Is improvisation only appreciated by performers of the craft?

Performers meaning people “of the craft”… Certainly improvisation is especially appreciated by performers of their specific craft (I’m thinking jazz improv) but audience members (or listeners) get enjoyment out of it too…

Caveat: Are people as resistant to watching dance improvisation as I think? Or am I setting up a false barrier to argue against? Whether or not it exists, setting up a resistance is forcing me to make a case for improvisation…

From my experience, in general people are more open to listening to jazz improv than witnessing dance improv… I suspect this is because they are less exposed to/familiar with dance than jazz and are therefore more uncomfortable with the improv dancer than the jazz performer—in jazz they know more what to expect. They are more willing to trust a performer in a performance that is ‘unplanned’ if they have a general structure to lean on. 

This leads me to believe that maybe a person’s comfort with improvisation just come down to personal taste in art: however much someone wants to move outside the expected pattern or structure is how much they will enjoy the experience of witnessing (well-done, intentional) improv. But… I hope it’s not that easy to explain away.

::I want to make clear the difference between improvising out of necessity (my piece was not prepared well enough, music or dance) and improvising with intention (what I am interested in), where part of the thrill of witnessing the performance is its “liveness,” being with the performer as they approach and tread on the raw cusp of their human ingenuity. 

This conversation will be pertinent to my argument for blues dancing, which, in its ideal state (for me) is the utmost form of improvisation; it is the raw ideas of both dancers responding to the external input of the music, and the external input of each other.

This entry was posted in Leah Vendl '11. Bookmark the permalink.