By Nicholas Ward et al.
Submitted by DNB Staff- December 18, 2012
[The
following discussion was originally posted on CMAlist]
From Nicholas Ward, November 6, 2012
Hello Everyone,
Probably a rather basic question. I was wondering if someone
could clarify the following or direct me to a source which does.
Im wondering when it might be apt to describe a movement in
terms of the manner in which the mover reveals the kinesphere, central or
peripheral i.e. using Space, as opposed to describing the movement in terms of
the Directional Movement part of Shape i.e. spoke like or arc like. Also
similarly when describing a movement as transverse approach to kinesphere as
opposed to Shape carving or shaping. In my reading Im having trouble working
out when one should use Space and when one might describe in terms of Shape. Im
thinking about a trombonist for example and wondering if I might consider the
hand that is extending the slide as spoke like (Shape) or central approach to
kinesphere (Space).
This is all "arm chair" labanising here by the
way. Im just reading through some stuff and trying to get the difference
between the above straightened out.
Any direction or insight gratefully received,
Many thanks
Nick
From Richard Haisma, November 6, 2012
Hello Nick,
This has been an on-going source of discussion and sometimes
controversy, that is, the question being "Is this movement about Carving (Shaping) or
about Transverse Spatial Tension?"
As a teacher of LMA I have three ways of attempting to
resolve this for my students:
1] Remembering always
that "Space is Space, and Shape is Shape." This means that
Space is about angles, directions, and the Kinesphere that surrounds and is
OUTSIDE the body. Space is about the Where of the movement. Shape is
about the form of the Body and about the changing sculptural value
of the Body. With these simple intellectual distinctions one can
sometimes immediately receive enough pristine perceptions to
be able to say the movement is more about the Space than the Shape
or vice versa. However, there is also no contradiction between a
movement being both Carving AND Transverse Spatial Tension, again,
because Space is Space and Shape is Shape. Your example of the trombone
player is a case in point: the movement can be exactly described as
Spoke-like Directional Shape with Central SpatialTension (and Pathway).
The determination is simply stickier when the juxtaposition is Carving
vs. Transverse Spatial Tension.
2] Within any
complex, fundamental and comprehensive system there are bound to be some areas
of overlap. The LMA system does not fall apart if a few, and they are
only a few, categories seem to overlap in their experience. For example, in
recent years "Relationships" has received more
attention to the point of being almost a completely separate major category, as
with some people now saying BESSR, with the "R" standing for
Relationships. Within that category we have the subsets of
"Addressing, Nearing, Touching and Supporting." Now, Addressing
is always going to have a lot about it that resembles Space Effort, either Direct
or Indirect. How could one address something without looking like one is
giving Attention to it, which word is key in the definition of Space Effort?
Therefore, that Carving might on occasion resemble Transverse Spatial Tension
is not such a strange, or game-ending, phenomenon.
3] There are some in
the LMA community who do not feel that Spatial Tension is a real
category of movement experience, especially Transverse. They
feel that Spatial Tension can be rather entirely well accounted for by
the other categories of BESS, and that in particular Transverse Spatial
Tension is nothing other than Shaping (Carving). Sometimes some CMAs
seem to be asking: Isn't what we're referring to as Spatial Tension
just a composite of BESS? Or furthermore, does Spatial Tension have
a singular content that is uniquely identifiable? Yet, by way of response
to these questions, we certainly do not object to the idea that Effort might
have its Body or Shape or Space components. When Charlotte Wile, for example,
defines Basic Actions as having an IRREDUCIBLE character, such as
"Aerial," for example, she is certainly correct, for
there is nothing in the world quite like leaving the support of the earth and
going into the air. However, could one ever accomplish an Aerial
moment without a certain configuration of Effort (likely Quick and
Light) and also a Weight Transfer, which itself is yet another Basic
Action. So the Basic Action of "Aerial" is not irreducible in
the sense of being composed of only a single quality, but rather it
is irreducible in its Gestalt as an action. It has a unique identity. Likewise,
Spatial Tension, tho it may rub elbows with Shape and Body and Effort,
arises as an irreducible experience synergistically out of the
entire quality of one's action in Space. When the Queen of England
is in the process of shaking your hand she undoubtedly uses a Central Spatial
Pathway, while yet putting an edge to it with Peripheral Spatial Tension.
That PST in her arm, hand and finger tips gives the experience of her
extension of her hand towards you a very particular feeling and meaning,
which says, among other things, "I am, while shaking your hand,
nevertheless, keeping you at a distance." A lumberjack in the north
woods might more likely shake one's hand with a Central Pathway and Central
Spatial Tension. From this point of view Spatial Tension is not merely a composite
of BESS but rather an embodiment of the idea that the whole is greater than the
sum of its parts. Something extra has arisen that wasn't there in the
separate parts before. Yes, I could say that the Queen of England is extending
her hand towards me with a Central Pathway, Spoke-like Directional Shape and
Bound Flow, which would not be untrue, yet by saying that she was using
Peripheral Spatial Tension with a Central Pathway immediately signals the
presence of a psychology which we were not hitherto cognizant of ,
that is, the distancing.
Just as Effort arises out of how one uses one's Shape and
Body and Space, yet remains uniquely Effort, so too Spatial Tension may
arise out of particular configurations of Body, Effort, Space and Shape, yet
arises as a unique category with its own flavor.
Thanks for your questions, Nick, which have a certain
fundamental and abiding substance.
I hope what I've written can help.
Richard
From Rozemarijn van Berkel, November 6, 2012
Hi Nick and Richard,
I introduced Spatial Tension to my 2nd year Modern Dance students in Amsterdam today, and I would like to say:
Thank you Nick for asking the question, and thank you so much Richard for this extensive, insightful answer!
Best,
Roze Van Berkel
From Nicholas Ward, November 6, 2012
Hello Richard,
Many thanks for your detailed response. That's really helpful.All the best
Nick
From Karen Bradley, November 6, 2012
It's been a busy two days here, but I wanted to shoot a response to you, Nick, which is simply:
the movement you describe (trombonist extending hand) sounds more like a Body-level movement, i.e. extension (with flexion as the other part of the phrase). Describing the movement using Space or Shape would mean the mover/trombonist is either approaching or creating a pathway through the space alongside the trombone, no?
Karen
From Martha Eddy, November 7, 2012
In my training and viewing of movement:
the words that indicate the need for the 'gestalt' (unique complex as described by Richard) of SHAPE are relational:
what is the mover's process of changing from one form in space to another?
As Kestenberg explained s/he may be more self-involved (shapeflow),
bridging toward or defending against a person, experience or concept (directional), or interacting with (shaping)... These questions serve as a texture as I view for 1-2-3 dimensional movement and their pathways as well.
Approach to Kinesphere is also profoundly relational as anyone involved with conflict resolution (www.EmbodyPeace.org) knows-
peripheral tensions keeping the outside out or inside in often along 2D arco-elliptical pathways but limited to that (and are often a cousin of bound flow),
central tensions making connections from inside to outside (often along 1-D pathways)
transverse tensions stirring within and without (often along uneven 3D pathways).
I pray that more of our politicians here in the USA experience this diversity of expressive range. It is these subtleties in movement that make great music.
Onward,
Martha
From Richard Haisma, November 8, 2012
Hello Karen and Nick,
The dogma that I teach my students, derived not from myself but from Laban, is that there is no possible movement without space, ever. Conversely I do not understand how a mere trombone might nullify the need to talk about a spatial component. In notation, placing the cross of axes at the head or chest level, playing the trombone would seem to be an action which is moving from Place Middle to Forward Middle, and the trombone cannot cancel the reality of the movement of the hand and arm along that pathway. Therefore, in this whole action, it seems to me the LMA would be: BODY = Extension-Flexion; SHAPE = Spoke-like Directional; SPACE = in the Octahedron from Place Middle to Forward Middle, and, still in Space, APPROACH TO THE KINESPHERE = Central Pathway with probable fluctuations between Central and Peripheral Spatial Tension; EFFORT = well, that would depend on whether what's being played is Debussy or Muddy Waters. Certainly at any given moment some of these four BESS categories are going to be more important than others, or will "pop out" as we say, yet the Space component would seem never to go away. The example, after all, is not of a drummer, pianist, violinist, flautist, cellist or cymbal player but of a trombonist, each of which would have a different, and maybe even defining, spatial notation. On the other hand, Karen, maybe I simply did not correctly understand your comment to Nick.
Richard
From Karen Bradley, November 8, 2012
Yes, all aspects of movement are present in any event, but in LMA we are interested in the essential characteristics of an event, right? We can argue for days (and we have...;) ) about the theory of Space vs. Shape vs Spatial Tensions, but without seeing the movement event itself, we are arguing theory, without real examples.
In the trombone example, which we could not all look at to see how this particular trombonist was exercising his body movement, it seemed to me that we probably COULD all agree that the essence of the movement is most likely the extension and flexion action of the arm. That may be modified by Effort; it may also have a Directional Mode of Shape Change aspect, Central Spatial Tension, etc. Unless we all see the guy doing it however, we are making stuff up with our imaginations, right?
My two cents, and also appreciating the discussions about the differences between Spatial Tensions and Modes of Shape Change, which are endlessly fascinating but won't be resolved until a lot of experts look at the same video and see the same things emerging in importance.
Karen
From Barbara Nordstrom-Loeb, November 8, 2012
Hi all of you, I have been appreciating this discussion and loving that the question was asked. It is a wonderful gift to read the conversation. If I may chime in, Richard, while yes, all elements of LMA are potentially always present, it can get cumbersome and also not always useful to articulate what is happening on such a micro-level. Being able to tune into the aspects of BESS that are more predominant and more nuanced can be a useful aspect, for me in using LMA. For example I had a student (an artist) who tended to be most clear spatially when they moved, and I found that in teaching her, if I used spatial guidance, it was easier for her to learn the movement.
It seems to me that the decision of whether to use Body or Space terminology would reflect a number of factors, including the intention of the observation (are you teaching, writing about, assessing etc) as well as the balance between the various BESS elements of the movement being described...so yes they are all there, but not all of them might be equally relevant in that context.
Hi all of you, I have been appreciating this discussion and loving that the question was asked. It is a wonderful gift to read the conversation. If I may chime in, Richard, while yes, all elements of LMA are potentially always present, it can get cumbersome and also not always useful to articulate what is happening on such a micro-level. Being able to tune into the aspects of BESS that are more predominant and more nuanced can be a useful aspect, for me in using LMA. For example I had a student (an artist) who tended to be most clear spatially when they moved, and I found that in teaching her, if I used spatial guidance, it was easier for her to learn the movement.
It seems to me that the decision of whether to use Body or Space terminology would reflect a number of factors, including the intention of the observation (are you teaching, writing about, assessing etc) as well as the balance between the various BESS elements of the movement being described...so yes they are all there, but not all of them might be equally relevant in that context.
Barbara Nordstrom-Loeb
From Richard Haisma, November 8, 2012
Hello Karen and Nick and Barbara,
I thought we were discussing theory in general. Without the presence of the concrete example, I agree we would just be making stuff up with our imaginations. (This is made clear when I say that we couldn't talk about Effort unless we knew concretely what kind of music was being played.) Without the presence of the concrete example, I was simply trying to tease apart the ingredients of LMA, justifying the validity of the Spatial Tension category. In the presence of the actual concrete experience, either live or videoed, I would not be interested in delineating every possible LMA ingredient, nor would I, with any particular client or student, want to burden them with the entire LMA system for any particular movement or coaching event. But when Nick gave us his example we were led to believe that the Space and Shape differences were the aspects he was most interested in, and, in fact, we didn't know at that time which aspect of LMA we ourselves might ultimately be most interested in. So I was talking theory and insisting that in theory Space cannot be ignored. I think the way, however, I used my language probably suggested that, even without seeing the concrete example, I was going to insist that I could analyze the movement of a trombone player "in absentia." I did not mean that, but only that in theory the ingredients in the movement would be such and such.
Therefore, as I had wondered, it's now clear, Karen, that I was not correctly understanding your comments to Nick. In particular your final comment threw me off: "Describing the movement using Space or Shape would mean the mover/trombonist is either approaching or creating a pathway through the space alongside the trombone, no?"
I didn't realize that the hidden assumption in that comment was that "If we are going to describe the trombonist's movement ONLY in its essential or most important aspect, then we would not talk about Space."
Richard
Posts
