The Seattle CI Lab

The Seattle CI Lab has been experimenting with Contact Improvisation from the perspective of performance and technique alike, since 2001. Seattle CI Lab operates in 7- or 8-week Sessions. Each session consists of seven or eight labs held weekly, on Monday nights 7pm-9pm as of 2016.

Before each session there is a potluck dinner during which outcomes from the prior session are discussed, a theme for the following session is determined, and commitments are requested for attendance. A maximum of 12 members can participate in each session, and a committed member should miss no more than two labs per session.

The definitive record of Seattle CI Lab's work is the Lab Notebook. Each lab's facilitator takes the book home for planning purposes at the conclusion of the prior lab (or the conclusion of the potluck if it is the first lab of the session), and annotates the harvest at the conclusion of the lab they facilitate before handing the book over to the next facilitator. Each lab's facilitator volunteers at the conclusion of the prior week's lab.

May - June 2016, "Messing with the Environment"

Lab #3
6 labbers present
​facilitator: Scott Davis
Before the lab began, Scott altered the space by
  • Consolidating all furniture from its usual locations around the edges of Grassroots Studio (where Seattle CI Lab usually takes place) to the north wall; and
  • Demarcating a few simple, arbitrary shapes on the studio floor with blue painter's tape.
The lab followed this score of 15-minute cycles:
  • One labber is a witness;
  • One dancer is blindfolded, the four remaining dancers are sighted;
  • Sighted dancers shall consider the location of the witness to be "front;"
  • Use the demarcations however you wish;
  • Each cycle begins with 1-2 minutes of solo dancing by blindfolded dancer;
  • When each cycle ends, the witness becomes the blindfolded dancer in the next cycle.
​Harvest:
  • Though we were given no specific directives of how to use the demarcations on the floor, we found that they had a profound effect on the actions and storyline of the dance that occurred.
  • Also very powerful, was the mood set by the blindfolded person during the opening 1-2 minute solo. The soloist set the tone or environment for what transpired next. One labber observed that in conventional dance performances, the soloist is perceived as a strong & independent party that is to be revered. But putting a blindfold on the soloist turned them into a party that needed to be taken cared for or nurtured, instead. The soloist had a great power over the outcome of the dance, perhaps even more so because they were made vulnerable by the blindfold.
  • We noticed that though the blindfolded dancer stood out very strongly relative to the quartet of sighted dancers, there was still a lot of variability in how the quartet was perceived, which allowed for one of the sighted dancers to be a "soloist" occasionally too.
  • Labbers expressed a range of reactions to the directive of locating "front" at the witness, with most finding the directive to have a strong effect.

Lab #4
5 labbers present
​facilitator: Roel Hammerschlag

 Picture
The lab consisted of nine 10-minute segments. The first segment consisted of open dancing in the space available at Grassroots Studio, which measures 25’ x 29’. Prior to each of the second, third, fourth and fifth segments, the dimensions of the space were halved (using stanchions and a rope) until in the fifth segment we were constrained to dancing in an area measuring 6’ x 7’. Then, prior to the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth segments the size of the space was doubled until in the ninth segment we were once again dancing in the full, 25’ x 29’ area. The expanding areas (segments six, seven and eight) were triangular, while the contracting areas (segments two through five) were rectangular. At the start of the lab Roel read a poem to set the initial mood. No further instructions were given.
Harvest:
  • The long, structured score gave several dancers a sensation similar to engaging in an Underscore.
  • Some found the experience like a “dream state.”
  • The smaller spaces pushed us toward (spatial) subtlety.
  • Appreciation of dancing a lengthy score with the same, small group of dancers throughout.
  • When the dimensions expanded it induced playfulness.
  • Reducing the amount of space makes the space higher value.
  • There did not appear to be any correlation between the size of the space and the dancers’ perceptions of time.
  • The (re)delineation of space added new information or direction to the improvisation each time it happened.
  • In the triangular arrangements, the angled line of the triangle had extra power or meaning.
  • [Occasionally a dancer would sit out and witness for a while.] The location of the witness when there was one, felt important to the composition.
  • Sense of comfort in corners, like an animal that prefers to stay in its cage. Especially in the long & narrow configurations.
  • The poem faded easily. Too complex to easily or fully absorb.
  • [At one point a dancer turned on a recording of Elton John’s Rocket Man, loudly.] It was really nice to experience the music relatively late in the improvisation, when we had all established our energy together and had the structure/integrity to absorb and work with the powerful music.

Lab #5
8 labbers present
​facilitator: Roel Hammerschlag
[The decision was made at Lab #4 to repeat the same structure with the larger group expected for Lab #5.]
 
Harvest:
  • At the end of the score when the full space returned, the dancers used the full space completely.
  • Even in the smaller spaces, people had a tendency to group into portion of the space.
  • Witnessing seemed to have less power this time than last time.
  • The perception of spaciousness is not always correlated to the actual amount of space.
  • As the space was made smaller, delineations of duets and trios became muddier.
  • In the smallest spaces the bodies themselves became the space.
  • Enjoying the changes in geometry as one more stimulus/input into one’s own dancing.
  • The smallest space forces a shared group dynamic to evolve.
  • One dancer related how she recently danced with a small group in a very large space, which forced explicit choices about whom you were dancing with.
  • One dancer had an injury, and found that the smaller spaces required more attention to avoid aggravating the injury.
  • The external structure (score) induced a certain calmness about fulfilling the composition or arc of the dance. That’s one reason it resembled Underscore.
  • The arc of the dance was very different this time (Lab #5) than last time (Lab #4) even though the score was identical.

Lab #7
8 labbers present
​facilitator: Mike Hodapp
Open warmup, with a directive to alternate focus to be either near/short-distance or far/long-distance. The main body of the Lab had two 30-minute segments. In the first segment, three of the six dancers were assigned objects, and required to remain “tethered” to their respective object for the entire 30-minute segment. The three tethered dancers began in solos, and after about five minutes the three untethered dancers were to enter the dance space and interact with the tethered dancers. After 30 minutes, roles were reversed, with new objects.
 
During the first segment the three assigned objects were a folded exercise/gymnastics mat; a shoji screen with a blanket hanging on it; and a low, wide stool. During the second segment the three objects were a wall clock, a dust mop, and a doormat.
 
Harvest:
  • Unusual sensation to play with a single object for so long. Reminds a couple of dancers of childhood/early childhood. Some of the play felt childlike, too.
  • Appreciation of distant vs. close focus directive during the warmup.
  • Each object strongly dictated the nature of interactions with it, and the nearness or distance of focus (the clock invited close focus; the shoji screen distant focus).
  • Brought to mind other object-based environments to play with, especially ball pit or foam pit, or natural “forts” made by trees (childhood memories again).