are already in use, then this standard could say: "do not use for new notations", but also explains the symbols, to be able to also cover historic notations.
Here maybe the question "what do you mean, when talking about >>old<< writing =""> Laban Movement Notation
Laban Movement Notation: generic/systematic/"absolute" + specific/constrained/relative
[OLIVER WROTE IN DISCUSSION 3]: AND MAYBE SOME OLD SYMBOLS SHOULD BE THROWN OUT IMMEDIATELY, WHILE OTHERS MAY SEEM TO BE USEFUL FOR SOME YEARS OR A DECADE, WHILE FADING OUT, AND OTHERS MAY BE USEFUL IN GENERAL.
As said above: maybe some new symbols should be thrown out?
So, these are only ideas I can throw in into the discussion here, hoping that they can be used for further discussion.
Discussion 7, by Janos Fugedi, April 7, 2005
Thank you for your inquiry. Here are my answers.
> 1. Should there be a uniform standard that goes across all aspects of the Laban work?
I can not understand the expression "Laban work". I don't really understand even the expression used in the accompanying text "Laban based theory". If it means Laban's work and concepts, they seem so huge and divers that I doubt that a uniform standard could be applied.
> 2. Should certain applications (e.g. dance, pedagogy, choreography, movement research, therapy) be more influential than others?
No.
> 3. Should there be a priority toward using symbology and concepts already in the systems vs. developing new symbology?
Yes. Only a priority.
> 4. Should the system contain ways of expressing both generic and specific concepts? Is there a universal way this can be done?
Two questions.
4/a. Definitely.
4/b. I do not know. For the first sight it seems a huge work to find the answer.
> 5. Should context affect meaning and how?
Two questions again.
5/a. "Should context affect meaning": Sorry, it seems as if not notators put this question. I haven't met a single "notation expression" in structured notation where context wouldn't affect meaning. The core reason is that LN (as structured notation) is basically goal- and not vector-oriented. (Just think of a single step started from different positions: notated the same way, performed different ways.)
5/b. "how?": Depends always on context. The difficulty is that "context" can be so diverse that a universal "context-meaning" correlation seems impossible to define. My personal view is, that context can be taken as a deep knowledge of the applied system and the dance (movement) material itself. It is vain expecting that notation would be understandable for those who do not know the actual material closely. Though the structure of dance can always be revealed from LN - but in case of the only-structure there is no need for a finer "context-meaning" correlation.
> 6. Should prior publications and discussion be referenced?
I do not know what "prior publications and discussion" means.
> 7. Should the capacity of current technology (e.g. LabanWriter or Calaban) be taken into account?
No. a.: Current technology is always and rapidly changing. b.: I think in our case technology always follows theory.
> 8. Would it be useful to have a procedure that is recognized and has authority for establishing uniform standards across all aspects of the Laban work? Sure, but I still can not understand the expression "Laban work" as in case of Question 1 and have the same doubts?
Discussion 8, by Oliver Bandel, April 7, 2005
[Responding to Janos Fugedi's comments in Discussion 7]
[JANOS WROTE]: 5/A."SHOULD CONTEXT AFFECT MEANING": SORRY, IT SEEMS AS IF NOT NOTATORS PUT THIS QUESTION. I HAVEN'T MET A SINGLE "NOTATION EXPRESSION" IN STRUCTURED NOTATION WHERE CONTEXT WOULDN'T AFFECT MEANING. THE CORE REASON IS THAT LN (AS STRUCTURED NOTATION) IS BASICALLY GOAL- AND NOT VECTOR-ORIENTED. (JUST THINK OF A SINGLE STEP STARTED FROM DIFFERENT POSITIONS: NOTATED THE SAME WAY, PERFORMED DIFFERENT WAYS.)
[Oliver responds]: So, what does this mean/want you say, when you say "notated the same way, performed different ways"?
Does it mean Labanotation is not detailed enough and should be cleared out, so that - following the notation - means then, that it can't be performed in different ways? (That is what such a standardization may bring as an advantage.)
Or does it mean: the notation is OK as it is, and context will *always* change how the movement will be performed, and that it is good to have this kind of "open" notation...?!
Discussion 9, by Karen Bradley, April 7, 2005
> 1. Should there be a uniform standard that goes across all aspects of the Laban work?
There is a difference between a standard and a uniform approach. A standardization process could be useful. But that does not mean the various systems need to be uniform. Standards would involve a baseline of symbology that is shared. Beyond that, variations ought to be acceptable, and encouraged.
> 2. Should certain applications (e.g. dance, pedagogy, choreography, movement research, therapy) be more influential than others?
In a process of standardization, all uses need to be considered. None should be privileged.
> 3. Should there be a priority toward using symbology and concepts already in the systems vs. developing new symbology?
God, I hope so...Let's not reinvent.
> 4. Should the system contain ways of expressing both generic and specific concepts? Is there a universal way this can be done?
Yes. Again, there is a difference between a "standard" way of doing things, and a universal way of doing things. Let's aim for standardization, not kill ourselves trying to be the SAME.
> 5. Should context affect meaning and how?
Context is the soup in which observation occurs. Without noting it, we are lost in generalities and unattached specificities. We have lost meaning. Context can be noted in the beginning of any score.
> 6. Should prior publications and discussion be referenced?
Absolutely, whenever possible. Some uses of motif do not lend easily to prior explanations (as in when one is motifing a psychiatric patient, for example), but final notes should reference all relevant information.
> 7. Should the capacity of current technology (e.g. LabanWriter or Calaban) be taken into account?
Let's not go there. The capacity of all these programs is ever-expanding. The Laban systems of observation exceed the capacity of current technology. We do not know if that will always be true. I say, wait till the machines catch up...
> 8. Would it be useful to have a procedure that is recognized and has authority for establishing uniform standards across all aspects of the Laban work?
It is useful to have this kind of ongoing discussion, and it would be useful to have a committee of people to develop standards for consideration by the field, and procedures for innovations and evolutions. But no authority should try to make us all UNIFORM.
And to whoever tries: Good luck with that!
Discussion 10, by Beate Becker, April 8, 2005
Good questions, and I like the answers!
Discussion 11, by Jimmyle Listenbee, April 9, 2005
Thank you, Ilene, for such clear articulation of the essential philosophical issues affecting the further direction(s) of the Motif Working Group. I appreciate the opportunity to reflect and eagerly wait reading the responses of others.
> 1. Should there be a uniform standard that goes across all aspects of the Laban work?
Yes - uniform standards for a set of the most fundamental concepts with their corresponding symbols and guidelines for standard practice in writing them. But not standards for application or development.
> 2. Should certain applications (e.g. dance, pedagogy, choreography, movement research, therapy) be more influential than others?
No.
> 3. Should there be a priority toward using symbology and concepts already in the systems vs. developing new symbology?
Existing concepts and symbology dominate by the sheer fact of their history in usage; these symbols are the system. But when inter-community discussions reveal discrepancies and contradictions, this creates wonderful opportunities for revisiting the root of the symbol and searching for its simplest, most ubiquitous form. I believe that continuing to elaborate specificity, (Linguistics: ‘extension’), or embellishing existing symbols in the pursuit of the symmetry of parallel expressions (Linguistics: ‘back-formation’) is the wrong direction at this time. Our present and unique inter-community conversation could be the dawning of the Age of Elegance. Whole 'new'(like Hackney's Shape Symbols), 'specialized' (like Kestenberg's pre-effort & shape) and 'extended' (like Guest's specific flexion/extension) sets should be appendixed, with representative - elegant - generic(s) included in the fundamental grammar.
> 4. Should the system contain ways of expressing both generic and specific concepts?
Yes.
Is there a universal way this can be done?
Yes, but it will take a lot of work by committed thinkers, patient listeners and through-going researchers. The ‘universal’ aspects may exist on underlying structural levels that are not immediately apparent.
> 5. Should context affect meaning and how?
Context always affects meaning. I'll just comment on three large categories where notation is especially concerned.
a. Overall generic stylistic context should be dealt with through Keys (by this I mean an expanded use of the word ‘key’, such as ‘ballet key’ or ‘West African key’, where certain stylistic characteristics like ‘outward rotation of hip’ or ‘sequential torso use’ are assumed or stated as part of the key).
b. Idiosyncratic choreographic style notations should be furnished with a detailed glossary. Style components of certain contemporary choreographers analyzed by Laban Movement Analysts should be revisited for continuing validity, but these could also become generic keys.
c. Meaning of individual symbols in context of phrase/sequence I assume you refer to such situations as the variety of meanings that accrue to - for instance - a small white circle. These instances must be investigated case-by-case, and the answer, again, will lie in the sometimes complex root of the meaning. Some surface forms that appear arbitrary may turn out to have common sources (& vice-versa).
> 6. Should prior publications and discussion be referenced?
Yes, definitely, including many well-balanced and differing perspectives on history.
> 7. Should the capacity of current technology (e.g. LabanWriter or Calaban) be taken into account?
Yes, definitely, and with an eye toward our emerging potential (LabanDancer, Motion-capture technology, etc.).
> 8. Would it be useful to have a procedure that is recognized and has authority for establishing uniform standards across all aspects of the Laban work?
No. This is a chance to get away from that, to encourage development and variety, and to trust change as a byproduct of a living language (semiotic system) - since it is going to happen anyway.
However, at the same time we need dependable and varied published resources. It is exceedingly important for our contemporary cutting-edge theorists (Ann Hutchinson Guest, Peggy Hackney and Charlotte Wile [please correct/amend this list if you know of others I've omitted]) to revise/publish through, clear lexical-grammatical texts - ASAP!
And also at the same time, we need to build in structures for healthy, creative cross-pollination, a continual dialogue that delights in commonality and revels in diversity.
Discussion 12, by Beth Megill, April 10, 2005
I usually just sit back and listen quietly to what you all have to say on the list-serve, but I am currently completing my Stage III LOD certification and I figure I might as well start getting involved from this point forward. I will keep my comments brief for I am ignorant in much of Laban’s work, but I figure you have to start somewhere.
> 1. Should there be a uniform standard that goes across all aspects of the Laban work?
Yes. It may seem difficult at the beginning, but it will be so much easier in the long run if we don’t have to translate between each aspect of Laban’s work. From a teacher/student perspective a unified front is much easier to deal with conceptually. I would hate to have to present my students with a fragmented world.
> 2. Should certain applications (e.g. dance, pedagogy, choreography, movement research, therapy) be more influential than others?
No. I am currently using LOD for massage therapy and I love that it is flexible enough to do that.
> 3. Should there be a priority toward using symbology and concepts already in the systems vs. developing new symbology?
I am an idealist and think we should also try to find the best way to present an idea symbolically, but if possible I would rather build off of the existing rather than replace—replacing would eventually lead to translations between old text and new and that is frankly a pain to have to do.
> 4. Should the system contain ways of expressing both generic and specific concepts? Is there a universal way this can be done?
I like the idea of families of symbols, symbols that start simple but have the potential to branch out with complexity if needed or desired.
> 5. Should context affect meaning and how?
I have very strong feelings about context considering my Masters thesis dealt with the importance of context in structural analysis of choreography (as written in LOD). Someone brought up the idea of phrasing and I feel this is a very important aspect of research that we need to deal with as dance theorists. To me the idea of context to dance is what tonality is to music. It makes or breaks the analysis. You have to define the rules of the game in order to play by them. I would love to be involved on this front of the research.
> 6. Should prior publications and discussion be referenced?
Definitely.
> 7. Should the capacity of current technology (e.g. LabanWriter or Calaban) be taken into account?
Technology is pushed by the needs we have for it. If we can think it up, then technology will figure out a way to make it happen. We would be boxing ourselves in if we let technology define us.
> 8. Would it be useful to have a procedure that is recognized and has authority for establishing uniform standards across all aspects of the Laban work?
We do need some method that will allow us to communicate and to come to an agreement. Somehow we need to collectively conclude that “this” (that is whatever is developed) is the new standard. So, a protocol of some sort seems needed, but at the same time, I don’t want that to keep things from being developed. Anytime you need more that one person to agree on something there will inevitably be disagreement—we all know how bureaucracy works.
I hope this is helpful—and I hope I didn’t reveal too much of my ignorance. Best of luck with this front of the Laban world.
Discussion 13, by Sandi Kurtz, April 10, 2005
> 1. Should there be a uniform standard that goes across all aspects of the Laban work?
Even though individuals have taken core concepts and developed them in different directions towards different applications, the central ideas remain the same -- on some level we must all be speaking the same language.
> 2. Should certain applications (e.g. dance, pedagogy, choreography, movement research, therapy) be more influential than others?
I don't think so -- while I would like to see more communication between branches of the work, I don't want place them in a hierarchy.
> 3. Should there be a priority toward using symbology and concepts already in the systems vs. developing new symbology?
Ideally, yes -- new symbols should come out of existing images, just as new developments in theory/application grow from existing ideas
> 4. Should the system contain ways of expressing both generic and specific concepts? Is there a universal way this can be done?
Yes (and I'm not sure how!).
> 5. Should context affect meaning and how?
It does in other kinds of languages.
> 6. Should prior publications and discussion be referenced?
Absolutely!
> 7. Should the capacity of current technology (e.g. LabanWriter or Calaban) be taken into account?
Yes.
>8. Would it be useful to have a procedure that is recognized and has authority for establishing uniform standards across all aspects of the Laban work?
This is the truly tricky bit. Of course it would be useful, but it will have to combine both reactive and proactive qualities, responding to the needs of the community and anticipating some of the directions our work will go -- a juggling act of major proportions.
Discussion 14, by Laura Glen, April 10, 2005
I have likewise been a silent reader of the emails. In my teaching at Juilliard*, where we no longer teach Laban the notation, and where there is beginning to be an acceptance that while I teach "Limon" Technique and contact improv and something I call pre-technique warm-up, I make sure that everyone knows that all my vocabulary is based in Laban. In part, my method has been to eliminate the use of French/ballet vocab with the exception of plie and replaced it with English but more specifically Laban "orientation" to where we are in space, body level organization etc. I feel that we have left our student world feeling that there is more then one Laban and if we can't synthesize the schizophrenia it leaves the power of the Laban information weakened and that is a huge shame. I am at this early hour not more eloquent but eager to weigh in without answering your questions in the 1,2,3,4, form you presented them..... I feel better not being an invisible participant in the excellent dialogue this question elicits....
From the no longer silent, Laura
*(and at my summer dance program, White Mountain Summer Dance Festival)
Discussion 15, by Rachelle Palnick Tsachor, April 11,2005
[Responding to Laura Glen's comments in Discussion 14]
As someone who really delighted in your approach to technique and the integration of the Laban vocabulary /perspective on movement, I can attest to its power--I think I only studied with you for a short time, but it brought everything I was learning in all my technique classes and Labanotation into sharp focus as a way empowering me as a mover.
We have every reason to synthesize our concepts at this point: they share the deepest truths of human movement organization, and this power is both what we have to offer, and our best source for recognition. This doesn't mean dampening diversity of approaches, but rather acknowledging the common source.
Perhaps our "schizophrenia" is an historic artifact from a time when artists needed to be "new" or "unique" in order to be "hot", when interrelatedness just wasn't what sold tickets or got funding. When we worked from a competitive (scarcity) model, rather than a complimentary (abundance) model, as the survival of tenuous and dear organizations was at stake.
Acknowledging our roots and interconnectedness as a "movement" (in the artistic sense) could underlie and tie together our diverse applications. (The Movement movement?) It would give us public image (pardon the references: like Alexander, Feldenkrais or Pilates) and help communicate clearly what ties us together.
I wonder if part of this issue is organizational: We have many great organizations each working in marvelous ways to promote both Laban and their own specific needs. (e.g. LIMS, DNB, IMS, Motus Humanus, Laban Centre, Eurolab, etc.)
While we have occasional excellent conferences that bring these institutions together, do we have a "Laban Council" that brings these institutions together for the purpose of promoting that sense of what we share as the deeper uniting force? e.g. our "core"?
Discussion 16, by Peggy Hackney, April 12, 2005
I was really pleased to be at the Motif Working Group meeting at the Dance Notation Bureau last Monday morning, April 4, 2005! Many thanks to Ilene Fox and Tina Curran for co-chairing it and for arranging to have it documented with video and iPod voice tape--as well as running herd on the very lively crew who all like to speak and move at once! It was a joy to work with Charlotte Wile, Ellen Goldman, Jackie Hand, and John Chanik as well. Each brought a special and much needed perspective. I was truly sorry that one of our other fabulous theorists, Jimmyle Listenbee, was not able to be there. She has been so instrumental in getting all of us going on these dialogs, and would have enjoyed the discussion a lot. Thank you, Jimmyle, for your response to the questions below. And…of course, I missed the big theorist, Ann Hutchinson Guest, who is in the throws of getting the latest version of "Your Move" to the publisher. We are all eager for it to come out. And we are waiting with bated breath for Charlotte Wile's Motif book as well!
My responses to the questions that Ilene posed are below. You will see that they are very similar to Jimmyle's. You will also notice that usually I give a specific example for every general statement I make. This makes my response long to read, but perhaps will be useful for some. Thanks to all who have responded. I have been printing out the responses for our Integrated Movement Studies Certificate Students to read, so that they can see how the system develops and what kind of ongoing dialog it takes.
> 1. Should there be a uniform standard that goes across all aspects of the Laban work?
Yes, I think that the more we can keep discussing and come to some agreement about what the basics of the system are, and what symbology we want to use, the more the system will be used around the world. It is, and should remain, the major system for recording all aspects of the movement--whether more structural or more expressive. I would like to see the basics kept simple. Sometimes we notators want to go for more and more detail in Motif writing. I do not feel this should be the realm of Motif Writing. This is what Labanotation does well.
On the other hand, I feel we should have a symbol for every major concept that we teach in the Laban/Bartenieff Certificate Programs--and we certainly are not there yet. (For instance, I don't feel that we have clear symbology around the concepts of "Yield and Push" and "Reach and Pull" that Bonnie Bainbridge Cohen brought so beautifully to the Fundamentals aspect of the Laban/Bartenieff System, and that we agreed would be taught in Fundamentals classes at the All-Cert. Faculty meeting in 1990 at Hampshire College.)
> 2. Should certain applications (e.g., dance, pedagogy, choreography, movement research, therapy) be more influential than others?
No. This is why it is important that different disciplines that use the work be represented in the meetings.
I do think, however, that certain application areas do not realize that we are making assumptions that are different from other application areas of Laban's work. We need to get clear on our assumptions. An example is the Space Direction Symbols. In Labanotation, they are set up in relation to equal pulls, like a mathematical X, Y, Z coordinate axis system, so Right, Side, High is equally High and Right. In the LMA Space Harmony system, Right Side High (High Right) is viewed within a regular Icosahedron. In this polyhedral form (which was very important to Laban's development of the work) Right Side High has more Upness than Right Sidedness. Of course in the Dodecahedron Right Side High would have more Right Sidedness than Upness. We have ways of writing this within the system that can be used as “Key Signatures.”
> 3. Should there be a priority toward using symbology and concepts already in the systems vs. developing new symbology?
Yes. I think that getting to the underlying reason that a particular symbol was chosen in the first place and attempting to follow that line of reasoning is very useful. I remember having this discussion many times with Lucy Venable, Muriel Topaz, and Ann Hutchinson Guest.
This general guideline breaks down if the symbology that is chosen is so specifically driven by a particular application and/or interpretive system that it cannot broaden to work across disciplines. This is the reason I felt that the Shape Symbols needed to be changed. Although they work wonderfully for the Kestenberg interpretive system, Irmgard and I found that they did not work for recording specific movement of South Western India when we were doing Dance Research at the University of Hawaii in 1980. The Kestenberg symbols are "compounds" and not "elements." The symbols I chose for this were actually not "whole new" symbols as Jimmyle says, but were developments of what we already had. I suggested that we change the meaning of the symbols we already had to make them more generic and less specific (i.e., the "Shaping Symbols,"-or the Shape Qualities, such as advancing-retreating, etc., which I feel should be generic rather than implying a "Carving or Voluminous" Mode of Shape Change).
Another example of developing new symbols from previous usage: The "new" symbols with the Figure 8 that I helped to develop for the Patterns of Total Body Connectivity, I took from what was already being used as a shorthand by Labanotators for Whole Torso. Notators had already noticed that the Figure 8 was quick to write. I felt that the different additions of limb constellations to the figure 8 for the Patterns of Total Body Connectivity were easy to read as well. So we ended up actually using symbols already in the system, but combining them in a new way. (For instance, using the open circle over the figure 8 for Breath Patterning relates to a certain extent to how breath is indicated in Labanotation. And the dark circle over the figure 8 with 6 limbs coming out of it for Core-Distal Patterning relates to the Center of Weight symbol from LN, which is in the same general area as the Navel Center, which developmentally "feeds" all six limbs in the womb.) After about 20 years of using these symbols in teaching they seem easy to use and totally obvious to most people.
> 4. Should the system contain ways of expressing both generic and specific concepts?
Yes, definitely! As my colleague Ed Groff said in our 1990 Post-Cert. Workshop when we were discussing Shape, "Any truly beautiful system must be able to deal with both the general and the specific." This is one reason we need generic Shape Qualities that do not automatically have to have the Mode of Shape Change incorporated in the meaning of the symbol.
This is also why the symbols for the Dimensions and Planes that Carl Wolz proposed over twenty years ago should definitely be adopted (see the DNB Theory Bulletin Board on their web site for more clarity on this). The system needs to address both “Prescriptive” and “Descriptive” needs in various disciplines. Usually the “Prescriptive” aspect needs to be more general to open the movement possibilities to creativity; and the “Descriptive” aspect needs to be able to be specific down to the smallest detail to capture what is actually being done in the moment.
> Is there a universal way this can be done?
The only way I know is what is currently happening--continued discussions that are taped and documented. About 25 years ago we tried having what was called "The Theory Network," which was wonderfully organized by Martha Davis. We used a research model, with a complex flow chart about how new material could enter the system through a “Principal Investigator,” then committees, trial usage, etc. As I remember, Charlotte Wile's "Theme Bow" was the only symbol that actually went through almost the entire process, and even then it might not have completed it. That bow is now in common usage, but it took an inordinate amount of time. Whatever process we choose needs to have dedicated people who have really spent a lot of time thinking about and teaching the concepts, because it is usually in the teaching that we notice that things don't work or are continually confusing (such as the Staple and Position vs. Movement writing in Labanotation).
The group that does this should probably consist of no more than 12 people, preferably people who have worked with the system in many different application areas.
> 5. Should context affect meaning and how?
One never has true meaning without context! It is within a specific context that meaning reveals itself, just as it is in any language. I feel Jimmyle answered this question eloquently, so I will say no more.
> 6. Should prior publications and discussion be referenced?
Absolutely.
> 7. Should the capacity of current technology (e.g. LabanWriter or Calaban) be taken into account?
My feeling is that the computer programmers will be able to deal with whatever really needs to be done symbolically. If we do our job in getting the intent of the symbols clear, they will do theirs.
> 8. Would it be useful to have a procedure that is recognized and has authority for establishing uniform standards across all aspects of the Laban work?
I believe that the Laban work is a “living language” in the best sense. People who work on drawing up Webster's Dictionary are always searching to see how new words are currently being used, or how old words are being used in new ways. It is useful to have discussions with people who are using the system in many diverse ways, as we have been doing in the Motif Working Group. I think that we can agree to try out new things (such as Charlotte Wile's new symbol for “Carving”) and see how they work. Then talk some more.
Laban himself had both his artistic, poetic, evocative side, and his analytical, scientific side. It is easier to have “uniform standards” when looking from the scientific, structural side, but it is important to realize that one of the glorious aspects of our system itself is that it has both Inner and Outer, both Expression and Function, both Mobility and Stability---and that they are always in a lively interplay.
Discussion 17, by Oliver Bandel, April 12, 2005
[Responding to Peggy Hackney’s comments in Discussion 16]
[PEGGY WROTE]: 1. SHOULD THERE BE A UNIFORM STANDARD THAT GOES ACROSS ALL ASPECTS OF THE LABAN WORK?
YES, I THINK THAT THE MORE WE CAN KEEP DISCUSSING AND COME TO SOME AGREEMENT ABOUT WHAT THE BASICS OF THE SYSTEM ARE, AND WHAT SYMBOLOGY WE WANT TO USE, THE MORE THE SYSTEM WILL BE USED AROUND THE WORLD. IT IS, AND SHOULD REMAIN, THE MAJOR SYSTEM FOR RECORDING ALL ASPECTS OF THE MOVEMENT--WHETHER MORE STRUCTURAL OR MORE EXPRESSIVE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE BASICS KEPT SIMPLE. SOMETIMES WE NOTATORS WANT TO GO FOR MORE AND MORE DETAIL IN MOTIF WRITING. I DO NOT FEEL THIS SHOULD BE THE REALM OF MOTIF WRITING. THIS IS WHAT LABANOTATION DOES WELL.
ON THE OTHER HAND, I FEEL WE SHOULD HAVE A SYMBOL FOR EVERY MAJOR CONCEPT THAT WE TEACH IN THE LABAN/BARTENIEFF CERTIFICATE PROGRAMS--AND WE CERTAINLY ARE NOT THERE YET. (FOR INSTANCE, I DON'T FEEL THAT WE HAVE CLEAR SYMBOLOGY AROUND THE CONCEPTS OF "YIELD AND PUSH" AND "REACH AND PULL" THAT BONNIE BAINBRIDGE COHEN BROUGHT SO BEAUTIFULLY TO THE FUNDAMENTALS ASPECT OF THE LABAN/BARTENIEFF SYSTEM, AND THAT WE AGREED WOULD BE TAUGHT IN FUNDAMENTALS CLASSES AT THE ALL-CERT. FACULTY MEETING IN 1990 AT HAMPSHIRE COLLEGE.)
[Oliver responds]: Well, when I think about the Body Patterns, I found in your book, IMHO such stuff also should be used in a notation that wants to be THE notation for human movement.
It's a different concept than indicating directions, but IMHO the strength of a system can arise out of integrating different aspects and concepts, and *as a whole* is than "one" powerful system (that will evolve during time).
[PEGGY WROTE]: 2. SHOULD CERTAIN APPLICATIONS (E.G., DANCE, PEDAGOGY, CHOREOGRAPHY, MOVEMENT RESEARCH, THERAPY) BE MORE INFLUENTIAL THAN OTHERS?
NO. THIS IS WHY IT IS IMPORTANT THAT DIFFERENT DISCIPLINES THAT USE THE WORK BE REPRESENTED IN THE MEETINGS.
I DO THINK, HOWEVER, THAT CERTAIN APPLICATION AREAS DO NOT REALIZE THAT WE ARE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM OTHER APPLICATION AREAS OF LABAN'S WORK. WE NEED TO GET CLEAR ON OUR ASSUMPTIONS. AN EXAMPLE IS THE SPACE DIRECTION SYMBOLS. IN LABANOTATION, THEY ARE SET UP IN RELATION TO EQUAL PULLS, LIKE A MATHEMATICAL X, Y, Z COORDINATE AXIS SYSTEM, SO RIGHT, SIDE, HIGH IS EQUALLY HIGH AND RIGHT. IN THE LMA SPACE HARMONY SYSTEM, RIGHT SIDE HIGH (HIGH RIGHT) IS VIEWED WITHIN A REGULAR ICOSAHEDRON. IN THIS POLYHEDRAL FORM (WHICH WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO LABAN'S DEVELOPMENT OF THE WORK) RIGHT SIDE HIGH HAS MORE UPNESS THAN RIGHT SIDEDNESS. OF COURSE IN THE DODECAHEDRON RIGHT SIDE HIGH WOULD HAVE MORE RIGHT SIDEDNESS THAN UPNESS. WE HAVE WAYS OF WRITING THIS WITHIN THE SYSTEM THAT CAN BE USED AS “KEY SIGNATURES.”
[Oliver responds]: IMHO using the equal pulls does make sense to me, when directions are indicated. This (x, y, z-directions) is what is called cartesian space/coordinates.
Why to use a cube or an icosahedron... and getting different pulls? Is it really the correct approximation of human body anatomy in space?
Looked from the cartesion coordinate-system view, a different view could be:
Going from cube via icosahedron to...what?! The icosahedron lies between cube and...what? It lies between cube and sphere!
The icosahedron is a rough approximation of a sphere. An approximation which also does introduce eges, on which people can orientate. (A cube is a much more rough/less adequate approximation of a sphere, but it can be used to indicate the purely dimensional directions.)
So, when going from cube via icosahedron to sphere... how different are the pulls in a sphere? They all are equal! No differences!
Are the different pulls in LMA a view that came up after Laban chose the icosahedron as an approximation of a sphere, that can be used for indicating diagonals in space (but btw only, if it is rotated in a special way!). When using the cube as a tool for indicating dimensions - where are the different pulls? (are they "Lost In Space" ;-))
Was Laban misleaded by it's own model, he used to approximate the sphere (and it's never ending possible positions/directions to move in space)? Or is the icosahedron better suited for usage in human anatomy? If so, then the cube as a dimensional indicator is wrong. If it is, then I wonder, if the pure dimensions are what they are: Are there equal pulls in the dimensional movements/dimensional scale? Is a room with equal pulls a room with different pulls?
Does the mover moves in space *as it is*, or does the movement creates the space? (Or both?) When looking at papers of Heinz von Foerster and the constructivists papers/discussions, it seems, that *all* we find in the world is constructed, but at the same moment, there is a world, that makes this possible and also is necessary to have to be able to construct this reality (!!!) (not individual against/contra/anti world, as Descartes said, but rather both are necessary aspects that needs the other (...Zen-like...).
[PEGGY WROTE]: 3. SHOULD THERE BE A PRIORITY TOWARD USING SYMBOLOGY AND CONCEPTS ALREADY IN THE SYSTEMS VS. DEVELOPING NEW SYMBOLOGY?
YES. I THINK THAT GETTING TO THE UNDERLYING REASON THAT A PARTICULAR SYMBOL WAS CHOSEN IN THE FIRST PLACE AND ATTEMPTING TO FOLLOW THAT LINE OF REASONING IS VERY USEFUL. I REMEMBER HAVING THIS DISCUSSION MANY TIMES WITH LUCY VENABLE, MURIEL TOPAZ, AND ANN HUTCHINSON GUEST.
THIS GENERAL GUIDELINE BREAKS DOWN IF THE SYMBOLOGY THAT IS CHOSEN IS SO SPECIFICALLY DRIVEN BY A PARTICULAR APPLICATION AND/OR INTERPRETIVE SYSTEM THAT IT CANNOT BROADEN TO WORK ACROSS DISCIPLINES. THIS IS THE REASON I FELT THAT THE SHAPE SYMBOLS NEEDED TO BE CHANGED. ALTHOUGH THEY WORK WONDERFULLY FOR THE KESTENBERG INTERPRETIVE SYSTEM, IRMGARD AND I FOUND THAT THEY DID NOT WORK FOR RECORDING SPECIFIC MOVEMENT OF SOUTH WESTERN INDIA WHEN WE WERE DOING DANCE RESEARCH AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII IN 1980. THE KESTENBERG SYMBOLS ARE "COMPOUNDS" AND NOT "ELEMENTS." THE SYMBOLS I CHOSE FOR THIS WERE ACTUALLY NOT "WHOLE NEW" SYMBOLS AS JIMMYLE SAYS, BUT WERE DEVELOPMENTS OF WHAT WE ALREADY HAD. I SUGGESTED THAT WE CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE SYMBOLS WE ALREADY HAD TO MAKE THEM MORE GENERIC AND LESS SPECIFIC (I.E., THE "SHAPING SYMBOLS,"-OR THE SHAPE QUALITIES, SUCH AS ADVANCING-RETREATING, ETC., WHICH I FEEL SHOULD BE GENERIC RATHER THAN IMPLYING A "CARVING OR VOLUMINOUS" MODE OF SHAPE CHANGE).
[Oliver responds]: Yes, this is the concepts of using basic symbols and added modifiers.
[PEGGY WROTE]: ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF DEVELOPING NEW SYMBOLS FROM PREVIOUS USAGE: THE "NEW" SYMBOLS WITH THE FIGURE 8 THAT I HELPED TO DEVELOP FOR THE PATTERNS OF TOTAL BODY CONNECTIVITY, I TOOK FROM WHAT WAS ALREADY BEING USED AS A SHORTHAND BY LABANOTATORS FOR WHOLE TORSO. NOTATORS HAD ALREADY NOTICED THAT THE FIGURE 8 WAS QUICK TO WRITE. I FELT THAT THE DIFFERENT ADDITIONS OF LIMB CONSTELLATIONS TO THE FIGURE 8 FOR THE PATTERNS OF TOTAL BODY CONNECTIVITY WERE EASY TO READ AS WELL. SO WE ENDED UP ACTUALLY USING SYMBOLS ALREADY IN THE SYSTEM, BUT COMBINING THEM IN A NEW WAY.
[Oliver responds]: Yes, using the old and creating the new, based on it, is a good definition of creativity. :)
[PEGGY WROTE]: FOR INSTANCE, USING THE OPEN CIRCLE OVER THE FIGURE 8 FOR BREATH PATTERNING RELATES TO A CERTAIN EXTENT TO HOW BREATH IS INDICATED IN LABANOTATION.
[Oliver responds]: This way of creating symbols is what I meant with using a Kanji-like system: The symbols have a meaning that is coming from a picture. Using the combination of such symbols means putting together *meanings*. When using symbols, IMHO we can learn a lot from the Asian languages.
[PEGGY WROTE]: AND THE DARK CIRCLE OVER THE FIGURE 8 WITH 6 LIMBS COMING OUT OF IT FOR CORE-DISTAL PATTERNING RELATES TO THE CENTER OF WEIGHT SYMBOL FROM LN, WHICH IS IN THE SAME GENERAL AREA AS THE NAVEL CENTER, WHICH DEVELOPMENTALLY "FEEDS" ALL SIX LIMBS IN THE WOMB. AFTER ABOUT 20 YEARS OF USING THESE SYMBOLS IN TEACHING THEY SEEM EASY TO USE AND TOTALLY OBVIOUS TO MOST PEOPLE.
[Oliver responds]: BTW, how to notate more complex body-patterns? Is this kind of notation detailed enough? What about introducing these "body-global symbols" into the "limb-oriented Labanotation"? When melting LMA and Labanotation, this both would gain a lot.....and choreographies can be written down more exact (and easier to learn, because people who analyze movement may look different on the movement than the pure performer).
IMHO these body patterns you created are expressing many movements much better suited than indicating directions. There is a direct connection to modern dance and terms like "curve" and the like. How to express "a curve" with directional symbols? (*)
But one reason is, that Laban's direction symbols are Descartes-like and do not have Eshkol-Wachmann-like symbols that are using a sphere and ankles (how much degree of rotation).
Maybe these Eshkol-Wachmann concepts can be integrated with Labanotation...(and the Body patterns...)
(*) It needs more topological-oriented symbols, and the body patterns you introduced are kind of that. But relational symbols are topological too...
Maybe it makes sense to found all that stuff on a purely topological notation... research during the next decades (centuries?!) will show it...
[PEGGY WROTE]: 4. SHOULD THE SYSTEM CONTAIN WAYS OF EXPRESSING BOTH GENERIC AND SPECIFIC CONCEPTS?
YES, DEFINITELY! AS MY COLLEAGUE ED GROFF SAID IN OUR 1990 POST-CERT. WORKSHOP WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING SHAPE, "ANY TRULY BEAUTIFUL SYSTEM MUST BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH BOTH THE GENERAL AND THE SPECIFIC." THIS IS ONE REASON WE NEED GENERIC SHAPE QUALITIES THAT DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY HAVE TO HAVE THE MODE OF SHAPE CHANGE INCORPORATED IN THE MEANING OF THE SYMBOL.
[Oliver responds]: Yes, being more detailed/specific would be good in learning those LMA-concepts, which I always found were very fuzzy.
IMHO it is a must to explain in a more mathematical way, what those concepts really are expressing. Maybe here it makes sense to think about the names of the categories in use. And to clear out in more detail, what those concepts mean (which aspects of those aspects of movement are reason for the name and so...)?
IMHO they can be taught not so easy, because it is not analyzed in a more mathematical sense. When analyzing them it will be obvious that they are *all* at the same time there, when doing a movement, but that some are more emphasized than others... but when the concepts are sharper it will be more clear what is meant (e.g. IMHO the effort must be viewed in more detail...)...and there are psychological/biological aspects of perception that also need to be looked at.
For example there were psychological tests that yields the result, that fast movements look different than slow movements and that it is normally because the perception does anticipate movement. So: what are those aspects of movement-description, which are depending *a lot* on the viewer? And which can be expressed *rather* viewer-independent?
(Can look for the paper, don't have the URL in mind.)
[PEGGGY WROTE]: THIS IS ALSO WHY THE SYMBOLS FOR THE DIMENSIONS AND PLANES THAT CARL PROPOSED OVER TWENTY YEARS AGO SHOULD DEFINITELY BE ADOPTED (SEE THE DNB THEORY BULLETIN BOARD ON THEIR WEB SITE FOR MORE CLARITY ON THIS). THE SYSTEM NEEDS TO ADDRESS BOTH??? PRESCRIPTIVE??? AND??? DESCRIPTIVE??? NEEDS IN VARIOUS DISCIPLINES.
[Oliver responds]: Which subject to look for on the DNB-board?
[PEGGY WROTE]: USUALLY THE "PRESCRIPTIVE" ASPECT NEEDS TO BE MORE GENERAL TO OPEN THE MOVEMENT POSSIBILITIES TO CREATIVITY; AND THE "DESCRIPTIVE" ASPECT NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO BE SPECIFIC DOWN TO THE SMALLEST DETAIL TO CAPTURE WHAT IS ACTUALLY BEING DONE IN THE MOMENT.
[Oliver responds]: Interesting.
This is like merging/melting different notations/concepts, and that is, what IMHO is very powerful!
[PEGGY WROTE]: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL WAY THIS CAN BE DONE?
THE ONLY WAY I KNOW IS WHAT IS CURRENTLY HAPPENING--CONTINUED DISCUSSIONS THAT ARE TAPED AND DOCUMENTED. ABOUT 25 YEARS AGO WE TRIED HAVING WHAT WAS CALLED "THE THEORY NETWORK," WHICH WAS WONDERFULLY ORGANIZED BY MARTHA DAVIS.
[Oliver responds]: Well, when you mention the way of how to do the discussions...
The DNB-board is nice, and it is good to have a mailing list. But it seems to be much effort to put the mails onto the DNB-Board (OK, after reviewing if they are OK for it).
But there are already free software projects that can be used for automatically using web and mail lists in a consistent way. (Forgotten the project's name, but can look for it.)
So, when adding an item via web, it will be sent per mail, and when sent/answered per mail, it will be automatically put onto the web.
This is different to "web-discussion board OR mailing list". It's both at the same time! (here again: merging/melting concepts... is powerful :)) And it was developed for extensive discussion with many quotings and cross references.
If there is interest in this, I will look for the project and find out the URL.
[PEGGY WROTE]: THE GROUP THAT DOES THIS SHOULD PROBABLY CONSIST OF NO MORE THAN 12 PEOPLE, PREFERABLY PEOPLE WHO HAVE WORKED WITH THE SYSTEM IN MANY DIFFERENT APPLICATION AREAS.
[Oliver responds]: When it is the interest to spread the system more widely, the ideas should be presented (and be discussed) even by people who came from different areas and did NOT have so much experience, because they will see, what the insiders do not see, because they can't see their own pre-assumptions!
So, the possibility for a broader discussion is always good.
(That DNB-web board and the LabanTalk mailing list are different systems makes it harder to follow what's going on in the discussions. It would be nice if there is at least an automatically annotation system that sends mails of updates/discussions in a very short form to this list, including direct links/url's to the discussions. But that's something the above mentioned software provides.)
[PEGGY WROTE]: 7. SHOULD THE CAPACITY OF CURRENT TECHNOLOGY (E.G. LABANWRITER OR CALABAN) BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT? MY FEELING IS THAT THE COMPUTER PROGRAMMERS WILL BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH WHATEVER REALLY NEEDS TO BE DONE SYMBOLICALLY. IF WE DO OUR JOB IN GETTING THE INTENT OF THE SYMBOLS CLEAR, THEY WILL DO THEIRS.
[Oliver responds]: :)
[PEGGY WROTE]: IT IS USEFUL TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE USING THE SYSTEM IN MANY DIVERSE WAYS, AS WE HAVE BEEN DOING IN THE MOTIF WORKING GROUP.
[Oliver responds]: Asking people, why they do NOT use the system can discover unseen problems of it.
P.S.: Some months ago, a ballet teacher told me: Don't learn Labanotation, it's a dead system and you never will get a job with it. Use Benesh instead, it's wide spread and used in many ballet companies. So.... any comments on that?!
Discussion 18, by Jimmyle Listenbee, April 12, 2005
[Responding to Peggy Hackney’s comments in discussion 16]
A footnote on Shape Symbols.
[PEGGY WROTE]: THE SYMBOLS I CHOSE FOR THIS [SHAPE SYMBOLS] WERE ACTUALLY NOT "WHOLE NEW" SYMBOLS AS JIMMYLE SAYS, BUT WERE DEVELOPMENTS OF WHAT WE ALREADY HAD. I SUGGESTED THAT WE CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE SYMBOLS WE ALREADY HAD TO MAKE THEM MORE GENERIC AND LESS SPECIFIC (I.E., THE "SHAPING SYMBOLS,"-OR THE SHAPE QUALITIES, SUCH AS ADVANCING-RETREATING, ETC., WHICH I FEEL SHOULD BE GENERIC RATHER THAN IMPLYING A "CARVING OR VOLUMINOUS" MODE OF SHAPE CHANGE).
[Jimmyle responds]: Oh, I'm sorry, Peggy. Thanks for this specific clarification and all your thoughtful, visionary comments in the present discussion. (And thank you very much for your generous public acknowledgment of my work.) I should not have implied that your Shape set, with all its elegance and inner integrity, was separate from the interconnected continuity of the whole 'language.' Linguists describe what you did here as 'widening', or 'broadening' - one of the two most common natural types of semantic change.
However, this line of thinking does prompt me to share my suggestion for a generic Still Form ('any Still Form') symbol that both reinforces inter-institutional shape etymology and extends it. That is: putting the Shape Bar [//] inside the Guest 'diamond' (which AHG derived by vertically compressing up and down arrowheads), and simultaneously deleting the horizontal line left over from those arrowheads. I use this symbol very productively in teaching college freshmen and pre-schoolers, and have published it in my Arts Literacy Handbook. The attached Word document shows my resultant 'family' of Still Form Symbols (after Laban, Hackney, Guest).
Discussion 19, by Oliver Bandel, April 12, 2005
[OLIVER WROTE IN DISCUSSION 17]: IMHO USING THE EQUAL PULLS DOES MAKE SENSE TO ME, WHEN DIRECTIONS ARE INDICATED. THIS (X, Y, Z-DIRECTIONS) IS WHAT IS CALLED CARTESIAN SPACE/COORDINATES. WHY TO USE A CUBE OR AN ICOSAHEDRON... AND GETTING DIFFERENT PULLS? IS IT REALLY THE CORRECT APPROXIMATION OF HUMAN BODY ANATOMY IN SPACE?
LOOKED FROM THE CARTESION COORDINATE-SYSTEM VIEW, A DIFFERENT VIEW COULD BE:
GOING FROM CUBE VIA ICOSAHEDRON TO ... WHAT?! THE ICOSAHEDRON LIES BETWEEN CUBE AND ... WHAT? IT LIES BETWEEN CUBE AND SPHERE!
THE ICOSAHEDRON IS A ROUGH APPROXIMATION OF A SPHERE. AN APPROXIMATION WHICH ALSO DOES INTRODUCE EGES, ON WHICH PEOPLE CAN ORIENTATE. (A CUBE IS A MUCH MORE ROUGH/LESS ADEQUATE APPROXIMATION OF A SPHERE, BUT IT CAN BE USED TO INDICATE THE PURELY DIMENSIONAL DIRECTIONS.)
Well, to clear out, what I've said here: when using the middle of the quadratic areas of the surface of the cube, it can be used for indicating the pure dimensions. When using the edges for the pure dimensions, the octaeder is the correct polyeder. And using diagonals in the octaeder means not to use the edges but (some of) the areas of the triangles of the surface.
Discussion 20, by Oliver Bandel, April 12, 2005
Sorry for the chaos, I'm too chaotic today. :(
Discussion 21, by Peggy Hackney, April 13, 2005
[Oliver Bandel wrote to Peggy]: Which is the correct number for each of the directional symbols?
Which number has for example (Right-Forward-Deep), which one has (Right-Backward-High) and so on?
I've seen that scales may be written with numbered directions instead of using symbols or direction-names.
But which is the (standardized? ;-)) mapping from numbers to directions (or vice versa)?
As I started to write some software to analyze directional sequences (laban-scale-analysis), I want to be able to use both approaches: numbers of directions as well as named representation of directions.
So, is here someone who has a complete mapping for all numbers to the names of the directions?
Well, there are 27, and I hope someone has the time to type them all in here... :)
[Peggy responds]: I never use the numbers, so I don't know them at all. They are not the number of the points themselves, as I remember it, but of the Transversals (i.e., the movement between the points in the Icos).
Discussion 22, by Peggy Hackney, April 13, 2005
[Responding to Oliver Bandel’s comments in Discussion 17]
I agree with you that using the equal pulls of the Cartesian coordinate system is the clearest. Since I trained first in Labanotation, that way of looking at Space is very logical and clear to me
The reason we don't use that exclusively in the LMA Cert Programs is that Laban himself was very interested in the five regular polyhedral forms. Of course, as you know, they are the Tetrahedron, the Octahedron (containing the Dimensional Cross of Axes), the Cube (containing the Diagonals), the Dodecahedron (which Pamela Schick and Carol Schouboe have researched extensively--the dodec. has planes inside that have opposite spatial stresses to the Icos. ones), and finally the Icosahedron, which, as you point out in an earlier email, is closest to the sphere (the icos. contains the planes that have unequal stress that we usually teach in the LMA Cert Programs). I think he stressed the Icos. Because he felt it had the most human proportions, but in Pam and Carol's research, they discovered that the Dodec. Really brings movement that is more body oriented and closer to a grounded core. The Icos. flies one out into space a bit more.
Probably other people know much more than I do about Laban's original work with the polyhedra and how they relate to his spiritual interests.
Also--I didn't answer your long, long email yesterday, because I am really pressed for time. But I do like your idea of asking someone who knows how the Asian languages build their symbology to help us with our symbology. We have a wonderful person, Brenton Cheng, in our Berkeley Program who has Chinese heritage and speaks the language. I will ask him.
Discussion 23, by Oliver Bandel, April 14, 2005
[Responding to Peggy Hackney’s comments in Discussion 22]
[PEGGY WROTE]: I AGREE WITH YOU THAT USING THE EQUAL PULLS OF THE CARTESIAN COORDINATE SYSTEM IS THE CLEAREST. SINCE I TRAINED FIRST IN LABANOTATION, THAT WAY OF LOOKING AT SPACE IS VERY LOGICAL AND CLEAR TO ME
THE REASON WE DON'T USE THAT EXCLUSIVELY IN THE LMA CERT PROGRAMS IS THAT LABAN HIMSELF WAS VERY INTERESTED IN THE FIVE REGULAR POLYHEDRAL FORMS. OF COURSE, AS YOU KNOW, THEY ARE THE TETRAHEDRON, THE OCTAHEDRON (CONTAINING THE DIMENSIONAL CROSS OF AXES), THE CUBE (CONTAINING THE DIAGONALS), THE DODECAHEDRON (WHICH PAMELA SCHICK AND CAROL SCHOUBOE HAVE RESEARCHED EXTENSIVELY--THE DODEC. HAS PLANES INSIDE THAT HAVE OPPOSITE SPATIAL STRESSES TO THE ICOS. ONES), AND FINALLY THE ICOSAHEDRON, WHICH, AS YOU POINT OUT IN AN EARLIER EMAIL, IS CLOSEST TO THE SPHERE (THE ICOS. CONTAINS THE PLANES THAT HAVE UNEQUAL STRESS THAT WE USUALLY TEACH IN THE LMA CERT PROGRAMS). I THINK HE STRESSED THE ICOS. BECAUSE HE FELT IT HAD THE MOST HUMAN PROPORTIONS, BUT IN PAM AND CAROL'S RESEARCH, THEY DISCOVERED THAT THE DODEC. REALLY BRINGS MOVEMENT THAT IS MORE BODY ORIENTED AND CLOSER TO A GROUNDED CORE. THE ICOS. FLIES ONE OUT INTO SPACE A BIT MORE.
[Oliver responds]: Very interesting!
Are there papers about this research? And: was the research mainly done be moving (what I would expect), or by analyzing geometry/doing mathematical reasoning?! Or was it both?
[PEGGY WROTE]: PROBABLY OTHER PEOPLE KNOW MUCH MORE THAN I DO ABOUT LABAN'S ORIGINAL WORK WITH THE POLYHEDRA AND HOW THEY RELATE TO HIS SPIRITUAL INTERESTS.
ALSO--I DIDN'T ANSWER YOUR LONG, LONG EMAIL YESTERDAY, BECAUSE I AM REALLY PRESSED FOR TIME. BUT I DO LIKE YOUR IDEA OF ASKING SOMEONE WHO KNOWS HOW THE ASIAN LANGUAGES BUILD THEIR SYMBOLOGY TO HELP US WITH OUR SYMBOLOGY. WE HAVE A WONDERFUL PERSON, BRENTON CHENG, IN OUR BERKELEY PROGRAM WHO HAS CHINESE HERITAGE AND SPEAKS THE LANGUAGE. I WILL ASK HIM.
[Oliver responds]: Well, I know a little bid about this, because I learn Japanese language since about 2 1/2 months. :)
In Japanese there are three different alphabets/symbol-systems:
- hiragana
- katakana
- kanji
Kanji was derived from Chinese and has some-10000 symbols (you need about 3000 to be able to read the newspapers). Kanji was (as far as I know, but you know, whom to ask for details, because as mentioned above I'm a very beginner of Japanese) derived from the shape of the things the symbols denote; at least some symbols are coming from that. So the symbol for a tree is derived from the shape of a tree - this as an example.
The hiragana and katakana are symbols that denote the way you speak ...the sound you make. There are 46 basic symbols, but there are modifier symbols that modify the way you speak, and they denote a little bid different sounds (e.g. "ka" with two additional short lines/dots above-right of the "kA" makes the "kA" into a "ga").
Additionally to these modifiers (there are two modifiers: two short lines/dots as well as a small circle) - which, bzw are not be used on all basic hiragana/katakana symbols, but only some of them - there are compound symbols in hiragana/katakana.
For example the symbol for "hi" with a small "ya" (written smaller and in a certain position relative to the main-symbol) makes hya, which is not spelled as "hi-ya", but "hya". So, this is, how to melt together two independent hiragana into another one, which is "more than the sum of it's elements", because it is not serialized spoken, but the "i" in the middle is not pronounced.
So, OK, this is a slightly insight into the way, how in Japanese language the symbols are used.
Discussion 24, by Peggy Hackney, April 14, 2005
[Responding to Oliver Bandel’s comments in discussion 23]
I am assuming that Laban knew about the polyhedra both from moving and his work with the Rosacrusians and sacred geometry. Also, thanks for your Japanese example of the tree symbol.
I'm running.
Discussion 25, by Brenton Cheng, April 14, 2005
[Responding to Peggy Hackney’s comments in Discussion 22 and Oliver Bandel’s comments in Discussion 23].
Sorry, it's taken me a little to reply. I had remembered being exposed to Chinese character formation back when I was studying Mandarin, and so have been digging around in my old course books. After locating the article I was interested in, I of course then found everything on the Internet. :)
Traditionally, Chinese scholars have considered Chinese characters ("kanji" to the Japanese) to be one of six types (of which the pictographs you mention are only one!):
1) Pictographs - where the character is a rough pictorial representation of the thing that the character is standing for
2) Indicatives - where the character is an abstract symbol which roughly indicates the meaning of the character, e.g. "down" is somewhat of a "T" shaped character pointing downward; "up" is a similar character pointing upward; "one" is one horizontal line; "two" is two horizontal lines, etc.
3) Ideographs - where the character is formed of two or more existing characters placed together and the meaning is suggested by the meanings of those two or more characters, e.g. the characters for "sun" and "moon" placed together give the character "bright"
4) Phonetic-semantic compounds - where the character is often composed of two parts, one of which is somewhat related to the meaning of the character and one of which indicates the sound of the character
5) Mutual explanatories - where one character is derived by slightly modifying another character with a similar meaning
6) Phonetic loans - where one character is derived, or even just copied, from another character with a similar pronunciation
In terms of referencing how Asian languages derived their symbols as a way to suggest or understand building movement symbols, at least when looking at Chinese characters, I'm struck by how great a role Meaning and Pronunciation play in deriving characters. And also by how derivative the process was/is... i.e. not really a systemic approach but a process of gradual accumulation and revision.
I'm curious about what you were looking for when starting to examine these languages...
Other references:
http://faculty.virginia.edu/cll/chinese/introduction.html
http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/chinlng4.html
And one more reference not about how characters were created, but about how they are composed from a structural point of view for Chinese calligraphy! Interesting and different!
http://www.chinavoc.com/arts/calligraphy/structure.asp
Discussion 26, by Peggy Hackney, April 14, 2005
Thanks so much [Brenton] for taking time to research the Chinese characters and report back. I think that we might have several aspects going on in the way that we developed the Laban symbols as well, but that would require more thought than I have time to do at the moment.
Talk with you soon! Peggy
Discussion 27, by Russell Graves, April 14, 2005
Middle Egyptian hieroglyphs have a similar division of labor among all those cute (and some obscene) little pictures.
Discussion 28, by Sandi Kurtz, April 15, 2005
[Responding to Rachelle Tsachor's comments in Discussion 15]
[RACHEL WROTE]: ACKNOWLEDGING OUR ROOTS AND INTERCONNECTEDNESS AS A "MOVEMENT" (IN THE ARTISTIC SENSE) COULD UNDERLIE AND TIE TOGETHER OUR DIVERSE APPLICATIONS. (THE MOVEMENT MOVEMENT?) IT WOULD GIVE US PUBLIC IMAGE (PARDON THE REFERENCES: LIKE ALEXANDER, FELDENKRAIS OR PILATES) AND HELP COMMUNICATE CLEARLY WHAT TIES US TOGETHER.
I WONDER IF PART OF THIS ISSUE IS ORGANIZATIONAL: WE HAVE MANY GREAT ORGANIZATIONS EACH WORKING IN MARVELOUS WAYS TO PROMOTE BOTH LABAN AND THEIR OWN SPECIFIC NEEDS. (E.G. LIMS, DNB, IMS, MOTUS HUMANUS, LABAN CENTRE, EUROLAB, ETC)
WHILE WE HAVE OCCASIONAL EXCELLENT CONFERENCES THAT BRING THESE INSTITUTIONS TOGETHER, DO WE HAVE A "LABAN COUNCIL" THAT BRINGS THESE INSTITUTIONS TOGETHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING THAT SENSE OF WHAT WE SHARE AS THE DEEPER UNITING FORCE? E.G. OUR "CORE"?
[Sandi responds]: I agree that the general perception of our work is affected by the current structure of our community -- there are many branches, but the trunk of the tree is sometimes obscured. Yes it's hard to get everyone into the same "room," but it would be worth the effort if it could reinforce the connections between different areas of the work, and add energy to the community as a whole.
Discussion 29, by Jeffrey Longstaff, April 15, 2005
> 6. Should prior publications and discussion be referenced?
I am making a serious effort, including financially, to get this online searchable laban database running.
It takes awhile!
I am reorganizing this web site, ... and a preview can be found at:
http://www.laban-analyses.org/newsite/index.html
(IT IS JUST A MOCK UP to get everything working, and the bibliography is not there yet!!)
That is for published stuff, and presentations, .... things accessible in the public domain.
For searches on CMA list, ... the Denison server offers great search possibilities through all the CMA list entries (only as far back as they implemented their new server), ... you have to sign in on:
http://listserv.cc.denison.edu/
Discussion 30, by Jeffrey Longstaff, April 16, 2005
[Responding to Peggy Hackney's comments in Discussion 22]
I felt inspired to contribute to a few things being discussed about Laban Theory, in particular to space harmony / choreutics.
DODECAHEDRON closer or farther?
[PEGGY WROTE]: THE DODEC. REALLY BRINGS MOVEMENT THAT IS MORE BODY ORIENTED AND CLOSER TO A GROUNDED CORE. THE ICOS. FLIES ONE OUT INTO SPACE A BIT MORE.
Yes, I know this is the proposal from some of the research, and I know that Sylvia Bodmer even mentioned this, but I have the complete opposite personal experience.
In my experience, and geometrically this is true, is that there can be another dodecahedron that is bigger, and on the outside, surrounding the icosahedrons, ... and sometimes when moving and extending outwards (if you know me you can visualize my far reach space!!) that I overshoot an icosahedral point, and extend farther into a dodecahedron that is even further outwards, bigger than the icosahahedron. ... it is like reaching outwards, through an icosahedral surface into the bigger dodecahedron beyond.
I was having this experience with the 'far-reach dodecahedron' long before I ever heard about the 'near-reach dodecahedron', and so when I heard about the near-reach one, it never seemed natural to me personally.
If you know me and my movement, this will probably make sense.
I also feel a smaller icosahedron just about the size of my rib-cage. So, in my experience, there is also a smaller near-reach icosahedron.
I highlight this as a potential danger in some of our research, especially when it is based on personal sensation and experience, because we all perceive things differently, and move differently.
Discussion 31, by Jeffrey Longstaff, April 16, 2005
[Responding to Peggy Hackney's comments in Discussion 16]
Another Laban-Theory continued space harmony discussion:
[PEGGY WROTE]: THIS IS ALSO WHY THE SYMBOLS FOR THE DIMENSIONS AND PLANES THAT CARL WOLZ PROPOSED OVER TWENTY YEARS AGO SHOULD DEFINITELY BE ADOPTED.
[Jeffrey responds]: The dimensional crosses of axes, drawn so as to approximate the planes... they are in Peggy's 'Making Connections' book, pp. 224-225)
I remember using these in the Cert. program.
Perhaps these are 'generic' symbols, ... because I remember that my thought was that they didn't allow expression of all the different sorts and shapes of planes, and orientations of planes. For that, ... the clusters of direction symbols seem to work better for the specific (also used in 'Making Connections' pp. 224-225).
Thoughts about the 'planes'
1. The planes being discussed are the 3 Cartesian planes, Or "Cardinal Planes", ... so this is a more specific concept than simply 'the planes'. It is more specific, since there are infinite numbers of planes, ... some are tilted, others do not go through centre, etc.
2. My bigger issue with "the planes" is the concepts of "vertical, sagittal, and horizontal" planes. These concepts tie the Cardinal planes only to the icosahedron. (i.e. "dimensional planes" as called in "Choreutics"). But for Space Harmony to take in its full potential, we also use planes in the octahedron, cube, dodecahedron, and any irregular polyhedra we chose to use. So, ... the "vertical plane" in the Icosahedron... when that same orientation of a plane in the dodecahedron cannot be called "vertical" anymore since there it is stressed Horizontally (Oliver Bandel mentioned this)
This is why it may be a good proposal to separate concepts for the dimensions versus the planes.
Dimensions: -- Vertical, Sagittal, Lateral
Planes (generic): -- Frontal, Medial, Horizontal
These concepts are already specified in Language as linear concepts (Vertical, sagittal, lateral), and planar concepts (frontal, medial, horizontal), ... So this proposal helps make good links between space harmony and other body-spatial systems such as in anatomy / kinesiology.
When I was analyzing the system of space harmony, I found it necessary to separate these linear concepts from the planar concepts in order to avoid confusion
e.g. Icosahedron frontal plane is stressed Vertically Dodecahedron frontal plane is stressed Laterally etc.
It helps clear up the different shapes of planes, ... and gives concepts that can be used for any type of polyhedra, rather than being tied to the icosahedron.
Discussion 32, by Jeffrey Longstaff, April 16, 2005
OK, .... one more Laban-theory discussion, .... this one comes out longer and more detailed:
[OLIVER BANDEL WROTE]: WHICH IS THE CORRECT NUMBER FOR EACH OF THE DIRCTIONAL SYMBOLS?
PEGGY WROTE IN DISCUSSION 21]: I NEVER USE THE NUMBERS, SO I DON'T KNOW THEM AT ALL. THEY ARE NOT THE NUMBER OF THE POINTS THEMSELVES, AS I REMEMBER IT, BUT OF THE TRANSVERSALS (I.E., THE MOVEMENT BETWEEN
THE POINTS IN THE ICOS).
[Jeffrey responds]: I have seen it both ways. Valerie Preston-Dunlop has used numbers for the points of the icosahedron for years, and she often cites a "Christmas card" made by Laban where he put numbers on all the icosadral points.... Based on the order of the points in the Right A scale.
In choreographie (Laban, 1926), the well-known drawings of the A-scale (pp. 30-31) seem to have the points numbered (1-12), with point Right-High given number 1..... and these drawings seem in contrast with the written text where the numbers are specifically identified as being the inclinations R1, R2, R3, etc.
In my perception, ... this is a sign of Laban's own tendency to 'try everything at least once' ... and so it seemed that he experimented both ways.
My issue, though, is a bigger one: The entire concept of "points"; whether they are called, right-high, or R1 or whatever.... As I have evolved in my embodiment and observation of space harmony, I have moved farther and farther away from the conception of "points".
I believe that space harmony needs to be more rooted in "inclinations" rather than points.
There are so many aspects to this; it is hard to know where to begin.
For me personally, it started when translating the notation symbols from Laban's (1926) Choreographie. Details of this translation, and some of these issues are described in the ICKL paper, (2001, Ohio State -- pdf file is available at ICKL.org).
I called these 'vector symbols' since they symbolize motions. And I realized that in 1926 Laban had notated all the space harmony scales as series of motions, without any reference to points.
Some of the vector symbols were for inclinations; others were dimensions (dimensional motions, not points). ... and looking at this text, and other works on Space harmony by Laban and Ullmann, the following 9 possibilities are evident:
Central Dimensions
Peripheral dimensions
Transverse dimensions
Central Diagonals
Peripheral diagonals
Transverse diagonals
Central Inclinations
Peripheral inclinations
Transverse inclinations
These are all lines, not points.
When I started to put this into practice, in embodiment and observation, I realized that this greatly simplified my concept of space harmony, and also satisfied several 'problems' in the system of space harmony.
By "problems" in space harmony, ... I mean to say that there are several problems with the current system, which need to be solved for space harmony to be a consistent and vigorous method for practice (this is my view anyway).
I could try to make a list of these (I believe there are several), but right now (without much forethought) these are the first ones that come to mind:
1. The difference between (for example) the 'direction' of right-high in the cube (Labanotation) versus the right-high in the Icosahedron (typical for LMA). This is only a "problem" because it means there are 2 different 'right-high's.... and if we include the dodecahedron, there is a 3rd right-high, ... and if we bring in other polyhedra (Laban uses several, including rhombic solids ... see drawings in 'Vision of Dynamic Space'), we could have several different 'right-high's... possibly this could be solved with a "key signature", ... e.g. to say: directions relative to Icosahedron (and this has been used in some notations), .... but if you follow my logic (keep reading), I believe there is an infinitely more elegant solution -- (and which seems closer to Laban's original idea anyway).
2. A second problem for space harmony for mention here is that, ... in my experience of observing and moving, ... I find that body movements simply do not always pass through the "points"! Of course we can perform them so they do, ... but I am talking about spontaneous, 'organic' movement. It is easy to see that body movements go in every direction that is physically possible. It would be interesting to see some motion-capture data on this,... but I have seen the data that shows, even when trying to repeat "the same" movement several times, that it never follows the exact same pathway, but is always (using Laban's term) "deflecting" slightly different on each and every occasion. ... when it comes to expressive movement, we all know that every possibility is explored, ... movements just do not conform to the fixed "points" in space. --- One possibility to solve this problem would be to conceive of each point as a zone or a field, rather that a particular point, ... and we can have half-way and third-way points (as in Labanotation), but, again, I would propose a more elegant solution than just more and more points and point-variations.
3. Another problem in the practice, and resultant perception of space harmony, ... is the well-known tendency for people to perform choreutic scales and rings etc. with a distal body part tracing a peripheral line through space. This is how I learned the 'scales', ... this is how I see people performing them, ... even after certification programs I see this, ... and in the worst case, I see this sometimes becoming a characture of space harmony practice, as a kind of geometric puzzle, traced out in the space. The classic solution to solve this problem is to involve the entire torso, the other arm, the deep leg-bends, etc. .... still, performing choreutic scales as a distal body part following a peripheral pathway recurs over and over and over again.
I believe there are other problems in space harmony, ... but these 3 are enough for now.
In my experience, I found that embodying and observing space harmony by the vectors (motions, instead of points), had the immediate result of solving all 3 of these problems.
1. The issue about several different 'right-high's is irrelevant, since points are not observed or performed anyway, ... movements are performed or observed, and the orientation of these are observed/performed directly, without any need to refer to any points.
2. Likewise, the issue of movements not conforming to the 'points' falls away, because orientations of movements are observed / performed, rather than points, so it is irrelevant if they pass through particular points or not.
3. the issue about the tendency for distal tracing is also addressed, because the tendency to "reach to the points" is gone, no need to start at a point, no need to move toward a point ... and it is immediately seen that whenever any body part moves, that it creates a line through space, and that line can be seen to have a choreutic component.
The simplified choreutic 'vector' observation / performance is analyzed as follows:
Every movement has a dimensional component and a diagonal component ('pure' dimensional movements or pure diagonal movements, or pure 'diameteral' movements are discounted, ... according to Choreutic theory, in writings by Laban and Ullmann, these 'pure' orientations do not occur anyway, ... and every movement is a combination of both dimensional and diagonal components,.... that is, ... it is "deflected" between a dimension and a diagonal, .... in other words, ... an "Inclination". -- I believe this would also be supported by motion capture data (if someone did the test). A 'pure' dimension would only occur by mechanical means, ... not by an organic expressive body. (it might come close to pure dimenions, ... but they always deflect).
Added to this, ... in my own conception / perception, ... I no longer identify the 'pathway' according to the path of a particular body location (e.g. pathway of the hand, or pathway of the elbow, or pathway of the shoulder etc.), ... rather, I started to observe / perform pathways of the center-of-gravity of a body part.
So, for example, moving the whole arm, when the arm flexed and extends, the center-of-gravity moves around relative to the arm, it is not a fixed point in the body, but is the center of the limb's weight (in a similar way that high jumpers actually pass the center-of-gravity under the high-bar, while their body goes over it.
Perceiving the motion of the center-of-gravity of the arm (together with all the flexing and extending of the entire arm), in contrast to perceiving the motion of a single point on the arm (e.g. the hand), .... is an altogether different experience.
I find that the resulting experience of choreutic forms, scales, rings, is an altogether more organic experience, and simplifies performance and identification of the particular scales, rings etc, ... all without a single reference to any point.
[OLIVER BLANDEL WROTE IN DISCUSSION 17]: (*) IT NEEDS MORE TOPOLOGICAL-ORIENTED SYMBOLS, AND THE BODY PATTERNS YOU INTRODUCED ARE KIND OF THAT. BUT RELATIONAL SYMBOLS ARE TOPOLOGICAL TOO....MAYBE IT MAKES SENSE TO FOUND ALL THAT STUFF ON A PURELY TOPOLOGICAL NOTATION... RESEARCH DURING THE NEXT DECADES (CENTURIES?!) WILL SHOW IT...
[Jeffrey responds]: I believe that these 'vector symbols' and the conception of motion that goes with them, are exactly this, ... they lead into a conception of Choreutics / Space Harmony as topological, rather than as fixed geometric forms (scaffolding).
Indeed, looking at the entire system of choreutics one can see that the icosahedron is not favored more than the cube or the octahedron, or dodecahedron, etc.... but that one polyhedra flows into the next in an endless process of "deflection", .... for example, the same topological forms (e.g. a 3-ring, or a 12-ring [A-scale]) are mapped out by Laban in the octahedron, in the cube, and in the icosahedron. They are the same topological form, with the specific orientation (e.g. more dimensional or more diagonal) just being a matter of that particular performance, ... while on the next performance the specific orientation and proportions may change,.... but the topological form remains the same.
I believe that this system of topological forms, ... deflecting from one polyhedral scaffolding to the next, ... is also identified in Carol-Lynne Moore's recent PhD thesis.
The concept engendered by the vector symbols are the components of these topological forms, ... not tied to any particular polyhedral scaffolding,
Laban's first work on choreutics, Choreographie (1926) began with these motion symbols / concepts, ... without regard to points. His attempt was to signify motion directly.
Valerie Preston-Dunlop, perhaps the most informed historian of Laban's life and times, recounts that in the 1930s at a dancer congress that the decision was made to base the notation system on points, rather than motions (perhaps the points are simpler conceptually?). And after this Laban lost interest in the notation system and handed it over to others for it's further development (details of this should be in my ICKL presentation this summer at Laban Centre) --- [Oliver are you coming? -- I think you should!] But Laban did briefly return to the entire idea in Choreutics (1966, chapter XII), describing this motion-notation as "an old dream in this field of research" (p. 125)
Whew!! I'm exhausted.
I hope people can attend the ICKL Conference in London this summer, ... where it is not just notation, but also all the Laban analytical stuff as well.
Hope to see you there.
Discussion 33, by Megan Reisel, April 16, 2005
As a student of Angiola Sartorio, who was a student of Laban and Jooss in the 1920's-30's, she was very clear that her position on choreutics came directly from Laban's who refused to call any of the junctures 'points.' As Peggy does not number them, leaving one a thought towards the direction and not a final landing spot, and as you suggest, Jeffrey, to call them inclinations is more to what Angiola insisted upon when doing the pathways of any scale or ring. One 'rides the inclinations' as she would say, going on to mention that this matrix exists continuously in space, and we simply select which directions we want to travel upon. This would help to support that the 'size' of the geometric form be very personal-- and 'plastic' was her favorite term for anything choreutic.
To continue with Angiola's understanding of Choreutics, the notion of the spatial matrix would provide one with a vast landscape for the imagination to journey, and if one enters this landscape, the sense of it being 'outside' of you dissolves, thereby giving the traveler a feeling of being inside the inclinations, dimensions and diagonals....that the space is as much inside you as outside.
With this as a perspective, a person then becomes connected to all who live in this continuum, and so gives us a sense of unity and oneness with all things.
She was a the real thing, don't you think?
Discussion 34, by Karen Bradley, April 16, 2005
To add to the perspective, when Janet Kaylo and I had a session on space harmony with the late Betty Meredith-Jones, who worked directly with Laban in Wales when he was deployed with Lisa Ullmann in 1943-5 or so, she refused to let us address a point in space uniquely. Any dimension was about the counter-tension; one did not "give up" the opposition pull in going towards a point in space; one had to inhabit the entire tension.
Discussion 35, byPeggy Hackney, April 16, 2005
[Responding to Jeffrey Longstaff's comments in Discussion 30]
I'm so glad that you are weighing in on this discussion, Jeffrey! For those of you who don't know Jeffrey Longstaff, he did both his Master's and his PhD work on Space. Jeffrey, maybe you would want to let people know the topics you explored.
So...Jeffrey, I know exactly what you mean and totally agree with you about the far-reach Dodecahedron! Sometimes I'm flying out beyond the Icos point of Forward High, for instance, and there I am automatically in the Dodec Forward High (which has more upness than forwardness). And, of course, since the Dodec and the Icos are "duals," they can just keep going out farther, or keep coming in closer. In our Integrated Movement Studies Certificate Program, we also work with the Icos that is inside the body by locating the architecture of the Icos points with our bony landmarks.
The stellated Dodec that I have on my desk (it is really a Christmas tree ornament) always reminds me of this point or the nesting of those duals.). There is a stellated Dodec in the beautiful marble tiled floor of the cathedral in Venice, Italy (San Marco), so even people in those times were fascinated. And in the little town of Vinci (as in Leonardo da Vinci), Italy, there are many models with all different sizes of the polyhedra nested in different ways. Our study of these forms follows in a long lineage, as you know.
Just in case you are reading this and the word "stellated" is not familiar to you, Webster's defines it as, "resembling a star...coming out in rays or points from a center." So...to get a stellated Dodec, you would project a point out from the center of each of the pentagonal surfaces of the Dodec and then you would have points out there in space, which you would recognize as the primary defining points of the Icos. When you connect these points back to the Dodec. you will have a form that looks like a star.
This is enough for now. Must go out and play in the beautiful sun!
Discussion 36, by Peggy Hackney, April 16, 2005
[Responding to Jeffrey Longstaff's comments in Discussion 31]
I have seen these problems you mention for a long time, and I'd be willing to try using the new names that you suggest for the Dimensions and Planes. What do others of you think??
Discussion 37, by Megan Reisel, April 16, 2005
I like that our language would be easily understood by those that work in the sciences...its one less translation, and maybe more readily applied to those in fields that overlap. I think it worth trying the new naming schema.
(Also, as a veteran martial artist, I think that the name for the 'dimensional' scale should not be called the 'defensive' scale. I have never known any real defense to be without spirals or transversals...just one more idea to explore...)
Discussion 38, by Peggy Hackney, April 16, 2005
[Responding to Jeffrey Longstaff's comments in Discussion 32 and Megan Reisel's comments in Discussion 37]
Dear Jeffrey, Megan, and all us crazy who enjoy inclining ourselves around in space,
Yes, I agree with both of you about the aspect of living into the "inclinations" or "deflections." And, Jeffrey, I definitely remember you presenting this approach years ago when you were researching Laban's early work. I was also remind of this aspect in our recent Motif Discussions at the Dance Notation Bureau, when we were playing with the symbol for "Direction of Progression."
We explored using those symbols (see Ann Hutchinson Guest's text for these symbols) in relation to the Icos scales. For instance, in the beginning of the Right A-Scale, we usually use the symbols High Right to Back Low as the first Transversal. We might also put the Shape Quality aspects of Sinking, Retreating, and Enclosing (this, in my mind helps to get beyond the "problem" that Jeffrey notes of simply going gesturally from point to point). But what we might also want to do is to use the "Direction of Progression" symbol for the Diagonal of Back, Left, Low for this "inclination." What do all of you think of that?
Jeffrey, I have a lot of motion capture data from the NYU National Science Foundation Grant I'm working on, if you are eager to look for inclinations in it. I agree that the pathway is rarely the same, even though we have a "set" combination people are doing in these experiments. I attribute this to the "local attractors" aspects of complexity theory. The "Points," while not exact are like the local attractors and give us a general area or zone to go for.
I'm really sorry I won't be at the London Conference this summer. I hadn't planned to go, because of our Utah LMA Cert. Program. But what are the dates again???
Discussion 39, by Jimmyle Listenbee, April 16, 2005
Thank you for these recent most stimulating, clarifying and forward-thinking space harmony discussions. I'd like to offer my responses and add related ideas on Vector/Point, Planes & Size of polyhedra.
A. Point/Vector
In Space Harmony theory it is generally accepted (no?) that points merely define abstract conceptual shapes of polyhedra by indicating where central, peripheral and transverse vectors converge/diverge, and that movement approximating such vectors is what we practice when performing and observing movement. I like Peggy's thinking on Direction of Progression symbols to indicate transverse motion in the kinesphere, but was the new application meant to differentiate motion vs. position/destination? To include body-level supporting shape elements? AHG's symbol had originally simply transferred directional orientation to render the starting point of the moving part in question as place middle. I think it is important to recognize that any line of motion, whether perceived as a peripheral trace-form which could manifest as a 1-D line (e.g., drawing on a page) or a 3-dimensional gestalt (e.g., shaping through transversals in the A-Scale) requires reciprocal harmony of shape and vector. More on this under point C below.
B. Planes
I am overjoyed that others are urging universal agreement with sister theoretical domains, especially art, kinesiology and math. I have been advocating for this since 1999, both to clarify our thinking and to improve interdisciplinary learning and application. I strongly agree with Jeffrey that we should consider planes as abstract 2-dimensional entities that take on different proportions in the context of different polyhedra. It probably goes without saying that to 'dimensionally stressed' we should also add 'equi-dimensionally stressed' or 'unstressed' (square). The infinite possibilities of shift & tilt are beautiful. I agree with Jeffrey et al that it would be good 'to separate concepts for the dimensions versus the planes'. I like his suggestion of the following taxonomy:
-Dimensions: -- Vertical, Sagittal, Lateral
-Planes (generic): -- Frontal, Medial, Horizontal
But I see a possible problem with it (and no better solution). 'Medial' has such strong midsagittal implications that it counters perception of the dimensionally shifted equilateral planes constituting the facets of the cube. However, names for planes derive from cardinal concepts associated with equally dividing the human body, so perhaps 'medial' is as good as 'frontal' or 'coronal'. Several sources in kinesiology, art and architecture use Vertical/ Transverse/ Lateral dimensions with Frontal (or Coronal)/ Sagittal/ Horizontal planes. I prefer 'sagittal' for the plane, but of course the term 'transverse' is problematic because it is already entrenched elsewhere in Laban semantics.
Also, a general question - please forgive me if I have misread or overlooked: are you all suggesting transverse vectors are implied in the Octohedron and the Cube? Could someone please give examples?
C. Size of polyhedra in relation to body, body parts I often contemplate the 'nested' relationship of polyhedric models in reference to our bodies. I believe there could be a logic in their central-to-distal ordering, which could be based on common experience or on body-related theory. I think Pam Schick made a good case for the near-reach location of the dodecahedron in comparing its hexagonal facets to the shape, orientation and proportion of the bones they overlay. Such logical ordering would provide pedagogical grounding, but I believe it needs to carry even less weight in practice than effort/shape affinities, because
1. The polyhedra provide theoretical structure for movement of the whole body and for its parts.
2. There is constant reciprocal spatial Harmony of shape and vector going on internally -to- externally, producing forms all along the layers of an internal-external continuum.
* Such forms produced in movement involve simultaneous movement in different polyhedra at various layers. Muscles produce vector which, acting in concert, produce 3-D joint movement & shaping, which produce real or generalized observable vectors. To my mind, this is the core of Irmgard Bartenieff's genius in relating body-level motion to spatial form and intention.
* Depending on the body parts incorporated, their shapes & neuromuscular potential, approximations more like one or another polyhedron may develop at various layers in order to produce any given movement.
* I imagine all the polyhedric forms telescoping in and out, always trading layers of proximity enclosing the whole body, its bones, joints, muscles, organs. So relative size of any polyhedron depends on its perceived location - both scope of body/part (e.g. whole body, hand, etc.) and depth of layer (e.g. hip joint, fingertip, etc.).
* I apply various polyhedra to explore internal space harmony (shape), loosely constrained by structure of joints involved, muscle vectors potentially employable and the form of the intended movement, to different ways of teaching/accessing connectivity. Thinking along Cohen/Bartenieff and Feldenkrais lines, I often coach students and clients to retreat to an earlier pattern or a simpler spatial form to clarify difficulties in more complex forms.
* I think that different harmonies between various forms on various layers can provide one account for subtle movement style differences.
Discussion 40, by Martha Eddy, April 16, 2005
[Responding to Karen Bradley in Discussion 34]
And I would add that when I observed Betty teaching in her studio in Swansea, Wales she was using these spatial concepts (as well as diverse effort dynamics) in her work with elders with Parkinson's disease.
Discussion 41, by Laura Glenn, April 16, 2005
[Responding to Sandi Kurtz's comments in Discussion 28]
I totally agree...it still remains hard to explain to institutions or rather those that run the institutions, what it is we do....and it has been interesting to see the Pilates community get such a public face. I am sad that what I do in the studio still confounds many where I teach...except the students who are clearly benefiting...
Discussion 42, by Oliver Bandel, April 16, 2005
[IN DISCUSSION 17 OLIVER WROTE]: THE DNB-BOARD IS NICE, AND IT IS GOOD TO HAVE A MAILING LIST. BUT IT SEEMS TO BE MUCH EFFORT TO PUT THE MAILS ONTO THE DNB-BOARD (OK, AFTER REVIEWING IF THEY ARE OK FOR IT).
BUT THERE ARE ALREADY FREE SOFTWARE PROJECTS THAT CAN BE USED FOR AUTOMATICALLY USING WEB- AND MAIL LISTS IN A CONSISTENT WAY. (FORGOTTEN THE PROJECT'S NAME, BUT CAN LOOK FOR IT.) SO, WHEN ADDING AN ITEM VIA WEB, IT WILL BE SENT PER MAIL, AND WHEN SENT/ANSWERED PER MAIL, IT WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY PUT ONTO THE WEB. THIS IS DIFFERENT TO "WEB-DISCUSSION BOARD OR MAILING LIST". IT'S BOTH AT THE SAME TIME! (HERE AGAIN: MERGING/MELTING CONCEPTS... IS POWERFUL :)) AND IT WAS DEVELOPED FOR EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION WITH MANY QUOTINGS AND CROSS REFERENCES.
IF THERE IS INTEREST IN THIS, I WILL LOOK FOR THE PROJECT AND FIND OUT THE URL.
[Oliver comments further]: OK, found it.
It was a project started to have an open discussion for developing theories and for doing dsicussions of all kind.
The project is called OpenTheory, you can find it here:
http://www.opentheory.org/
or with the english start page:
http://www.opentheory.org/index.phtml?lang=en
But not all documents are translated to english, for example the FAQ only seems to be available in german. :(
But the nice thing of that project was the integration of maillists and webboards.
Discussion 43, by Oliver Bandel, April 16, 2005
[Responding to Jeffrey Longstaff's comments in Discussion 29]
[JEFFREY WROTE]: 6. SHOULD PRIOR PUBLICATIONS AND DISCUSSION BE REFERENCED?
I AM MAKING A SERIOUS EFFORT, INCLUDING FINANCIALLY, TO GET THIS ONLINE SEARCHABLE LABAN DATA BASE RUNNING.
[Oliver responds]: There is a program, that was especially written for providing a link-data base. IMHO it is a CGI-collection and write the database to files, but it is very nice to use.
I didn't look into the source code in more detail, but IMHO it should be no problem to use that linkdb (even if first developed for Ocaml-related software) for laban-links.
But.... it's really link-based, meaning that it has it's main effort on providing links and informationsd on that, and does not provide a graphical-based web-engine... or something like this.
[JEFFREY WROTE]: IT TAKES AWHILE!
[Oliver responds]: Why not using free software that already is available?
If there is nothing already existing, that you may be interested in using it, then it maybe make sense to ask web-database-people to do it for you?!
Discussion 44, by Oliver Bandel, April 17, 2005
[PEGGY HACKNEY WROTE IN DISCUSSION 35]: I'M SO GLAD THAT YOU ARE WEIGHING IN ON THIS DISCUSSION, JEFFREY! FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T KNOW JEFFREY LONGSTAFF, HE DID BOTH HIS MASTER'S AND HIS PHD WORK ON SPACE. JEFFREY, MAYBE YOU WOULD WANT TO LET PEOPLE KNOW THE TOPICS YOU EXPLORED.
SO...JEFFREY, I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU MEAN AND TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT THE FAR-REACH DODECAHEDRON! SOMETIMES I'M FLYING OUT BEYOND THE ICOS POINT OF
[Oliver responds]: How is the far-reach dodecahedron defined? Does it mean emphasize to make your movements longer and longer and you reach it? Or does it have a certain size (relative to the body of the mover)?
I'm not 100% clear if I know what is meant with the far-reach and near-reach. is it meant as splitting up the kinesphere into near-, middle-, far reach? And so does it mean to use three icosahedrons/dodecahedrons and so on?
[PEGGY WROTE]: THE STELLATED DODEC THAT I HAVE ON MY DESK (IT IS REALLY A CHRISTMAS TREE ORNAMENT) ALWAYS REMINDS ME OF THIS POINT OR THE NESTING OF THOSE DUALS.). THERE IS A STELLATED DODEC IN THE BEAUTIFUL MARBLE TILED FLOOR OF THE CATHEDRAL IN VENICE, ITALY (SAN MARCO), SO EVEN PEOPLE IN THOSE TIMES WERE FASCINATED. AND IN THE LITTLE TOWN OF VINCI (AS IN LEONARDO DA VINCI), ITALY, THERE ARE MANY MODELS WITH ALL DIFFERENT SIZES OF THE POLYHEDRA NESTED IN DIFFERENT WAYS. OUR STUDY OF THESE FORMS FOLLOWS IN A LONG LINEAGE, AS YOU KNOW.
[Oliver responds]: Yes, people were very interested in geometry and using it to describe harmonic relations of the world and the human body. But this had lead the people to stress the people that they have to be geometrical and which leads Doris Humphrey to say: "The right angle is possibly the prime symbol of our age...". So, that people were fascinated by geometry some centuries ago......what does this mean?
Even the icosahedron and the other polyhedra are kinds of, well, let's say "more spheric cubes", and that means: some more of pressing bodies into models, derived from geometry/mathematics.
We have to be clear that using models of anatomy are only the models we use. And if we use a cube as a model, this can help in looking at the things we want to explore/explain/experience, but nevertheless they are models that might be helpful.
Coming from the cube to the dodecahedron or the icosahedron, well, this is a cage for the body, but it does not seem to be a cage. nevertheless: there is a SOLID geometry and a non-solid body.
If we use only right-angle movements we don't need an icosahdron. Even soldiers (some of them, who are doing the show very good) are doing their dance within the right angle, putting their legs into 90 degrees.
Even if different resolutions (meant as like a resolution of measurement/quantization) of tiling up the space are used (icosahedron instead of octahedron or cube) and even if that yields to more "natural" movements,... using the solid geometry (and even using dodecahedron or the icosahedron means using solid geometry) is the cage into that the body and the movement is pressed (it it is used in that way...).
[PEGGY WROTE IN DISCUSSION 22]: THE DODEC. REALLY BRINGS MOVEMENT THAT IS MORE BODY ORIENTED AND CLOSER TO A GROUNDED CORE. THE ICOS. FLIES ONE OUT INTO SPACE A BIT MORE.
[JEFFREY LONSTAFF WROTE IN DISCUSSION 30]: YES, I KNOW THIS IS THE PROPOSAL FROM SOME OF THE RESEARCH, AND I KNOW THAT SYLVIA BODMER EVEN MENTIONED THIS, BUT I HAVE THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.
IN MY EXPERIENCE, AND GEOMETRICALLY THIS IS TRUE, IS THAT THERE CAN BE ANOTHER DODECAHEDRON THAT IS BIGGER, AND ON THE OUTSIDE, SURROUNDING THE ICOSAHDERON, ... AND SOMETIMES WHEN MOVING AND EXTENDING OUTWARDS (IF YOU
[Oliver responds]: But you also can create a icosahedron that is bigger than the big dodecahedron.
So: what size is accurate?!
IMHO the only way to be clear is to use the models in that way: use a sphere (kinesphere) as the basic underlying shape/model. (Using Laban's definition of the kinesphere, where the arms and legs are reaching out diagonally but the reach-out is "normal"/"natural" and not stressed.
* then the inner polyhedron's have their edges in the surface of the kine-sphere
* the outer polyhedron's have their areas (limited parts of the planes) touching the surface of the planes (in one (mathematical) point)
This is the mathematical view. But does this have any relation to the human body? AND: "the human body", meant as "THE human body" also is a model and does not fit any human body. So - here again: do not think your models are reality.
But when using these models, looking for a "typical" human body, well: how does these two kinds of polyhedra are useful?
When using the kinesphere wit very small movements, maybe doing a diagonal scale only with fingers/hand, the underlying model must me much smaller, and be located around the neutralk position of the moving limbs (fingers/hand).
So, where labanotation uses dimensional planes located around each ankle (micromovements), and where the macromovements (whole-body-movements) are analyzed with tetrahedron, cube, icosahedron and such models, why not using the e.g. the icosahdron in labannotation too?
Why not melting both worlds of Laban's research together?
Did not heard about using different polyhedra in the labanotation world.
But even when only looking at the macromovements of the laban-scales, which is the correct size of the geometric model to use?
Does the body must be pressed into the model, or can the model be adapted better to the underlying body/anatomy?!
[JEFFREY LONSTAFF WROTE IN DISCUSSION 30]: KNOW ME YOU CAN VISUALISE MY FAR REACH SPACE!!) THAT I OVERSHOOT AN ICOSAHEDRAL POINT, AND EXTEND FARTHER INTO A DODECAHEDRON THAT IS EVEN FURTHER OUTWARDS, BIGGER THAN THE ICOSAHAHEDRON. ... IT IS LIKE REACHING OUTWARDS, THROUGH AN ICOSAHEDRAL SURFACE INTO THE BIGGER DODECAHEDRON BEYOND.
[Oliver responds]: Is this personal style of your movements, based on your anatomy, or would other people (other anatomy) also stress these polyhedra like you, if they would do movements/move like you (if possible)?
So: is this personal style or could other people also experience it this way - and therefore: are there common things that are necessary to know/experience for others too? Or does this mean: "Well, what you experience, depends on you."...and if so: what models of gemoetry to use in movement studies, if the experience is too different for each person? And if they are so different, then must be looked again in more detail on things, Laban said about psychological themes related to movement.
What was the psychological background of Laban? There was a defense-scale but no attack-scale. or are these really underlying things of human nature, he discovered? (Is there any research ongoing in that field?)
[JEFFREY WROTE]: I WAS HAVING THIS EXPERIENCE WITH THE 'FAR-REACH DODECAHEDRON' LONG BEFORE IEVER HEARD ABOUT THE 'NEAR-REACH DODECAHEDRON', AND SO WHEN I HEARD ABOUTTHE NEAR-REACH ONE, IT NEVER SEEMED NATURAL TO ME PERSONALLY.
IF YOU KNOW ME AND MY MOVEMENT, THIS WILL PROBABLY MAKE SENSE. I ALSO FEEL A SMALLER ICOSAHEDRON JUST ABOUT THE SIZE OF MY RIB-CAGE. SO, IN MY EXPERIENCE, THERE IS ALSO A SMALLER NEAR-REACH ICOSAHEDRON.
[Oliver responds]: Yes, you say: the model you use depends on you/your anatomy.
But what, if none of the used polyhedra fit's the human anatomy goodenough?!
As mentioned above, the polyhedra are a cage for the body that does not look like one. Or at least not for people of these times?!
When using more suited models, it may does not make sense to use solid geometry,and as far as I know Laban also had thought about this.One of our guest teacher in the german LMA program was at the Laban archive for longer and found drawings from Laban, where he used non-solid geometry. As keywords she mentioned rubber-bands and mathematical knot's theory.
This was very interesting and seems the only way to get modles that match each individuals anatomy and movement. And that will bring us to the point, where the space is created by the moving person. (And connects to constructivism.)
[JEFFREY WROTE]: I HIGHLIGHT THIS AS A POTENTIAL DANGER IN SOME OF OUR RESEARCH, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT IS BASED ON PERSONAL SENSATION AND EXPERIENCE, BECAUSE WE ALL PERCEIVE THINGS DIFFERENTLY, AND MOVE DIFFERENTLY.
[Oliver responds]: Well, when the research ignores personal differences, it ends up in pressing the individuals (and it's movements and anatomy) into the cage of solid geometry.
Discussion 45, by Ann Hutchinson Guest, April 17, 2005
I am fascinated by all that is being written these last days on the scales, the planes and about terminology. I am longing to join in but absolutely MUST press on to get the revised YOUR MOVE book ready by the publisher's deadline, reliance on computers has slowed our work considerably. I would love to share my early Jooss-Leeder schooling on all this material as well as contributing my plea for general, more universally understood terminology. What each of you has to say is so interesting!
Discussion 46, by Regina Miranda, April 17, 2005
Congratulations! I have been an enthusiastic reader of last day’s space discussions. The ones who know of my passion for the subject and who know that I just finished writing a book, “The Vertigo of Spacing”, must be wondering why I am not filling in! Well, although my research has not been about Space Harmony per se (but certainly drawing from it), and even less about developments of terminology (I still have so much to learn in this area…), I have been dying to get into the conversation, but refraining from doing so, since I must finalize the revision of the book to meet the publisher deadline. You probably can imagine that I could stop the revision to dive into this discussion, bringing and adopting new ideas, to then change and add many new things to the book, what I guess would delay it for one more year! There is always so much more to say…
For the ones who became curious, I have been drawing from Laban’s space views to further investigate and associate them with non-Euclidean Geometries and Deleuze’s philosophical theories, exercising this approach in Performance. The book evolved from 25 years of artistic research with my dance company in Brazil. It started to take shape (my Cert. Program (1975/76) colleague Carolyn Moore will be happy to know) from the “ Body-Space Connections” essay I presented in 2001 at the Motus Humanus Meeting. I hope that, in the future, you will give me the pleasure to discuss the book concepts.
Please continue this beautiful discussion, knowing that it has been enlightening for me to follow your thoughts.
I take this opportunity to invite you for the new LIMS Arts & Culture event – SPRING FORWARD, to be held at LIMS headquarters on May 14th, from 2pm to 6pm, when we will discuss “Dance and Politics”. Invited keynote speaker will be choreographer Merián Soto, and the panel that will follow will have the participation of Kista Tucker, Emily Berry, Marya Wegman and Karen Bradley, each of them bringing their own way of dealing with issues of race, war, gender, community building and interdisciplinary cultural studies.
Discussion 47, by Oliver Bandel, April 17, 2005
[Responding to Jeffrey Longstaff in Discussion 31]
[JEFFREY WROTE]: THOUGHTS ABOUT THE 'PLANES'
1. THE PLANES BEING DISCUSSED ARE THE 3 CARTESIAN PLANES, OR "CARDINAL PLANES", ... SO THIS IS A MORE SPECIFIC CONCEPT THAN SIMPLY 'THE PLANES'. IT IS MORE SPECIFIC, SINCE THERE ARE INFINITE NUMBERS OF PLANES, ... SOME ARE TILTED, OTHERS DO NOT GO THROUGH CENTRE, ETC.
[Oliver responds]: Yes, I agree with you. I had disagreed with my teachers here to, because they were too unspecific. It's good that you mention this point! :)
Let me add: there is a difference between a plane and an area (area of a plane, or a plane area). A plane has inifinite reach. An area is a limited part of a plane.
So, when looking at the planes in e.g. an icosahedron, the planes are reaching also outside the ico., as well as they are inside. They have unlimited size. The part of the plane that lies inside the ico. and is limited by it's sharp is called an area. It's the area inside the icop that lies on the plane (whichever is meant, and normally the cardinal planes are meant).
This was apoint where I disagreed with my LMA teachers. When they meant the plane ("Ebene" in german) they named it "Fläche" (area), and that was annoying. An area does not have inifinite size! A plane has!
(But reading the german Choreutik, Laban also does this in this way, and IMHO he should be corrected here, because it could be done more detailed/more explicit to differentiate between planes and areas.)
[JEFFREY WROTE]: 2. MY BIGGER ISSUE WITH "THE PLANES", IS THE CONCEPTS OF "VERTICAL, SAGITTAL, AND HORIZONTAL" PLANES. THESE CONCEPTS TIE THE CARDINAL PLANES ONLY TO THE ICOSAHEDRON. (IE. "DIMENSIONAL PLANES" AS CALLED IN "CHOREUTICS"). BUT FOR SPACE HARMONY TO TAKE IN ITS FULL POTENTIAL, WE ALSO USE PLANES IN THE OCTAHEDRON, CUBE, DODECAHEDRON, AND ANY IRREGULAR POLYHEDRA WE CHOSE TO USE. SO, ... THE "VERTICAL PLANE" IN THE ICOSAHEDRON ... WHEN THAT SAME ORIENTATION OF A PLANE IN THE DODECAHEDRON CANNOT BE CALLED "VERTICAL" ANYMORE SINCE THERE IT IS STRESSED HORIZONTALLY ( OLIVER BANDEL MENTIONED THIS)
[Oliver responds]: I would prefer the term "rotated" instead of "stressed".What I meant was: looking into books on mathematics, then the icosahedron has a different orientation in common space.You have to rotate it to get Labans orientation, and how it is used in LMA.
The thing you called stressing the planes horizontal is, where I disagree: The planes are not stressed. The planes have infinite size. What is different is the AREA of the planes that lies inside the icosahedron.
But this is, because Laban said: construct the icosaeder in a way, where some points (12 points: the edges that will be used for indicating the edges of the areas of the (rotated) dimensional planes) lie on the surface of the kinesphere. He also could have said: construct the icosaeder in a way, where icosaeder is outside of the sphere and let the triangle areas touching the sphere. Also he has choosen a certain orientation, and that orientation is uncommon, when compared with the orientation that normally is used in books on mathematics. Well, he can chose any orientation he wants to, but when using unusual orientations, the icosaeder should be looked at as rotated, IMHO. I did not explored all these possibilities in detail, how such a model could be used then and how there are "stressings", when using it this way.
He could also use the cube inside/outside of the sphere, and using it's edges and the middle-points of the areas of it's surface and the half-length of the lines between the edge-points to indicate the directions. And this was, how he constructed the 27 directions.
But he said the ico. is more suited to describe human anatomy/movement. But this is - as you mentioned - to the case for all people.
So, when using Laban's movement analysis as a general tool, as a tool for describing human movement in general, then this will be misleading, if such things remains undiscovered!
[JEFFREY WROTE]: THIS IS WHY IT MAY BE A GOOOD PROPOSAL TO SEPARATE CONCEPTS FOR THE DIMENSIONS VERSUS THE PLANES.
DIMENSIONS: -- VERTICAL, SAGITTAL, LATERAL
PLANES (GENERIC): -- FRONTAL, MEDIAL, HORIZONTAL
[Oliver responds]: Well, when I look into my anatomy book, they called the planes as you called the dimensions. Why to use different names in LMA, compared to medicine/anatomy?!
From the book Rohen, Lütjen-Drecoll: "Funktionelle Anatomie des Menschen"
Dimension | Trennende Ebene | Gestaltungsprinzip | Zugehörige Begriffspaare
rechts/links| sagittale |bilaterale Symmetrie| medial/lateral
vorne/hinten| frontale |Segmentation | ventral/dorsal
oben/unten | transversale |Polarität | kranial/kaudal
They used the term "transversale Ebene" as he plane which splits into up/down above/below in the above table, but in the text to the picture they use, they called it "Horizontalebene" (horizontal plane).
Well, from a german book, but as in medicine normally the words are derived from the latin language, it makes sense to use it (IMHO), but all in all it seems like a big confusion - not only my confusion.
The meaning is: the saggittal plane is the one that distinguishs between right and left.
the frontal plane is the one that distinguishs between front and back
the transversal plane is the one that distinguishs between above and below
But maybe you want to say something different?
[JEFFREY WROTE]: (VERTICAL, SAGITTAL, LATERAL) AND PLANAR CONCEPTS (FRONTAL, MEDIAL, HORIZONTAL), ... SO THIS PROPOSAL HELPS MAKE GOOD LINKS BETWEEN SPACE HARMONY AND OTHER BODY-SPATIAL SYSTEMS SUCH AS IN ANATOMY / KINESIOLOGY.
[Oliver responds]: But as mentioned above, they use a different terminology... at least in that book on anatomy.
JEFFREY WROTE]: WHEN I WAS ANALYSING THE SYSTEM OF SPACE HARMONY, I FOUND IT NECESSARY TO SEPARATE THESE LINEAR CONCEPTS FROM THE PLANAR CONCEPTS INORDER TO AVOID CONFUSION
[Oliver reponds]: What is meant by "linear" concepts? When looking into the english-dictionary it says something about "geradlinig", which in terms of mathematics means not curved, something which could be described mathematically as f(x) = a x + b
Is this, was you mean with linear concepts? Didn't make sense to me. Or do you mean linear concepts as an indicator of directions? (up down(deep), right/left, front back.
[JEFFREY WRTOE]: EG. ICOSAHEDRON FRONTAL PLANE IS STRESSED VERTICALLY DODECAHEDRON FRONTAL PLANE IS STRESSED LATERALLY
[Oliver responds]: This is because Laban used the icosaeder in a certain way. He did this, because he saw a good approximation of the geometry of the human anatomy. But as you mentioned, your experience is different.
Discussion 48, by Oliver Bandel, April 17, 2005
[Responding to Peggy Hackney's comments in Discussion 16]
[PEGGY WROTE]: THIS IS ALSO WHY THE SYMBOLS FOR THE DIMENSIONS AND PLANES THAT CARL WOLZ PROPOSED OVER TWENTY YEARS AGO SHOULD DEFINITELY BE ADOPTED.
[Oliver responds]: Who is/was Carl Wolz?
Discussion 49, by Oliver Bandel, April 17, 2005
look here for some very nice pictures on the
http://www1.physik.tu-muenchen.de/~gmueller/auswahl-ana.html
and especially an icosaeder with octaeders inside:
http://www1.physik.tu-muenchen.de/~gmueller/i5o.html
Discussion 50, by Oliver Bandel, April 17, 2005
[Responding to Jeffrey Lonstaff's comments in Discussion 32]
Hello Jeffrey, hello Labanlist-readers,
well, as I now see, I'm not the only one who writes long emails. Well, it took a while to read your mail, Jeffrey, but it was very interesting.
[JEFFREY WROTE]: OK, .... ONE MORE LABAN-THEORY DISCUSSION, .... THIS ONE COMES OUT LONGER AND MORE DETAILED:
OLIVER WROTE: WHICH IS THE CORRECT NUMBER FOR EACH OF THE DIRCTIONAL SYMBOLS?
PEGGY WROTE: I NEVER USE THE NUMBERS, SO I DON'T KNOW THEM AT ALL. THEY ARE NOT THE NUMBER OF THE POINTS THEMSELVES, AS I REMEMBER IT, BUT OF THE TRANSVERSALS (I.E., THE MOVEMENT BETWEEN THE POINTS IN THE ICOS).
I [JEFFREY] HAVE SEEN IT BOTH WAYS. VALERIE PRESTON-DUNLOP HAS USED NUMBERS FOR THE POINTS OF THE ICOSAHEDRON FOR YEARS, AND SHE OFTEN CITES A "CHRISTMAS CARD" MADE BY LABAN WHERE HE PUT NUMBERS ON ALL THE ICOSADRAL POINTS.... BASED ON THE ORDER OF THE POINTS IN THE RIGHT A SCALE.
[Oliver responds]: Yes, it was Valerie Preston-Dunlop as she was on the EUROLAB e.V. conference, where she gave a workshop, when I first had contact to this notation with numbers of points. But I didn't wrote them down to paper and so I forgot the mapping of directions and numbers. :(
[JEFFREY WROTE]: IN CHOREOGRAPHIE (LABAN, 1926), THE WELL-KNOWN DRAWINGS OF THE A-SCALE (PP. 30-31) SEEM TO HAVE THE POINTS NUMBERED (1-12), WITH POINT RIGHT-HIGH GIVEN NUMBER 1... AND THESE DRAWINGS SEEM IN CONTRAST WITH THE WRITTEN TEXT WHERE THE NUMBERS ARE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AS BEING THE INCLINATIONS R1, R2, R3, ETC.
IN MY PERCEPTION, ... THIS IS A SIGN OF LABAN'S OWN TENDENCY TO 'TRY EVERYTHING AT LEAST ONCE' ... AND SO IT SEEMED THAT HE EXPERIMENTED BOTH WAYS.
[Oliver responds]: So then I may use my own mapping...?! Well, I may better stay at named or graphical representation? (That seems to be more clear to other people, and better to communicate.) As far as I know Laban also did mappings from movement in space / space harmony to "movement of a melody" / music harmony. I think it was Carol Lynne Moore (?) who mentioned this...?!
[JEFFREY WROTE]: MY ISSUE, THOUGH, IS A BIGGER ONE: THE ENTIRE CONCEPT OF "POINTS"; WHETHER THEY ARE CALLED, RIGHT-HIGH, OR R1 OR WHATEVER.... AS I HAVE EVOLVED IN MY EMBODIMENT AND OBSERVATION OF SPACE HARMONY, I HAVE MOVED FARTHER AND FARTHER AWAY FROM THE CONCEPTION OF "POINTS".
I BELIEVE THAT SPACE HARMONY NEEDS TO BE MORE ROOTED IN "INCLINATIONS" RATHER THAN POINTS.
[Oliver responds]: What do you mean with "inclinations"? When loking into the english-dictionary I found translations that seemed to me not addressing what you may mean here. So, because labantalk is different to normal usage of english language I have to ask you what this term means here.
[JEFFREY WROTE]: THERE ARE SO MANY ASPECTS TO THIS, IT IS HARD TO KNOW WHERE TO BEGIN.
FOR ME PERSONALLY, IT STARTED WHEN TRANSLATING THE NOTATION SYMBOLS FROM LABAN'S (1926) CHOREOGRAPHIE. DETAILS OF THIS TRANSLATION, AND SOME OF THESE ISSUES ARE DESCRIBED IN THE ICKL PAPER, (2001, OHIO STATE -- PDF FILE IS AVAILABLE AT ICKL.ORG).
[Oliver responds]: Do you have a direct pointer/URL to that paper?
[JEFFREY WROTE]: I CALLED THESE 'VECTOR SYMBOLS' SINCE THEY SYMBOLISE MOTIONS. AND I
[Oliver responds]: I think I have read something about this in the DNB-discussion-board? But I did not understand it the last time I read this. Your pdf paper is more detailed?
[JEFFREY WROTE]: REALISED THAT IN 1926 LABAN HAD NOTATED ALL THE SPACE HARMONY SCALES AS SERIES OF MOTIONS, WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO POINTS.
SOME OF THE VECTOR SYMBOLS WERE FOR INCLINATIONS, OTHERS WERE DIMENSIONS (DIMENSONAL MOTIONS, NOT POINTS). ... AND LOOKING AT THIS TEXT, AND OTHER WORKS ON SPACE HARMONY BY LABAN AND ULLMANN, THE FOLLOWING 9 POSSIBILITIES ARE EVIDENT:
CENTRAL DIMENSIONS
PERIPHERAL DIMENSIONS
TRANSVERSE DIMENSIONS
CENTRAL DIAGONALS
PERIPHERAL DIAGONALS
TRANSVERSE DIAGONALS
CENTRAL INCLINATIONS
PERIPHERAL INCLINATIONS
TRANSVERSE INCLINATIONS
THESE ARE ALL LINES, NOT POINTS.
[Oliver responds]: Well, in the german LMA program some things are slightly different handled as in the english education, and as far as I know this above was splitted into more than one concept.
But because of language problems I may understand it different than you may mean here (I was in the first course that used german language only, and so the names may also differ to what I learned: translating from english to german also add new kinds of uncertainty about what is meant.)
[JEFFREY WROTE]: WHEN I STARTED TO PUT THIS INTO PRACTICE, IN EMBODIMENT AND OBSERVATION, I REALISED THAT THIS GREATLY SIMPLIFIED MY CONCEPT OF SPACE HARMONY, AND ALSO SATISFIED SEVERAL 'PROBLEMS' IN THE SYSTEM OF SPACE HARMONY.
[Oliver responds]: Oh, very interesting!
[JEFFREY WROTE]: 1. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN (FOR EXAMPLE) THE 'DIRECTION' OF RIGHT-HIGH IN THE CUBE (LABANOTATION) VERSUS THE RIGHT-HIGH IN THE ICOSAHEDRON (TYPICAL FOR LMA). THIS IS ONLY A "PROBLEM" BECAUSE IT MEANS THERE ARE 2 DIFFERENT 'RIGHT-HIGH'S.... AND IF WE INCLUDE THE DODECAHEDRON, THERE IS A 3RD RIGHT-HIGH, ... AND IF WE BRING IN OTHER POLYHEDRA (LABAN USES SEVERAL, INCLUDING RHOMBIC SOLIDS ... SEE DRAWINGS IN 'VISION OF DYNAMIC SPACE'), WE COULD HAVE SEVERAL DIFFERENT 'RIGHT-HIGH'S .... POSSIBILY THIS COULD BE SOLVED WITH A "KEY SIGNATURE", ... EG. TO SAY: DIRECTIONS RELATIVE TO ICOSAHEDRON (AND THIS HAS BEEN USED IN SOME NOTATIONS), .... BUT IF YOU FOLLOW MY LOGIC (KEEP READING), I BELIEVE THERE IS AN INFINITELY MORE
ELEGANT SOLUTION. -- (AND WHICH SEEMS CLOSER TO LABAN'S ORIGINAL IDEA ANYWAY)
2. A SECOND PROBLEM FOR SPACE HARMONY FOR MENTION HERE IS THAT, ... IN MY EXPERIENCE OF OBSERVING AND MOVING, ... I FIND THAT BODY MOVEMENTS SIMPLY DO NOT ALWAYS PASS THROUGH THE "POINTS"! OF COURSE WE CAN PERFORM THEM SO THEY DO, ... BUT I AM TALKING ABOUT SPONTANIOUS, 'ORGANIC' MOVEMENT. IT IS EASY TO SEE THAT BODY MOVEMENTS GO IN EVERY DIRECTION THAT IS PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE. IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE SOME MOTION-CAPTURE DATA ON THIS, ... BUT I HAVE SEEN THE DATA THAT SHOWS, EVEN WHEN TRYING TO REPEAT "THE SAME" MOVEMENT SEVERAL TIMES, THAT IT NEVER FOLLOWS THE EXACT SAME PATHWAY, BUT IS ALWAYS (USING LABAN'S TERM) "DEFLECTING" SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT ON EACH AND EVERY OCCASION.
[Oliver responds]: Yes, this seems to be obvious... isn't it? That's how the world is.
"Can you ever put your foot again into the same river more than once?"
[JEFFREY WROTE]: WHEN IT COMES TO EXPRESSIVE MOVEMENT, WE ALL KNOW THAT EVERY POSSIBILITY IS EXPLORED, ... MOVEMENTS JUST DO NOT CONFORM TO THE FIXED "POINTS" IN SPACE. --- ONE POSSIBILITY TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM WOULD BE TO CONCEIVE OF EACH POINT AS A ZONE OR A FIELD, RATHER THAT A PARTICULAR POINT, ...
[Oliver responds]: Yes, I see what you mean here, but I would use a different way for the directions, which btw has very similar meaning of what you would call "zone" or "field". Maybe it's a differennt view on the same thing:
I would describe the durections as a fuzzy direction, directly derived from mathematics and electrical engineering, where you use fuzzy sets for measurement and electronic control systems. You can use fuzzy values and so on. When using fuzzy sets on directions, this will result in a kind of "field" or "zone", but I would rather use the Cartesian Coordinates and the cube as underlying directional system.
But nevertheless it would be possible to mix up both ideas: different scalings (you called it "stressings") of directions, or "different pulls" as Peggy called it, mixing with a concept of fuzzy directions.
Let me explain in short words, what a fuzzy direction would mean: the purely right would be 100% right. Left would be 0 % right. Forward would be for example 50 % right, or 20% or so... or 0%. maybe 45 degrees to the right are more than 0% of right...
The more you are near to the "absolute"/"sharp" right, the more are you to the 100% of right.
This is how fuzzy sets/fuzzy logic works on values like electrical current or a voltage fitting into one fuzzy set / into an interval of a value.
When using three dimensions instead of one voltage, this would mean to have a three-dimensional fuzzy set that indicates the directions. So a diagonal to up-right-high has some percent of up, some percent of right and some percent of high. But for all dimensional directions it is less than 100%. But a sharp/crisp/absolute up-right-high is 100% of up-right-high.
This is, what runs through my brain since many months, and now I mention it the first time here to others.
[JEFFREY WROTE]: AND WE CAN HAVE HALF-WAY AND THIRD-WAY POINTS (AS IN LABANOTATION), BUT, AGAIN, I WOULD PROPOSE A MORE ELEGANT SOLUTION THAN JUST MORE AND MORE POINTS AND POINT-VARIATIONS.
[Oliver responds]: Yes.
It could also be said that a cube and it's dirctions (pure cartesian and the angle-subdividing directions) is what will be used as basic concept (so we are comaptible to cartesian coordinates/labanotation).Then it could be saif that the icosaeder itself does a distortion/ scaling of the directions. But it does this only, because laban rotated this in a certain way......using the icosaeder differently may yield in completely different results! (This should be explored in more detail.)
But when we use the cube and the same-scaled directions/pulls, then this is a mathematically way to look at this. And the more anatomy-oriented model as the icosahedron or dodecahedron may is, will be less emphasized. But as we are talking about human movement, this cube-derived directions may be very "cold"?!
So, when to use a system that is independent of the individual anatomy, the cube is fine. When using a more anatomical way, then other polygonals may be better, when describing human anatomy as an abstraction... but based on what idealized bodies/anatomies?!!! When using a modell that fits each individual's anatomy, then we can't use the polygon's anymore! We have to leave this solid geometry. Platon's idealism can't be used to match the life. We may see some geometric similarities in the world and in the movements and in the life. But similarities and analogies and metaphors are not the thing itself to which they are related! Only models of...
Remark: Eshkol-Wachmann movement system uses spheres and angles to indicate directions!
[JEFFREY WROTE]: 3. ANOTHER PROBLEM IN THE PRACTICE, AND RESULTANT PERCEPTION OF SPACE HARMONY, ... IS THE WELL-KNOWN TENDENCY FOR PEOPLE TO PERFORM CHOREUTIC SCALES AND RINGS ETC. WITH A DISTAL BODY PART TRACING A PERIPHERAL LINE THROUGH SPACE. THIS IS HOW I LEARNED THE 'SCALES', ... THIS IS HOW I SEE PEOPLE PERFORMING THEM, .... EVEN AFTER CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS I SEE THIS, ... AND IN THE WORST CASE, I SEE THIS SOMETIMES BECOMING A CHARACTURE OF SPACE HARMONY PRACTICE, AS A KIND OF GEOMETRIC PUZZLE, TRACED OUT IN THE SPACE. THE CLASSIC SOLUTION TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM IS TO INVOLVE THE ENTIRE TORSO, THE OTHER ARM, THE DEEP LEG-BENDS, ETC. .... STILL, PERFORMING CHOREUTIC SCALES AS A DISTAL BODY PART FOLLOWING A PERIPHERAL PATHWAY RECURS OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
[Oliver responds]: Well, how to do it differently?
Using distal limbs means to very good follow the lines between the points. So, to show people, where these points are, it's most clear, when indicating the directions with (a directional) movement that indicates these directions. (Well, when doing it with indirect space effort it's less directly indicating the directions and seems to be more what you are doing?!)
(This is now, where the concepts of directions in space (macromovement) and space effot (micromovements?) are intertwined. Fiddling these appart may be difficult - especially, when not done with a more mathematical analytical approach...)
[JEFFREY WROTE]: I BELIEVE THERE ARE OTHER PROBLEMS IN SPACE HARMONY, ... BUT THESE 3 ARE ENOUGH FOR NOW.
IN MY EXPERIENCE, I FOUND THAT EMBODYING AND OBSERVING SPACE HARMONY BY THE VECTORS (MOTIONS, INSTEAD OF POINTS), HAD THE IMMEDIATE RESULT OF SOLVING ALL 3 OF THESE PROBLEMS.
1. THE ISSUE ABOUT SEVERAL DIFFERENT 'RIGHT-HIGH'S IS IRRELEVANT, SINCE POINTS ARE NOT OBSERVED OR PERFORMED ANYWAY, ... MOVEMENTS ARE PERFORMED OR OBSERVED, AND THE ORIENTATION OF THESE ARE OBSERVED/PERFORMED DIRECTLY, WITHOUT ANY NEED TO REFER TO ANY POINTS.
[Oliver responds]: But a movment has a (or many) directions. So indicating these directions or directional aspects of a movement must be done. Somewhat of the movement is what we call a dirction, even if this may be a fuzzy direction, a zone/field, or a clear/crisp/sharp direction in space.
Btw: there are no points, there are directions used in the scales. The points are only helping conctructs. When going from up-left-front to deep-right-back it seems that we are connecting two points. And it is often said in that way.
But when looking at the directions, they are only lines with a beginning and an end, when we look only inseide the cube/ico./... but the directions are indicated by lines of unlimited length! They are infinite! Here again is the same problem I mentioned about planes (german: Ebenen) and areas (german: Flächen).
The planes are infinite, the areas are finite/limited by the shape of the sphere/icosahedron/doec./.../cube/...
The linesegments in the sphere/icosahedron/doec./.../cube/... are of limited lengths, but the lines are of infinite length. The points are where the infinite lines are crossing the surface of the sphere/icosahedron/doec./.../cube/...
[JEFFREY WROTE]: 2. LIKEWISE, THE ISSUE OF MOVEMENTS NOT CONFORMING TO THE 'POINTS' FALLS AWAY, BECAUSE ORIENTATIONS OF MOVEMENTS ARE OBSERVED / PERFORMED, RATHER THAN POINTS, SO IT IS IRRELEVANT IF THEY PASS THROUGH PARTICULAR POINTS OR NOT.
[Oliver responds]: The points are always used as directional indicators, didn't they? A scale could also be made with one finger (and support of the ankles of the hand of ourse), always located more or less at the same place. So it does not necessarily tip on the points/ico.-edges, but "points" (ooops!) to that direction.
Well... why is it said "to point into a direction"?
[JEFFREY WROTE]: 3. THE ISSUE ABOUT THE TENDENCY FOR DISTAL TRACING IS ALSO ADDRESSED, BECAUSE THE TENDENCY TO "REACH TO THE POINTS" IS GONE, NO NEED TO START AT A POINT, NO NEED TO MOVE TOWARD A POINT ... AND IT IS IMMEDIATELY SEEN THAT WHENEVER ANY BODY PART MOVES, THAT IT CREATES A LINE THROUGH SPACE, AND THAT LINE CAN BE SEEN TO HAVE A CHOREUTIC COMPONENT.
[Oliver responds]: Well, what do you mean here? Is it like "moulding"/carving or shape-flowing instead of directional moving to accurate to that point?!
Is this again, I'm wondering, where different concepts are coming together /being intertwined, so that "change of shape", "effort" and "directions" come togehter?!
Isn't it this "how to perform the scales with different movement qualities" what you address here?
[JEFFREY WROTE]: THE SIMPLIFIED CHOREUTIC 'VECTOR' OBSERVATION / PERFORMANCE IS ANALYSED AS FOLLOWS:
EVERY MOVEMENT HAS A DIMENSIONAL COMPONENT AND A DIAGONAL COMPONENT ('PURE' DIMENSIONAL MOVEMENTS OR PURE DIAGONAL MOVEMENTS, OR PURE 'DIAMETERAL' MOVEMENTS ARE DISCOUNTED, ... ACCORDING TO CHOREUTIC THEORY, IN WRITINGS BY
[Oliver responds]: Well, let's have a short stop here, so that I can throw in another theme :)
When using cartesian coordinate system, you only have a pure dimensional base. Things like diagonals and diametrals can be derived from the pure dimensions: They do not add basic information to the underlying coordinate system itself: it is complete with only three dimensions. Introducing diagonals and diametrals is good for the people to have a more fine grained orientation, and to learn to use movements with cognitive support, so that means to be more clear about what movements to do and at the same time being "more free" than when only using purely dimensional movements. But "much more freer" would be to introduce more and more directions between the 27, which Laban used. And when doing this process again and again, there always could be a direction between to other directions... ad infinitum. And then we have a sphere. But who could communicate about the direction in words? It is then, where you can't talk about... you only can perform the movement.... and maybe someone "understands" it.
But what Laban did, as he introduced the 27 directions, quantizizing the sphere, was: show people that they could do movements in more directions as they were used to use in their movements. So, using such a model with "only 27 directions" means a lot for people, when they only know up-down, right-left, forward. Seldom that people are used to go backward or using a limb to "point" backwards. And also they not often mix three-dimensional movments. At least not conscious. I think most often people are used to to mainly movements in the cardinal planes. And Laban showed, that other movements are possible.
So it made sense, what he did!
But the underlying coordinate system is complete with only the dimensional planes!
[JEFFREY WROTE]: LABAN AND ULLMANN, THESE 'PURE' ORIENTATIONS DO NOT OCCUR ANYWAY, ... AND EVERY MOVEMENT IS A COMBINATION OF BOTH DIMENSIONAL AND DIAGONAL COMPONENTS,
[Oliver responds]: 1: But not consciously!
2: And most people do not have a wide variety of movements. Even diagonals, at least performed conscious and with whole-body-support, are a high-skill- movement for them! Did you tried the diagonal-scale with people who are sitting the whole day in the buero? I'm shure they are good in performing fine motoric movements on the table-plane. ;-)
[JEFFREY WROTE]: ... THAT IS, ... IT IS "DEFLECTED" BETWEEN A DIMENSION AND A DIAGONAL, .... IN OTHER WORDS, ... AN "INCLINATION". -- I BELIEVE THIS
[Oliver responds]: So, "inclination" means "somwhere between dimension and diagonal"?!
[JEFFREY WROTE]: WOULD ALSO BE SUPPORTED BY MOTION CAPTURE DATA (IF SOMEONE DID THE TEST). A 'PURE' DIMENSION WOULD ONLY OCCUR BY MECHANICAL MEANS, ... NOT BY AN ORGANIC EXPRESSIVE BODY. (IT MIGHT COME CLOSE TO PURE DIMENIONS, ... BUT THEY ALWAYS DEFLECT).
[Oliver responds]: But this is nothing that means "points" are useless. For clearing up what is possible, these pure directions are a fine tool, because you can people show that there are more possibilities in movement than people are normally used to.
[JEFFREY WROTE]: ADDED TO THIS, ... IN MY OWN CONCEPTION / PERCEPTION, ... I NO LONGER IDENTIFY THE 'PATHWAY' ACCORDING TO THE PATH OF A PARTICULAR BODY LOCATION (EG. PATHWAY OF THE HAND, OR PATHWAY OF THE ELBOW, OR PATHWAY OF THE SHOULDER ETC.), ... RATHER, I STARTED TO OBSERVE / PERFORM PATHWAYS OF THE CENTRE-OF-GRAVITY OF A BODY PART.
[Oliver responds]: Well, that is a interesting idea. And that is very body-oriented.
But it could also be done the other way around: indicating each part of a limb that performs a movement, and that means to notate all parts and subparts of the body/of the limbs, so that the movement of each cell of the body will be looked at. You mentioned motion capturing. Well, some techniques are using lights, indicating the movement. And when you put on each limb more than one light, at least one at each end of a limb (at the ankles), but better in a even finer mesh, then you will see a more differentiated thing: that's the shape that moves.
For example when you put your stomach in an out and in which direction is it (and in which coordinate system? kinespheric? common space?)?
When you indicate the movement throughs pace of each cell of your body, well, then the direction is not one direction, but infinite many directions. So then using the idea of center-of-gravity is a nice idea. But: Where to put the boarderline? Center-Of-Gravity (COG) of the whole body, the torso, each limb, ...?! What's about the stomach-example? Or a person with huge muscles, when sometimes using them and sometimes not? Then even the body parts that are "only bony" suddenly have more than one direction at a time.
So, the question then is: how detailed to look at this? We are entering the space fractal mathematics here. (which scale is used in this discussion to enter so many different spaces? ;-)) In fractal mathematics you can have a fractional number of dimensions. So your space may have e.g. 2.3678 dimensions instead of 3 dimensions.
So, how to move in 2.3678 dimensional space ? ;-)
[JEFFREY WROTE]: O, FOR EXAMPLE, MOVING THE WHOLE ARM, WHEN THE ARM FLEXED AND EXTENDS, THE CENTRE-OF-GRAVITY MOVES AROUND RELATIVE TO THE ARM, IT IS NOT A FIXED POINT IN THE BODY, BUT IS THE CENTRE OF THE LIMB'S WEIGHT (IN A SIMILAR WAY THAT HIGH JUMPERS ACTUALLY PASS THE CENTRE-OF-GRAVITY UNDER THE HIGH-BAR, WHILE THEIR BODY GOES OVER IT.
PERCEIVING THE MOTION OF THE CENTRE-OF-GRAVITY OF THE ARM (TOGETHER WITH ALL THE FLEXING AND EXTENDING OF THE ENTIRE ARM), IN CONTRAST TO PERCEIVING THE MOTION OF A SINGLE POINT ON THE ARM (EG. THE HAND), .... IS AN ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE.
[Oliver responds]: Yes, but again I'm wondering if this is what also could be called "A directional movement in space (macro-movement) to direction ...with indirect space effort (micro-movement, space) and shapeflow (micro-movment, topology)".
[JEFFREY WROTE]: I FIND THAT THE RESULTING EXPERIENCE OF CHOREUTIC FORMS, SCALES, RINGS, IS AN ALTOGETHER MORE ORGANIC EXPERIENCE, AND SIMPLIFIES PERFORMANCE AND IDENTIFICATION OF THE PARTICULAR SCALES, RINGS ETC, ... ALL WITHOUT A SINGLE REFERENCE TO ANY POINT.
[Oliver responds]: A good idea to try it out. :)
As directions "out into space" are more linked to "outer" and "feel the center of gravity" is more linked to "inner" (Peggy Hackney's book mentioned this concept) it's more oriented on the MOVER (feelings/emotions/shape-flow - INNER) than on the OBSERVER (directions, still-shape, but also change of shape -- OUTER).
[JEFFREY WROTE]: OLIVER BLANDEL WROTE:
(*) IT NEEDS MORE TOPOLOGICAL-ORIENTED SYMBOLS, AND THE BODY PATTERNS YOU INTRODUCED ARE KIND OF THAT. BUT RELATIONAL SYMBOLS ARE TOPOLOGICAL TOO....MAYBE IT MAKES SENSE TO FOUND ALL THAT STUFF ON A PURELY TOPOLOGICAL NOTATION... RESEARCH DURING THE NEXT DECADES (CENTURIES?!) WILLSHOW IT...
I [JEFFREY] BELIEVE THAT THESE 'VECTOR SYMBOLS' AND THE CONCEPTION OF MOTION THAT GOES WITH THEM, ARE EXACTLY THIS, ... THEY LEAD INTO A CONCEPTION OF CHOREUTICS / SPACE HARMONY AS TOPOLOGICAL, RATHER THAN AS FIXED GEOMETRIC FORMS (SCAFFOLDING).
INDEED, LOOKING AT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM OF CHOREUTICS ONE CAN SEE THAT THE ICOSAHEDRON IS NOT FAVORED MORE THAN THE CUBE OR THE OCTAHEDRON, OR DODECAHEDRON, ETC.... BUT THAT ONE POLYHEDRA FLOWS INTO THE NEXT IN AN ENDLESS PROCESS OF "DEFLECTION",
[Oliver responds]: Well, I found this nice page here:
http://www1.physik.tu-muenchen.de/~gmueller/ik_rg.html
where cubes inside the icosahedron are depicted and this one:
http://www1.physik.tu-muenchen.de/~gmueller/iooo.html
where octahedrons are inside of an icosahedron.
[JEFFREY WROTE]: OR EXAMPLE, THE SAME TOPOLOGICAL FORMS (EG. A 3-RING, OR A 12-RING [A-SCALE]) ARE MAPPED OUT BY LABAN IN THE OCTAHEDRON, IN THE CUBE, AND IN THE ICOSAHEDRON. THEY ARE THE SAME TOPOLOGICAL FORM, WITH THE SPECIFIC ORIENTATION (EG. MORE DIMENSIONAL OR MORE DIAGONAL) JUST BEING A MATTER OF THAT PARTICULAR PERFORMANCE, ... WHILE ON THE NEXT PERFORMANCE THE SPECIFIC ORIENTATION AND PROPORTIONS MAY CHANGE, .... BUT THE TOPOLOGICAL FORM REMAINS THE SAME.
[Oliver responds]: Well... rings are always rings. But it would be interesting to have non-laban-ring-scale-movements and look at their topology.
BTW: You mentioned above that there is no movement at the same space again. Well, then there is no ring that can be performed. When we look in detail more and more, there is only one spiral/curve that is performed from birth to death (and before and after that?!). There are no rings, there is one continuous curved line, if you never can close your movement/ring, because you can't connect to the point where you started... So even such a ring is an abstraction, an idea, a construction.
There is no ring!
("There is no spoon!" (The Matrix :))
(BTW: "There is no spoon.... not the spoon but you is inclining..." ...directly relates to creating the space by the mover (Laban, Heinz von Foerster and seemingly many more (hello Zen!))
[JEFFREY WROTE]: I BELIEVE THAT THIS SYSTEM OF TOPOLOGICAL FORMS, ... DEFLECTING FROM ONE POLYHEDRAL SCAFFOLDING TO THE NEXT, ... IS ALSO IDENTIFIED IN CAROL-LYNNE MOORE'S RECENT PHD THESIS.
[Oliver responds]: I didn't red her thesis (is it available on web or ftp?), but it was Carol-Lynne Moore who said that Laban has also used non-solid/flexible geometry, at least in some of his drawings, she found in the Laban-Archive.
[JEFFREY WROTE]: THE CONCEPT ENGENDERED BY THE VECTOR SYMBOLS ARE THE COMPONENTS OF THESE TOPOLOGICAL FORMS, ... NOT TIED TO ANY PARTICULAR POLYHEDRAL SCAFFOLDING,
[Oliver responds]: Well, I will look for your paper.
[JEFFREY WROTE]: LABAN'S FIRST WORK ON CHOREUTICS, CHOREOGRAPHIE (1926) BEGAN WITH THESE MOTION SYMBOLS / CONCEPTS, ... WITHOUT REGARD TO POINTS. HIS ATTEMPT WAS TO SIGNIFY MOTION DIRECTLY.
[Oliver responds]: I don't know if the vector symbols, which Laban used (and you prefer) are more-or-less directly related to vectors in mathematics.When there is a more-or-less direct link, then this would be very fine, because when doing mathematical/physical analysis of a movement, e.g. when you send a rocket to Mars, then you are doing vector arithemtics and differenmtial geometry. Maybe Laban's vector symbols are a kind of symbolic differential geometry/analysis. If so, it is, what I once tried to write a paper about (which I recently found again).
[JEFFREY WROTE]: VALERIE PRESTON-DUNLOP, PERHAPS THE MOST INFORMED HISTORIAN OF LABAN'S LIFE AND TIMES, RECOUNTS THAT IN THE 1930S AT A DANCER CONGRESS THAT THE DECISION WAS MADE TO BASE THE NOTATION SYSTEM ON POINTS, RATHER THAN MOTIONS (PERHAPS THE POINTS ARE SIMPLER CONCEPTUALLY?). AND AFTER THIS LABAN LOST INTEREST IN THE NOTATION SYSTEM AND HANDED IT OVER TO OTHERS FOR IT'S FURTHER DEVELOPMENT (DETAILS OF THIS SHOULD BE IN MY ICKL PRESENTATION THIS SUMMER AT LABAN CENTRE) --- [OLIVER ARE YOU COMING? -- I THINK YOU SHOULD!]
[Oliver responds]: Well, good idea. Didn't thought about it. But it seems it would make sense. And GB/UK is not as far as CHINA or USA... so I think it's a good idea to come to the ICKL-conference. BUT: I'm no ICKL-member. Don't know if I will be accepted there?!
[JEFFREY WROTE]: BUT LABAN DID BRIEFLY RETURN TO THE ENTIRE IDEA IN CHOREUTICS (1966, CHAPTER XII), DESCRIBING THIS MOTION-NOTATION AS "AN OLD DREAM IN THIS FIELD OF RESEARCH" (P. 125)
WHEW!! I'M EXHAUSTED.
[Oliver responds]: Mee too!
I've sit in front of the computer now for many hours, with only short pauses... well.... and I saw there are more mails from this list... hard work... but one that makes fun! :)
Discussion 51, by Leslie Bishko, April 17, 2005
[Responding to Oliver Bandel's comments in Discussion 47]
[OLIVER WROTE]: LET ME ADD: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PLANE AND AN AREA (AREA OF A PLANE, OR A PLANE AREA). A PLANE HAS INIFINITE REACH. AN AREA IS A LIMITED PART OF A PLANE.
[Leslie responds]: This occurred to me as well, while I spent the morning catching up on this fascinating discussion! Mathematically, a plane is defined by any three points in space. In Space Harmony, we are using the points of the Icos to define the Cardinal planes. And, we use 4 points to define each plane – all points in the Icos get used up to do this. (Please note that I am referring to the points of the geometry, and not the sinful "points" of a scale!) In Space Harmony, it is the 4th point that characterizes the plane's proportions.
For the purpose of aligning our theory with other fields such as anatomy and mathematics, I feel we should disassociate the planar proportions from the definition of a plane. It's the Platonic Solids that define the proportions. We would then adopt the approach that Jeffrey suggests, which I will have to re-read several more times to grasp fully, in order to have symbols and language for the deflections, inclinations, etc.
I think of the geometry as imagery or mental concepts. You imagine it as big or small as you like, and place it relative to your chosen point of reference. I gained better understanding of this from discussion that followed my presentation of "Visualizing the A Scale" at the LIMS Mosaic celebration in the fall of 2003 (which I will be discussing at my ICKL presentation this summer!) My animation depicts a dancer moving inside a fixed Icosohedron - I was advised that the Icosohedron moves and bulges, and adapts to the mover's deflections of the transversals. To me this indicates that the Icos provides the sequencing and direction of the transversals.
Discussion 52, by Oliver Bandel, April 17, 2005
[Responding to Leslie Bishko's comments in Discussion 51]
[LESLIE WROTE]: OLIVER WROTE: LET ME ADD: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PLANE AND AN AREA (AREA OF A PLANE, OR A PLANE AREA). A PLANE HAS INIFINITE REACH. AN AREA IS A LIMITED PART OF A PLANE.
THIS OCCURRED TO ME [LESLIE] AS WELL, WHILE I SPENT THE MORNING CATCHING UP ON THIS FASCINATING DISCUSSION! MATHEMATICALLY, A PLANE IS DEFINED BY ANY THREE POINTS IN SPACE.
[Oliver responds]:Yes, and I meant this definition of a plane.
[LESLIE WROTE]: IN SPACE HARMONY, WE ARE USING THE POINTS OF THE ICOS TO DEFINE THE CARDINAL PLANES. AND, WE USE 4 POINTS TO DEFINE EACH PLANE – ALL POINTS IN THE ICOS GET USED UP TO DO THIS. (PLEASE NOTE THAT I AM REFERRING TO THE POINTS OF THE GEOMETRY, AND NOT THE SINFUL "POINTS" OF A SCALE!) IN SPACE HARMONY, IT IS THE 4TH POINT THAT CHARACTERIZES THE PLANE'S PROPORTIONS.
[Oliver responds]: Well, this would mean that the whole space is scaled by these proportions. This is a valuable model, but this is a different view than using a sphere, constructing dimesnional planes and icoshedorn inside this sphere.
What you mean is: scaling the whole space.
[LESLIE WROTE]: FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALIGNING OUR THEORY WITH OTHER FIELDS SUCH AS ANATOMY AND MATHEMATICS, I FEEL WE SHOULD DISASSOCIATE THE PLANAR PROPORTIONS FROM THE DEFINITION OF A PLANE. IT'S THE PLATONIC SOLIDS THAT DEFINE THE PROPORTIONS.
[Oliver responds]: Well, why? Because Laban said this?
[LESLIE WROTE]: WE WOULD THEN ADOPT THE APPROACH THAT JEFFREY SUGGESTS, WHICH
[Oliver responds]: Which one do you mean?
[LESLIE WROTE]: I WILL HAVE TO RE-READ SEVERAL MORE TIMES TO GRASP FULLY, IN ORDER TO HAVE SYMBOLS AND LANGUAGE FOR THE DEFLECTIONS, INCLINATIONS, ETC.
[Oliver responds]: Oh, the vector symbols?
[LESLIE WROTE]: I THINK OF THE GEOMETRY AS IMAGERY OR MENTAL CONCEPTS. YOU IMAGINE IT AS BIG OR SMALL AS YOU LIKE, AND PLACE IT RELATIVE TO YOUR CHOSEN POINT OF REFERENCE. I GAINED BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THIS FROM DISCUSSION THAT FOLLOWED MY PRESENTATION OF "VISUALIZING THE A SCALE" AT THE LIMS MOSAIC CELEBRATION IN THE FALL OF 2003 (WHICH I WILL BE DISCUSSING AT MY ICKL PRESENTATION THIS SUMMER!) MY ANIMATION DEPICTS A DANCER MOVING INSIDE A FIXED ICOSOHEDRON - I WAS ADVISED THAT THE ICOSOHEDRON MOVES AND BULGES, AND ADAPTS TO THE MOVER'S DEFLECTIONS OF THE TRANSVERSALS. TO ME THIS INDICATES THAT THE ICOS PROVIDES THE SEQUENCING AND DIRECTION OF THE TRANSVERSALS.
[Oliver responds]: Well, to do an animation, where the icosaeder follows the movements of the dancer/mover was a thing I wanted to do, but didn't started that project.
Is this already done by you, or will you enhance your solid-ico-animation to be stretchable?
I'm wondering, why the icosaeder and the platonic objects are so emphasized? Why did your dancer in your animation danced inside the icosaeder? Why not a cube? Why not dodecahedron? Why not a sphere?
WHY NOT A HULL WHICH HAS THE SURFACE OF THE MOVER?
As mentioned many, many times on this list, there already are papers from Heinz von Foerster, describing mathematically detailed how to construct such hulls, and how euklidian and non-euklidian coordinates are used in such a model, and how perception at it's lowest level necessarily needs movement and movement feedback. Even organisms with only one cell necessarily need movement to have oriantation in a world. And this is not different when looking at animals or humans. This is such a basic paper, that even classical philosophy is obsolete, when not based on these views, IMHO.
Movement is even more fundamental to living organisms than all we on this list may think that it is. (But Peggy Hackney mentioned movement at a very low level, as breath support in her book.)
When reading the papers from Hienz v. Foerster I thought: well, ok, the organism and it's hull of the world/environment... are both scaled threedimensionally. But as v. Foerster started with a sphere, using topologic transformations and then had a fish-like organism, and the space around it/ the hull / the kine"sphere" was transformed into a sish-like too, meant to me: When using this model for a human, then - if also starting with a spheric model - the hull of the person is not an icosahedron, it is a hull, that has the same proportions as the mover. Using this approach thw icosahedron as well as the kinesphere would be in their "natural" proposrtions, when the human anatomy is a sphere, and would be scaled by the transformation from the sphere into the human anatomy, so that the sphere will look similar to the surface of the mover and the icosahedron then will be distorted in a way that maybe no one of us would recognize as an icosahedron (well, Laban maybe would ;-)).
So, when starting with a human sphere, this transformatioons of space would be done.
When the people say: "well, this creates too strange models, that no one can really use in a dance class, so let's use the sphere/ico. with their "natural" proportions and adapt these nice looking models to the human body 'as is' ", then I wonder, a) why to use the ico., b) what about different anatomy of different movers?
** If the concept is: yes, the mover creates/scales the whole space, why then starting at this late point of "any anatomy pressed into the idealism and SOLID geometry of a icosahedron first", why is it afterwards allowed to let the icosahedron to dance and scale with the mover?
Why not always solid (as used in the past), or always scalable? Why first construct solidly the ico. and then let it move? Why?
Because of historic reasons?
Discussion 53, by Oliver Bandel, April 17, 2005
[Responding to Leslie Bishko's comments in Discussion 51]
[LESLIE WROTE]: FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALIGNING OUR THEORY WITH OTHER FIELDS SUCH AS ANATOMY AND MATHEMATICS, I FEEL WE SHOULD DISASSOCIATE THE PLANAR PROPORTIONS FROM THE DEFINITION OF A PLANE. IT'S THE PLATONIC SOLIDS THAT DEFINE THE PROPORTIONS. WE WOULD THEN ADOPT THE APPROACH THAT JEFFREY SUGGESTS, WHICH I WILL HAVE TO RE-READ SEVERAL MORE TIMES TO GRASP FULLY, IN ORDER TO HAVE SYMBOLS AND LANGUAGE FOR THE DEFLECTIONS, INCLINATIONS, ETC.
[Oliver responds]: So do you think there were enough discussions right now and you now know, that THIS is the way to go?
Did the discussion should stop here?
Sounds a little bid like that?!
Discussion 54, by Leslie Bishko, April 17, 2005
[Responding to Oliver Bandel's comments in Discussion 52]
[LESLIE WROTE]: IN SPACE HARMONY, IT IS THE 4TH POINT THAT CHARACTERIZES THE PLANE'S ROPORTIONS.
[OLIVER WROTE]: WELL, THIS WOULD MEAN THAT THE WHOLE SPACE IS SCALED BY THESE PROPORTIONS.THIS IS A VALUABLE MODEL, BUT THIS IS A DIFFERENT VIEW THAN USING A SPHERE, CONSTRUCTING DIMESNIONAL PLANES AND ICOSHEDORN INSIDE THIS SPHERE.
WHAT YOU MEAN IS: SCALING THE WHOLE SPACE.
[Leslie responds]: No, this is not what I mean. I am not speaking about spheres, only about the Icosohedron, in the context of what I have learned about Space Harmony theory. The proportions of the Icos-planes are based on the Golden Mean, which is reflected in human anatomy and all of nature. This "valuable model" you refer to is Laban's model.
[LESLIE WROTE]: FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALIGNING OUR THEORY WITH OTHER FIELDS SUCH AS ANATOMY AND MATHEMATICS, I FEEL WE SHOULD DISASSOCIATE THE PLANAR PROPORTIONS FROM THE DEFINITION OF A PLANE. IT'S THE PLATONIC SOLIDS THAT DEFINE THE PROPORTIONS.
[OLIVER WROTE]: WELL, WHY? BECAUSE LABAN SAID THIS?
[Leslie Responds]: No, I said it just now - my idea is to define planes like everyone else: as 3 points in space. When we introduce the 4th point, we are now talking about an area, as you said. When we look at the Icos-planes, it is the Icos that defines the proportion of the area we refer to as the plane. The Dodec defines different proportions of the same plane. The 4 points of the Icos-Horizontal-Plane are a specifically proportioned area of the infinite horizontal plane.
[LESLIE WROTE]: I THINK OF THE GEOMETRY AS IMAGERY OR MENTAL CONCEPTS. YOU IMAGINE IT AS BIG OR SMALL AS YOU LIKE, AND PLACE IT RELATIVE TO YOUR CHOSEN POINT OF REFERENCE. I GAINED BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THIS FROM DISCUSSION THAT FOLLOWED MY PRESENTATION OF "VISUALIZING THE A SCALE" AT THE LIMS MOSAIC CELEBRATION IN THE FALL OF 2003 (WHICH I WILL BE DISCUSSING AT MY ICKL PRESENTATION THIS SUMMER!) MY ANIMATION DEPICTS A DANCER MOVING INSIDE A FIXED ICOSOHEDRON - I WAS ADVISED THAT THE ICOSOHEDRON MOVES AND BULGES, AND ADAPTS TO THE MOVER'S DEFLECTIONS OF THE TRANSVERSALS. TO ME THIS INDICATES THAT THE ICOS PROVIDES THE SEQUENCING AND DIRECTION OF THE TRANSVERSALS.
[OLIVER WROTE]: WELL, TO DO AN ANIMATION, WHERE THE ICOSAEDER FOLLOWS THE MOVEMENTS OF THE DANCER/MOVER WAS A THING I WANTED TO DO, BUT DIDN'T STARTED THAT PROJECT.
IS THIS ALREADY DONE BY YOU, OR WILL YOU ENHANCE YOUR SOLID-ICO-ANIMATION TO BE STRETCHABLE?
[Leslie responds]: Yes, this is my plan.
[OLIVER WROTE]: ... I WONDER, A) WHY TO USE THE ICO., B) WHAT ABOUT DIFFERENT ANATOMY OF DIFFERENT MOVERS?
** IF THE CONCEPT IS: YES, THE MOVER CREATES/SCALES THE WHOLE SPACE, WHY THEN STARTING AT THIS LATE POINT OF "ANY ANATOMY PRESSED INTO THE IDEALISM AND SOLID GEOMETRY OF A ICOSAHEDRON FIRST", WHY IS IT AFTERWARDS ALLOWED TO LET THE ICOSAHEDRON TO DANCE AND SCALE WITH THE MOVER?
[Leslie responds]: I understand that the Icos Bulges and Hollows with the mover – its about Shape, not scale.
[OLIVER WROTE]: WHY NOT ALWAYS SOLID (AS USED IN THE PAST), OR ALWAYS SCALABLE? WHY FIRST CONSTRUCT SOLIDLY THE ICO. AND THEN LET IT MOVE? WHY?
BECAUSE OF HISTORIC REASONS?
[Leslie responds]: I think its because of what Jeffrey wrote earlier - that all movements are deflections from dimensions, diagonals and transversals. The history contains much wisdom!
Discussion 55, by Jimmyle Listenbee, April 17, 2005
Leslie: Thanks for your email concerning the authorship of Still Form Symbols. I greatly appreciate & enjoy this kind of dialogue.
(Everyone: Is there anyone out there with a symbol for 'any still form' besides Ann Hutchinson Guest's diagonal symbol for 'a shape'?)
I'd like to call everyone's attention to the coinage of the Still Form (Basic Forms/Shapes) symbols found on p. 221 in Hackney's Making Connections, for which she credits Leslie Bishko and Pam Schick.
To me, the fact that I overlooked the above citation (for which I apologize) is a perfect example of how language grows and the problems associated with its growth. In generative environments new lexical items are encouraged, embraced and released - but their sometimes convoluted paths of development are often overlooked, forgotten. Especially in institutional environments, the general perception of origin tends to accrue to the institutions wherein they develop.
But... I'm wondering... do you (Leslie) see these symbols as intellectual property? I have to continually replenish my own laminated sets because I keep giving them away, but never thought of selling them! Did you ever think of copyrighting them? These are issues I continually encounter in my work with various institutions/communities of Laban Studies, issues which are now being reexamined and evaluated to further the development of our work.
My interest is in opening up Laban language to general, broader use as a free and dynamic commodity. I favor, and strive for, stringent attribution of authorship (which depends on open sharing and integration of - sometimes contradictory - historical sources), combined with unlimited freedom of use. Above all, I favor communication with and about Motif Symbols.
In this case I myself had felt a need for a general symbol meaning 'any still form', so I invented one. Did your original set include a general symbol for 'any still form'? I don't see it in Making Connections. If you (or anyone out there) has ideas for such, what are they? Anything like mine, using Shape lines within a diamond? I chose this one because it is a cognate between Guest's LOD & IMS's (Bishko/Schick's) Still Form symbols, blending aspects of both.
Discussion 56, by Kate Jobe, April 17, 2005
I am so excited and enriched by this discussion. My passion for space harmony is re awakening.
I also feel that there is so much that has been said and I haven't done the intense study that you, Jeffrey and others have done.
Thanks for the clarification that Leslie, Jeffrey, Peggy have done.
I think I learned or made up a story in my mind that the point of the platonic solids is to have a way to perceive movement. The point of practicing moving through the scales is to establish a somewhat predictible pathway to help reveal spacial archetecture that is implied through movement. What creates the forces that show up the vectors is a more philosophical subject I feel. All in all I see it like graft paper that allows you to see pathways on paper in relationship to the paper itself. Because the medium is not paper but that most remarkable plastic thing, our bodies, the medium must move and shape with the body.
I do wish we could us examples here so that we could talk about concrete examples.
Thanks for the discussion.
Discussion 57, by Oliver Bandel, April 17, 2005
[Responding to Leslie Bishko's comments in Discussion 54]
[LESLIE WROTE]: IN SPACE HARMONY, IT IS THE 4TH POINT THAT CHARACTERIZES THE PLANE'S PROPORTIONS.
[OLIVER WROTE]: WELL, THIS WOULD MEAN THAT THE WHOLE SPACE IS SCALED BY THESE PROPORTIONS.THIS IS A VALUABLE MODEL, BUT THIS IS A DIFFERENT VIEW THAN USING A SPHERE, CONSTRUCTING DIMESNIONAL PLANES AND ICOSHEDORN INSIDE THIS SPHERE.
WHAT YOU MEAN IS: SCALING THE WHOLE SPACE.
[LESLIE WROTE]: NO, THIS IS NOT WHAT I MEAN. I AM NOT SPEAKING ABOUT SPHERES, ONLY ABOUT THE ICOSOHEDRON, IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT I HAVE LEARNED ABOUT SPACE HARMONY THEORY. THE PROPORTIONS OF THE ICOS-PLANES ARE BASED ON THE GOLDEN MEAN, WHICH IS REFLECTED IN HUMAN ANATOMY AND ALL OF NATURE. THIS "VALUABLE MODEL" YOU REFER TO IS LABAN'S MODEL.
FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALIGNING OUR THEORY WITH OTHER FIELDS SUCH AS ANATOMY AND MATHEMATICS, I FEEL WE SHOULD DISASSOCIATE THE PLANAR PROPORTIONS FROM THE DEFINITION OF A PLANE. IT'S THE PLATONIC SOLIDS THAT DEFINE THE PROPORTIONS.
[OLIVER WROTE]: WELL, WHY? BECAUSE LABAN SAID THIS?
[LESLIE WROTE]: NO, I SAID IT JUST NOW - MY IDEA IS TO DEFINE PLANES LIKE EVERYONE ELSE: AS 3 POINTS IN SPACE. WHEN WE INTRODUCE THE 4TH POINT, WE ARE NOW TALKING ABOUT AN AREA, AS YOU SAID. WHEN WE LOOK AT THE ICOS-PLANES, IT IS THE ICOS THAT DEFINES THE PROPORTION OF THE AREA WE REFER TO AS THE PLANE. THE DODEC DEFINES DIFFERENT PROPORTIONS OF THE SAME PLANE. THE 4 POINTS OF THE ICOS-HORIZONTAL-PLANE ARE A SPECIFICALLY PROPORTIONED AREA OF THE INFINITE HORIZONTAL PLANE.
[Oliver responds]: Then I completely misunderstood you. I thought you meant the opposite.
[OLIVER WROTE]: I WONDER, A) WHY TO USE THE ICO., B) WHAT ABOUT DIFFERENT ANATOMY OF DIFFERENT MOVERS?
IF THE CONCEPT IS: YES, THE MOVER CREATES/SCALES THE WHOLE SPACE, WHY THEN STARTING AT THIS LATE POINT OF "ANY ANATOMY PRESSED INTO THE IDEALISM AND SOLID GEOMETRY OF A ICOSAHEDRON FIRST", WHY IS IT AFTERWARDS ALLOWED TO LET THE ICOSAHEDRON TO DANCE AND SCALE WITH THE MOVER?
[LESLIE WROTE]: I UNDERSTAND THAT THE ICOS BULGES AND HOLLOWS WITH THE MOVER – ITS ABOUT SHAPE, NOT SCALE.
[Oliver responds]: Well, what I meant with "scale" here, is the scaling of the space, and scaling here means shrinking and stretching. This "scale" is not meant in Laban-terminology sense, but in the sense of e.g. a postscript-operator or a OpenGL-programming-function or in a mathematical sense of a multiplication with a factorthat causes the originally dimensions to be scaled.
This time you misunderstood me.
Well, to much words from too much different areas of research and engeneering, and nobody knows what the other people are saying...
Communication as an accident...("Language is a Virus" ;-) (Laurie Anderson))
[OLIVER WROTE]: WHY NOT ALWAYS SOLID (AS USED IN THE PAST), OR ALWAYS SCALABLE? WHY FIRST CONSTRUCT SOLIDLY THE ICO. AND THEN LET IT MOVE? WHY?
BECAUSE OF HISTORIC REASONS?
[LESLIE WROTE]: I THINK ITS BECAUSE OF WHAT JEFFREY WROTE EARLIER - THAT ALL MOVEMENTS ARE DEFLECTIONS FROM DIMENSIONS, DIAGONALS AND TRANSVERSALS. THE HISTORY CONTAINS MUCH WISDOM!
[Oliver responds]: But even diagonals and transversals can be based on purely dimensions......well when looking at it as a rotation... then it's close to Eshkol-Wachmann...
But btw: dimensions, diagonals, diametrals can all be easy constructed with the cube. No necessity for the icosahedron.
Discussion 58, by Leslie Bishko, April 17, 2005
[Responding to Jimmyle Listenbee's comments in Discussion 55]
Thanks for bringing this to the discussion lists – I am very grateful to Peggy for giving me the credit in her publication. Perhaps Peggy, Charlotte Wile or Anne Hutchinson Guest or other more regular contributors can address the copyright aspects of evolving the symbology. From my perspective, I’m simply thrilled to have come up with an idea that others can embrace and find useful! I am happy to receive credit, but do not feel the need for ownership.
My original symbols only included the still forms: Pin, Wall, Ball, Screw. I think Pam modified my Screw symbol and I can’t remember if it was she or I who came up with Tetra. Somewhere I have the original tattered piece of notebook paper – I had also proposed some symbols for Sequential and Successive body part sequencing. I would be very interested to hear what people think of them.
A side note: these ideas came to me in my 2nd summer of the certification program. I had become fascinated by the more mystical aspects of Laban’s theories and read a book by Alistair Crowley, which inspired me on the nature of symbolism. I found myself meditating on my wall of Motif symbols written on post-it notes one night! It felt like a very Kabbalistic practice…a short-lived thing, but very interesting!
Discussion 59, by Karen Bradley, April 17, 2005
I think Esther Geiger, who did a project on the various ways in which a mover could be still, may have some suggestions about symbols...
Discussion 60, by Regina Miranda, April 18, 2005
I would like to know how/where I could have access to Oliver Bandel, Jeffrey and Heinz von Foerster's papers. Thanks.
Discussion 61, by Charlotte Wile, April 18, 2005
In her April 17 posting Jimmyle asked if anyone else had come up with a generic Still Form sign. A couple of ideas are given in the Body Configurations thread on the DNB Theory Bulletin Board
Discussion 62, by Jennifer Mizenko, April 18, 2005
I've been fascinated catching up on my email. I do not consider myself an expert on Space Harmony Theories - it was definitely the area that most confused and frustrated me during my CMA training. But since graduation I find it all fascinating and have been working to apply the theories in my movement for actor classes.
I am excited and relieved to hear Jeremy discuss the problem with always doing the scales with a distal body part - which as we know is most often the fingers - and sometimes if we connect the arm.
I too believe the scales are on the periphery and inside the body. With my actors I have them create scales that relate to their monologues. Where does this line take you in Space and what body part takes you there? That is their inclination. They literally create a scale that pays no attention to staying in a specific crystaline form, they use any body part they want, and change from the right to the left side of the body.
Their assignment is to perform their Scale Monologue in far reach Space and then perform it again immediately "realistically", keeping the Scale Alive in their bodies.
The results have been amazing and we're seeing actors with alive and meaningful bodies. Literally, their guts and sinew are connected to their motivation and objective.
I am presenting a paper concerning this work at ICKL. I hope to meet many of you there.
Discussion 63, by Oliver Bandel, April 18, 2005
[Regina Miranda's comments in Discussion 60]
[REGINA WROTE]: DEAR LABAN TALKERS I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW/WHERE I COULD HAVE ACCESS TO OLIVER BANDEL, JEFFREY AND HEINZ VON FOERSTER'S PAPERS. THANKS, [...]
[Oliver responds]: Jeffrey's Papers are on ICKL-website. He also wrote a lot of things in the DNB webboard. I yesterday found his paper on Laan's vector symbols, but sorry... I have not saved the URL. I think google will help you. But I have his papers on vextor symbols now here/downloaded, if you don't find it in the web, I can mail it to you. (BTW: at a first glance I had a similar feeling like the last time I saw this paper: didn't understand what's going on there. But I have to explore it in more detail, maybe printing it to paper and use these copies in the dance studio and exploring it...?! IMHO it's necessary to have some experience in LMA-stuff and moving. And because I do not have the books of Laban, he referred to, I can't go into more detail by reading Laban itself. So this is something that needs more exploration to me. Maybe at the ICKL-conference Jeffrey can show us the background and move with us?! Would be fine. :))
Heinz von Foersters has written only papers for conferences, but at least in germany there are german books that are samples/compilations of these papers.
If you are interested in an overview of some papers _about_ him, look here:
http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/HvF/festschrift/index.html
That are papers about him - you learn someting about who Heinz von Foerster as a person was, and about things he wrote.
If you are interested in particular papers, maybe there are also possibilities to get english compilations of his papers. If not, you have to look in many, many readers of many conferences of many different kinds of research.
There is also a audio CD available with some of Heinz v. Foersters talks, but I cant tell you if they were in english or german, because I can't aford it (two CDs) now.
If you are interested in certain papers of Heinz von Foerster (HvF), I can look into the literature-sources of the german books I have here.
There also is a paper on the BCL (Biologic Computer Laboratory), where Heinz von Foerster hwas worked (and he leaded this). They had done research during the 60ties, what even today is often referred to as "new technology". If you can't find it via google, I look in my backups for it. It's very interesting.
BTW: Wittgenstein was the the (german:) "Großonkel" (what's that in english? "grand-uncle"?) of Heinz von Foerster... and as a child HvF could Wittgenstein's tractatus completely recall from mind... say the number of the subsection and he would answer the contents of that subsection... :)
Well, I have now added a part of an interview of HvF that can be found as one text of the URL I mentioned above. I find this text soooo good, that I could not stop me to quote it here:
A small part of Christina Waters' interview of Heinz von Foerster:
http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/HvF/festschrift/waters.html
Q: Who is doing the real inventing today?
A: Everybody is, only they want not to recognize that. Everybody who opens his mouth says something, invents something that has never been said before because we are not machines. You say a new thing, even if it's simply a question that is clumsy, or as silly or as funny as you wish. There are no stupid questions there are only stupid answers. Ja?
Q: Why do we not want to accept responsibility?
A: Because the most horrible thing is to be responsible for something. We have invented every trick to avoid responsibility. One way is to invent a hierarchy if you're an institutional organization. In a hierarchy everybody can say, "I didn't want to do it, I was told to do it." That gets rid of responsibility.
Or there are the famous statements from politicians: "I had no choice." And the moment somebody says that, they are really saying "I refuse the responsibility for what I'm doing." They always have all the choices, Ja?
Q: So it's hard to accept responsibility.
A: Yes, that's why we invent things like hierarchy and objectivity. Objectivity is one of the great tricks to get rid of responsibility. You know what objectivity is all about? It says that the properties of the observer shall not enter a description of his observation. Now if that's so, what remains? No description, no observation. Because these are all properties of the observer.
Q: Don't you think that language, however, traps us into a subject-object orientation?
A: Oh yes, it does that all the time.
Q: How then can we make sense, speak meaningfully to each other, and yet still avoid reference to objectivity? Don't we almost have to reinvent language?
A: No. We can use language as a dance. Language for me is an invitation to dance. When we are dancing we are using language to suggest to each other what steps we would like to do.
Two partners are dancing out on a big floor and nobody leads. Both lead. Both help the other to make the swing to the right, to the left, etc. These steps are not prescribed. Steps are only there as a reference to be able to use them. When we do a waltz we know how to do a waltz, but whether we do it to the left or the right, forward, backward, is a choice of the couple. And not the choice of he or she.
So when we are talking with each other, we are in dialogue and invent what we both wish the other would invent with me. Togetherness is the point in a dialogue. And language is an invitation to dialogue and not an invitation to monologue.
End of small part of Chr. Waters interview of Heinz von Foerster.
http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/HvF/festschrift/waters.html
The papers from me are not available in the public, but I thought about publishing them. As a perfectionist who am I, I never finished a paper that may be good enough to be read by others (Yes, I read Julia Cameron's Artist's Way, and know that I should do it better; maybe I should read here book again...).I have ideas, start to write something and then have more ideas, change the direction, then have more ideas and good input from other people and then again I'm changing the direction again and again... (maybe can be seen in my dance improvisation; dancing ADS? ;-)).
So, if you are interested, I can look, what paper may be enhanced in a way so that it is worth to publish it. But it's mostly in german.
I prefer dialogues over papers, but maybe I should invest some energy here to get things down onto the paper.
So, right now are only available from Jeffrey Longstaff and Heinz von Foerster. But let's stay in contact and have some fruitful discussions. :)
What are your main interests? What especially are you looking for? Do you come to the ICKL-conference? After Jeffrey's triggerd me on that I now planning to come to the conference. :)
P.S.: After I had re-read the above text from HvF, I feel like I have nothing meaningful to add. HvF is absolutely great. (I think reading/undesratnding HvF is like programming in Lisp, when you got it? ;-) Enlightment...)
Discussion 64, by Regina Miranda, April 19, 2005
[Responding to Oliver Bandel's comments in Discussion 63]
Thanks so much for the careful, humorous and kind answer. Lately, I have found more difficult to discover papers online: many articles are just in the level of "information", the essays are usually for members, or you have to buy them... So, somehow I really didn't think of looking at Googles!!!
Yesterday, with your advice and inspired by his/yours "invitation to dance", I "met" Foerster online and I must thank you SO much. I wish I would have met him personally...but I guess that having met and studied with Irmgard and Anna Sokolov finished my share of meeting geniuses personally... Well, hope not!:-)
The rhythmical narrative about your relationship with your own papers made me laugh, but then..."only in German?":-(( Oh no...Only English, French, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese... Do invest some time in finishing one AND some more in translating it!
Today I will look for Jeffrey's papers...and then, back to my book!
"What are your main interests?"
I am a choreographer and loooong time CMA who fell in love with space and more recently with topology. Besides, I am an avid reader, who is usually reading 5 books at the same time: usually literature, cultural studies, psychoanalysis, critical theory, AND philosophy always (Deleuze, Guattari, Hegel, Witt., Nietzsche, J.Gil, and others).
For a long time these passions and researches were re-written in the form of dances, but for the 25th anniversary of my dance company, I was finally convinced to publish my thoughts and inquires. I have a feeling that the book may find developments with the research/notators because I present a more philosophical approach to the space. Maybe it will generate new symbols?
"What especially are you looking for?" I was actually just struggling to finish the book, afraid to find more things and, like you, reopen the whole text, and never finish the book...but I am finding relief and joy in these space acquaintances and dialogues:-)Up to now, in the Laban community, I mainly have talked about space with Ellen Goldman...
Do you come to the ICKL-conference? After Jeffrey's triggerd me on that I now planning to come to the conference. :) I was not planning to go, because I already travel SO much back and forth between NYC and Rio, and sometimes doing some teaching in Europe ( I may go to Madrid in September) but now you are triggering me to go...I like that idea of dancing from Jeffrey's papers :-)
Discussion 65, by Oliver Bandel, April 19, 2005
> 6. Should prior publications and discussion be referenced?
As mentioned in my other mail: yes (if possible). But let me emphasize that discussions also should be referred to, so that people who didn't wrote papers, but contributed material to the discussion and to papers of other people, also will be mentioned.
As far as I can see, normally only to other papers will be referred, but not to discussions on mailing list or webboards. And that is unbalanced and should be done different in the future.
P.S.: It's possible to refer to Mails via Message-ID and where to find it (archive of mailing lists) and to webboard-discussions via the URL (that is the webaddress "http:/.../.../").
Discussion 66, by Jimmyle Listenbee , April 19, 2005
[Responding to Charlotte Wile's comments in Discussion 61]
Thanks, Charlotte. Let me take this opportunity to remind everyone that DNB/theorybb contains many elegant and productive models of theory discussion process.
Ray Cook's lovely symbol blends cognitive aspects of AHG's 'a shape,' Shape Theory's double lines, & 'any'. Will it appear in your forthcoming book?
Discussion 67, by Oliver Bandel , April 21, 2005
[Responding to Regina Miranda's comments in Discussion 64]
[REGINA WROTE]: YESTERDAY, WITH YOUR ADVICE AND INSPIRED BY HIS/YOURS "INVITATION TO DANCE", I "MET" FOERSTER ONLINE AND I MUST THANK YOU SO MUCH. I WISH I WOULD HAVE MET HIM PERSONALLY...BUT I GUESS THAT HAVING MET AND STUDIED WITH IRMGARD AND ANNA SOKOLOV FINISHED MY SHARE OF MEETING GENIUSES PERSONALLY... WELL, HOPE NOT!:-)
[Oliver responds]: Well, I think there are sme geniouses in the world, we maybe not know right now. Finding them would be fine. :)
And so many good artists were gone during the last years/months, when I remember some good old tap dancers, which many people knew and told me that tey were great artists, but I could not meet them.
Or people like Heinz von Foerster. As I first heard of him, he lived and I hoped maybe to meet him one day, but he passed away.
So, I really have similar feelings about what you are saying about meeting such geniouses.
[REGINA WROTE]: THE RHYTHMICAL NARRATIVE ABOUT YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR OWN PAPERS MADE ME LAUGH, BUT THEN..."ONLY IN GERMAN?":-(( OH NO...ONLY ENGLISH, FRENCH, SPANISH, ITALIAN AND PORTUGUESE... DO INVEST SOME TIME IN FINISHING ONE AND SOME MORE IN TRANSLATING IT!
[Oliver responds]: Well, dancing ADDS... well.... you can call me Mr. Sudden. ;-) Before Bartenieff Fundamentals and Yoga I didn't know that there are sustained movements... or, I maybe knew this with my mind but totally avoided to find it ok to move sustained. (Later I added Zazen, and that is soooo sustained ;-)) But sudden isn't gone... it was added a new quality. And that mainly because of Bartenieff Fundamentals.
And I never met Irmgard Bartenieff... :(I didn't even knew that there was a woman with that name,
some years ago...
...so, well... maybe there are a lot more geniusses and artists and other interesting people, we do not know... but I'm shure, there always will be some... most often it is, that we don't find them, because we are not open to find them, maybe looking at the wrong places or don't believe that there might some... and if we are thinking so, we will not find them.
(Nice words, eh? But sometimes I also get regrets...;-))
But, you asked for papers from me. There are no papers available, but my dance-page. There are some things about which I thought, and how to integrate dance and technical research.
http://www.belug.org/~ob/dance.html
So, this is not a complete paper on one theme, but maybe you can get an impression.
There are ideas I had as well as links to work of others. The text of the page mainly is from 2002, but I added a part of a movie from an improvisation (done in 2003) some weeks ago. But it has about 6.7 MB, so if you have only a slow internet connection you can't see this. But maybe you have a fast connection...?! (notice: the impro is there twice as weblink, because of different endings of the filename: "mp4" and "mpg", because maybe the one is better for your browser than the other?!)
BTW: This impro from 2003 was done after finishing the first year of the german LMA-education (LBBS), and you may see some "labanish" movements there. And I used this sustained stuff, I never would be able to perform before. So if you would ask me on what I think about Bartenieff Fundamentals, I could only answer: They are fundamentally!
During that education I also learned to use movements that are non-directional. Performing threedimensional movements with my body before LBBS/LMA/BF was nearly unpossible and... really: I didn't missed them. (But I would now!:))
But when you see the videos have in mind: I do not have a complete dance education, starting with dancing in the age of above-30 and so I had to go to open classes (even if I would go to a dance education, if someone would accept this old man in his class...).
(With this in mind look it again. If you would see me before LBBS/LMA/BF's, this would be a positive shock about what the BFs (and LMA) had done to me positively. So I'm looking forward to go into the second year of the education in 2006.)
[REGINA WROTE]: TODAY I WILL LOOK FOR JEFFREY'S PAPERS...AND THEN, BACK TO MY BOOK!
"WHAT ARE YOUR MAIN INTERESTS?"
I AM A CHOREOGRAPHER AND LOOOONG TIME CMA WHO FELL IN LOVE WITH SPACE AND MORE RECENTLY WITH TOPOLOGY.
[Oliver responds]: Do you have movies/clips from your choreographies or parts of them in the web? I would like to see what you have choreographed.
[REGINA WROTE]: "WHAT ESPECIALLY ARE YOU LOOKING FOR?" I WAS ACTUALLY JUST STRUGGLING TO FINISH THE BOOK, AFRAID TO FIND MORE THINGS AND, LIKE YOU, REOPEN THE WHOLE TEXT, AND NEVER FINISH THE BOOK...BUT I AM FINDING RELIEF AND JOY IN THESE SPACE ACQUAINTANCES AND DIALOGUES:-)UP TO NOW, IN THE LABAN COMMUNITY, I MAINLY HAVE TALKED ABOUT SPACE WITH ELLEN GOLDMAN...
[Oliver responds]: About what is your book?
[REGINA WROTE]: DO YOU COME TO THE ICKL-CONFERENCE? AFTER JEFFREY'S TRIGGERD ME ON THAT I NOW PLANNING TO COME TO THE CONFERENCE. :) I WAS NOT PLANNING TO GO, BECAUSE I ALREADY TRAVEL SO MUCH BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN NYC AND RIO, AND SOMETIMES DOING SOME TEACHING IN EUROPE ( I MAY GO TO MADRID IN SEPTEMBER) BUT NOW YOU ARE TRIGGERING ME TO GO...I LIKE THAT IDEA OF DANCING FROM JEFFREY'S PAPERS:-)
[Oliver responds]: OK, good idea! :)
P.S.: You may change some properties of your mailreader and then it automatically inserts "> " in front of each quoted line. Then it is easier to find out, what are the quoted parts of the mail you answer and what are your originally/added text parts.
Discussion 68, by Charlotte Wile, April 21, 2005
Here's one further thought about "Still Forms." I prefer the term "Shape Forms" rather than "Still Forms," because, as I see it, body configurations can occur during movement as well as during pauses (or stillness). For instance, the body could become Wall-like and then Ball-like while turning.
Discussion 69, by Peggy Hackney, April 29, 2005
I definitely agree with Charlotte on this one! We have been teaching "Shape Forms" in our Integrated Movement Studies Program now for several years. Just as Charlotte said--here's another example: If I use a Shape Form symbol, I can put a continuity bow and an action stroke after it (to say how long it continues), and then I can be "Walling" as I travel through the space etc. Or I can use a "Screw" symbol and I can be "Spiraling." etc.
Discussion 70, by Oliver Bandel, April 23, 2005
[Responding to Charlotte Wile's comments in Discussion 68]
[CHARLOTTE WROTE]: HERE'S ONE FURTHER THOUGHT ABOUT "STILL FORMS." I PREFER THE TERM "SHAPE FORMS" RATHER THAN "STILL FORMS," BECAUSE, AS I SEE IT, BODY CONFIGURATIONS CAN OCCUR DURING MOVEMENT AS WELL AS DURING PAUSES (OR STILLNESS). FOR INSTANCE, THE BODY COULD BECOME WALL-LIKE AND THEN BALL-LIKE WHILE TURNING.
[Oliver responds]: Yes, I see it the same. A "Still Form" is a special case of a "Moved Form" with zero velocity.
Discussion 71, by Oliver Bandel, April 23, 2005
[Oliver continues Discussion 70]
Or "Still Shape" is a special case of "Moved Shape" (well, misunderstanding could be that the shape as it is moves through general space) with sero velocity.
The shape/form can be seen topological...
Discussion 72, by Regina Miranda, April 23, 2005
I'm a CMA, not a Notator, but, at least poetically,I tend to prefer the use of both names, according to what is being emphasized (I obviously don't believe in the neutrality of the Notator, or of any observer)
- the term "Shape Forms" tells me that even in stillness ( apparent stillness?) transformations are taking place
- "Still Form", for me, is a term that evokes the quality of time intertwined with the form, even if eternal time...
Could we use both?
Discussion 73, by Oliver Bandel, April 23, 2005
[Responding to Regina Miranda's comments in Discussion 72]
Shape Forms (in general) and
Still Shape Forms (certain)
Moving Shape Forms (certain)
Constantly Moving Shape Forms (very certain)
Accellaretd Moving Shape Forms (very certain (general))
General Accellaretd Moving Shape Forms (very very certain)
Constantly Accellaretd Moving Shape Forms (very very very certain)
(... and so on?!)
The view on "is this constantly moved or is this constantly accelerated" depends on what is observed: It depends, which underlying description of movement you use. Is it in cartesian coordinates (Laban) or in spheric coordinates (Eshkol-Wachman)? This makes a fundamental difference!
So, what about compatibility issues with other notation systems? Should be cleared out.
P.S.: If the vector symbols Jeffrey Longstaff mentioned are what I would call symbolic differential geometry, then it is this, what I'm looking for since a while. If not, it would be interesting, how it relates to each other.
Discussion 74, by Oliver Bandel, April 23, 2005
[Oliver continues Discussion 73]
[OLIVER WROTE]: SHAPE FORMS (IN GENERAL) AND
STILL SHAPE FORMS (CERTAIN)
MOVING SHAPE FORMS (CERTAIN)
CONSTANTLY MOVING SHAPE FORMS (VERY CERTAIN)
ACCELLARETD MOVING SHAPE FORMS (VERY CERTAIN (GENERAL))
GENERAL ACCELLARETD MOVING SHAPE FORMS (VERY VERY CERTAIN)
CONSTANTLY ACCELLARETD MOVING SHAPE FORMS (VERY VERY VERY CERTAIN)
[Oliver continues]: But the terms in the paranthesis are not correct: Still Shape Forms is the most ertain, and Constantly Accellaretd Moving Shape Forms is not very certain...the accelleration could be any possible the body can perform...
But all the stuff before the parantheses might be useful in specifying the movement/flow of the Shape Forms in more detail.
But these still-moving-accellarated stuff can be used for ANY thing you want to describe: It can be the shape, it can be the pathway through general space, it can be anything that has space and time.
The relation of people could be explained though too.
Discussion 75, by Leslie Bishko, April 23, 2005
[Responding to Regina Miranda's comments in Discussion 72]
[Regina wrote]: THE TERM "SHAPE FORMS" TELLS ME THAT EVEN IN STILLNESS (APPARENT STILLNESS?) TRANSFORMATIONS ARE TAKING PLACE
[Leslie responds]: To me, this term isolates a Shape concept from any association with time/duration. In a Motif or Labanotation score, it would be placed in context with other symbols, which would indicate how the mover creates this Shape Form in time. It functions whether the shape is held for a duration, or whether it changes over time. I feel the differentiation this term provides is significant and desirable in our system. This raises another question for me: lets say a mover arrives at a large Kinesphere Wall Shape form, holds it, but then gradually Shrinks inwards while maintaining the wall shape. For this we would need to integrate Shape Flow symbols with the Shape Form symbols - perhaps the same approach can be used as with the integration of Shape Flow with Shape Qualities? We could use Flexion symbols for this but it would not carry the same Shape contextualization and meaning.
Discussion 76, by Oliver Bandel, April 23, 2005
[Responding to Leslie Bishko's comments in Discussion 75]:
[REGINA MIRANDA WROTE IN DISCUSSION 72]: - THE TERM "SHAPE FORMS" TELLS ME THAT EVEN IN STILLNESS ( APPARENT STILLNESS?) TRANSFORMATIONS ARE TAKING PLACE
[LESLIE WROTE]: TO ME, THIS TERM ISOLATES A SHAPE CONCEPT FROM ANY ASSOCIATION WITH TIME/DURATION. IN A MOTIF OR LABANOTATION SCORE, IT WOULD BE PLACED IN CONTEXT WITH OTHER SYMBOLS, WHICH WOULD INDICATE HOW THE MOVER CREATES THIS SHAPE FORM IN TIME. IT FUNCTIONS WHETHER THE SHAPE IS HELD FOR A DURATION, OR WHETHER IT CHANGES OVER TIME. I FEEL THE DIFFERENTIATION THIS TERM PROVIDES IS SIGNIFICANT AND DESIRABLE IN OUR SYSTEM. THIS RAISES ANOTHER QUESTION FOR ME: LETS SAY A MOVER ARRIVES AT A LARGE KINESPHERE WALL SHAPE FORM, HOLDS IT, BUT THEN GRADUALLY SHRINKS INWARDS WHILE MAINTAINING THE WALL SHAPE. FOR THIS WE WOULD NEED TO INTEGRATE SHAPE FLOW SYMBOLS WITH THE SHAPE FORM SYMBOLS
[Oliver responds]: Sorry, but isn't "Change of Shape" the category of the same level of abstraction as "Shape Forms" (former Still Forms)?
I've learned that "shape flow" is one of three kinds of "Change of shape", even if I although think that "shape flow" may be a much better term (but I'm not shure, which word is the best, maybe there are even better possibilities).
So as I've learned it the "Change of Shape" has three possible kinds:
* Shape Flow
* carving (formerly called moulding)
* directional
BTW: Movement A: How to perform a1: "shape flow" with a2: "directional space effort"? Movement B: How to perform b1: "directional Change Of Shape" with b2: "indirect space effort"?
Is Movement A or B or are both possible to perform for good movers, or are there topological reasons that makes both movements (A and B) contradictional inside their definitions (a1 contraditional to a2 and b1 contradictional to b2)?
(contradictional here means: not possible to perfrom it - independent of the mover - ... unpossible because of topological structure of this world...)
When for example Movement A is used for e.g. a diagonal scale, then it may be that, what Jeffrey would do as a movement, where the center of gravity is moved directional, but is meandering or so around this directional Change odf Shape, which is also means a movement of the body through 3D space (even if performed without doing any steps).
Another one:
Is it unpossible to perform directinal Change of Shape as well as shape flow Change of Shape with with same limbs/body parts at the same time? (This should be really contradictonal, because here I combine Change of Shape with Change of Shape instead of Shape of Change with Effort. But is it really impossible?)
How crisp can these concepts be splitted against all others? Can a movement have contradictional "ideal types" all together in one movement? Is a "pure" movement, that only fits into one of these idealizations really possible? (If not, here again must be used fuzzy logic concepts, that means that even if a is not possible with b, it is possible at the same time. (depending of how a and b are meant here) Keyword: Fuzzy Sets.)
[LESLIE WROTE]: - PERHAPS THE SAME APPROACH CAN BE USED AS WITH THE INTEGRATION OF SHAPE FLOW WITH SHAPE QUALITIES? WE COULD
[Oliver responds]: Do you mean "Change of Shape" (as menstioned above), when you say "shape flow"?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment