The theory-practice divide? and testing literature.

From the skype session on Sunday evening around theories and frameworks, I took two main points / questions away for myself from the conversation, as follows: A) How does theory relate to practice (and specifically my practice) and B) Testing theories.

Let's start with tackling theory / practice relations. First and foremostly, within my practice I don't have a concious division between what is practice and what is theory, and in most cases don't think there is a value within seperating them.
 

Variations on a theme of "Wayfaring Stranger" at Norden Farm Centre for the Arts, April 2019. Image of Rosie Tong © Andrew Scotland

I don't think I ever made a concious choice to carry out my practice in this holistic manner (holistic is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as; Characterized by the belief that the parts of something are intimately interconnected and explicable only by reference to the whole) however instead think it has been embedded in my throughout my dance education. This way of teaching / learning was particularly evident during my time on the programme of my undergraduate degree - for example when we attended choreographic workshops, yes there would be a certain amount of sitting down and talking about choreographic theories and methadologies, however then we would get up and "do", having the chance to put into practice the theories we were exploring by embodying them ourselves. I have carried this sense of embodiment through from education into my practice, and due to this choose to collaborate with practitioners / artists who have a similar approach to the theory-practice non-divide. 

A clear recent example of this approach within my practice is a collaboration I undertook with musician Reuben Ard. Eventually entitled Variations on a theme of "Wayfaring Stranger",  the process was initiated by Reuben and I's exploration of the classical-period framework of theme and variations. Unlike Balanchine's famous work Themes and Variations (1947) which used the framework purely as a vessel to "evoke that great period in classical dancing when Russian ballet flourished with the aid of Tschaikovsky’s music" (Balanchine, https://www.nycballet.com/ballets/t/theme-and-variations.aspx), we instead put the form at the centre of the work and looked at how we could move (instead of musically play) themes and variations. Through this (and without even conciously realising) we were questioning a theory of our own making (how could we embody the musical framework of theme and variations), through doing (practically moving and engaging with Reuben), and producing an outcome of theoretical exploration of the framework (i.e. the resulting work). As you can see through this example, I didn't start envisaging an indepth practice-as-research project, yet it naturally turned out to be one.

Moving onto the second point of testing theories.

This is just a small self-reminder to myself that I don't have to agree with every theory / framework I come across and always to test the validity of the literature in question. This comes after my citing and writing on Arnold's journal article on the role of the dancer (https://harryfulleylovemappblog.blogspot.com/2019/10/30092019-skype-thoughts-on-career.html). After reading Arnold's frankly limited view of the role of the dancer, I later realised through research that although Arnold clearly has very strong views as a theorician he isn't an experienced dance specialist in any terms (however through his academic positioning is able to share his opinion as he likes). I've also realised that it is ok to agree with some of what someone says but not all of it. Take for example Moon's work on approach to learning (2004) - Moon states the well-researched two-ways of approaching learning as surface (superficial) and deep (knowledge-earning), yet I much prefer Corazza's way of "long-learning/thinking" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=392&v=bEusrD8g-dM).

Find more on Reuben's work here: https://www.reubenard.com/