Tag: laban bartenieff movement system

Posted on

Addressing Motif

What Motif is and What Motif is not

by K. Studd
(updated 2020)

From a quick internet search to define the term “motif” – I find the following:

“… In a literary piece, a motif is a recurrent image, idea, or symbol that develops or explains a theme, while a theme is a central idea or message.

In a literary work, a motif can be seen as an image, sound, action, or other figure that has a symbolic significance, and contributes toward the development of a theme.”

In this definition I have bolded several words that I find particularly relevant in connecting to the concept of motif in a literary sense to the LBMS usage of the term Motif. I will return to this quote in a bit.

In the Laban/Bartenieff Movement System Motif is a visual pictorial representation of movement essence. Essence is NOT the same as highlights or details although these can be meaningful and significant both as parts as well as in relation to the whole! Recording movement’s essence and/or revealing movement’s patterns is not the same as recording the specificity of actions. This is an extremely important distinction relating to the intent of Motif as distinct from the intent of Labanotation, and this critical distinction is too often lost particularly in light of many who claim to be using Motif but are actually using a modified, amended or truncated version of Labanotation. Let us return to the literary for a moment in the example of a story– The story of a vacation I take. And on this vacation:

  • It rains everyday
  • The hotel where I am staying is undergoing renovation and so is noisy and dusty
  • I loose my purse that contains all my documents including money, credit cards and my ID.
  • I get word that my house (back home) has had storm damage that will need fixing upon my return.
  • I catch a cold and am feeling sick for the majority of this vacation
  • Then the night before I leave to return home, I accidentally run into someone I haven’t seen in years and we have an amazing dinner at a delightful restaurant and “catch-up”

So the pattern of this trip (as recorded in the above list of parts of the event) is not the same as the highlight of the trip. Clearly the pattern is one of bad luck and misfortune but there is a highlight moment when I unexpectedly connect with a friend.

In LBMS Motif is used to find or express or experience movement pattern – not transcribe a sequence of a series of actions. Recording movement can be much better done through technology such as video, motion capture etc. or using Labanotation in some contexts.

Repetition is necessary for pattern to emerge. Look back at the definition at the start of this missive – recurrent was a word I bolded. Through the motif (pattern) a theme or themes are developed. In the LBMS sense this would link directly to the Duality Themes we address – such as Mobility/Stability etc – So a pattern of actions (another bolded word)create the “motif” both in the literary and movement (LBMS) sense of this term.

Motif should not be a de facto branch of Labanotation or a shorthand version of Labanotation. Although they overlap, Labanotation has a different historical development and different intent than Motif. Nor should Motif be linked specifically to another symbolic rendering of movement, the application of “Language of Dance” (LOD) as dance is only one of countless examples of the phenomenon of human movement and is much like Labanotation in its execution.

Why Motif?

The nature of Motif, by its design, shares aspects of both the verbal and non-verbal articulation we value in movement analysis training, thus it can be a valuable tool in the process.

Motif can be a bridge between movement expression/experience and the analytical process of describing/identifying movement patterns. This allows Motif to be a bridge between the analysis and synthesis ends of the Laban/Bartenieff Movement System (LBMS).

When Motif works well it is used to support the movement analysis process. It can assist with finding essence, describing essence and coming to consensus in this process. Motif can both reveal and represent movement patterns. It can also be useful in challenging patterns (the process of re-patterning or expanding range).

Like the phenomenon of movement itself, Motif is gestalt-like in its ability to capture the whole of action. Thus, for example, the spatial symbol for Right/Forward/High is not seen as 3 parts (- as the 3 words needed to express this direction are), but as the whole that is this Diagonal spatial directional pull. Likewise, the Effort symbol for Passion Drive captures the fusion of the 3 Effort Factors (Weight, Flow, Time) creating a whole rather than the accumulation of 3 discrete pieces as separate parts. This is fundamentally different than the sequential (i.e. accumulating over time) rather than simultaneous (all at one moment) and discrete nature of the language of words which require a – one word after another in a specific order to work. Yet at the same time Motif is a symbolic representation of movement and not the movement itself. Motif depicts only the essence of the whole rather than all the intricate parts (details).

Motif is a tool of the LBMS which is used to:

  • Visually capture and represent movement patterns and sequences
  • Reveal essential essence of movement patterns and sequences
  • Illustrate contextual relationship – specifically, foreground/background  (i.e. what is essential and what is a modifier)
  • Depict “choice” – both of the mover as well as of the Motif-er of the movement
  • Retain the essential patterns of movement by creating a tangible, concrete artifact of the ephemeral fleeting movement phenomenon

Motif is also used to:

  • Assist with coming to consensus in the process of observation
  • In re-patterning – through finding or creating alternative options
  • Becoming aware of or finding patterns through an emergent process (what is revealed in analyzing the motif rather than the movement itself)
  • Capturing and retaining essence in recording movement
  • Connecting macro and micro patterns

Types of Motifs: Constellations, Vertical and Horizontal Motifs

In the LBMS we use Vertical, Horizontal, and Constellation Motifs.

Vertical Motifs are primarily used to indicate when relative duration (i.e. the length of time an action requires) is an essential component, as well as to add modifiers to the main action. Thus, Vertical Motif is generally more layered and specified in its capacity to visually/symbolically capture the essentials of movement patterns. Vertical Motifs are read from the bottom to the top of the page.

Horizontal Motif represents the sequence of a pattern but does not include relative duration and generally does not include modifiers (at least in how Motif is currently conceptualized and practiced – although there is discussion about having Horizontal Motifs be able to represent modifiers to main action). Horizontal Motifs are read from left to right.

Constellations contain the essential parts that make up the whole of the movement event. In Constellations the movement content is held within 4 dots : : Constellations do not show sequence, duration or relationships between and among the parts. Constellations are a Macro approach to the overall patterns of a movement event that create the meaning and expression of the event. Constellations are a way to discern (to observe or to experience) the ingredients of the movement event but not necessarily the recipe!

Posted on

The Case for LBMS

The Laban/Bartenieff Movement System
& Why LBMS is a “System”

by K. Studd
(Updated December 2019)

To begin, let’s start with what is a “system”? 

A system is defined as:  

An organized, purposeful structure that consists of interrelated and interdependent parts. These component parts continually influence one another (directly or indirectly) to maintain their activity and the existence of the whole system, and to achieve the goal of the system. NB this definition has been gleaned from several sources.

A system is a set of interacting and interdependent component parts forming a complex/intricate whole. Every system is delineated by its spatial and temporal boundaries, surrounded and influenced by its environment, described by its structure and purpose and expressed in its functioning.

My own definition:  A system is a representation of a complex whole. A system is defined through relationships of interwoven parts combining to form a dynamic whole. Systems want to ensure their success, so they adapt and evolve to survive and thrive, i.e. remain relevant – or they risk becoming extinct.

The above definitions make it clear that this body of knowledge, i.e. the Laban/Bartenieff Movement System (LBMS), as it is presented in theory and practice is a system. Anyone who has studied the Laban/Bartenieff material cannot deny that the above definitions of “system” clearly apply to how we identify the BESS Components in relationship. And that this is in fact, the heart, core and essence of the material. Therefore, any problem with using the term “system”, from my perspective as a longtime teacher and practitioner of the work, is a misguided perspective and one that should be re-examined.

I have been told that Bartenieff did not like the term, and I have also encountered others who told me exactly the same thing about what Laban reportedly said. However, no one has offered further clarification or evidence of these supposed views of either Bartenieff or Laban. Such hearsay does little to advance and promote the work! The work of these legendary individuals continues to evolve – as it should. Movement is, after all – change. Clearly movement is a complex phenomenon that in analyzing we parse into parts that we then identify in relation to the whole of the context of the movement event and its significance. In our work process is done systematically.

Please let us give Bartenieff her due – and not address what we are teaching or framing as only “Laban” !

Anyone who has read Bartenieff’s text, Body Movement: Coping with the Environment, knows that in this text she integrates Laban’s work of Space Harmony and the Dynamics of Effort Expression with her Body explication. There is no “LMA” and “BF” presented as separate independent bodies of knowledge. These parts are one whole construct in the process of deciphering the complex phenomenon of human movement for understanding the duality and wholeness of Function and Expression. I also want to encourage all of us to not fall into the trap/pattern of saying “Laban” when what we mean is: Laban/Bartenieff. It is of course quite possible to study Laban’s work without the contributions of Bartenieff, but this is not the work that CMA’s are certified in. There is a part of me which also identifies this as a necessary feminist (or if one prefers – womanist) stance and that we must not allow Bartenieff to be given short shrift in the way that so many women have been over the course of history.

In continuing to move forward, I am pleased to report that after adopting the title/acronym LBMS in all the programs in which I teach and coordinate (both national and international) starting many years ago and continuing through today, and in addition using this term in the text EverBody is a Body (coauthored with my colleague Laura Cox and now in its 2nd edition), the acronym LBMS has become very widely used. However, I must add here that many still resist the “S” as referring to “system” and rather opt to identify this acronym as referring to Laban/Bartenieff Movement Studies as noted at the start of this document. I do not use this, as Labanotation could fall under this rubric and “studies” seems to me to be an incomplete idea or at best a more theoretical notion and not clearly owning the experiential practice and applications and more importantly the nature of the Laban/Bartenieff framework.

A Quote that I have found useful in discussing a system as a way of modeling complexity:

“ Models are never true: but there is truth in models… We can understand the real phenomenon only by simplifying it.” Dani Rodrik from Economic Rules

Dani Rodrik is a Turkish economist and Ford Foundation Professor of International Political Economy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

A brief history of my case for assigning the designation of LBMS – the Laban/Bartenieff Movement System.

When I first proposed using the designation of “system” in the label of LBMS, now over a decade ago, I encountered much resistance (and still do now multiple years later as a recent discussion on the cma listserve reveals), both to my insisting that Bartenieff be equally noted in the development of Laban’s work as well as for using the term “system”. I would frequently come across persons referring to what I was teaching or what they were teaching simply as “Laban” – for example saying – “in your Laban class…” or “when I teach Laban…”

I found this (and still do) a problematic way of referring to the work we are engaged in.

Many who negatively responded to the use of the LBMS acronym wanted to retain LMA and BF as separate terms/labels (I found this to be often an inaccurate his-work/her-work approach to labeling).  I believe the resistance in both respects – combining Laban with Bartenieff (“Laban/Bartenieff”) as well as using the term “system” – is unwarranted and represents a resistance to change and a no longer useful habitual pattern of thinking.

I believe that re-patterning thinking about the work we are engaged in is much needed and in fact is key to promoting and furthering the work. I am always intrigued that in a community of movers in which transformation is valued, and that identifies movement as the process of change, that change is so very much resisted! I also note again here that “LBMS” is now at this point in time quite frequently used – However this designation is, by many using it, referring to Laban/Bartenieff Movement Studies.

I firmly believe that with time this too will change and evolve. I will continue to make my case for “system” rather than “studies”. The wholeness of the duality of Change/Constant is what we teach and what we should continue to Shape!

Posted on

Embodiment

We Are All Embodied Beings

by K. Studd (2019)

Embodiment is a current buzz word (at least in English) these days. And many workshops, programs and classes promise participants to become “embodied”.  I believe I understand the sentiment however; we are all already embodied beings by the fact that we exist as human being-bodies. Our bodies are both the content and containers of each of us. We live in them and through them. We construct ourselves through our body-being, through sensing and moving. Our understanding of the world is fundamentally an embodied experience. Even our capacity for abstract thinking originates in our physical engagement with the world through the actions of our physical form.

We start our lives as an undifferentiated whole, a state of “being”. Then as we grow and develop, we differentiate our “self” from “other”. In this process we move from a state of “being”, into a state of “doing”. And we then begin the ongoing process of becoming ourselves as we negotiate the reality of our physical experience. This is the process of moving through the world as we both cope with and master our environment. Through this process we differentiate ourselves and in essence create ourselves through the choices we make as we engage with the world. These choices are the choices of our physical embodiment – the expression of our presence in the world. Becoming aware of our moving selves allows choices that can best support us, as we act and interact in the life-journey we each are endowed with as embodied beings.