On the evening of the 3rd of July we experimented with the length of our lead-in time to improvising. This was out of some previous discussions about playing with the rhythms and seeing what it might be like to try and drop more directly into the work. We had a 20 minute warm up, then did a few 'crossings' (entrances and exits) before going into the longer open improvisation.
It seemed quite clear at the end that we found it difficult. The improvisation felt effortful as if we tended to be working to make things happen. This is paradoxical ... the tougher or more stilted the work feels, then the more we should be stepping back from making things happen. This experience demands (perhaps) even more 'emptying' or 'surrendering', and yet the feeling of it not being 'right' pulls one's attention from this more quiet listening.
At the same time, I was concerned that we too easily dismissed the improvisation as having 'not worked'. What was there about it that 'didn't work'? What do we mean by 'not working'? How can we identify, practice and execute strategies that help prevent this type of feeling or experience?
I am reminded here of athletes who often talk about learning more from losses than wins (Rafael Nadal said something along these lines after losing to Soderling in Paris this year).
I had some really strong dances in this evening, and although I felt what the group seemed to feel, it seemed too simplistic to say 'it didn't work'. Clearly, the line between 'yes' and 'no' is very fine (perhaps even arbitrary) ...