Improvisation, Part II

Last night, Andrea, Ingrid and I were talking about changing focus from the fact that the glass is half empty to the fact that the glass is half full. When one is true the other is true. They are facts. When the situation changes, the facts change, too. If the glass is sitting outside and it begins to rain, the glass will fill up.

In life, just as in physics, there really is no such thing as an uninvolved observer: when someone chooses to observe something, they change what they’re observing. If I focus on finding more work, I will tend to find more work. What you focus on expands.

One traditional technique used to teach art is still life. In the middle of the room, there is a table with some objects; perhaps a red apple and a blue bowl of water. Each student is given a piece of what looks like charcoal-colored chalk and a sheet of paper. Each student immediately faces a choice: focus on the factual limits they’ve been handed or focus on the factual capabilities they’ve been handed.

Like improvisation, this is also a kind of game. With any game, we agree to the rules including the rule (spoken or not) of agreement. Cheating is bad form primarily because you’re not following the agreement rule.

A student who dwells on the limits they’re stuck with has lots to think about: they don’t have red, they don’t have any way to make the apple shiny, they don’t have blue for the vase.

If the student focuses on what they can do with that piece of chalk, they’ll see a completely different situation. The chalk has a small tip and long narrow sides that can be used as two different drawing tools. The chalk can be worn down to turn one end into a sharp point or an angled tip. They can apply different amounts of pressure to create anything from light grey to a very dark grey. They can use all of those capabilities to capture the shadows, curves, reflections of the shapes, the form of the objects that lies beneath all the color. In the process, they can strip away the surface and get at the essence of the thing itself and how it interacts with the world.

When I was in graduate school, I took a class in painting. Unless it was time to review our work, the teacher would show up, tell us something and then disappear. We would then spend the rest of the time, doing something. In most realms, a teacher that spent five minutes talking wouldn’t have a job for very long. But, often, what needs to be learned can be said in a few minutes. Learning that lesson takes far longer.

The goal of many artistic and improvisational games is not to dictate the results. Someone doesn’t go to art school to become Rembrandt. They have a vision or they’re pushed by a need but they can’t fully realize “it”. Something is in the way that they have to push past. Art school can be thought of as a way to teach people to focus on what is possible until it expands to the point that the half full disappears and they’re free of whatever held them back.

In that graduate painting class, I usually had some idea I wanted to talk about. One day, I had no idea what to paint, a blank canvas and a palette with white, blue and black so I just started to paint. Very quickly something started emerging from the canvas. I spent the rest of the time following what I was seeing. The painting that emerged on the canvas now hangs in our living room opposite the sofa.



 

Weather is not Climate

forecasting the weather is an attempt to get fairly precise information on the state of the atmosphere in the near future. Forecasting (climate) … involves an attempt to identify the atmosphere’s most probable states on far longer time scales. — Why weather != climate: the engine behind climate models

That quote is from an article on Ars Technica, a site that has a great track record covering technical topics such as computers and science in depth. In some cases (like this one), the article probably won’t make anything clearer than mud unless you’ve got the right background.

The article is based upon some of the core ideas in Chaos Theory. Most books on Chaos Theory talk about the Butterfly Effect. In 1961, Edward Lorenz was using a computer to simulate the weather. He decided to re-start a simulation in the middle. In the original simulation, the value at that point was 0.506127. When he re-started the simulation, he just entered 0.506. The new result was completely different than the first. This has been summarized in many ways (see Butterfly Effects – Variations on a Meme) including “Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Africa cause a hurricane in the Atlantic?”

The butterfly effect (and Chaos Theory in general) focuses on dynamic (don’t stay the same) systems that are very sensitive to how things start. If you put a ball on the peak of the St. Louis Arch, you really have no way of knowing exactly when it will roll off or which way it will roll or where it will end up. Chaos Theory and common sense say the same thing: there is no way to know exactly what will happen.

Both Chaos Theory and common sense also say that we’re almost certain that that ball is coming down. With a little Chaos Theory and a calculator, we can figure out that it will probably start moving within a very short period of time (perhaps there’s a 99.9% chance that the ball will begin to roll off the peak in under a minute) and where it will probably end up (say 80% of the time it will land between 150 and 300 feet away from the center of the base of the arch).

If you kept putting balls covered with wet paint on top of the St. Lewis Arch, over time you would end up with a lot of dots on the grass and those dots would have a pattern. Eventually, there would be a ring covered with paint. Moving inward and outward from that ring, you would see more and more grass breaking through the paint until you just found a splotch of paint here and there.

At the level of someone asking where will the next ball fall, there’s no way to know. If you ask me to guess what weather we’ll have a week from now, I can guess we’ll have a high in the ’80s or ’80s. Then again, this is Colorado, so there’s a small chance it might be 40 degrees and hailing. You just never know where that ball will land.

On the other hand, if somebody is watching you put ball after ball on top of the arch and they’re interested in what things are going to look like, they can come up with some pretty good answers. First, eventually, someone in charge is going to find out what’s going on and call the park cops on you. Second, there will eventually be a solid elliptical ring of paint around the St. Lewis Arch that fades to grass in both directions if you don’t change what you’re doing.



 

Improvisation, Part I

When my daughter was maybe four, I taught her an improvisation exercise: Gift. Gift always starts the same way: the two people playing agree who is going to give the gift. If I was giving the gift, I might start by picking up an (imaginary) box; maybe a large box. Then I would hand it to her.

For the game to continue, she would have to take the box she couldn’t see. It couldn’t be just any box but the box I had handed to her. She would have to agree with what had already happened.

At our last retreat, Andrea read a passage about improvisation from Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink to us. I offered a Gift to Ingrid. She very carefully removed many ribbons, opened the flaps, reached into the box and lifted out something; clearly something that filled the box, perhaps rounded, and said “thank you.”

I said “its shiny” and then she said “pretty” to which I replied “But what does it do?”

“I don’t know but it’s shiny.”

“I’ve been wondering what it does since I bought it.”

Then she said “It’s pretty. That’s what it does.”

Improvisation never has a script but, even if you can’t see it from the outside, there are always rules. One rule (spoken or not) that is critical to improvisation is that there has to be agreement.

Improvisation usually has no props, no set, no backdrop: just people. With only their words and action they have to create a world, a Doctor’s office, a closet, a library, a garden that will draw in the audience. As long as they agree on what is happening in that garden, it will continue to develop and grow. But, when one player no longer agrees to what has happened, they’ve taken a fork in the path and entered a different world.

Even though they are still on the same stage and may even take turns talking, at best, they are talking past each other. As far as everyone else is concerned it would be better if they tromped off to different parts of the stage and one recited poor Yorick! and the other juggled his balls.



 

Improvisation, Part I

I’ve been busy since early in the year working with several people to start a new company. while, it’s left little time to blog, we’ve had many great conversations about what we want to build and how we want to build it. Although our website isn’t finished, we recently started a blog and I’ll be writing pieces occasionally. My first piece went up today:

Improvisation, Part I

When my daughter was maybe four, I taught her an improvisation exercise: Gift. Gift always starts the same way: the two people playing agree who is going to give the gift. If I was giving the gift, I might start by picking up an (imaginary) box; maybe a large box. Then I would hand it to her.

For the game to continue, she would have to take the box she couldn’t see. It couldn’t be just any box but the box I had handed to her. She would have to agree with what had already happened.

At our last retreat, Andrea read a passage about improvisation from Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink to us…

Read the rest