Using Inspiration Creatively

OK so there was a bit of discussion stemming from the prop transition thread that I think is quite interesting, but to keep it on topic we should probably move to this one to continue it.

A summary of whats been said so far (sorry if you think I pulled the wrong bits out!):











So, how do you generally develop new movements/tricks/whateveryawannacallem? Tim, you say that you perfer to just let creativity rule without a structure to help you discover tricks, where as MNS has a more structured approach. How do each of you generally 'find' your new movements?

Personally I find that I can quite easily become locked into a certain way of thinking. I find it very difficult to get the first spark of inspiration but once there, its like opening a door to a huge range of possibilities. That spark is almost always triggered by something external (although not always, I have had times when something has happened 'by accident' and had the same effect), be it a notation (siteswap) a concept (compound circles) or even a prop (Taking up staff inspiring my juggling).

I now use this in a pretty structured way. At practice sessions I will often stop myself while doing a move and force myself to apply it to other movements and props. Trying to replicate a 3 ball weave trick with doublestaff spin will generally fail, but even when it does it helps me learn more about how these props move and the possibilities open to me.

Excuse me if I refer to poi rather than staff but thats the prop with which I do the most experimentation.

I tend to seek understanding of the movements I know, how they fit together... I tend to view almost everything as you'd view a hybrid... I classify what each hand and what each poi does.

I seek to understand the boundaries of the basic components and how the boundaries of terminology can even overlap.

By exploring the limitations of what I do I can extrapolate what I know into what I can theorise and guess at. My mind turns into something akin to an alienjon animation.

http://www.homeofpoi.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/886502/1.html

This is a link to a thread in which I outline the way I think about poi if it'd help you understand what I mean. *Flowers and MISC sections especially*

Permission to move this into Tech discussion as I don't think this is at all restricted to staff...?

I guess a starting point would be what this "inspiration" is.
For example I can watch a someone spinning, either live or on vid and be inspired by that.
Likewise I can be playing with poi, accidentally (or semi-deliberately) find something interesting and get inspired by that.

For me, the most relevant to the topic case is the first one.
Mel's recent tech poi video for example - huge inspiration, but for many, this will inspire them to learn the moves they like as-is, which leads to "cookie cutter" styles as discussed above.

A classic example would be someone with a very dancey style learns a new move - and when playing, they break out of their style to pull off the tech move - feet planted firmly on the floor, body squared up - then go back into their "zone".
Tech? Yes. Creative? No.

Learning how to take these moves, as purely technical movements, and develop them to be your own as well as developing them in different ways is a real art - This then leads into the second example.

For me, I have a semi-structured approach; try the standard variations of a move (isolate, anti-spin, LASA, LALA etc.) then also try some physical variations, exploring the move in different postitions/styles with different footwork, body position.
Look for parallels with other moves, even simple thngs like a prop swinging in the same time as a limb - take this and emphasise. Or reverse it.

Kyle Maclean did an awesome workshop a while back where he talked about minimizing and maximising a move:
Try and perform a move with as little physical movement/expression as possible. Do the absolute bare minimum. If you can break a move down to just using your wrist for example - this effectively means you have 4 limbs (and a hand, a head, chest etc.) with which can do absolutely anything you want with.

Likewise make a move as big as possible,involving all your limbs - don't just flail about, ensure everything you're doing is relevant to the move - you can look for any eye-catching parallels, similarities etc.

Then combine the two - taking elements of both exercises and see what comes out.

~~~~~

You can also take a critical approach, even if you love a video/performance - try and see what you don't like, or whether there's any avenues that person hasn't explored.
There's inspiration to be had in what you don't like too - try and analyze what you don't like, and turn it into something that you do. Is a person too static? Are the poi too fast to see a pattern? Too slow to convey fluidity?

Play

Nice work on the new thread!

For me inspiration can come from a huge range of sources .
Other fire spinners is way down on list in terms of significance towards my motivation levels, but way up the list of significance in terms of technique. For example |I almost never watch staff spinning videos, I find most of them very un-inspiring but as all my performance is with staff and a lot is staff juggling then obviously other staff spinners/jugglers have influenced my technique.

I get huge amounts of inspiration from watching juggling videos especially old school circus and variety jugglers and I really like their slightly cheesy style and think it’s a great way to entertain and earn a living from my chosen prop. As well as inspiring me to train harder I also get inspiration for staff juggling tricks, stage presence and audience control.

Other sources of inspiration can be as varied as good music, my audiences, the professional athletes that train at my gym, my mentors (jago,dave knox, etc) my friends on the scene (Bristol crew, seb, antti etc) and many many more, however the level and direction of their inspirations is varied and a bit indefinable.

From a point of view of being creative with regards to new tricks, I try to find tricks that will be both entertaining to watch and fun for me to dedicate the years of practice that will allow me to perform them as well as i possibly can.
Often a mistake or a slip-up can open my eyes to a new possibility.
Sometimes i copy tricks from other staff performers or jugglers, most often club jugglers. I try not to copy many tricks off other staff spinners and if i do take a trick off somebody else i try to make it fit into my style and hopefully improve or alter it in some way.
One big problem I face is not a lack of creativity its to much, I only learn tricks that I hope to perform and cant allow myself to try and learn every trick I think of, as I would never be able to get them all clean and fit them all into my show or routines. Particularly with staff juggling and high speed spinning it takes me many years to reach a level of control that i think the trick deserves and this process is far more valuable, enjoyable and exciting than creating or copying hundreds of tricks that I never get as clean and controlled as i would like.

I personally have serious doubts as to the value of hundreds or even thousands of spinners learning a huge number of tricks from experts in their chosen field of manipulation whether it be from online tutorials or workshops, this to me is where this generic style of spinning really comes from and it strikes me as a wasted opportunity encourage new spinner to create their own tricks and styles.

i have been asked a few times recently to teach workshops and have always resisted as i don’t want to increase the perception that the best way to learn is to copy tricks off somebody else. i would like to create a workshop designed to allows beginners to be confident in their own creativity but I’m not a naturally good teacher and also find it difficult to articulate my ideas and thoughts as well as i would like.

Whilst I respect the amount of effort going into teaching thru workshops and online tutorials and appreciate that there is a huge demand for such things i do feel my heart sinking when i wonder around festivals watching hundred of newbies struggling to learn what in my opinion is far to many tricks that someone else has created.

I feel like going off on a (relevant) tangent here, hope no-one minds....

what are the value of workshops?

I seem to like starting this sort of thing with a 'where am I coming from' bit, so here we go.

I Love teaching workshops, and put on masterclasses through uber. The response is usually very, very good. And the general feeling is that the workshops foster not only a lot of skills, but also a LOT of individual creatiity. There is always a focus on how you can use your newly learned skills in a personal and interesting way.

Inevitably though, the thing you see at the end of the event is people standing there practising a new trick they have just learned. So it looks really dull - lots of people standing around, learning the new tech thing they got shown in tech101 by InsertGeek Here. this doesn't mean they can't spin creatively - it jut means they are, en masse, going through the part of the learning process that involves standing around going 'uuuuuuh...' a bit. And in general, when you see them again a few months later, that trick has been either dropped or incororated into their own spinning style.

I think Intention is key in what people get from workshops, and whether they come out of a workshop as a better spinner or a little bit closer to being a clone.

what is the Intention of the workshop leader?
what is the Intention of the event organiser?
what is the intention of the participant?

each of these things can be approached very differently:

here're some non-exhaustive thoughts

workshop leader intentions

- make everyone learn new tricks
- make everyone earn new concepts
- make everyone learn SOME new tricks and incorporate them into personal spinning
- make everyone use their own spnning more interestingly
- make everyone realise their spinning fits into a big framework, and let the explore the framework
- have some fun
-pass on knowledge

while it is possible to use many of these at once, it is very hard to approach all at the same time.... so you are also relying on:

event organisers intentions (and the two might be the same person, and I am going to not include beginners/kids/corporate stuff):

Hold a party/festival, with some workshops
hold a workshop event with little or no overall structure
Hold a holistic workshop event
Hold a series of classes

each of these will make you structure your individual workshop extremely differently. But last, and probably most importantly, what are the students looking for?

Participant intentions:

- learn some new stuff
- learn some new stuff by THAT TEACHER, who does X, Y and Z really cool-ly
- go with your mate to a workshop together, so you can work - together after
- drop in cause something looked/sounded cool
- nothing better to do
- see how a particular person teaches something
- get some inspiration/new perspective on something you already do
- meet other spinners

so, for example, If you are in a one-off tricks based workshop at a festival (even at the bjc/PLAY/SL08 etc) where there is no holistic approach, and the students intentions are mainly to go and learn tricks, then you are setting up for cookie cutter spinners. I'm not suggesting that these are not good workshops in the slightest, but it IS the reason I orefer to teach workshops within a bigger context - Uberevents/spinagogue, etcetc

So what is the actual value of a workshop?

If you don't get much inspiration (and no, the internet is not enough...) then having someone actually teach you something is invaluable. If you are stagnating a bit, and haven't the discipline to force yourself through the plateau, then someone elses ideas, and just generally being around other people a lot will help massively. The meeting up side of things can't be discounted either - I have countess friends I have made from workshops, and in many cases knowing that person has utimately led to me being a better spinner.

So, finally, you can't lump all workshops together - each type of workshop has inestimable value in its own way, and each student will take what they can from the workshops. Its like you say, Tim, workshops that allow people to be creative are ideal. Its just that the proportion of them is quite small, because the ccontexts are not reated for them either.

I think the Cookie-Cutter spinner tendency is not necessarily down to workshops, but down to the general enormous growth in spinning as a whole, and, with that growth, a the introduction of 'fashion' into spinning - where you do something because 'everyone does it'. But there will always be interesting and innovative spinners, and there will always be incredible dancers with the skills to make generic tricks look amazing.

*runs out of steam*

yo rob
i think your post is very relevant to the thread and very well put, i have responses but am very busy and also keen to hear others thoughts on this before i reply.

Regarding the intent of the spinner, I agree completely with what MNS said about a creative person will always find a way to be creative. Some people just want to be able to spin a little poi. Others (I think Time might be one of them) merely want a hint of what is possible and then play with it.

I have a bunch of tricks and such with poi that I have not fully "assimilated" yet. In other words I have not really had the time to see what I can do with them. I can do a generic version of a number of things but a lot of my actual spinning has become de-structured.

One thing that also helped a lot was consciously decided not to do certain moves. Like an entire session where I would not do any butterfly moves. Limiting myself in one or other ways has often opened doors.

Also, my view is partly based on why rediscover everything? If someone has come up with the idea of flowers, why should I not find out the concept from him/her? It means that instead of actually having to identify the concept, I can see how far my own creativity takes it. Which is why I am one MNS's side when he says that he prefers to teach concepts and look at where circles are, rather than show people exactly how to do the move. I will show a variation, and say that this is the basic way of doing it, but that they must see what else they can do.

Ok. Girlfriend is telling me to hurry up. Hope it all makes sense.

Using Inspiration Creatively?

Yeah you could do that, but for some people that isn't why they spin. I think anyway, someone could correct me if I'm wrong. Some people spin cos they enjoy it, they don't need to consider issues of creative use of moves in order to enjoy spinning. Some people enjoy playing with fire, some people do it cos they enjoy hanging out with their spinner friends, some people do it to get paid, some people do it cos of the 'dance' aspect... y'know. It's not always about using inspiration creatively. Not everyone is about geekily / creatively pushing spinning into new places... (To go boldly where no spinner has gone before... I love the new star trek.)

That being said, you can't just be all like: Oh Hai! I'm going to teach this because it'll be good for you geeky keen spinner students!

Most of my workshops don't consist of those people unfortunately, usually cos those people don't need to take workshops.

If people want to learn just tricks, who am I to say NO! I want the people in my workshops to get what they want out of the workshops and enjoy them. Who am I to say what they 'need'? If they enjoy it, that's cool.

That being said, I do try and teach frameworks rather than tricks. Thou always the framework is illustrated by tricks and sometimes movements. I would like my students to go and do some homework... but well... that's me. Workshops are funny things, half performance, half teaching... Always usually mixed levels.

Anyway that was a bit of a diversion, as for other people using inspiration creatively. If everyone went off onna weird tangent, like contact poi, or wibbles then spinning would be heaps more interesting.

As they say: good artists borrow, great artists steal. And michael Moschen makes up incredible and weird new stuff all the time.

Not that I'm against cookie cutter spinners, if there were more yuta clones out there life for a choreographer would be heaps easier hey. You could be all like, okay you two stand in the back and do anti-spin butterfly flowers into vertical cateyes and back again every 2 bars. Instead of Hey, stand in the back and do butterfly. Which would be nice...

Rob, your post on intention contains a lot of valuable points when aproaching the idea of an event or workshop . The only thing i would add, is perhaps consider that short term, and long term intentions may be different.

In the short term of intention for taking a workshop, i might just want to learn a new trick-- in the long term i may be aware that the trick, and the concepts it opens up for me, may change the way i spin, lead into new movement patterns etc.

So whilst it may seem we generate a bunch of cookie cutter spinners from a trick based workshop, in the long term those same people may well integrate the movements into a personal style over time, and continue an exploration process on their own, breaking down the "trick" into concepts and components long after the workshop has ended.

MCP: After having watched your staff dvd, I personally like the way you approach things. There is enough to get someone pretty competent, without locking them into anything.

Which is ultimately the way I would like to do things.

Rob, thanks for the comments on workshops, its something I've found tricky. I'd love to be able to run a workshop that opened the doors for people to play with their own ideas more, but it never seems to work like that. Much of that, as MCP said, seems to be down to mixed abilities within the group. 3 people have trouble with the movement you intend to work from and suddenly you're off on a tangent.

But then, really, MCP is right when she says that there is nothing wrong with people just wanting to learn other peoples tricks, if thats where they find enjoyment. As long as you include the information for that minority that will go away and develop the ideas then you've catered to everyone?

Does this mean I don't actually have to learn all the vertical contact I still haven't learned but seem to be generally accepted as basic contact moves?

And I'll STILL be cool?!

'Cos that's the style yo.

Jest as I do, it's actually quite a good point that I'd never really questionned the slight pangs of guilt I often feel at not bothering to learn these moves, even though I don't particularly like them. The best cookies are the ones you schmush out with your hands and throw at a friend then peel off the wall and make into monsterous beasts with gnarley teef before baking.

oh cool, thanks for that Meg... I was going to write a reply and now I don't have to...

For the 2p worth - I hope to think I teach frameworks...or at the very least say that "this not The Gospel, it's only a way I've gone about things and it works for me"

cheers again Meg

Yeah, with contact staff, cos it's ma first love, er sorry, prop / skill toy, y'know it's the first one I learned, with that, I'll learn everything I see, however I get it, borrow beg or steal... Cos I love it and I wanna know ALL ABOUT IT.

With anything else, I'll consider and decide what I like and don't like, what looks pretty and what looks ugly, what's impressive and what's not, what I have time for and what I don't and usually most importantly, what's unique and what isn't, what's standard and what's not...

Hmmmm lots of what's with correct use of an apostrophy.

It's kinda different with each prop actually...

And there's a few that I would like to go deep enough with to start getting to new ground... and once I get there, I might consider learning ugly ass, boring, everyone can do them, generic basics.

But then, I'm not a person in troupe having to perform for a living, I have the luxury of deciding to follow my own thoughts to where they wanna go. And yeah, they do go retarded places.

Off to reread bluey's post.

Oooh. I like this thread. As an indirect reply to the above, here's my thoughts on the matter. With relation to poi.

Firstly, inspiration versus creativity.

I generally develop things by mixing things. To do this, I need to know things to mix up - I need to learn other peoples moves (eg. weave, butterfly, flowers). I also need to understand these things, to know how to mix them up. To understand them, I use other peoples theories of how things work (same direction, opposites, antispins). Then, once that's done, my own things come into the mix - my own moves and my own theories.

Inspiration, as opposed to creativity, comes from the outside. A new influence that opens up other thoughts. As well as coming from seeing other peoples things, accidents are also a great source of inspiration.

Creativity is using the inspiration. To be creative, take influences from unusual sources. I believe things don't come from nowhere, and by being aware of your influences, your inspiration, more doors will open.

Secondly, a more personal approach.

Thinking of a grand tree of poi moves (ignoring for now the creativity in the rest of the performance, although the same kind of thinking can apply there too). My grand tree of poi moves. I learnt the weave first. Then backwards - the tree splits into two branches. Then I learnt a butterfly. This was a bit different. A new stem, if you like. But the same things applied - I learnt if backwards. And then over the head. Then behind the back. Then, oooh, the weave can be behind the back too. The tree grows, and each branch is connected to many others. It's a weird tree. The tree keeps growing, branching, becoming more tangled.

My point is, that from a starting point of weaves and butterflies, anything new I create will be related to them. Probably. I could perhaps take an influence from juggling and start throwing my poi. But my scope for new things is small. By growing this tree, and learning other peoples stuff FIRST, the sources of inspiration increase, and the creativity flows easier.

I spend a lot of time learning what other people have done. The tree grows quicker. And as I learn more, I spy gaps - unconnected branches that could be connected. The bigger the tree gets, the easier it is to spot the gaps. Sometimes, I'll spot a gap that hasn't been filled by anyone else, and I'll do something new. Or have a happy accident, and do something interesting. But still, at this stage of growing the tree, my spinning is fairly generic.

Following from the above, just making the tree bigger, all round, will result in generic spinning (probably also good spinning). But, if the choice is made to go off to one side, the chances of making something new are higher. It will make the tree a little less bushy, and break away from being generic. Doing this makes it harder to learn new things, but makes for a more different style. The bigger the tree is, the more capable I will be of expanding in one area - I have more ideas to put into it, more inspiration to be creative with, so I can innovate better. But if I have a small tree, the less I have to work with, and I'll produce things that other peolpe have produced - the result: generic spinning.

Therefore, I don't believe that learning what other people do is limiting. It is never limiting. (As long as you keep learning and creating!)




I think I've reiterated a lot of what has already been said, but in a way that makes sense to me.

I haven't even got onto some other things I wanted to talk about, eg. relating it to music (ie. it's hard to create music without learning some music theory (or at least listening to music!) - ie. learning what other people have done before you. It's useful to understand why things work before experimenting and doing something different. And TRIZ, something I have come across recently - systematic innovation, which comes from reading a LOT of patents, noticing patterns in the way things are invented, and using that to invent new products. But systematically innovating might take away the joy of creativity for some people.

More unorganised thoughts:
-Learning how others understand their trees helps me to organise my tree, and spot gaps.
-Learning how others understand their trees helps me develop my own understanding.
-Standardising notation etc makes peoples trees become more similar in structure, aiding the learning of new things.
-Using (or understanding) more than one notation helps lots of things (spotting gaps, helping others).
-Tools, theories and workshops can create a very generic style of manipulation (making peoples trees be more similar), but it also means that people can grow their trees quicker, so they can then explore and develop their own ideas.
-With poi (and staff and juggling) there are so many tricks that no-one can do everything. No-ones tree is complete, nor the same as anyone elses. The more people develop, the more true this statement will become.
-There are many techniques to expanding trees.
-Limiting oneself helps to focus on one part of the tree, and so helps creativity that way.
-Thank you to Rob, you've helped clarify some messy thoughts floating around in my head about workshops.
-The importance of getting inspiration from unusual sources.

That's enough for now.

here are some additional posts made on the other thread after the move:

I disagree with that statement in the sense that as a scholar, I believe in giving my sources credit but I think the point the man was trying to make is that we are social creatures who learn by example. Creativity does not necessarily have to mean creating completely original ideas but rather taking inspiration from others and adapting it to our own style.

I have not read all the details of this thread so I apologize if I repeat what has already been said. This issue I have seen before and one which people seem to have much concern around. Let's continue to explore it and we will approach a solution that makes sense to everyone. I think we are already there but we still are not hearing each other clearly enough to reach a consensus on how to state this information.

Danny_: Nice way of thinking about it. Have you considered actually drawing your tree? (Or trying to....)

I haven't properly considered drawing my tree. It would be quite a project, I got scared at just the thought of drawing it. As a side note, it would look more like a neural network than a tree.

The problem is that l'd have to name all the moves and techniques I can do (and the ones that only exist in my imagination), before I could have a hope of completing it.

It's going on my to do list.

In reply to 'the secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources' - it is more true to say that the secret to appearing creative is knowing how to hide your sources. But that's selfish rubbish.

I found an awesomely harsh quote in a book by Taschen:

"The danger is ever present of mistaking for creative talent what is only a gift for adroit imitation or a highly developed skill in compilation." Rem Koolhaas (or maybe Paul Hindemith)

That quote drags me back to reality....

Hence the try....

I might attempt something similar. But I think I can use your way of thinking about things to rationalise quite a lot of what I see. Thanks.

mcp: Good quote as well.

Danny, we have been working on this. We have been researching mind map (tree) and wiki programs. As far as I know no one has already started a poi moves tree but we've got a list going on the Poi Theory of Everything. Interested in collaborating? I am going to go send you the log in information from the account.

I had a poi mind map in tree-shape a few years ago - was working on it when drew posted his families and things in...2003? It was already on A1 and nearly overflowing, and that was before many concepts now in use were even thought of. I might go and see if it is still in a box somewhere. it would be funny to see now, i think...

re megs quote;
there is much current debate over whether "a highly developed skill in compilation." IS actually a form of creativity.

A lot of the new media people are creating with, and some old media- music- being done in new forms- dissasembles all sorts of things; pulling tiny elements of them out,to make their palette or building blocks, then reassembling and combining into something new. But actually, the end creation is completely compliled from others material and sources. Only the act of comiling and reassembling is new.

At first i thought this kind of adroit compilation was not creative, in fact was a little cheeky cop out. But now, a decade or two later, particularly looking at what is being done with music, video cuts, and found object jewellery --i think it actually has become its own form of creation.A fascinating one, cause you can see history in it too!

Now i just am interested in how skillfully it is done, and does the sum of the parts add up to something more? If so, good art. Or dance, or poi...

Sorry if that is too much of a tangent you guys!

One thing that totally influenced my earlier years of training was unhinged emotional state!!
I found a intense relief from my crazy life and emotions by spinning an throwing my staffs,
the faster i spun my staffs and the higher i threw them the more relief i got,
i really felt i could totally express my dark angry negative side and turn it into something positive and (to me at least) beautiful.
Often after snorting far to much coke i would avoid parties full of people talking coked up nonsense and go out to my local park in the early hours of the morning, and spin for hours not caring about posture or technique or anything other than making myself feel better by waving and throwing my sticks around. This kind of deep and very personal self expression is what i consider to be my most artistic time of training.
When I was not coked up I would be less frantic but my ultimate goal was always to make myself feel better about my life and my craziness, it worked,
keep this to your selves but on a number off occasions i would have tears streaming down my face(totally sober) somehow the movements, repetition and expression i got from the staffs allowed me to feel extremely sad and extremely happy at the same time. Whilst the staffs didn’t cure my drug and emotional issues on their own they certainly helped me to have more positive stuff in my life which gave me the strength to totally sort my head out.
The ego boost of being able to do cool dangerous looking stuff in front of my coked up mates was nice as well As I slowly sorted my head out and things changed, i met more jugglers and realised that i could make a living doing this weird thing i been taught by a hippy on a beach somewhere(bundy!), i also began to train to perform and trying to create tricks that were pleasing to watch as well as pleasing to execute.
Fortunately for me high throws and fast spinning is very entertaining so its seemed to me from early on i was onto a winner, i got great feedback from people who are still heroes of mine (Jago in particular) i now make my living from what you used to be a weird sort of therapy!
what i lost through that process ,(learning the basics of how to perform) was the deep crazy expressive places i could take myself to. I can sometimes mange to get the old craziness back but now im a happy chilled out type of a bloke i tend to get different less intense but equally pleasurable kind of high
When i perform my solo show now, i try very hard to express to my audiences a glimmer of the love i have for what i do and the phenomenal positive effect it has had on me,
i am obviously restricted by the same constraints as every other performer but if i can sneak a little bit of my soul into my shows then i feel great and people seem to love it. The best compliment people can give me is when they tell me they like watching my show because i clearly enjoy it as much as they do(even if sometimes im pretending cos im tired and would rather be in the pub

back up the thread to the workshops discussion, i agree there is nothing wrong with just wanting to learn a few tricks but i also agree it would be great if more people went on their own weird creative journey rather than learning lots of tricks of somebody else.
Personally i see peoples tricks as the biggest part of their style and then way they deliver them as a much smaller part of it.
Sorry for the bad englishy and the rant
You all smell of poo
Xxx
Xx
x

Damn, good thread. I especially like the title which describes the way I attempt to spin.

Get inspired by watching a video or reading a thread, then get creative by taking what I've learned and making it my own, so to speak.

I can't say that in the six years I've been spinning, that I've ever invented anything. Sure, I've come up with ways of doing or presenting a move and I've come up with quite a few "combos" but so far, everything's been driven strictly by inspiration.

My oppinion, it's not really worth to invent bysicle.
To think of something new you must have at some knowledge about what've been done before and then use it as a start point.

Really? Cos I see style as the complete opposite. (And in fact further, but that's a topic in another thread.)

are you gonna start the new thred pleasee lass,
ima bit drunk

it's in one of those threads about dance / movement or individuality, one of those. Might be on my dvd too, can't remember right now...

Is it even possible be a cookie cutter spinner? Maybe. It's really hard not to let your own style shine through. Even if you just stand in one place while doing ultra tech moves, you still have style.

Workshops and online tutorials are a great place to start. I don't think that they promote a generic style of spinning. Yeah sure they teach concepts like antispins, cateyes, isolations, etc that eveyone will be playing with. But the more people you introduce to a concept the more chance there is that they will take that concept and make it their own. Eventually the ideas that we consider technical today will become the bread and butter of spinning tomorrow. And with that the art advances as a whole.

Firedrums is a good example: you have all these amazing spinners sharing their art and next thing you know you see them again next year taking those same concepts that they learned last year and applying them in new and interesting ways.

Of course these are just frameworks for manipulating props. You can do whatever you like. Who cares? Have fun with it.

When it comes down to it, why wouldn't I learn how to do everything in the book? I don't think that you should limit yourself because your afraid of not being creative enough.

To me spinning about having fun.

It is indeed possible to become a cookie cutter spinner, if you watch enough of a short base of spinners, steal movements from their routines theres a good chance you'll end up modelling your own movement off theirs.

In fact, its quite natural to be a cookie cutter spinner in your early-intermediate development. During the intermediate development its quite possible to teach people in a much different way. Rather than teaching movements you teach a concept and apply it to known movements. I'll try to teach something new as well, but not actually teaching it, just making them apply the concepts to work it out for themselves then trying to scaffold them into finding something similar but different again. Maybe I'll just show them once so that they get the idea but have to take more steps to get to the point where they can do it.

*all of the above is 1 on 1 teaching... I don't get to teach workshops.*

But the difference is trying to include the learner in inquiry based learning whereby they can set their own goals and progress without the aid of a teacher and as such can progress in their own direction with any new material, even if its simple as using a few basic flourishes while doing a hip reel or hip reel/extension combo or as complex as new directions in line iso, plane changing, etc.

"Tell me and I forget, show me and I remember, involve me and I understand."




I do not follow this at all unless you were talking about collective consciousness, but I doubt you were.

bls337:
The thing about not seeing enough people is that you are not aware of a different way of spinning. I have noticed here at Rhodes. Most people who all learned in the last few years tend to spin very similarly. Now, the way that they spin looks very cool, but you can see that they all learned from the same source.

Especially if you compare the way I spin to them, they are very different. I also tend to try new things more than most, I think.

In short, without actually seeing a different way of spinning, it is very hard to let any sort of creativity shine through, unless their heads are wired in the right way to want to try new things, which many people are not. (Compare how many people spin [well] and how many actually push the boundaries and innovate.)

So yeah, cookie cutter is possible for many people.

I was thinking along the lines that people will innovate and find new and interesting ways of using those concepts. Everyone brings something different to the table and will take those ideas and apply them to their own skillset. The more people working on something the greater chance of innovation. Something like that...

I'm still trying to figure out what I think... but I'm sure my opinion will always change.

That does work, to an extent.

Like I said, you need those people to be wired in a particular way to actually try and push things. Also, unless you are showing them stuff that is not overly well-known, they are quite likely to end up re-inventing what has already been done.

Mostly because what has been done is mostly the "obvious" stuff. Once you know the concept.
Very few people will be able to come up with something radically new. Or at least, that is what I have seen....

Re bansheeCat
re megs quote;
there is much current debate over whether "a highly developed skill in compilation." IS actually a form of creativity.

Hmmmm, just came across this again, and had a think about it. Yep, I don't doubt that mashup and remix culture is creative, sometimes extremely so, and I do love a lot of it's products and it takes skill and craft to make their works. And that you can create entirely new works out of old, and that the new works are also art.

But for one: I don't think we are dealing with the same level of 'taking' as remix culture is. With found objects, you have a perfect copy of the object to use, itself, the same with music and video. (quality not being such a big issue) However with spinning, you have no copy of the trick to use, first you have to learn it, in order to copy it. So you are stealing an imperfect copy.

It would truly be interesting to see a remix routine, consisting of very rigourous immitation of all the originals styles and moves, blended together into an uber routine, so clean and clear that you could identify the original sources youtube videos.

However with music and other things the original source is usually very clear. Not so with this case.

secondly: Ask yourself if when you saw an inspiring artwork or beautiful music and it was created as an original vs one created with found objects or as a remix, which one you would think had taken more work, more creativity, more time and more thought to create.

I realise that the source materials for remix art can play a profound role in it's meaning and expression, but really I haven't seen much spinning that says anything, so that point is a bit moot.

Plus obviously a peice of remix art can be more profound and more enlightening than an original or the sources it uses, but one has to ask if the artwork would have been possible without the sources or the found objects, just with more work for the artist? I guess that's not the point thou really....

Wow,

Hmm..

I tried to read as much of this as I could be here's what I got.

A long time ago (is like 5 years ago a long time?) I used to teach people tricks when I taught workshops. It was kind of all I knew. Also I had some screwed up conception that if I knew a lot of tricks and techniques, people would think I was cool or talented or whatever.

Which I believe is the biggest problem in spinning is many people don't really think about deep questions like, why they spin, Do most of us think if people where not watching would most firedancers do still spin?

So at that point I was always seeking validation for my actions, and altogether I was pretty boring and lacked a fair bit of creativity. (even though sometimes I doubt how much I have now) I hung out in obtuse geek partner poi circles where we did a hell of a lot more talkig and not enough practicing.
I was confused about why I was spinning/juggling in the first place.

Now I know why I juggle/spin, I like the challenge of working to learn something difficult and then finding ways to make it easier for others to learn (like that classic, crusty old spinner saying, " oh it took me years to learn that and you 5 minutes) I am not a huge fan of performing and such but I realize it is a part of the whole thing.

So in terms of how I teach now? I pretty much do most of what blue said a long time ago in the thread. I want everyone to learn a few tricks but to have those tricks be the foundation for them to understand something more deeply.

i.e. - I can teach stalls as ways to transition that allows you to change poi timing and direction. That statement alone goes over the head of most people. Not that they can't understand it intellectually, but they are interested (creatively) in differeny things; whether performance, tech, showing off whatever. Who am I to judge reasons why people spin (even though sometimes its hard not to say something)

What the important thing for me is to not limit what others think of themselves when I teach workshops, even if in my own jaded crusty spinner mind I think their style/tech is totally not compatible ultimately with mine.

Whatever, I hope that had a point

Some good ones.

Thanks for the post.

kind-a felt weird about the dissing of "cookie cutters" and thought it'd be worth a thread on it's own

we look at someone/something and get inspired... we got this "awe" moment... and then?

is it that we want to put ourselves into that same position and get "awed" at? is this why we started spinning poi/staff?

btw I often feel more inspired by the way of transporting individual or a set of moves than by the moves themselves... but that's just me.

Meanwhile I got aware that most of the time I'm just standing on the beach, repeating moves and sets... until in a performance (or when practicing for the same) I start dancing and they just ooze out... as a part of the dance...

only my 2cts worth...

This isnt even a conversation.

Dancers use the same vocabulary. The same set of techniques: Tondue, Degaje, Plie...ok, i cant spell in french, but you get my point.

Choreographers use those terms when building dance peices.

There is no one who calls into question whether dancing is an art form.

And even to dance in a style, jazz, tap, contemporary, classical ballet, hip hop

does not bring into question the legitimacy of their dance, but only from whom they get their inspiration.


No go practice!

This is a conversation.

Some dancers use the same vocabulary. Like ballet dancers for example, a b-boy would never use the terms you say. And quite frankly anything a b-boy does couldn't really be described as a plie.

Choreographers do use those terms, if they are building a ballet piece, but they also use a far bigger selection of other words, completely unique and descriptive to theat peice, as well as no words, for showing and moving the dancers. To build a routine with just the standard ballet terms would be as cookie cutter as we are talking about. Basically it'll be a demonstration, a view into the practise that ballet dancers do.

People do actually. Dancing is the youngest of all the classical artforms. So before that you can bet it was debated over.

So I guess your argument is that you can make art out of building blocks that everyone uses, and hence, because dance is an artform, this status can be ascribed to spinning, because people learn standard building blocks.

But your accertions are poor:

That dance has a vocabulary of basic terms, (like jump and squat) is poor, since most dance doesn't use those terms and those that do, use them as a base, not as high level terms.

That dance is an art, which has been debated.

That the analogy holds strongly enough to ascrib the title of art onto spinning.

That learning to be a cookie cutter spinner is somehow analogous to either learning the basic terms of ballet or of learning the basics of ballet.

For instance, can can dancers clearly know what they are doing is not art. As do standard music video backing dancers. a

and further, copying a move from someone is one thing, copying a body position or movement is another, and copying a section of their spinning and or routine is yet another.

Are you really going to sit there and argue that dance is not art, meg?

Theater, dance, music, circus, these are by definition performance ARTS.

If a particular style, or set of techniques, or video inspires someone to delve deeper into any artform its a good thing, not a bad thing.

Technique is technique. Even if the technique is a signature pose, or sequence. Stealing a whole act, if its a professional act is one thing, but going through a specific technical display is playing the same scale or mode(yeah, i switched from dance to music, what!) Whether it comes from this video or that person, doesnt matter. People all start somewhere, if they see a video and copy it, good!

I could very easily yes. Just like most art is not art. Are you going to argue that all kids pictures are art just because they are made with traditional art materials and techniques?

Art has no definition. And most of traditional circus I would argue is not art. Just as I would argue that a lot of obvious candidates in music and theatre and dance aren't art either.

Technique is not a pose or a sequence. A technique is a technique, and you don't learn or need many in spinning.

A technical display / scale is not art, and it's not usually what people put on video or copy or get taught at the start and understand that they need to learn.

And I still wouldn't say that copying videos is a good thing. It's definately a thing thou. You can do it if you like but I wouldn't recommend it.

yes, childrens pictures are art! you can debate the quality of the art all you want, but putting a mark on a peice of paper is art.

a technical display, or scale, is the practice of an art form, and hence, art.


There is technique to posing, there is technique to arranging choreography. There is no "A technique," there is only technique.

you dont need a lot of technique for anything, but you have the option of delving into it.

And why do you suppose circus arts are called circus arts.

oh wow - meg's claiming "dance is not an art"... *popcorn and a soda anyone? - or more for tea and cookies?* I'm not surprised..

"Just like most art is not art."... "Art has no definition. And most of traditional circus I would argue is not art. Just as I would argue that a lot of obvious candidates in music and theatre and dance aren't art either."...

Whilst the latter is your (entitled and honored, thoughdefinitelynotagreedwith) opinion, the former is outright ... wrong:





already two definitions I can relate to...

Oh yeah, who would be surprised that firetom would interrupt this discussion to argue with me? I'm not going to reply to you. Sad times for the missing ignore option.

Childrens paintings are not art. They can be art with the appropriate context. Just like writing a message to your friend in class isn't art. Even thou it's marks onna paper. It can be art, but as it is, it isn't.

Just cos it's called martial arts, doesn't mean punching someone is an artwork.

There are about 3 techniques in spinning I think. Keeping timing, isolation, doing different things with your hands, other than that... lesser used techniques.

Why do I suppose it's called circus arts? So if I called a rose a spade then I could totally use it to dig a hole? What kind of argument is that? Some of circus skills you can totally use to make art, mostly however they aren't used for that purpose... they are used for entertainment. There is a big difference.

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines art (Noun) as:

1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation
2 a : a branch of learning
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced


All of which apply to spinning, and circus, and a child making marks on paper.

Further more,
Fine Art (Noun)

is defined as

1 a : art (as painting, sculpture, or music) concerned primarily with the creation of beautiful objects —usually used in plural b : objects of fine art
2 : an activity requiring a fine skill

And I contest that if the term object can refer to music, ie, the performance of a song, that it can also be applied to circus in the performance of an act, or dance as the performance of a dance.


Now Meg, what was it you were saying?

At first I was like, hey MCP, I totally disagree with you, but I thought about it and I dont concider my spinning art. I play guitar and I dont really concider what I do with that as art either. I do concider some martial arts as 'art' and I concider climbing as an art.

But Im interested to hear on what you concider to BE art, not just what you think art is not. cause when I apply this way of thinking then I would say that 90% of Art that I come across really isnt art then. and that would mean that millions of artists are living a lie.

for example take Beethoven. I would concider his music to be art, but it still follows clearly defined technique, rules and patterns. Which is why it can be played, copied and repeated by musicians today. When Hendrix ripps out a solo in the midle of songs. Its not truly spontanious inspiration. Its actually usually a a variation of a scale progression that you can again break down to technique and copy.

people make a lot of money making copies of famous artwork by copying the original artists technique. In fact I cant think of ANY art that cannot be broken down to technique, or in the case of music - scales and progressions.

If I needed to look up a definition of art in a dictionary, I would understand that I really didn't know what art was.

It's like yours saying you don't know what art is, and yet you want to argue with me about it?

Does someone doing a triple on the flying trapeze make you cry, make you feel more deeply what it is to be human, make you wonder about life and it's meaning...? well probably if you knew the difficulty and the story behind the really difficult tricks... but the act itself, it's done and then you think no more of it. Like a football game, you don't watch a football game and hate it and then later come back, watch it again and decide it was amazing. It's entertainment, you just watch it once. It's a technical display, a musician playing a particularly hard scale. It's not art, unless it's in a different context.

You can say that some 15 year old doing the goth 2step in a club is equal to a 45 minute dance production by a national ballet company because they are both 'art'. But I wouldn't and I wouldn't see what that would get you.

Fine art can't be contested, it's like a technical term, it has a defined meaning, fine art applies to the fine arts, that of painting sculpture and drawing and whatnot. Classical arts are different again. You don't study music when you study fine art. If you want to get universities and art historians to change the term, you can.

Otherwise you are arguing with me, I can't be bothered to go summarise my statements again just to make it easier on you. Since I have to clarify yours usually as well.

And Im not trying to convince you that what I think is art is art, I am trying to open you to the possibility that what you think is art may differ from what someone else things is art.

So many people disagree with you, that the dictionary contradicts you.

Just because things that I think are beautiful dont make me want to go all emo and slit my wrists onto a canvas doesnt mean I appreciate it any less. Sure, art can evoke emotions, but not all art does, look at andy worhol.

meg, you're just wrong.

This conversation makes me smile. Im not sure if Meg is playing devil's advocate or is simply in love with being evil. Either way though I have to agree somewhat on her side.

Art should tell a truth about the human condition (aesthetic). The technique used to describe that truth, be it motion, paint, sound or whatever, is only the language used to help describe that aesthetic.

If a child should draw a picture of a sun and tree, they are just learning to use the language of symbols to talk visually. Their art speaks of their attempts to define the world they see around them. That is truth in a way, though it may be on a simplistic level. Another child draws themself with a great distance between them and another to describe their inner loneliness over having lost a friend. An intangible concept made concrete.

There was an exhibition put on back in the 80s about "bad" art. Needless to say, no one remembers it because it really wasn't worth remembering, just like no one remembers what the warm-up of an orchestra sounded like.

Technique, whether skilled or not, is simply a string of letters and words jumbled together. To speak of art as being good or bad; to give it a label depends on how successful a person was at using their given tool to convey a truth: emotion, relation, empathy, etc to any given audience.

Speaking of Andy Warhol, he spoke in truths. Not emotion, but in attacking the concept that art had to be separate from the commercial reality that surrounds people. If Campbell's soup is a part of the everyday, it is a part of our reality and therefore a part of the truth of who we are. Today he would have printed ipods and laptops. And he would have done it on Photoshop and caused argument and debate to spawn. He would have induced emotion by challenging what we believe should and should not be, in the world of art.

Though I will say that anyone who attempts that today stands a good chance of becoming dismissed as a pale copy of an original idea. Irony, no?

tank:

1) Meg is NEVER wrong



you may consider that

2) Meg can't dance, thus another reason why
3) dance can not be art, and as
4) Meg is never wrong,
5) everybody else must be wrong - most certainly including me and obviously excluding KASKADE...

I think I need a bag of chips and a drink,
sorry...

In my opinion if you just train a particular thing and maybe you good in it its skill or similar.
If you put this into a different context, e.g. a big performance with background, making a huge setting, choreographies etc., than its becoming art. if you expressing something, people get an idea....thats art... the thing about this discussion is the the term art, and perception of it it really depending on the individual.

Art can be persistent or transient... there are no rules

there are much more things, but i have to work now...

maybe one... in germany there is an insurense for artist really good thing...there is listed what counts as an artist... actor in a film not, except is an star...
theater yeah, hiphop trainee no, capoeira yes....

you see what i wanna say?

chris

I don't believe that the definition of art depends on the setting...

But I side you that it is all about "expression". There are no rules ... but much more to it... Art can (and sometimes has to be) ridiculous, without purpose, timeless or perishing quickly, like this one:



If someone doubts that dance is art, I truly feel that this person is in a pitiable state of existence, as s/he has never experienced the sweetness that witnessing or practicing dance can have on the mind...



To me t's about art - and can not be explained but has to be experienced...

This is an opinion based topic with massive amounts of subjectivity!

Technique is not art

For me its kinda like there are 26 letters in the alphabet, but just listing any 5 of them doesn't make a word.

or perhaps more aptly, opening a dictionary to a random page and reading words isn't going to make a sentence (it could be Art if you are making some kind of post modern point but thats another bag of worms), but those words may be arranged artfully and be used to produce something that could be a sentence, or arranged more delicately and be used to make a poem.

Just as exercises in a ballet class are not Art, yes they are part of an artform, but that doesn't make them art. The techniques must be used in a sequence to express something or tell a story/ portray the aesthetics that the choreographer intends. Then it can be called art.

Picasso said "What do you think an artist is? A fool who has only eyes if he's a painter, only ears if he's a musician, or a lyre at every level of his heart if he's a poet, or even nothing but muscles if he's a boxer? On the contrary, he is at the same time a political being, constantly alive to the heart-rending, fiery or happy events of the world, molding himself wholly in their image. How would it be possible for him to take no interest in other men, and with cool indifference detach himself from the life which they bring you so lavishly? No, painting is not done to decorate apartments. It is an instrument of war for attack and defense against the enemy."

What resonates with me is 'art is not to decorate apartments'
I feel this totally applies to spinning, if we are just making pretty circles and fancy lines we are not artists, we are demonstrating skill and technical aptitude much like a gymnast does during a routine.

The skills and techniques employed by the gymnast can be used to create art, and is done often in a setting of circus art/ physical theater

Art says something, or at least seeks to say something. that doesn't mean it makes sense to everyone or is fully digestible. but it is not just a demonstration of skill.

oh and on the topic of cookie cutter spinners another Picasso quote
"Bad artists copy. Good artists steal. "

I would not call what I do art, although I do think it is an artform.

that's the problem with most artists (I know) ... they adore other people's work but got troubles to identify their own genius...

a friend of mine has a story.

His wife's grandfather was a famous for his beautiful pottery and had been so for over 30 years.

When they first met my friend said to his grandfather in law,
"it must be amazing being able to live your art"

To which the potter replied
"what art? this is my work! if other people wish to see it as art it is up to them. I just do my work."

Tankboy: Well seems like many people don't think I'm wrong.

I'm glad thou that you have 'appeal to authority' as one of your arguments. It's a shame everyone doesn't respect dictionaries as much as you do. There would be like no arguments then. We could all just say: this is what this is: boom done.

I don't think you know anything about what I think is art. Art can be anything, art can be someone drilling a hole in a piece of wood badly, or endlessly repeating a juggling trick until they learn a bad habit. But at the same time it's not. It usually takes something else to make it art, even if that thing is only the observer, or an artist to put the thing into a context that makes it art.

I think all art does evoke emotions, because all decisions are based on emotions. Andy Warhol said stuff about the art world, just as Duchamp did. Plus you seem to be contradicting your earlier argument, that what I think is art can differ what other people think is art, so can't Warhols art be not art to you but art to somebody else?

I could be more acerbic at this point, but I'm a bit tired.

Squid: Evil is fun sometimes. Look at nature. It loves it. Our life is based on killing other things. Gotta love nature.

Squid also makes very good points. Which I agree with.

Firetom writes something I didn't read fully due it looking like basic Meg trolling.

Flamba wrote something that seems like a good point already made, but it's hard to tell with the English.

I heard that an eccentric art collector bought an artists entire life and works the other day. He set up cameras in his studio and get all the works and tapes and everything. So you never really know what is or isn't gonna be art in the end. But it's a good example of what I generally think: Art = Life.

DaG wrote some good stuff too. That picasso quote is especially interesting. "It is an instrument of war for attack and defense against the enemy." Whhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaa. Good quote.

"Bad artists copy, Good artists steal." This is true to a point. I think you have to get to the very bottom of what you are copying in oder to steal it thou... They do say there are no new ideas under the sun, and so really your going to have to steal em aren't you? But they're lying, there are new ideas. They're only saying that to you to make you feel better about not being creative enough to find them.

I love you a little bit now Dag. Oops, did I say that out loud?

On the topic of inspiration and cookie cutter spinners.... I think it's too much idol worship...

Make spinning that doesn't look like anyone else's spinning. Having someone say: Oh wow, you really look like G when you spin, it's not a compliment, it's a critique. That's the mindset people should have... if you ask me.

It is amazing to be able to live your art thou. AMAZING. Better if you notice you are doing it thou.

Is it an airplane? Is it a rocket? NO! it is... SUPERTROLL



[edit] There is a German saying that it echoes back from the forest the way you shout into it... I didn't mean to troll you, Meg - I only found that taking your aggressiveness with a pinch of humor (irony/ sarcasm) actually serves my emotional state a lot better.

This did turn into a discussion as to whether dance is an artform - or what can be considered to actually be art or not...

And especially when it comes to it, I do feel that dance is much more than just a jerky way of walking or shuffling your feet...

Maybe you don't enjoy dancing... I never saw you dancing in any of your videos, so I can't really say whether you do dance and enjoy it or not. If not it might explain why you oppose dance to be an artform to begin with.

Art imo is to take something into a new context... One takes a stick and turns it in her/his hand... sees girl with a crystal ball who isolates the same and lets it run over her body... one imitates her movements: KAZAM! Contact staff is born...

other people observe the attempt and take it further... This is what I believe happened around 2002 on the EJC in Bremen and the one before that in Rotterdam.. Might be mistaken, maybe contact staff has been around much much longer... only never saw it before.

It's a gift to be able processing an external influence and turn it into something new and unique... so to me it is about "using" inspiration... the "creative process" in which inspiration is used (to me) is inevitable...