When thinking of the London School of Economics and Social Sciences, one usually does not think of dance! However, on February 12th, as part of the Space for Thought Literary Festival LSE hosted renowned dance scholar Prof. Helen Thomas and innovative choreographer Jasmin Vardimon for a discussion about the intersections between dance and text.
First, the question of writing about dance was explored; Prof. Thomas illuminated the difficulties concerning moving dance from a three dimensional activity to a two dimension medium; Vardimon noted that for her in many ways dance is untranslatable thus she wishes writers would focus on the essence of the work rather than using descriptive language. Then Jasmin talked about a text she finds inspirational, Susan Sontag’s Illness as Metaphor, and showed its correspondence to her work, Lullaby. The question of notation was then raised, and Thomas claimed she doesn’t see it as a key tool in the world of dance. Vardimon stressed the importance of individuality and personality in dancers she works with, and the fact that notation tends to force conformism rather than enable creativity in movement and to encourage personal interpretations.
Bringing the discussion to an end, the question of new technologies and their merit in this dialogue between dance and text was discussed. Prof. Thomas claimed that she doesn’t see a deep potential in dance blogs, youtube etc. to take over the textual- choreographic relationship with all its difficulties. Although this may democratize dance, it does not, to Thomas’ mind, take the place of live interaction between performer and audience. Varidmon agreed but added that she tries to explore how new technologies can be another creative element; for instance in the segment shown from Lullaby scanning and imaging (through medical technologies) functions as another spectator, able to unravel the dancer’s body, and make it visible to a different gaze.
The dialogue was followed by a vibrant Q and A session with the audience, in which both speakers were encouraged to elaborate on the questions asked previously, and also to comment on the relationship between dance and physical theatre; dance and gender, and the relation to the ideal body in dance (from the pre-pubescent ballet body to the strong muscular modern body); the relationship between age and dance was discussed, in which both discussants reflected on the need to include “older” dancers in the dance world; and the question of form and movement in which Prof. Thomas mentioned her admiration to Mulliphant and Balanchine, whereas Vardimon stressed how important to her was the dimension of the dancer’s individual growth and involvement with the piece.
The event was eye- opening and the dialogue formed between these two dance personas vivid and fascinating. Here’s to hoping this is a door opened in the LSE for future dance- related events!
The event “Dance, Text and Translation” was organized by Prof. Luc Bovens of the LSE, Dr. Jeniffer Tarr of the LSE, and Dana Mills from the University of Oxford. The event was funded by the Forum for European Philosophy and the Department for Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method at the LSE.
Oxford Dance Writers 
February 26, 2010 at 2:35 pm
” … the fact that notation tends to force conformism rather than enable creativity in movement and to encourage personal interpretations.” This is an interesting point: one of the arguments for the use of form in poetry is that adherence to the structure enables the poet to access the subconscious and channel ideas and emotions, arriving at new insights. Clearly Vardimon doesn’t find that notation (and, I assume, the consequent precise recording of choreographic text for performance) has this liberating effect on dancers when they perform the notated work. Is this just an anecdotal difference between the experience of some poets and some dancers, or is it one of the elements that distinguishes the process of creating poetry form the process of creating dance? Or is this a false analogy?
February 28, 2010 at 8:01 pm
That is a fascinating point, thank you! indeed notation/ form is different from the functions of form in poetry. I don’t think Vardimon relates to this psychoanalytic conception of form as articulating the subconscious, I rather see her understanding as trying to explore forms by breaking them! However, in this regard, I would like to note that to my surprise I found in Hegel’s Aesthetics a quote in which he claims that poetry when performed is no different that poetry when read as a text.They are essentially static. Perhaps this Hegelian static understanding of reading is the one which distances certain schools of thought from notation?
March 1, 2010 at 4:35 pm
I would be interested to know what experience Jasmin Vardimon has of working with notation, as few dance companies beyond the most established international ones can afford the luxury of a trained notator to record their repertoire as it is being made. Unlike musical notation, reading and writing dance notation is not routinely taught in conservatoires to aspiring artists. It is a rare and specialised skill, in learning repertoire most artists and companies work from memory, oral transmission and demonstration, and now use video for documentation. So I would think that formal notation probably has little if any impact on the creative process or structuring of most dance work. The two major systems currently in international professional use, Labanotation and Benesh Notation, start from quite different approaches to analysing human movement, so inevitably there is debate as to what they best record and how the artist’s intentions can be represented. Notators tend to work alongside particular choreographers so that they develop an expert inside knowledge of a particular body of work the better to represent it, and to know the creator’s intention as to what detail must be fixed and what may be variable. Ultimately the notation is a plan or recipe for interpretation (as well as a means of fixing the work for copyright purposes). In this sense it is arguably more open and informative as a tool for analysing and learning works than video documentation which can only record one given performance, with all its potential idiosyncracies and even mishaps. But I suppose one needs to remember that even the closest notation is the notator’s interpretation of what the work is rather than the work itself…
March 3, 2010 at 10:07 am
This is an interesting- and important- point. I don’t know how much Vardimon is trained in notation; in Israel (her motherland) most dancers learn a bit of notation, a third system to the one you mentioned: Eshkil Wechman. She did mention that she uses video to record her works and trials….but does not use this instrument to teach new dancers roles they did not perform before. I think her comment rbings about an interesting conception- even if it a misconception- according to which writing impaires the fluidity of movement, causes interruptions and is “unauthentic” to this art form. I do believe this is a widely held conception- and maybe this is the cause of the residual status of noation in dance???
By the way, the podcast for the event is now live- I’ve attached a link.
March 3, 2010 at 10:08 am
(mistype: Eshkol Wechman…) sorry!