American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 19, 2021 Contact Improvisation in Greece: its entrance and implementation Panagiota (Teti) Nikolopoulou, Ph.D candidate, School of Physical Education and Sport Science, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Choreographer, Dancer and CI teacher in various professional schools of dance and physical education teacher in various public schools of Athens Maria Koutsouba, Professor of Dance Studies/Choreology with emphasis on Greek traditional dance, School of Physical Education and Sport Science, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens

Abstract Contact improvisation has been practiced in Greece ever since the 1990s. Its practice is associated with the history of contemporary dance in Greece, while the methods by which it has been applied include the experiential research and quest on the practice itself, which, since 1972, when it surfaced in USA, has brought new aesthetics, and approaches in dance. Since a detailed account of the practice in the Greek context is lacking, the aim of this paper is to provide a comprehensive description of contact improvisation‟s entrance and practice by dancers, choreographers, and dance teachers, from the 1990s to the present day. Data were gathered through literature review, observation of live performances and interviews, while emphasis was also given on the effect of the practice on contemporary dance in Greece. Keywords: Contemporary dance, embodiment, kinesthetic awareness, dance research

Introduction In Greece, contact improvisation (CI) appeared in the 1990s, following the experiential research and practice that had been established in the in the context of postmodern era as a new aesthetical and social approach to dance. Despite its late entrance in Greece, nowadays, contact improvisation counts for a presence of almost thirty years, a history that is worthwhile looking at in association with the global world of contact improvisation. Nevertheless, the literature review showed that information on contact improvisation in Greece is limited. Therefore, a detailed account of the practice‟s entrance and implementation in the Greek context is lacking. Based on this, the aim of this paper is to provide a comprehensive description of contact improvisation of its entrance and practice by dancers, choreographers, and dance teachers, from the 1990s to the present day. Data were gathered through literature review, observation of live performances and interviews with dance artists, while one of the authors‟ personal experiences on contact improvisation throughout all these years was also taken into consideration.

Contact Improvisation in theory and praxis Contact improvisation (1972) is a result of ‟s and his collaborators‟ experimentations (Nancy Stark Smith, Danny Lepkoff, Lisa Nelson, Nita Little) on the fundamentals of sharing weight, touch, and movement awareness, as a unique and independent practice of (Hennessy, 2008; Kaltenbrunner, 1998; Novack, 1999). Originating from the liberal movements of the 1960s and 1970s in the USA, contact

1

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 19, 2021 improvisation questioned the notion of dance as a representational art. Instead, the practice perceived dance as a subjective and changing process in which the human body and its kinesthetic experience constitute the core of the dance phenomenon. In other words, contact improvisation, by its nature, incorporated the theory of embodiment in dance (Albright, 2010; Little, 2014). It should be mentioned that, in dance, embodiment was generally greatly promoted by Sondra Fraleigh (1995, 2010, 2013), who utilized Maxine Sheets Johnstone‟s (1966, 1999) phenomenological texts to showcase the significance of the dancer‟s connection with his/hers „thinking‟ body (Todd, 1929), the environment and others. Fraleigh(1995, 2010, 2013) emphasized the dancer‟s subjective experience and his/her connection with the action, so that the dancer becomes the dance, an approach that opened a new study field in dance as well as a new dance pedagogy (Shapiro, 1998;Yamashita, 2013). This approach highlighted specific practices that help dancers to develop appropriate psychosomatic dexterities, so as to cope in their action through functional choices. These practices, like Feldenkrais Method, Body-Mind Centering®, Alexander technique, release techniques, contact improvisation and others (Eddy, 2002; Batson, 2009; Fortin, 1998, 2002; Fortin & Siedentop, 1995; Fortin et al, 2002; Johnson, 1995; Little, 2014; Shapiro, 1998) re-educate the body-mind awareness and formed a new field of research in somatology named by Tomas Hanna (1928–1990) in 1976. Based on the above, contact improvisation gives emphasis on the senses, experiential anatomy, breathing and touch, and focuses on developing sensory skills, spatial awareness, and peripheral vision, as well as bodily dexterities in terms of physics, such as managing gravity, momentum, inertia, and friction (Kaltenbrunner, 1998). In this way, contact improvisation approaches body‟s awareness through various multiple movement factors. In particular, contact improvisation focuses on body-mind connection, on mindfulness and conscious presence of the dancer in the moment of dance and, especially, on the dance and dancing with another person. Specifically, contact improvisation approaches the body and the contact with others through consciousness and kinesthetic empathy, seeking receptive, thinking bodies open in challenges in a constantly changing world/space (Kaltenbrunner, 1998; Albright, 1989, 2010, 2011; Little, 2014). As an embodied practice, contact improvisation includes most of the somatics‟ features in its structure according to the International Somatic Movement Education and Therapy Association (ISMETA). These features are the body‟s activation through contact with “hands on”, the opening of the senses and kinesthesia, the spiral paths of joints, the evolutional/developmental movement and the experiential anatomy, the silence, the emotion etc. (Εddy, 2009). Moreover, contact improvisation as practice includes moving into space, disorientation, and gyroscopic movement, as well as handling physical forces along with another body, a feature that distinguishes it from other practices (Bigé, 2019; Albright, 2010; Evans, 2010; Little, 2014). Contact improvisation‟s revolutionary approach of movement altered contemporary dance internationally and formulated a new, holistic, ecological and ongoing field of research till nowadays(N. Little, personal communication, October 10, 2014). In addition, it has influenced the next generations of dancers and formed communities around the world that share not only dance but also other humanitarian ideas such as solidarity, freedom, diversity, equality, democracy, unity, (Little, 2014; Novack, 1990;Paxton, 2018). Due to its embodied nature, contact improvisation dancers feel pleasure and freedom while dancing, their technique progresses, and their presence in the „here and now‟ of dance allows them to evolve. The practice

2

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 19, 2021 is included in professional dance studies, changing the contemporary dance education internationally (One of the authors, 2020). Moreover, contact improvisation is based on the phenomenological paradigm of embodiment(N. Little, personal communication, October 10, 2014), which, subverting the standard dualisms, connects the body‟s materiality both with the field of lived experiences and the effects subjected upon it by the social sphere (A.C. Albright, personal communication, October 18, 2016). Merleau-Ponty‟s phenomenology of embodiment (1964) inspired by Husserl‟s philosophical ideas (Husserl, 1962), claimed that the mind and body cannot exist separately when it comes to a human organism. From this point of view, human experience cannot be explained with the dualistic model since the body is a phenomenological body experienced subjectively, by „a first person‟ and not an object. Today, this theory has been mainly enriched by the „embodied sociology‟(Αlexias, 2011; Csordas, 1990, 1993; Fardon, 2010; Koutsouba, 2005,2008; Makrinioti, 2009; Schiphorst, 2009)and the embodied concept of neuro-phenomenology (Alexias, 2011; Savrami, 2017; Varela & Shear, 1999). Specifically, neuro-phenomenological scientists Francisco Varela and colleagues showed the ability of the senses to be retrained through focusing on phylogenetic process, meditation, and intuition, proving that specific practices, such as somatics, can develop a body-mind connection and can frame a reliable methodological framework in scientific research (Varela & Shear, 1999;Varela, Rosch&Thompson, 1991).

Contact improvisation in Greece: an overview In close connection with contemporary dance in Greece, contact improvisation was introduced in the country in the early 1990s. Its introduction was associated with major changes in the dance field at that time. From the beginning of the twentieth century until the 1970s, in Greece was following the norms of modernism and the aesthetics of Isadora Duncan, Martha Graham and Mary Wigman who had adopted an ancient Greek aesthetic approach (Barbousi, 2014; Hassioti, 2004; Tsintziloni, 2014). Regardless of the experimentation and research in the international dance scene (Albright, 1989, 2010, 2011; Alexander, 1999; Banes, 1994; Bannon, 2004), research on the movement per se did not develop until the mid-1980s in Greece (Tsintziloni, 2014). Ever since the late 1980s, the contemporary and ballet dance scene in Greece started to change due to two parameters. On the one hand, dancers/dance teachers/choreographers began to move to and return from abroad. On the other hand, the development of technology offered to those who stayed in the country access to the international dance happenings (Fessa-Emmanouil, 2004; Hassioti, 2004; Tsintziloni, 2014). In addition, the dancers‟ professional training, as well as private and state scholarships offered to new dancers, were encouraging them to continue their studies to Europe and the United States. That resulted in the dancers coming to contact with new approaches to movement like release techniques, somatics, improvisation, martial arts, and contact improvisation (Savrami, 2006). The early 1990s marked the beginning of the State‟s higher financial support to classical and contemporary dance field. Additionally, around the same era, several happenings contributed to the thriving of dance, such as private initiatives in Greece resulting in various dance events, performances, photo exhibitions, magazines etc., or awards offered on behalf of

3

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 19, 2021 the State. This thriving led to the creation of many dance groups, which, along with the subsidizations, were organized in civil, non-profitable companies(Savrami, 2006).The newly created dynamics offered a great boost to contemporary and ballet dance (Savrami, 2006) and the 1990-2000 decade was dubbed the Spring of Dance in Greece (Fessa, 2004). However, improvisation and dance research were limitedly used, as most of the groups used improvisation as a process in their rehearsals to create material for their work and rarely one could see it on the stage (One of the authors, 2009, 2020). Within this context, only a few groups and choreographers utilized improvisation as an autonomous dance practice, while somatics and the theory of embodiment, were not particularly popular. During the decade 1985-1995, Anastasia Lyra, Vasso Barbousi, Konstantinos Michos, Christina Klissiouni and Maria Tsouvala were some of the artists who used improvisation in their work. In addition, companies SineQuaNon and Choreftes, used release techniques, while Octana Dance Theater and the Edafos Dance Theater were inspired of the aesthetics of Pina Bausch‟s choreographic work. In addition, certified dancers/practitioners in specific systems introduced somatic practices like Ideokinesis, Alexander technique and Feldenkrais Method, while release techniques had already been applied to the professional training of dancers in Greece(One of the authors, 2009, 2020; Savrami, 2006).Even though it is questionable how improvisation and embodiment have been applied in Greece (Tsintziloni, 2012), gradually, the importance of improvisation and somatics started to gain acceptance in Greece, while today is widely recognized.

The entrance and the implementation of Contact Improvisation in Greece: the pioneers Within this general context of the evolution of contemporary dance and improvisation in Greece, contact improvisation emerged as an independent dance practice in 1990‟s. Its development occurred through the work of dancers-choreographers Konstantinos Michos and Christina Klissiouni who, with a one-year difference from each other, applied this practice both artistically and educationally after their return from New York City. Both artists approached the practice on a technical and an ideological level, supporting it based on their personal way and resulted in applying contact improvisation not as just another dance technique, but as a way of proposing new aesthetics in dance. Due to the individualized approach to the practice followed by Michos and Klissiouni, two tendencies emerged in Greece. The one, formed by Michos, approached contact improvisation through research on a non-representing approach to choreography, delivering a considerable artistic body of work. The other, formed by Klissiouni, was used as a practice with a specific and clear methodology, significantly contributing to the creation and spreading of pedagogy onto embodiment. Yet, the actual contact of the Greek dance community with the practice‟s founder Steve Paxton was made feasible thanks to Anastasia Lyra‟s initiative. Paxton was invited by Lyra in Athens a little earlier, in 1989, to present his „historical‟ performance Golberg Variations at the theater Kάβα[Kava] in Athens. This invitation marked a long-term friendship between Lyra and Paxton, who frequently visited Greece afterwards, offering seminars and teaching the „material for the spine‟ to dancers. Moreover, Paxton taught basic principles, such as rolls, contact by hands and the support function, while he was interested in the learning process, that is in how the dancers

4

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 19, 2021 would be able to improvise and how a dance school in Athens could be founded by the two of them. As Lyra (2017) mentioned, Paxton saw himself as Lyra‟s collaborator, so he never accepted payment neither for his trips nor for his teaching. Several Greek dancers were influenced by Paxton‟s work. The school they envisioned was not to see daylight however, while Lyra worked more on “microcontact”, the small movements (A. Lyra, personal communication, September 24, 2017). Later, in the early 90s, Michos started applying the practice upon his return from New York where he was post-gradually trained after getting familiar with the practice initially as a student in the Greek State School of Dance via bibliography and personal research. As he refers in his interview (2017), Michos recognized through this practice a „solution for art‟, that fulfilled his personal philosophical and social anxieties. It also became an „uterus‟ for him, within which he was free, daemonic and creative. Michos was interested in “sabotaging the enjoyment of the viewer”, especially in the representational art. He was also seeking the experience per se, while at the same time being interested in the left ideology and the practice‟s aesthetics. However, Michos wished more to choreograph and communicate his ideas rather than to work on the analysis of movement. From a methodological point of view, Michos teaches contact improvisation till today to engage his dancers with his ideas. He does that in his own way and through his need to satisfy a „hunger for the intellect and for dancing‟. He is interested in the movement under experiential terms and not under what he calls the „Labanic‟, i.e., Laban‟s terms of shape or form(K. Michos, personal communication, September 10, 2017). According to him: Thinking and moving function simultaneously like two „machines of different voltage‟, according to the norm of activist philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari. When these two „machines‟ are synchronized, one triggers the other, a process that I am seeking through techniques such as naming what I am doing while on motion or what I have just done (K. Michos, personal communication, September 10, 2017).

Michos' approach forms a phenomenological approach as the first person‟s experience is at its heart. Without focusing on specific practices, he seeks to embody his dancers through the difficulty of the instruction and the long hours involved with it. On the other hand, Michos has not yet found the "solution for art" he was looking for as he realized during the economic crisis in Greece that people do not devote time and effort to practice and do not see contact improvisation as a 'community'. Michos was soon established as a contact improvisation teacher in the Greek dance scene. He organized two European Contact Improvisation Teachers Exchange (ECITE) in Greece in 1993 and 2004 and he also invited many teachers from abroad to give seminars, Benno Voorham, Kurt Koegel, Ray Chung and Riccardo Morison being amongst them. Since 1989, he has created dozens of performances of pure contact improvisation or performances structured on elements of the practice. Parts of his performances constitute an anthology of contact improvisation in Greece, while he has collaborated with important Greek dancers, such as Titi Antonopoulou, Aliki Gousa, Jenny Argyriou and others (One of the authors, 2020).

5

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 19, 2021 Moreover, already by 1990, people with sensory and mobility handicaps were able to dance as equal members in Michos‟s company. Michos also was the host of foreign teachers to his teaching company, such as Emery Blackwell, being handicapped himself, Alito Alessi and Ricardo Morrison. Furthermore, Michos engaged refugees in his company. In 2000 he created his personal space Σςνεπγαηικό[Cooperative] Studio, in which he delivers his lessons till today. Moreover, he writes articles for the contact improvisation practice and has an online blog sharing his personal practice diary (K. Michos, personal communication, September 10, 2017). As aforementioned, Christina Klissiouni, upon her return from New York in 1991, approached contact improvisation practice with a specific pedagogical content. Trained by the practice‟s founders, she approached it through the embodied ways in which they had developed it. Klissiouni also invited and hosted many important teachers who approach the practice in similar ways, such as Kirstie Simpson, Daniel Lepkoff and Nita Little, and she danced and collaborated with important dancers such as Ray Chung, Ka Rustler, Andrew Harwood, Suprapto Suryodarmo and many others (C. Kleisiouni, personal communication, January 27, 2017). Klissiouni has given lectures and lessons in several international festivals. Klissiouni‟s approach to the practice is as a performative art and based on that she collaborates with Greek and international dancers for staging performances with no given choreography but on ad hoc composition. Her phenomenological approach is proven from the ways she analyzes the movement as she is interested in the dancer‟s deep connection with it. She focuses on the phylogenetic evolution, on the body-emotion connection and she guides the dancers through very delicate and precise embodied instructions. She creates a secure framework of trust and she follows the flow of the process. In 2009, Klissiouni founded her studio called Present Body where she teaches contact improvisation and somatics, stages performances and gives lectures. She has mentored and taught younger teachers and dancers, while she is acknowledged as one of the practice‟s respected teachers with a significant presence both in Greece and abroad (www.dancetheater.gr; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF9vFDhfQdc). Noteworthy, Klissiouni was deeply affected by the practice‟s ethics. She acknowledges sharing, its social aspect, and the „ecology‟ that the practice bears and believes that the connection between movement, feeling and intellect is a physical, bodily process, deeply therapeutic. In her interview she states:

The individual‟s opening in his/hers physical system and the creation of a state of being and presence can set a little bit aside the neurosis and darkness that burdens each one of us… This is an ethical quest and allows change on different levels (C. Kleisiouni, personal communication, January 27, 2017).

According to Klissiouni, the way we behave as social beings is associated with the bodily experience. This functions as a basis from which one expands, reflects, connects, and communicates with the other since „touching‟ someone „breaks‟ social norms and rules. Specific training relating both with the individual and the collective is required to achieve the breaking of norms and rules. According to the above, Klissiouni recognizes the nature of the „embodied sociology‟ contained in the practice.

6

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 19, 2021 Moreover, in her interview she states that contact improvisation needs to be included into the dancers‟ professional training curriculum, as it constitutes part of the evolution of contemporary dance: Ιt is important that each one (of the practice‟s teachers in Greece) has undertaken slightly different parts, in regards with contact improvisation fields, and I think that the most important thing would be the contact‟s kinetic development, because it is in this field where it hasn‟t evolved that much. The part that has to do with the evolution of the movement with more dexterities (C. Kleisiouni, personal communication, January 27, 2017).

Even though both artists approach the practice in a personal and different way, they both apply it in terms of embodiment, seriously affecting Greek contemporary dance.

The implementation of Contact Improvisation in Greece: the followers Since the early 90s, there were other dancers who had invited distinguished contact improvisation teachers in Greece to train teachers and students alike, such as Maria Anthimidou(M. Anthimidou, personal communication, January 5, 2018) and Maria Tsouvala(M. Tsouvala, personal communication, November 24, 2019) who have repeatedly invited Ann Cooper, Albright for seminars, as well as Kurt Koegel. Today, there are several dancers and non- dancers who work on the practice by taking lessons, organizing, and participating in jams in Greece and abroad, or following important teachers. Likewise, classes for parents and children have been introduced in Athens, while there are also classes with mixed and socially vulnerable groups (One of the authors, 2020). Moreover, although 2010 marked the beginning of an economic crisis in Greece, as most of the practitioners claim, the practice emerged as a way out of problems through the creation of collectivities. In addition, the different approaches taken by contact improvisation professionals in Greece form a phenomenological character that can be seen to this day. GogoPetrali, a Greek dancer and choreographer, practices contact improvisation in the Greek island of Crete for more than ten years. She combines the practice‟s principles with activism, the community, and social issues. The touch and the communication the practice proposes is a political act for her. Petrali also uses Greek music to explore dance, believing that the practice is particularly suitable for the fiery temperament of the Cretans. As she refers in her interview: Τhe body gets smarter… you find yourself there like a calm warrior, ready to support your choice… It is this substance I fight for, at least on a personal level …this practice seems like embracing all systems. It is an incredible exercise for every age… it offers incredible things to the soul and to the body (G. Petrali, personal communication, October 11, 2017).

Between 2011 and 2014, Petrali organized four International Contact Improvisation Festivals in the island of Crete, at her own personal and financial cost and with the help of volunteers and sponsors. Among the guest teachers were Klissiouni, Michos, Gerardos, Stephanie Maher, Aaron Brandes, Nita Little and others. However, the Festivals‟ total cost was too high and made impossible for Petrali to repeat it after 2014 (G. Petrali, personal communication, October 11,

7

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 19, 2021 2017). Despite the difficulties, Petrali still explores contact improvisation as an embodied practice to today while integrating the practice with contemporary and creative dance. Konstantinos Gerardos is another key figure of contact improvisation in Greece since he expanded the practice in the Greece second biggest city, Thessaloniki, until 2015. Gerardos states in his interview (2018) that the practice‟s embodied approach, the experience of contact and touching have literally changed his life. Having, among others, collaborated with renowned teachers of contact improvisation such as Chris Aiken, Kirstie Simpson, Nita Little, Ray Chung, Eckhard Muller and others, Gerardos realized that through contact improvisation the „human aspect‟ of movement is revealed. As he quotes: While I was dancing, I felt I was sensing my border/limit and my body submerging into the other body, expanding through the other body and existing within space. Hence, my body started feeling a greater volume, I was occupying a larger space, yet afterwards I could also become tiny and occupy very little space (K. Gerardos, personal communication, January 9 2018).

By studying the evolutional-phylogenetic movement and having his own students as teachers, Gerardos came to experience that contact improvisation „teaches you how to be taught‟. After 2015, Gerardos created a technique of his own, which includes contact improvisation and other somatics for the dancers‟ training, as he believes that “… contact improvisation should be a main subject. Just as the ballet technique is, just as the contemporary dance technique is”(K. Gerardos, personal communication, January 9 2018). Gerardos thinks dancers need guidance and space to be able to research on a bodily, emotional and philosophical level and not only to reproduce whatever is given to them. The keyword for him, as he refers in his interview, is: „Allow‟…the easy part is learning to dance; the hard part though is allowing to dance… Allowing your body to flow into motion… Motion exists anyway. We have to access it, as if it were a channel, which we enter and in which we are letting ourselves move (K. Gerardos, personal communication, January 9 2018).

Τhe actress Despina Chatzipavlidou is another artist who has applied contact improvisation in Greece since she believes that the spiral movement broadens the perception of „self‟: The spiral is not something technical, it is in our nature, if you think that DNA is a spire… it‟s in our body… or the fact that we exit our mother‟s belly by a spiral movement. So, it is inherent… nobody has „imposed‟ this movement on us, we just „awaken‟ it by the motion, and we find it again (D. Chatzipavlidou personal communication, November 8, 2017).

The artist thinks that the subversive nature of contact improvisation lies in taking care of one‟s self and in returning to the source, our natural state, shaping „a river of knowledge‟: Contact improvisation is a sea of information… That means that the information is infinite, so are the nuances and the senses you can receive. We enter it as if entering our own very nature and this is something… that is there and belongs to all (D. Chatzipavlidou personal communication, November 8, 2017).

8

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 19, 2021

Nevertheless, today Chatzipavlidou does not focus on the technique as her most important issue. She focuses on managing features, like breathing, nervousness, embarrassment, fear, the moment‟s element of the unknown, the unpredictable, the new. In her approach, Chatzipavlidou emphasizes on the constantly changing space, while the use of space spherically prepares the body to perceive the finest movement qualities: We work a lot on the medium, the intermediate distance, the feeling of the air, on the compression-decompression of the air. Whether we are in a distance or in contact. This is not of course in the context of the technique… We perceive the position/non-position of the spherical space (D. Chatzipavlidou personal communication, November 8, 2017).

For Chatzipavlidou, the democratic character of the practice is of a major importance, while the notion of transformation as a state of being empowers change, a necessary element for a democratic, non-authoritarian society. However, according to Chatzipavlidou, despite the efforts for common acts, the communication between teachers and students, in Greece, is still limited. ΤimosZechas is another important Greek contemporary dance teacher who has incorporated contact improvisation in his work. The artist regards spirituality as lying in one‟s body and as a state occurring when all systems cooperate. Having thoroughly analyzed movement through his training on the release techniques and various embodied practices, such as the Axis Syllabus and the Feldenkrais method, Zechas approaches contact improvisation through experiential anatomy and several movement norms, without distinguishing one as the dominant. Embodiment is the main approach in Zechas‟s work, as the artist doesn‟t separate body from mind, while he focuses on ethics and ecology as indispensable parts of the existence. As he refers in his interview: Essentially, embodiment is unification. It is being able to really experience the unity of your living self, all parts of yourself, to perceive that they are one. Because they are one and are always one…the crucial element here though is that this whole process includes the material body. Because all this that I am writing about unity has been said by various philosophers, yet with the whole absence of the material body. The important thing is the concept of the living body… I would like to emphasize on the fact that embodiment is not a trademark, but a means to see the body and approach it(T. Zechas, personal communication, October 29, 2017).

For Zechas, contact improvisation has the advantage of being, compared to other embodied practices that remain within the „comfort zone‟ and not stimulate the nervous system, “not limited by having to move within space, as the other person functions in a supporting way, in a way that the couple is able to move within space”. Zechas claims that this process activates the body‟s whole connective tissue/fascia: i.e., the tissue that surrounds our whole body that is the most powerful sensory organ in it and that is omnipresent in it. It is the womb engulfing the entire body, connecting everything. Which, however, requires training as well (T. Zechas, personal communication, October 29, 2017).

9

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 19, 2021 Zechas believes that the dance pedagogy in Greece functions in separate ways in terms of body and mind. Dance and self are two separate subjects, a dancer executes steps and rarely knows his/her body or is inquisitive in regards with the movement and its potential, mentalities that call for more education. Andronikidis, a performer of contact improvisation and a physical education teacher who works with people with mobility problems, focuses his attention on the touching and contact itself. He argues in his interview that what moved him the most was: contact. The fact that it gave you space and it was ok to be able to touch the other person and to be there with him/her(P. Andronikidis personal communication, January 14, 2018).

For Andronikidis, it is the very dance that in the end brings the kinesthesia in him and the dancer‟s ability to cope with demanding kinetic challenges. As he claims: I directly enter the dance. It is just that the body gradually prepares itself to dance something that might be a little more difficult. And of course, ideally, I am ready when I can do anything… and express myself (P. Andronikidis personal communication, January 14, 2018).

Andronikidis criticizes the commercialization of embodied practices, while he himself organizes various acts for the smooth integration of sensitive social groups, especially refugees, through dance into society. For Andronikidis the solidarity norms the practice bears, such as support and trust, are of high importance: What does it mean that I am reaching out my arm so that the other person is standing up? Orwhen theylet themselves to you, what does trust mean? These are values that almost each time, whether it is a lesson or a rehearsal, exist in what I teach, in what I do(P. Andronikidis personal communication, January 14, 2018).

Marianna Makri is another contemporary dancer who has practiced contact improvisation in Greece. Makri has connected the practice with intuitional movement while she believes that embodied education can exist only in an „embodied context‟, a context where the „ideas can move‟. For Makri, both the fluidity of contact improvisation and the deconstruction of form were revealing experiences, as these were unknown in her dance training. In her interview, Makri refers: The little routes in between… the little journey, until the next stop are elements of high importance, which allow the body‟s intelligence to resume action… Embodiment is to experience things in my own dance, to find meaning or to lose meaning, but to actually “hear” the deeper inner impulses…as something that leads to new paths (M. Makri, personal communication, January 11, 2018)

Consciousness and awareness allow things to happen and then dancers become „the dance‟. For Makri, the advantages of contact improvisation lie on its ethical content and have to do with concepts such as sharing, the commune, the solidarity, the expanding of the senses and others.

10

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 19, 2021 Simultaneously, the connection ways between two persons, the inhibitions, the weaknesses and how one can overcome them, turn into human relationship issues containing deeper symbolisms. For Makri, all these, which are not granted, form the contact improvisation‟s revolutionary nature (M. Makri, personal communication, January 11, 2018). One of this paper‟s authors is a dancer, choreographer, and physical education teacher, who has been practicing contact improvisation and dance for twenty and thirty years, respectively. This artist is also known for her theoretical studies on the practice. In 2020, she compiled a Ph.D. dissertation on contact improvisation in Greece, parts of which are found in this paper. In 2009 she compiled a master dissertation on influence of the somatics on the quality of dance and flow (One of the authors, 2009, 2020). She approaches contact improvisation through the evolutionary movement, the fascia tissue, and the retraining of the senses, as she believes anatomy and the „living soma‟ have already „all the required information inside them‟. She believes that Mabel Todd‟s “thinking body” (1937) is a huge heritage to dance, while embodiment and somatic research can be functional methodological contexts for the dancers‟ conscious presence in their dance. Contact improvisation, either as a dance form or as a somatic one, can give subtle meanings and refined qualities to dance, while it can help dancers experience transcendence. Until today several lessons and jams have been organized by the artists mentioned above and the community of the practice has been expanded. Likewise, many among them enjoy an international status and often travel abroad to teach and dance. In 2016, in the sense of collectivity, the First Contact Improvisation Teacher Gathering (www.dancetheater.gr) was organized in Athens by a group of the aforementioned teachers with the contact improvisation practitioners Niki Stergiou,PolytimiPatapi and VeronikiVelialso among them (One of the authors, 2020). According to the above, the practice teachers in Greece follow the theory of phenomenology of embodiment as they all approach the process from the first person‟s experience either at the level of the principles of the practice or in the process itself. In addition, the collective way in which the process is organized by most practitioners strengthens the social nature of the practice, while the phenomenological space is of great importance. Their approach enriches contemporary dance and creates a field of experimentation and evolution. However, until recently, only few Professional Dance Schools have included contact improvisation in their curriculum and the technique has been taught mostly by workshops or out of institutions venues(One of the authors, 2009, 2020).

Conclusions The paper examined the entrance and implementation of contact improvisation in Greece through dancers and dance artists that introduced and applied the practice in Greece. Several remarks are thus revealed. On an international scale, it needs to be clarified that contact improvisation is closely associated with the theory of phenomenology of embodiment, as the latter was described by Merleau- Ponty‟s philosophy in the middle of the twentieth century and strengthened by recent findings in neuro-phenomenology. These theory frameworks strengthen somatics as proper practices for

11

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 19, 2021 body-mind connection, while highlighted that the subjective knowledge is of most importance and can enrich either the quality of dance or the scientific research ad hoc. Contact improvisation has been practiced in Greece by dancers, choreographers, and dance teachers ever since the 1990s. Its practice is associated with the history of contemporary dance in Greece. Konstantinos Michos and Christina Klissiouni are arguably the contact improvisation‟s founders in Greece, having consistently worked on this practice for thirty years. Until today, several other artists experience the practice. Through the very personal experience of these artists and a phenomenological point of view, one can see the trends that exist in Greece in nowadays, in terms of embodiment itself. More specifically, the embodied approach of the movement can be seen in Michos implementation of the practice. Even though Michos approaches contact improvisation more as a tool for research and generation of choreography material, he is not seeking for a representational art but rather for the presence of the dancer in the dance. Embodiment can also be seen in Klissiouni‟s approach. Klissiouni has specific embodied methodologies that are formed by somatics, while she is interested in the therapeutic dimension of the practice. Both, Michos and Klissiouni expand their own ideas of embodiment, having influenced Greek contemporary dance. Moreover, the embodied approach of contact improvisation can be seen in the younger instructors of the practice too, as they are all implementing it through its basic principles and ideology, giving great personal power and financial cost. This is the case with Petrali, who follows the practice‟s embodied dimension principles and ethics, and applies the collective nature and solidarity of its ideology, while Gerardos approaches contact improvisation as a spiritual process that reveals the “human aspect” of the movement. Both, Petrali and Gerardos, have organized gatherings of the practitioners of contact improvisation in two big cities of Greece, four international festivals of the practice in Crete and a research community of embodiment in Thessaloniki, respectively. Chatzipavlidou explores contact improvisation as an embodied practice too, highlighting its revolutionary, unique, spiritual, and „heavenly‟ nature. Chatzipavlidou approaches contact improvisation without the use of specific somatic practices, as she considers it to be a „sea of information‟ in which one can enter and acquire knowledge, which is being inherited on us. The spirituality of the practice reveals in Zechas approach too. He applies embodiment without considering of any methodology as the dominant one and perceives world in a unified manner and in this way does he teach. Embodiment can be experienced through deep connection with the body and its potential. Contact improvisation is for him an effective embodied means of research and dance progress. The „embodied‟ experience of touch is illuminated by Andronikidis‟ approach who experience embodiment directly through the practice‟s principles without the use of other somatics. Similarly, as the aforementioned artists, Andonikidis is skeptical towards the intentions of somatics in relation with their commercialization. Finally, the spirituality of the form and its altruistic nature are revealed by Makri and one of the authors. Makri combines the practice with intuitive movement, while for her the right way of instruction depends on a democratic and free exchange of ideals framework. One of the authors is searching the embodiment for more than thirty years and found in contact improvisation an ideal practice for dancer‟s body-mind

12

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 19, 2021 connection. She finds meaning in the motion while dancing the form and her theoretical research complete her experiential involvement with the practice. In conclusion, among the different and individualized approaches, all the Greek artists seek through contact improvisation the connection of body and mind, the expansion of the senses, the delicate nuances and qualities that senses bring, while searching for deeper meanings. They recognize the need to further somatic education and for a more „open mind‟ framework for studying contemporary dance. Contact improvisation finally has a significant presence in Greece influencing and changing contemporary dance in general. Young dancers can find a field of experimentation and development by participating in such courses, while contact improvisation should have a serious presence in professional dance studies. Although the country‟s financial crisis brought changes in the contact improvisation field, people are still devoted in their efforts to keep the community alive.

References 1. Albright, A. C(2011). Situated dancing: Notes from three decades in contact with phenomenology. Dance Research Journal, 43(2): 7-18. 2. Albright, Α. C. (2010). Encounters with contact. Oberlin Ohio: Book Masters. 3. Albright, A.C. (1989). Writing the Moving Body: Nancy Stark Smith and the Hieroglyphs Frontiers. A Journal of Women Studies, Women and Words, 10(3): 36-51. 4. Alexander, K. (1999). You Can‟t Make a Leaf Grow by Stretching it: Some Notes on the Philosophical Implications of Skinner Releasing Technique. Movement Research, 18 (99): 8-9. 5. Alexias, G. (2011). Κοινωνιολογία ηοςζώμαηορ: Απ‟ ηονάνθπωπο ηοςΝεάηεπνηαλ ζηον «Εξολοθπεςηή» [Sociology of the Body: From Neanderthal to "Exterminator"]. Athens: Pedio. 6. Banes, S. (1994). Writing Dancing in the Age of Postmodernism. London: Wesleyan University Press. 7. Bannon, F. (2004). Towards Creative Practice in Research in Dance Education. Research in Dance Education, 5(1): 25-43. 8. Barboussi, V. (2014). Η ηέσνηηοςσοπούζηηνΕλλάδα ηον 20ό αιώνα: ΣσολήΠπάηζικα, Ιδεολογία, Ππάξη, Αιζθηηική [The art of dance in Greece in the 20th century: School of Pratsika, Ideology, Practice, Aesthetics]. Athens: Gutenberg 9. Batson, G. (2009)Somatic Studies and Dance. Retrieved August 23, 2016 from www. DanceEducation.org 10. Bigé, R. (2019). Steve Paxton: Drafting Interior Techniques, Lisboa: Culturegest 11. Csordas, T.(1990). Embodiment as a paradigm for anthropology. Ethos 18:5-47. 12. Eddy, M. (2002) Somatic practices and dance: Global influences. Dance Research, 34(2): 46-62.

13

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 19, 2021 13. Eddy, M. (2009). A brief history of somatic practices and dance: historical development of the field of somatic education and its relationship to dance. Journal of Dance and Somatic Practices,1(1): 5-27. 14. Evans, K(2010). Unintentional Communication. In A. C. Albright(Ed)Encounters with contact, (p 22). Ohio: . 15. Fardon, R. (2010). Margaret Mary Douglas1 1921–2007.Proceedings of the British Academy, 166:135–158. 16. Fessa-Emmanouil, E. (2004).Χοπόρ και θέαηπο: Από ηηΝηάνκαν ζηιρνέερσοπεςηικέρομάδερ [Dance and Theater: From Duncan to the new dance groups]. Athens: Efessos 17. Fraleigh, H. S. (1995). The spiral dance: Toward a phenomenology of Somatics. New York: Dance faculty publications. 18. Fortin, S. & Siedentop, D. (1995). The interplay of knowledge and practice in dance teaching: What can we learn from non-traditional teacher. Dance Research, 27(2): 3-15. 19. Fortin, S. (1998). Somatics: Α Τool for empowering Modern Dance Teachers. Ιn S.Shapiro (Ed)Dance, power and difference: Critical and feminist perspectives on dance education,(pp. 49-71). Illinois: Champaign Human Kinetics 20. Fortin, S. (2002). Living in movement: Development of somatic practices in different cultures. Journal of Dance Education, 2(4): 128-136. 21. Fortin S, Long, W& Lord, M.(2002). Three voices: researching how somatic education informs contemporary dance technique classes. Research in Dance Education, 3(2):155- 179. 22. Johnson, D.H (1995). Bone, breath and gesture: Practices of embodiment. USA: North Atlantic Books. 23. Hassioti N. (2004). ΈναραιώναροπσηζηικήρηέσνηρζηηνΕλλάδα [A century of the art of orchesis]. Newspaper ΤοΒήμα, 24 April 2004, p. Α26 24. Koutsouba, M.(2005). Σημειογπαθίαηηρσοπεςηικήρκίνηζηρ: Τοπέπαζμααπόηηνπποϊζηοπίαζηηνιζηοπίαηοςσοπού[Dance Movement Notes: The Transition from Prehistory to Dance History] Αthens: Propompos 25. Koutsouba. M. (2008). The academic situation of dance anthropology/ethnochoreology in Greece. In Proceeding of the 22nd World Congress on Dance Research (pp. 1-15). Athens: International Danc Council-CID. 26. Little, Ν. (2014). Restructuring the self-sensing: Attention training in Contact Improvisation.PhD dissertation. U.S.A.:University of Florida. 27. Makrinioti, D. (2004). ΤαόπιαηοςΣώμαηορ[Boundaries of the Body: Interdisciplinary Approaches]. Athens: Nisos. 28. Merleau-Ponty, Μ. (1964). The primacy of perception. And other essays on Phenomenological Psychology, the Philosophy of Art, History and Politics. Northwestern University Press. 29. Merleau-Ponty, Μ. (2004). The World of Perception. NewYork: Routledge. 30. One of the authors.(2009).The somatic practices‟ effect on the dancers‟ movement quality and flow experience. Master dissertation.School of Physical Education and Sport Science National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.

14

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 19, 2021 31. One of the authors. (2020). Contact improvisation in Greece as a somatic practice: history, ideology and artistic creation. PhD dissertation. School of Physical Education and Sport Science National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. 32. Paxton, S. (2018). Gravity. Belgium: Contredanse 33. Savrami, Κ. (2017). A duet between science and art: neural correlates of , Research in Dance Education. Retrieved September 20, 2020 from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14647893.2017.1369509?journalCode=cri d20. 34. Savrami, K. (2006). ΈναροδηγόργιαηονσοπόζηηνΑθήνα: ΟιζύγσπονερομάδερσοπούζηηνΑθήνα” [AguidefordanceinAthens. The contemporary dance companies in Athens]. Retrieved September 20, 2020 from http://www.savrami.gr/educ.asp?articleID=1&lang=gr§ion=2. 35. Shapiro, B.S. (1998). Toward transformative teachers: Critical and feminist perspectives on dance education. ΙnS. Shapiro (Ed)Dance, power and difference:Critical and feminist perspectives on dance education(pp 7-21). P. Champaign: IL Human Kinetics. 36. Schiphorst, T. (2009). The varieties of user experience: Bridging embodied methodologies from somatics and performance to human computer interaction Ph.D. diss. University of Plymouth. Retrieved September 17, 2016 from https://www.scribd.com/document/202203609/Thecla-Schiphorst-PhD-Chapter-Two. 37. Sheets-Johnstone, M. (1966). The phenomenology of dance. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. 38. Sheets-Johnstone, M.(1999). The primacy of movement. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company. 39. Todd, Μ.(1997). The thinking body. London: DanceBooks (1stpublicationin 1937). 40. Τsintziloni S. (2014). Ππορμιανέαμεθοδολογίαγιαηημελέηηηηριζηοπίαρηοςελληνικούθεαηπικούσοπού[Towards a new methodology for the study of the Greek theatrical dance], Choros International Dance Journal, 3:26–39. 41. Tsintziloni, S. (2012). Modernizing Contemporary Dance and Greece in the mid-1990s: Three case studies from SineQuaNon, OktanaDancetheatre and Edafos Company. Ph.D. diss. University of Roehampton, U.K 42. Tsouvala,M.(2007). Hθαινομενολογίαηοςσοπού. Επιζηημονική επεηηπίδα ηηρ θιλοζοθικήρ ζσολήρ ηος Πανεπιζηημίος Αθηνών [PhenomenologyofDance. Scientific yearbook of the Philosophical school of University of Athens] ΛΘ, 405-417 43. Varela,F. Rosch, E & Thompson E. (1991). Embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience.: MIT Press. 44. Varela, J.F. & Shear, J. (1999). First person‟s methodologies: What, why how, Journal of Consciousness, 6(2-3): 1-14. 45. VounelakiK. (2008, November, 24).Χοπεςηέρζεππώηοπλάνο [Dancers in the foreground].NewspaperΤοBήμα. Retrieved November 10 2019, from https://www.tovima.gr/2008/11/24/archive/xoreytes-se-prwto-plano/. 46. Yamashita, C. (2013). The Shift in Pedagogy:Authoritarian and Egalitarian Styles of Teaching. (Notes). Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles.

Links

15

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 19, 2021 http://www.anastasialyra.com/synergates/artists-vert/159-steve-paxton https://contactimprovisationgreece.blogspot.com/2018/ https://www.dancetheater.gr https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF9vFDhfQdc https://contactimprovisationgreece.blogspot.com/2018/ http://www.anastasialyra.com/synergates/artists-vert/159-steve-paxton

16