Michael Morris – Comment on Pedagogy Response
Posted: June 17, 2009 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Michael Morris Leave a comment »So I finally got around to reading this post (just as you find yourself to be too verbose, ironically), and I am overwhelmed. This is a rich speculation, so complex and large and tangled (in the way that most things tend to be). I had a brilliant professor in undergrad who would facilitate discussions in the honors college colloquium, and she would constantly posit that everything is connected (ideologically, I think was her insistence), and thus to really sort through something meant finding a single strand to follow, knowing that it will inevitably transition into something else, rather than trying to tackle the whole “spaghetti” of the situation with which you are faced. I feel a bit like that (for myself) as I read this post.
At the same time, I think you have found some truly profound microcosmic/macrocosmic relationships between education and human interactions with cosmology and liberation, etc. And maybe in “solving” one, you illuminate the other (and by “solving,” I fully acknowledge that that which you are investigating is in constant motion, constantly shifting, so that any “solution” is most likely temporary, for today or this moment; an on-going solving process).
I realized as I was reading that I have almost no conception of you cosmology or faith. I think we don’t wear clearly pronounceable labels for such things in our little world of dance academia. That’s another conversation I would love to have.
Your post has made me reflective . . . because I think in my cosmology the lines between “purely human” and “transcendent” or “greater than human” are very blurry, if existent at all. I think my current cosmological assumption/belief/understanding is that the infinite potential (important word, potential) of the divine or transcendent is intrinsic to our humanity, that we are all unfinished parts of an unfinished reality (an by “unfinished,” I mean continuing to develop, unfold, evolve, transform, and change; I do not mean imperfect or incomplete) connected to a common Source that is not separate from us but permeates us. That which is larger than us is something like the Whole . . . in which case I completely agree that it is in our relationships with one another that we are more fully human, more fully ourselves, because it is perhaps through those relationships that we are embodying/enlivening that Whole. The nature of those relationships that I am so ready to esteem? Not sure. I think “Love” is a true but easy answer.
I don’t always know what we mean by “oppression.” I know you’re feeling verbose, but if you ever want to write or talk through that concept, know that you have an audience.
I would also love to here your thoughts on “grace.” From my own religious history, this is a very loaded word, and has been appropriated by various sects and denominations to mean very general or very specific things. I think I most readily associate the term with “goodness” or “favor”, but both in an extremely common sense (common meaning something like “universal,” pertaining to ALL). The goodness in and through all things, the intangible sense of favor that everything might extend to everything else. Something like the natural desire towards generosity of the universe?
I would never want you to go against your own sense of yourself or season. And if you feel like you need less words in your life, by all means, have less words. But know that I appreciate your generosity in sharing your thoughts. I think there is benefit in making our thought processes, our personal creative process of interior research, public. I might be made a bit more human and whole in that kind of sharing.
Hope you have a lovely day off. Yay for more teaching tomorrow (we’ll see how this goes), and a fairly open day on Tuesday.
-M
Response to Comments on “Ethics of Dance and Tech Collaboration”
Posted: December 24, 2008 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: collaboration, Michael Morris, technology 1 Comment »Thanks to Michael and DanceAdvantage for helping me clarify my thoughts on collaboration and technical aspects of dance. It seems after some thought, I’m want to avoid criticizing collaboration itself–rather, I want to point out that “collaboration” may not be the best word for when a choreographer finds a tech person to make her ideas happen.
So, a moment of silence for the magic of synergy, please.
As Michael wrote, “For me the beauty of collaboration is the synthesis, the generation of material for which neither individual involved could accomplish by themselves”. I agree. Thank you for clarifying.
Then, there’s the practical reasons that argue that a choreographer (say, me) might not want to do this alone. As the Dance Advantage writer pointed out, dancers have such a time-intensive practice. And really, learning a new language and set of skills (say Max MSP) takes quite a lot of time. Thank you for pointing this out. I don’t want to try to be so hardcore, to say that no dancer or artist should ever seek help from anyone else on anything. And that may have seemed like the gist of my post. As a verbal, kinesthetic learner I like to think that learning happens between people and have already sought plenty of assistance and done a lot of processing-through-discussion of this current project.
Also, there’s the importance of the physicality we bring to everything as dancers. Our time-consuming daily practice so often becomes a spiritual and mental practice that is what we do, and in Neta Little’s words about her practice of improvisation, is how we “know what we know”. I see what happens to people’s bodies when they sit at the computer all day, and it’s not pretty. Well said, Michael, the body is so important, and so much what dance has to say in this whole technology dialogue. However, I find it interesting to engage with the idea that my physicality and technique are also something I hide behind, to paraphrase Melanie Bales’ paraphrase of Tere O’Connor in The Body Eclectic . (This is actually pretty sad if you were to see my technique).
As usual, I think the set of opinions I’m presenting about collaboration come down to my individual values in art-making. I’m for vulnerability, in that I would rather see a dancer fumbling with something new than doing another pat postmodern shoulder roll. I’m for communication and translatability. Dance seems more powerful to me if its proponents can speak in more languages than their own technique. Perhaps this is why personally I’m interested in Labanotation and in code and language. Maybe I am just an insecure kid who wants to look smart more than I want anything. And dancers are sometimes not considered smart, and occasionally whine about this.
On a more positive note, I will take this on: I will try to find out if I can continue the daily practice, but refine my criteria for calling myself a dancer. Is it a continually higher and more balanced arabesque line? This might have to go, especially if it’s just a false coat I hide myself behind. But possibly the arabesque line can stay, too, and the self-protectiveness can go.
