Spots wrote:ratliff wrote:If I'm doing it the way I really want to be doing it, improv does not come from my head. So I think "headspace" is an unintentionally loaded term in exactly the same way that "group mind" is.
ehhh? I'm familiar with alot of your views, and tend to agree with them. But this one is a bit of stretch, isn't it? Neurons man, neurons.
Improv quite obviously involves the head no matter what.
Involves, sure. Even I would never deny that.
But here's what I'm noticing: improv tends to attract smart people, meaning people who are accustomed to thinking their way through problems. I'm sure there are improvisers out there whose primary response to the world is emotional or physical -- Jet Eveleth of The Reckoning comes to mind, though of course I can't say -- but the vast majority of improvisers that I know are head people.
So far, so good. Smart is good.
But the more I do this, the more I'm convinced that there's a level of improv that can't be accessed by the rational, controlling mind. And because I'm by nature a hyperanalytical control freak, this level is (a) the most challenging aspect of improv, and (b) the real point of it all.
It's not the only way to do improv. As I mentioned in another post somewhere, you can go watch an absolutely stellar improv show that's nothing but rational people in complete control of what they're doing, and if the performers are skilled enough everybody walks away happy. It's not only a legitimate way do improv, it actually makes a lot more sense when you have a vested interest (creative, financial, or otherwise) in producing an end product of a specific style or quality.
But the way I was taught it, and the way that resonates most deeply with me, says that your ultimate goal is not control but surrender to something larger than yourself. What that something is is a whole different discussion, but if you'll grant me that it involves your intuitive subconscious, we don't have to split theological hairs.
Here's my problem: my rational thinking mind is never going to freely cede control to "something larger," and because it is in fact very smart, it has a million ways to prevent me from doing so. They usually take the form of completely sensible arguments about why I should rely on my brain over anything else, and the most sensible argument of all is that I have control over what I do with my brain in a way that I don't with my body, my emotions, or my intuition.
Even for someone as unathletic and emotionally retarded as I am, this is a lie. Scientific literature is awash in studies proving that we don't know what we want, we're not good at assessing our experience, and we have little or no conscious control over most of what we do. Yet the brain continues to insist it works better than everything else.
Proof that my brain is bad at improv: it's not willing to lose the argument. So at some point, if I want to engage the rest of my being, I'm going to have to circumvent it and go straight to my body or my feelings or whatever.
A more evolved person could access all these parts of herself without having to short-circuit the rational brain entirely. But I'm not there yet, and to be honest I'll be surprised (though delighted) if I ever get there.
To return to the original point: my objection to "headspace" and "group mind" is that my rational brain seizes on these terms as an invitation to strap itself into the driver's seat at the very moment I'm looking for the ejector button.
If you don't feel like your rational brain undermines your improv, or if you're less hypersensitive to semantics, this might be a moot point for you. Just throwing it out there.