In a post-modern dance issue of The Drama Review, Michael Kirby attempts to define [analytic] post-modern dance. Sally Banes paraphrases his definition as “rejects musicality, meaning, characterization, mood and atmosphere; it uses costume, lighting, and objects in purely functional ways.” This stage of post-modern dance in the 1970s was minimalistic, functional, and objective. They replaced costumes with sweatpants and t-shirt/casual everyday dress, music with silence, and special lighting effects with plain, well-lit rooms. Not only did they reject music and rhythm, they got rid of dramatic phrasing, contrast, and resolution. They wanted the audience to see the structure and movements themselves. An important focus was the scientific analysis of how the body works, which fits the name of this movement. Performers made pure, simple movements using repetition and reversal, mathematical systems, geometric forms, and comparison and contrast. They distanced themselves by using scores, verbal commentaries, and ordinary, every-day actions such as about working or completing tasks. They danced in a relaxed, but ready manner. Also, the spectator would be part of the choreography actively participating or indirectly using objects.
Steve Paxton’s contact improvisation (CI) is characteristic of the analytic post-modern dance movement. As we saw in his video on Friday and KJ Holmes’ contact class, two or more people are moving relative to each other while always maintaining physical contact. We are able to take the dance for its face value without any special costumes, music, or scenery. Even though I knew that this dance technique was improvisational, it felt really natural and at ease, somewhat like watching kids tumble around with each other, although their actions are smoother. Neither performer knows what to expect next, but they are able to react quickly, for example, supporting the other person on his/her back. In the exploration of the body sense, this can be used to discover new moves. These then can be incorporated in choreography/scores of other dances or surprisingly, even CI to give it more structure. This may seem to take away from the improvisational aspect, but it does make the dance more objective, one of their goals.
~Erica Kwong (Blog B)
