A Journey from Professional Dance to Community Movement

Article by Tal Shibi

The Development of Contact Improvisation

The first performance piece utilizing the form which was to become Contact Improvisation was named “Magnesium”. The performance, introduced by Steve Paxton in 1972, involved students from Oberlin College, where Paxton was teaching at the time. The core elements of the dance piece were developed through the dancers' exploration of their own survival instincts and responses, incorporating the element of surprise. The dancers experimented with jumping onto and into one another, researching ways to roll safely upon reaching the ground and using their bodies as support systems for fellow performers.

“I wanted to leave the surface of the earth and not worry about the landing” said Paxton, dancer and choreographer, about his desire in producing the performance. Paxton applied rolling techniques he learned through the Martial Art of Aikido, an art which uses the opponent’s movement intention and momentum to be redirected in a way which can potentially keep both attacker and defender from harm or injury. The Magnesium performance heralded a new era for the dance world, an approach to dance which is rooted in the movement abilities and natural instincts of the participating dancers, and not necessarily in movements which are known in advance.
Paxton himself was a dancer in Merce Cunningham’s company for three years, a choreographer who took upon himself the task of renewing the dance making scene through collaborations with bold artists form various mediums and through games of chance as a way to create performances. For example, writing different directions for the arms and legs on pieces of paper, and later executing the actions at random selection of the paper scraps.
I was working on a title called, “Untitled Solo,” and I had made—using the chance operations—a series of movements written on scraps of paper for the legs and the arms, the head, all different. And it was done not to the music but with the music of Christian Wolff.
—Merce Cunningham, Merce Cunningham: A Lifetime of Dance, 2000

Cunningham collaborated with John Cage, a musician renowned for his groundbreaking approach to music and also Cunningham's life partner. Their partnership fostered bold creativity, breaking conventional boundaries in dance performance creation. In Cage's iconic piece 4'33", musicians are instructed not to play their instruments during the three movements, which together total four minutes and thirty-three seconds of silence. During this time, the sounds produced by the environment become the "music." This concept is reminiscent of the question, "What is dance?"—a question that continues to refresh and challenge the practice and ideas of movement and dance-making.

Paxton’s interest in pedestrian movement is further illustrated in his performance Satisfyin’ Lover, where everyday movements take center stage, redefining them as dance and allowing them to be seen and appreciated in a new context. Stepping further back in time, we find that Cunningham was a student of Martha Graham, a dance pioneer who reshaped American dance and revolutionized the art form by laying the foundations of what is now known as "modern dance."

This brief historical introduction highlights the broader context and culture in which Contact Improvisation dance emerged. From a Western concert dance perspective in the early 20th century, the foundation for challenging traditional perceptions of dance was laid by Isadora Duncan, and later continued by Ruth St. Denis and Ted Shawn. These pioneering teachers nurtured talents like Martha Graham among their students. The St. Denis-Shawn dance school, founded by the couple in 1915 in Los Angeles, California, introduced a new approach to choreography and dance, exemplified by the following quote from the couple:

"The art of dance is too big to be encompassed by any one system. On the contrary, the dance includes all systems or schools of dance. Every way that any human being of any race or nationality, at any period of human history, has moved rhythmically to express himself, belongs to the dance. We endeavor to recognize and use all contributions of the past to the dance and will continue to use all new contributions in the future".

From an eagle-eye perspective, a clear pattern emerges over time: the breaking of existing ideas and preconceptions about dance, laying the groundwork for new ways of moving, and deepening their implementation through pedagogy and performance. While Contact Improvisation (CI) exists within a rich historical context of dance evolution, many CI practitioners remain unaware of the vast professional traditions from which this form originates.

In the early days of CI’s development, professional dancers from diverse movement disciplines—gymnastics, athletics, and modern dance—used CI as preparation for performances. These performances were revolutionary, showcasing dancers’ moment-to-moment instincts as they responded to the ever-changing, unpredictable dynamics of bodies in motion. This meant that movements were unplanned, as actions could not be anticipated in advance.

CI’s movement exploration was rooted in physical forces such as momentum, mass, skin sensations, efficient methods of falling, and an awareness of one’s weight in relation to another body. It was an inquiry into movement that emphasized the raw and unrefined elements of physical interaction.

An attempt at a definition of CI serves as a hope that words might capture and illuminate something of this profound experience.

My definition of Contact Improvisation for today (it might change tomorrow):
An open-ended exploration of one or more bodies in space, using contact points with the earth, water, objects, and/or partners as a means of becoming more fully embodied—alive, sensing, and attuned within one’s own body. It is a delightful invitation to dance, together or alone, with touch or without, while participants strive to listen to and respect the needs of themselves, others, and the space around them.

When we wish to write about CI, it is most beneficial to attempt a definition, if only to allow ourselves a starting point. In this definition I would like to place the emphasis on the word pairing of "open" and "exploration". What is "open" referring to and what is the meaning of "exploration" in this context?

The word exploration is hinting at the understanding that the dance is not seeking a definite end point or even an obvious objective, but rather a certain atmosphere around a meeting of bodies in which the dance occurs. The bodies involved in the dance are experiencing the changing impulses/desires which lead to motion and perhaps only they know what is the precise quality which they seek in the dance. The word open is alluding to the negotiation of many elements, some obvious ones being weight, contact points, gradual pressure, and some more subtle ones include out mood that moment, quality of connection, and the whether we are having fun just dancing.

The Early Years:

Between 1972 and 1975, Contact Improvisation performances were created spontaneously by Steve Paxton and his students, without an emphasis on ownership or hierarchy. A CI performance would take place whenever someone was willing to organize it, but there was no single authority overseeing the creation of these performances. While Paxton was the charismatic leader of the movement, he distanced himself from any claims of ownership or hierarchy in the exploration process.

Many of the participants were dancers who lived together or in close proximity, fostering a collaborative environment where they could share ideas and practice regularly. This shared practice often emerged organically from their close living arrangements. For example, many of the dancers involved in the first Magnesium performance, presented at the John Webber Gallery in New York, lived and worked together in the same loft. This communal living style played a significant role in fostering a new foundation for dance. It also helped redefine the hierarchy within dance companies and among participants, promoting a more collaborative and egalitarian approach.

As an artistic experiment, CI merged the personal and the social domains, and as opposed to the ballet company structure, the contact culture did not create an order around one choreographer, and did not distinguish a clear separation between the personal and professional roles. The significance of which lies in the realization that the dancer in the studio was not necessarily different than the dancer on the stage, who in turn was not different than the dancer at his home. One of the titles of the earlier CI performances was “You Come, We Show You What We Do”. This performance title illustrates the personal and experimental atmosphere of CI development, and it hints at the openness of its creators toward defining what they are doing in the dance. This open spirit towards CI remains to this day, as there is not one particular place to learn CI, and there in no certification course teaching teachers how to go about relaying the information. When the number of participants began to expand, and subjects such as personal safety inside the dance became more substantial, (the students included were by then both professional dancers and non- professional dancers) the active CI dancers put fourth more effort to create regular classes and clearer guidelines for the dance. The reasons for this were both to attract new participants and to continue to distinguish CI dance from other forms. Along with the expansion of students and teachers, began the gradual transition between the birth of CI dance as a working method for professional dancers, to the birth of CI as a social dance movement, open to any persons wanting to take part in it.

Following the initial years of CI being a working method of dancers exploring improvisational movement with touch and weight, the principles comprising the Contact dance became more coherent, and Paxton along with his students began sharing their experience in this motion art form to dance students in the U.S. and in Europe.

" when contact improvisation began, the group of people practicing it had a communal, egalitarian structure except for the fact that Steve Paxton was looked to as the teacher and the informal director. The social organization of the dancers involved with contact improvisation was much looser and more democratic than that of a traditional dance company, because no one was in direct control of what other dancers did. As younger dancers began teaching, and even performing on their own, they began to participate, with Paxton, in the informal leadership of their emerging community.
Paxton's orientation toward exploring extremes of movement, toward improvisation, and toward nonhierarchical organizations coincided with a social ambiance favoring experimentation, spontaneity, and egalitarianism." (Novak, 1990)

One of the first definitions of Contact dancing was that of a folk art movement. Art which grows out of a specific location, with a communal grounding, mostly founded on a functional basis. Since the original idea of the dance is founded on the physical exploration of dancers in the space, if one wanted dance partners, he had to teach others in order to have someone to dance with. In this manner, as is in folk dance and art, the Contact dance drew to itself people that would never have otherwise participated in a ballet or modern dance class, and that their main interest was embedded in the social and communal ingredient of the Contact Improvisation dance environment. During the seventies, The Contact dance existed in parallel platforms, both as a performance art, and as a social movement which revolved around CI meetings called contact jams. The Jam space is a practice meeting point with other people, where the emphasis is placed on sharing the dance practice. The communal aspect of CI expressed itself in the manner of participants recognizing the Jams as part of their social life. In comparison, the professional dance world tends to separate itself from an inclusive community by distinguishing professional dance for dance performers, and leisurely dance for the audience. Through the CI events and Jams a new dynamic was created, where by the dancers are at once both performers and audience members. The Jams allow both the gratification of participating and the satisfaction of being an observer, and by opening those doors they connect the between the social and the professional.
In order to pass along the information regarding CI dance, skilled dancers who embody the knowledge and are able to coherently express it are needed. This dimension demands skill, yet the practice is not exclusive to dancers trained from a young age, the practice is open to people interested in developing their movement and curiosity through the dance.

Contact Improvisation Community Aspects:

The noticeable advantage in the transition of CI into the sphere of the community, lies in the accessibility of a movement practice to people who would not have gone to a dance practice which does not include a social aspect. Indeed, the writer here fits precisely to that example, as my love of movement grew out of the poetry I perceived in the game of basketball, and the flow states possible when whole heartedly participating.

“The most democratic dance between two bodies”, this was one of the earlier CI definitions. A prominent characteristic in CI meetings entails the lack of hierarchy within the dance. Men and Woman exchange positions of lead and follower in the ongoing dance, and there are no distinct gender roles to follow. The creation of dance meetings without predetermined gender roles constitutes a refreshing approach in the dance world, which leans heavily on a historical context of clear gender relationships within the dance. (Such as in the early ballet roles where men would be positioned as “strong” by lifting the woman, and not vice versa.) Contact participants are invited to study at any level of experience, this allows new comers to participate at the level of understanding they have reached in their dance. The advantage of a lack of hierarchy, can at times, turn into a disadvantage when CI dancers do not experience a deepening of technical skills regarding their own movement. If we take for example a Judo class where participants are only interested in the social aspect of the meeting, there would be no improving of the sport or advance in skill to the next belt. Part of the grey area in this matter relays to the therapeutic aspects of Contact Improvisation dance. Improvisation (in the context of movement) allows us to express emotions through the body in a free unedited way. The space or container created in CI Jams allows emotions to move and be moved through the body, as well allowing the body to express its own unique motion. Often times contact jams incorporate recurring skills such as efficient movement on the floor, an intelligent distribution of weight (promoting safety and efficiency in motion), and the distinction of healthy boundaries. Hopefully the space will encourage the understanding that there is no one way to move. My view is that over emphasizing the emotional aspect of the dance, while disregarding its physical expression and evolution, is the relative disadvantage of a community setting. The character of CI in its early evolution, as practiced by Paxton and his friends, was rooted and anchored in the physical aspects of the moving body. The emphasis was stressed on immediate sensations of weight, momentum, mass, skin response to touch, and the joy of the body’s instinctual response in emergency situations. Part of the dance incorporated allowing the body to “take over” and find ways to respond at heightened speed and disorientation. Many CI dancers and participants are not aware of the professional background of the dance, there by missing out on key points to fully understanding it. Throughout the years, Contact dance did not remain solely in the physical domain, and dancers dared to share their emotional and personal experiences. The periodical, Contact Quarterly, is one example of this, a quarterly issued dance journal which publishes articles and personal ideas and issues regarding the culture, teaching and learning of the CI phenomenon.
It is possible to merge the social and professional fields, and to respond to the challenge of emotional growth and personal movement evolution. To grow through the integration of possibilities ranging from emotionally expressive, to meditative, and through the gaining of physical skills necessary to navigate heightened complexity within the moment to moment Dance.

The advancement in physical skills of the dancer serve him/her both as a solo artist and even more so when in contact with other dance partners, a practice which intensifies the amount of information one has to process. I find the diffusing of the lines between social dance and professional dance to be a healthy advantage when done in an intelligent way. In keeping the advantages of both spheres- the ongoing improvement and sophistication of physical skills and expression, blended with an openness to accepting people of various backgrounds, who are not necessarily “professional dancers”. Utilizing these qualities in a non-judgmental environment encourages both experiential and experimental attitudes to meeting through dance, which comprise the texture of community.