In the majority of the article, blocks are described as problems, rather than moments of difficulty that have the possibility of yielding new and uncharacteristic work. The author frames a block as the fault of the “blocked” person. He uses words such as incorrect, lack of, and inadequate to describe the source of a block. Not only does this give the article a negative tone, but it gives the “blocked” person an easy way out. Rather than sticking with their process, they might assume that their process is wrong. They might make excuses instead of working through the block. Or they may discard their work, unable to see the potential that lies within and losing their identity within their work… after all, it was wrong.
But I suppose this is a matter of syntax. The author’s choice to use the source of blocks as a means of framing ways to get through blocks is not a bad one. And the elements of blocks that he discusses are not inconsequential to the solutions we seek. The author writes of problem-solving language, “Visualization, as expressed through the use of drawings, is almost essential in designing physical things well. One reason for this is that verbal thinking, when applied to the design of physical things, has the strange attribute of allowing you to think that you have an answer when, in fact, you don’t.”
Bingo. This idea speaks to me. I find myself often getting caught up in conceptual ideas or verbal description. But the best way to solve movement related problems is embodying the movement itself. Sounds obvious right? But it isn’t! It is really difficult to move through ideas, and therefore, much easier to revert to a more practiced medium—talking. And even if I have embodied my ideas myself, how do I get my dancers to find those solutions within their own bodies? That is a huge question for me right now. And I think that people see that in my work.
Ok, so the article isn’t all bad. The author also highlights the importance of making choices in process conscious to allow you to facilitate. Here’s where journaling and video come in. I have to reinforce what I do on my own so that I can better embody it when I revisit it with my dancers. Good. Moving on.
Another idea that is important to the creative process is the problem of information. The author writes, “I know one extremely inventive engineer who finds it very important to operate with a ‘clean’ mind—he avoids learning anything about previous, related solutions to his problems. However, I know another equally productive engineer who spends a great deal of effort learning everything he can about every previous development that seems even slightly related to his problem (a ‘dirty’ mind?).” The author likes the clean-minded approach and says that in problem solving one should hold information at “an arm’s length”.
This is a really issue that I am constantly negotiating. Do I want to give my dancers all the information (i.e. choreographed movement) or do I want them to discover it themselves (i.e. guiding them through the generation of movement? I am not sure I agree with the author; I came into my project with the clean-minded approach but am moving closer and closer to the dirty-minded approach as I develop my piece. Giving yourself, or your dancers, information to hold onto is not such a bad thing. It is an attachment to purity of individual expression that kept me from moving toward set material (information) earlier. And perhaps, the idea of purity is a “block” that the author faces too.
No comments:
Post a Comment