Vocabulary, according to the Oxford Dictionaries, is “the body of words used in a particular language” and “a range of artistic or stylistic forms, techniques, or movements”. In Dramaturgy in Motion, Katherine Profeta also mentioned “movement vocabularies”, and these vocabularies, as she clarified, “are not strictly sexual or physical but rather occur the intersection of those two realms.”(140)
“Familiarity with movement vocabularies,” Profeta states, “might help them expand the number of things they notice as they watch movement performance, and from that expansion, the facility with which thoughts about that movement arise”(140). She explains how knowing these vocabularies open up new things for ourselves to be aware of. She used the vocabularies of Laban’s system as an example of how vocabulary “generates initiating questions” and how when we answer those questions, “the motion of thought springs to life.”(142) However, she also mentioned how vocabularies can also become a limitation to the range of possibility of perception. It is “what it cannot include” and “what it inescapably prioritizes” that limits the possibilities of other thoughts(142). Finally, with vocabularies, Profeta suggests to maintain basic familiarity and skepticism at the same time(142).
I find the meaning of vocabulary in this context interesting because of how it can be a tool but also a limitation at the same time. I can now see a vocabulary as the incarnation of thousands of possibilities and also its incapability to represent some other thousands of possibilities. How Profeta suggests that we should both have familiarity and skepticism with vocabularies introduces to me a useful way to look at all kinds of knowledge and ideas. Things that we know may provide us with possibilities, but also limits other possibilities. If we could utilize the possibilities it gives us and seek for what it does not tell us at the same time, can we really practice the true value of having the knowledge.
Hi Hoya,
Sometimes the comment I made on someone else’s page perfectly fits another response. I just wrote this to Yohannes, who wrote about “dance:”
Hi Yohannes,
There is a really critical point in this keyword essay that I’d like to expand upon. Pretty much everyone responds to body movement and I think about City Plaza in particular, where we began a small dance class and it turned into a big dance party. But some only stood around at the edge of the circle. They engaged with the dance by moving their eyes – a dance to be sure, but not the riotous dance that was happening in the inner circle. But there are also dances that transmit a tremendous amount of information, and those have been developed over time – sometimes centuries – handed down from generation to generation in classes, workshops and at public events. They can be culturally specific and have as complex a vocabulary as spoken or written language. To expect that all dance is “transparent” is a mistaken expectation. Audiences are appreciative because they too have been schooled in the language – the study of dance, however it takes place – leads to a greater appreciation. Not only of the skill of the dancer – but of the language of dance itself and how it takes form. Why study dance? It definitely helps understand its expressive meanings and how beautifully it expresses meaning.
so to finish for you:
The vocabularies are as complex as any language and take a long time to rest comfortably in bodies. And to really appreciate movement vocabularies, as you are learning, it’s helpful to put your body in service to them – not just watch them. Then you have a kinesthetic appreciation for their beauty, difficulty and expressive quality. Not just a cognitive engagement with them.