Process for creating a work Part II

From an interview with dancer and dance writer Emmaly Weiderholt for her recently launched new blog Stance on Dance.

EW: How do you determine when to set movement versus when to improvise?

CB: Firstly I will be faced with very mundane practical/logistic constraints; how much time is available and how experienced are the dancers. The more time and experience equals the more possibility for improvisation. An improvisational approach takes up many hours of a process because the dancer has to not just learn new vocabulary, but a whole new way of thinking and thinking as a composer. Ultimately the dancer who is being trained to improvise is really being trained to choreograph as well. If I know I have a very short amount of time to make a piece, I will likely come in with a lot of set material and make a traditionally constructed piece of choreography.

Secondly, I always look to find new challenges in the way I make things and do things, therefore every other piece I make usually has a different proportion of set versa open movement.

For me improvising offers the greatest challenge; how can I make a dance that has no steps? (I know its a paradox but it really is how I feel about it.) Its is the most difficult dance form to do well, and its therefore for me, the most dangerous. Its also the closest thing you can get to to diminishing the gap between the real-life-self and the art-self. There is nothing more satisfying than to see the moments in a piece where true synergy is happening with the dancers in the moment and knowing my own finger prints are not in it. Its just the performers pure experience that finds form through movement.

I often dont want to see my own movement on others, it feels like looking at a distorted reflection of myself in the mirror. I want to see people as they actually are. I want to be inspired, and to see a dance emerge out of the unknown is an amazing thing to witness. When I look at work, I am not looking so much at the formal vocabulary as I am the pulse of the piece. Also as I get older, I feel less and less interested in 'pushing the limits' of set choreography and more and more interested in illuminating this quality of human connection. I strive to drive towards an energy and a pulse, I think I make dances much more similar to an abstract painter or maybe sound designer. The 'beginning, middle and end' thing is tough for me.

Lastly its a philosophical issue; I need to know that people are acting freely with a sense of self-determination. Not the illusion of it, or the representation of it, but actually it. I cant really explain yet why that is so powerfully important to me, but its my primary requirement. (It goes without saying that I have endless appreciation and admiration for anybody who takes on making or performing set material, as I have done that a fare amount of my own career and know its joys first hand.)

I still from time to time make pieces that are completely set and get great satisfaction from it, so its not as though I am speaking in fundamentalist terms regarding improvisation. I don’t have a political agenda around it, but I have big lingering philosophical questions having to do with the nature of being alive, and how we choose to express the mystery of what it means to be alive. I think its very scary to face the fact that there is so little we really have control of, and instead of focusing on forcing external control onto an art work, improvisation allows me to practice a self-control that comes from a different intention. Improvisation reminds us that the one thing we all have complete command over is our own actions, that through experience the dancer becomes clearer, more defined, articulate, complex and unbridled. So to me improvisation is an issue of living in a certain way.