Titre
|
Description
|
Date
|
Format
|
|
|
|
Ressource documentaire
Ressource pédagogique
Ressource documentaire Ressource pédagogique
|
|
|
|
Ressource documentaire
Ressource pédagogique
Ressource documentaire Ressource pédagogique
|
|
Even the most tightly scripted solo performances involve improvisation; the detailed execution of each note
or word cannot be completely determined in advance. In joint performances the challenge of coordinating
the actions of multiple people in realtime becomes even more complex. One response to this challenge has
involved appeal to prediction using ‘forward models’ from computational models of action planning. These
models involve automatic activation of motor representations of the future perceptual consequences of an
unfolding action. Although normally associated with action production, if a person perceiving the action can
also produce a forward model they can predict what word or note will come next. An important problem with
this approach is that it is by definition conservative. It only works for familiar or rehearsed actions and cannot
account for the production of novel or improvised responses. Using case studies from free jazz improvisation
and conversation I will illustrate this problem for natural coordinated action. Rather than relying on access
to preestablished shared representations, constructive engagement in these situations requires
mechanisms that enable people to adapt and create new conventions on the fly i.e. improvise. I will argue
that the key processes through which this is achieved are the interactional processes of ‘repair’ that we use
to detect and deal with things that do not go as expected. These mechanisms are not auxiliary but rather
provide the fundamental foundations on which all successful human interaction depends.
Even the most tightly scripted solo performances involve improvisation; the detailed execution of each note
or word cannot be completely determined in advance. In joint performances the challenge of coordinating
the actions of multiple people in realtime becomes even more complex. One response to this challenge has
involved appeal to prediction using ‘forward models’ from computational models of action planning. These
models involve automatic activation of motor representations of the future perceptual consequences of an
unfolding action. Although normally associated with action production, if a person perceiving the action can
also produce a forward model they can predict what word or note will come next. An important problem with
this approach is that it is by definition conservative. It only works for familiar or rehearsed actions and cannot
account for the production of novel or improvised responses. Using case studies from free jazz improvisation
and conversation I will illustrate this problem for natural coordinated action. Rather than relying on access
to preestablished shared representations, constructive engagement in these situations requires
mechanisms that enable people to adapt and create new conventions on the fly i.e. improvise. I will argue
that the key processes through which this is achieved are the interactional processes of ‘repair’ that we use
to detect and deal with things that do not go as expected. These mechanisms are not auxiliary but rather
provide the fundamental foundations on which all successful human interaction depends.
|
|
Ressource documentaire
Ressource pédagogique
Ressource documentaire Ressource pédagogique
|
|
The Sign Language Theatre Laboratory is a practicebasedartistic research group that began operating in2014 as part of the Grammar of the Body (GRAMBY) Interdisciplinary Research Project led by University ofHaifa linguist Wendy Sandler and funded by the European Research Council. Most of the nine Lab actorsare deaf and hardofhearing,and all of them use Israeli Sign Language (ISL) on a daily basis. We use ISLcombined with expressive gestures and physical theatre in order to develop a form of visual theatre that isaimed at both deaf and hearing spectators. Improvisation is our principal method of operation. We play withthe mimetic component of ISL, highlighting facial expressions and body language, and experimenting withgestures that are normally performed and understood by hearing and deaf people alike. We are inspired bydeaf culture as well as by the work of 20th Century theatre experimentalists such as Meyerhold, Artaud,Grotowski and the Living Theatre. We also draw from the language of two forms of traditional Indian dancetheatre, Kutiyattam and Kathakali, which employ combinations of codified hand movements (mudras) andfacial expressions (rasas) to present the dramaticaction. When our group was introduced to these genres in a workshop, we discovered a surprising affinitybetween the signs of traditional Indian theatre and those used in ISL. From this potpourri we devise ourtheatrical materials. We improvise within certain movement routines and exercises, realizing that free groupimprovisation can only stem from clear, at times even rigid structures and rules. Also necessary, of course,are “comprehensive listening”, which deaf actors practice visually, the ability to lead and be led, and finally,the skill of contributing to a collective creation. These will be demonstrated in my presentation through ananalysis of a few short videos of our work.
The Sign Language Theatre Laboratory is a practicebasedartistic research group that began operating in2014 as part of the Grammar of the Body (GRAMBY) Interdisciplinary Research Project led by University ofHaifa linguist Wendy Sandler and funded by the European Research Council. Most of the nine Lab actorsare deaf and hardofhearing,and all of them use Israeli Sign Language (ISL) on a daily basis. We use ISLcombined with expressive gestures and physical theatre in order to develop a form of visual theatre that isaimed at both deaf and hearing spectators. Improvisation is our principal method of operation. We play withthe mimetic component of ISL, highlighting facial expressions and body language, and experimenting withgestures that are normally performed and understood by hearing and deaf people alike. We are inspired bydeaf culture as well as by the work of 20th Century theatre experimentalists such as Meyerhold, Artaud,Grotowski and the Living Theatre. We also draw from the language of two forms of traditional Indian dancetheatre, Kutiyattam and Kathakali, which employ combinations of codified hand movements (mudras) andfacial expressions (rasas) to present the dramaticaction. When our group was introduced to these genres in a workshop, we discovered a surprising affinitybetween the signs of traditional Indian theatre and those used in ISL. From this potpourri we devise ourtheatrical materials. We improvise within certain movement routines and exercises, realizing that free groupimprovisation can only stem from clear, at times even rigid structures and rules. Also necessary, of course,are “comprehensive listening”, which deaf actors practice visually, the ability to lead and be led, and finally,the skill of contributing to a collective creation. These will be demonstrated in my presentation through ananalysis of a few short videos of our work.
|
|
Ressource documentaire
Ressource pédagogique
Ressource documentaire Ressource pédagogique
|
|
To what extent do collaborating improvisers understand what they are doing in the same way as each other?And to what extent do their listeners understand the improvisation in the same way as the performers? Thistalk reviews evidence from two case studies (with Neta Spiro and Amandine Pras) of pianosaxophoneduos, one improvising three versions of a jazz standard (“It Could Happen to You”) and one carrying out anextended free jazz improvisation. In both studies, immediately afterwards the performers were separatelyinterviewed, from memory and prompted by audiorecordings, about their detailed characterizations of theperformances. Outside listeners (expert musicians in the same genres) were also interviewed for theircharacterizations. Later, the performers and outside listeners rated the extent to which they endorsedanonymized versions of statements by all participants, based on close relistening to the recordings. 239internet listeners also rated their levels of endorsement of the jazz standard characterizations. In both cases,performers endorsed statements they themselves had generated most often, but they endorsed statementsby an outside listener more than their performing partner’s statements. Overall levels of agreement amongthe performers were greater than chance but quite low. Among the 239 listeners to the jazz standardimprovisations, only a very small number agreed with the performers’ characterizations at a level greaterthan chance. The implication is that fully shared understanding of what happened is not essential forsuccessful joint improvisation, and that performers’ interpretations are not necessarily privileged relative toan outsider’s.
To what extent do collaborating improvisers understand what they are doing in the same way as each other?And to what extent do their listeners understand the improvisation in the same way as the performers? Thistalk reviews evidence from two case studies (with Neta Spiro and Amandine Pras) of pianosaxophoneduos, one improvising three versions of a jazz standard (“It Could Happen to You”) and one carrying out anextended free jazz improvisation. In both studies, immediately afterwards the performers were separatelyinterviewed, from memory and prompted by audiorecordings, about their detailed characterizations of theperformances. Outside listeners (expert musicians in the same genres) were also interviewed for theircharacterizations. Later, the performers and outside listeners rated the extent to which they endorsedanonymized versions of statements by all participants, based on close relistening to the recordings. 239internet listeners also rated their levels of endorsement of the jazz standard characterizations. In both cases,performers endorsed statements they themselves had generated most often, but they endorsed statementsby an outside listener more than their performing partner’s statements. Overall levels of agreement amongthe performers were greater than chance but quite low. Among the 239 listeners to the jazz standardimprovisations, only a very small number agreed with the performers’ characterizations at a level greaterthan chance. The implication is that fully shared understanding of what happened is not essential forsuccessful joint improvisation, and that performers’ interpretations are not necessarily privileged relative toan outsider’s.
|
|
Ressource documentaire
Ressource pédagogique
Ressource documentaire Ressource pédagogique
|
|
|
|
Ressource documentaire
Ressource pédagogique
Ressource documentaire Ressource pédagogique
|
|
|
|
Ressource documentaire
Ressource pédagogique
Ressource documentaire Ressource pédagogique
|
|
|
|
Ressource documentaire
Ressource pédagogique
Ressource documentaire Ressource pédagogique
|
|
Scientists must grope into the undefined place beyond the known. So must improvisation theater actorswalking onto the stage with no idea what will happen next. Improvisation theater developed practices thathelp groups of actors create a new scene on the spot, by focusing on mutual support: saying yes to eachothers ideas and bypassing the inner critic that spoils our spontaneity. I’ll describe how as a scientist by dayand improvisation actor by night, I learned from theater how to do better science. The concepts are universaland can apply to unexpected situations across disciplines.
Scientists must grope into the undefined place beyond the known. So must improvisation theater actorswalking onto the stage with no idea what will happen next. Improvisation theater developed practices thathelp groups of actors create a new scene on the spot, by focusing on mutual support: saying yes to eachothers ideas and bypassing the inner critic that spoils our spontaneity. I’ll describe how as a scientist by dayand improvisation actor by night, I learned from theater how to do better science. The concepts are universaland can apply to unexpected situations across disciplines.
|
|
Ressource documentaire
Ressource pédagogique
Ressource documentaire Ressource pédagogique
|
|
Géraldine Casutt revient sur l'engagement féminin en Occident et sur les femmes formées au djihad et partant pour la Syrie. Le phénomène est "contre-intuitif" car il renvoie au double défi de penser le rapport actif des femmes à la violence et le devoir individuel d'être aussi épouse et mère pour être djihadiste à part entière.
Géraldine Casutt revient sur l'engagement féminin en Occident et sur les femmes formées au djihad et partant pour la Syrie. Le phénomène est "contre-intuitif" car il renvoie au double défi de penser le rapport actif des femmes à la violence et le devoir individuel d'être aussi épouse et mère pour être djihadiste à part entière.
Géraldine Casutt revient sur l'engagement féminin en Occident et sur les femmes formées au djihad et partant pour la Syrie. Le phénomène est "contre-intuitif" car il renvoie au double défi de penser le rapport actif des femmes à la violence et le devoir individuel d'être aussi épouse et mère pour être djihadiste à part entière. Géraldine Casutt revient sur l'engagement féminin en Occident et sur les femmes formées au djihad et partant pour la Syrie. Le phénomène est "contre-intuitif" car il renvoie au double défi de penser le rapport actif des femmes à la violence et le devoir individuel d'être aussi épouse et mère pour être djihadiste à part entière.
|
|
Ressource documentaire
Ressource pédagogique
Ressource documentaire Ressource pédagogique
|