I
wrote on the last post about the classes and experiences I’ve had on the last
months. I can affirm that many discoveries were made: on my development, on new
dance languages, on body therapies, on body conscious methods, improvisation
methods and on my own personality and perspectives for the future. I also wrote
already few questions and since then I began to develop them better. Reading
through Reader 4, more possibilities of enquiries came through and I was also
more able to structure my thoughts. Talking with professionals from this field,
looking into my practice, daily routine and current issues were helpful as well.
Is a complex process of thinking and get even more complex once you begin to
connect with the concepts worked on Module 1. However, I recognized that some
issues were not actually from my current area of practice or were way too
extensive. I wouldn’t be able to connect theory with the practice and on this
path, wouldn’t develop my role as a professional and my workplace. They are
important issues, maybe one day I will work on them once I’ve studied it, but I
guess we should take one step after the other. And after all, my current role
on this environment is as a dancer, so I will use this performing and practice
environment as a research foundation.
The
vision of a learning organization by Peter Senge really got my attention. The
five disciplines described and his deal as real learning became fundamental on
my opinion and made me question about my own education and learning process:
“The
basic rationale for such organizations is that in situation of rapid change
only those that are flexible, adaptive and productive will excel. For this to
happen, it is argued, organizations need to discover how to tap people’s
commitment and capacity to learn at all levels (ibid. : 4). (…) For Peter
Senge, real learning gets to the heart of what is to be human. We become able
to re-create ourselves. This applies to both individuals and organizations.” (Peter
Senge and the Learning Organization: http://www.infed.org/thinkers/senge.htm).
I
believe this statement is very important and realistic on our area of practice.
On a such competitive, unstable and hard area of practice (performing arts and
arts studies) this focus on constant development, increasing knowledge,
capacity to learn and re-create ourselves are keys for the progress. This
commitment into work made me connect with the concept of Social
Constructionism: meaning is not discovered but constructed. An actual meaning
emerges only when consciousness engages with them. To fully live the routine
and engage with the process of learning brings a meaning into your work. On the
explanation of one of the five disciplines, “Systems thinking”, Peter Senge
states that “We tend to focus on the parts rather than seeing the whole and to
fail to see organization as a dynamic process”. I believe this idea of dynamism
on organization is a very necessary and also tricky process. The professional
fields change, societies, values, methods, goals change. The dance environment
nowadays is totally different from the past, as well as the audience and also
the countries where performed. Organization then, should adapt into the new
necessities. I question myself nowadays if dance schools actually prepare us
for the current professional field and also bring us the possibilities on it.
The question of if we actually graduate with a professional perspective and if
we are prepared. But is also a tricky task once a fundamental basic process and
structure of learning might be questioned. On this path, also began questions
about keeping traditional models, the costs, adapting to the future as well. It
is then a very deep discussion.
Peter Senge also emphasised on the individual
learning, to be able to hold a creative tension and recognize your growth and
ignorance areas. To be able to bring the discussion to the surface and on this
flow create a dialogue between the group and a sense of thinking together. It
is one of the challenges for the next modules once we will have to manage this
discussion place. However, during the
dance career the space for dialogue isn’t very accessible. Bringing this idea
into reality, few places this “Team Learning” actually happen. On few companies
the dancers have space for dialogue during the choreographic process and managing
of the company. Few schools support this dialogue between the professionals and
students and within the students as well. During the training as a dancer this
space for discussion is very restrict or if not nonexistent. This issue is
brought in the end of the text about Peter Senge, questions about the costs,
support, politics and moral issues. I believe would be very important all this
discussion to come through into the dance environment but I have to recognize
that more than the support from institutions , a support from the dancers is
very necessary once the discussion need to be brought from us and also the
ideal to make professional places better and more creative.
Those issues about the structure from dance
schools and companies showed up but I am not really sure if I would focus on
them on my inquiry. However, I thought I should bring them up anyway and would
be happy to share my opinions with who might work on those issues. I believe what have been intriguing me on the
past weeks is what is asked from a dancer nowadays. Recently I have been
focusing a lot on my contemporary technique and being very amazed with the
repertoire and type of work required. My training has been very classical and I
see myself going to a more contemporary dance path from now on. Or for
companies/choreographers/workplaces that require both classical and
contemporary technique. I have worked on
contemporary projects on the last months and being with contemporary dance
professionals (even if I continue to do a classical ballet class every day), during
this time and also during my experience in Germany I realized how much is necessary
for dancers to be versatile nowadays. When I write versatile, I mean dancers
who are able to dance classical based choreographies (or what is called
“neoclassical”) to very contemporary based choreographies. Actually I can also
affirm that I improved much more on classical dance since I began to take
contemporary classes. Not just contemporary classes, but classes that bring
another sense of body conscious such as Improvisation Technologies, Alexander Technique,
Eutony and Gyrotonics. With this affirmation, I can relate to my last post when
I asked about kinds of training which are helpful for dance development. I can
also relate to what I have written on Task 2d, when I talked a lot about
creativity and singularity. It is an aspect that I love from my area of
practice. Other issues also came for example, what currently inspires
choreographers. As I have an interest into choreography, this area also showed
up on my mind. I still think I might be a bit extensive and even vague, but I
guess is a beginning.
What
I have been talking a lot about with dancers and teachers around me as well, is
the importance of the singularity and development of artistic quality. That is
another very interesting area that puzzles me. Even if technique is very much
required nowadays, personality is crucial. I believe this is a constant
research for dancers and should be under constant development. Some would say
that the dancer is born with the gift, some that this self-knowledge can be
brought during different classes, some by watching other dancers, some with
specific classes such as drama. I think is an interesting point to think about.
I will have to do a better research into this area, as emotional, education and
even cultural issues (which I mentioned before) might need some investigation.
No comments:
Post a Comment