By Andrea Treu-Kaulbarsch
et al.
Submitted
by Charlotte Wile - December 10, 2012
[The
following discussion was originally posted on LabanTalk and CMAlist]
From Andrea Treu-Kaulbarsch,
November 2, 2012
Hello everybody,
I have a question regarding
Laban's planes.
I have recently watched
Valerie Preston-Dunlop and Anna Carlisle's video called "Living
Architecture" and to my great surprise they talk about the planes being in
relation to each other in the golden mean. I had never heard that before though
the one drawing by Laban of the table plane shows the figure standing and only
reaching his hands out to the corners which would of course mean that the plane
has to be smaller than the door plane.
Can anyone enlighten me on
this, I would greatly appreciate this.
Many thanks,
Andrea
Hi Andrea,
I also only learned about the planes’ relation being in the
golden mean this Summer, and I loved the discovery of this..
As they are ‘derived from’/correlated to the vertices of the Icosahedron, it is mathematically correct that the planes are in fact golden rectangles, I think. Also in the wikipedia on Golden Ratio I found this:
“In connection with his scheme for golden-ratio-based human body proportions, Zeising wrote in 1854 of a universal law "in which is contained the ground-principle of all formative striving for beauty and completeness in the realms of both nature and art, and which permeates, as a paramount spiritual ideal, all structures, forms and proportions, whether cosmic or individual, organic or inorganic, acoustic or optical; which finds its fullest realization, however, in the human form."[51]”
Cheers,
Sandra Hooghwinkel
From Stacey
Hurst, November 2, 2012
Andrea,
All the planes have golden mean ratios and are considered "Golden Rectangles" (they are all the same size). The vertical plane (door) has the most height, horizontal (table) plane the widest and sagittal plane (wheel) the deepest (front/back). Laban used the ratio of the golden mean due to the human anatomy of the ideally proportioned body. The center of each of the rectangles is ideally the center of the human body-the diameters passing through the core. Additionally, since the rectangles are the inner scaffolding of the icosohedron this spherical 3-D solid is the ideal way to "house" the body in space as our kinesphere. Carol-Lynne Moore describes this in great detail in "The Harmonic Structure of Movement, Music, and Dance according to Rudolf Laban" (2010) chapter 3 & 4. It never ceases to amaze me how Laban drew together Platonic Solids, Human proportions/golden means, art, music and architecture to form the basis of his theories!!!
Best,
Stacey
From Jeffrey-Scott
Longstaff, November 3, 2012
Hey Andrea
The "size" of the planes has nothing to do with
it.
The size doesn't matter.
The planes can be any size.
The "golden mean" (also known in various ways such
as "divine proportion", "golden section" and many other
names) is a proportion (not a size).
In regards to a plane, the golden mean can be expressed as a
ratio between the short edge of the plane to the long edge of the plane:
Short edge : Long edge
approximately:
1 : 1.618
or approximately:
2 : 3
or approximately:
3 : 5
or approximately:
5 : 8
So the ratio (golden mean) is about the relative sizes of 2
edges of a plane (not the absolute size of the plane, since the plane could be
any size)
Many theorists and artists studying of organic forms have
theorised that this proportion has a way of governing organic growth and form
(this is a HUGE subject .... a famous book is "On Growth and Form"
(1917) written by D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson
Relative to human body movement, it seems that one question
is:
Does limb movement create a circle, centered at the proximal
joint, or does limb movement create some other form?
A circle would create a planar ratio of 1 : 1
Interestingly, in ergonomic study (specifically to design
efficient workspaces for human operators (eg. an airplane cockpit) studies
found that limb motions DO NOT generally occur in circular planes, but instead
the planes tend to be elongated along one dimension more than the other. --
these are studies of "the shape of the workspace" with is really
identical to Laban's study of the shape of the kinesphere. ("reach
space" or "Work space" is generally synonymous with "kinesphere")
A tiny bit of this research is reviewed in my thesis,
showing how the horizontal, medial, and frontal planes do not generally occur
as circles, but tend to be lengthened along one dimension more than the other,
similar to how Laban also observed:
Obviously, body motions do not HAVE TO be in these proportions.
But in Ergonomic study, researchers are looking for what are the most
organic proportions of planes that feel most natural to the body and are most
easily, readily and frequently produced.
So, the question is not really about "size" of any
plane of motion, ... it is a question about the relative sizes (proportion)
between dimensions of the plane.
Hmm, ... interesting topic I think!
Jeffrey
From Andrea
Treu-Kaulbarsch, November 3, 2012
Hi everybody,
thanks for your great replies
to my inquiry.
OK, yes, I knew that each
individual rectangle of the planes is proportioned in the golden dimension. I
just thought that maybe the sizes of all three planes are in relation to each other
in the golden mean, also. That seemed novel but also plausible and possible,
and actually, I would argue that the table plane derived from only my arms is
probably in the golden mean in relation to the door plane derived from my whole
body. It should be, since our bodies are in the golden mean as well :)
Thanks again and best wishes,
Andrea
From Ann Hutchinson Guest, November
4, 2012
I'm just now getting into this
discussion, but I think I have some useful information to impart!
1. Size of planes: I took this to mean that the
three planes in the icosahedron are the same size, and I think we all
agree that they are.
2. All students need to be clear that Laban's Spare
Harmony planes relate to his particular construct using the icosadedron and
that in the physical world all the planes are circular. That because of
the build of the body, all movements are circular by nature.
3. The Laban terminology used - the door plane, the
table plane, the wheel plane are helpful and understandable. However, the
term: vertical plane poses a problem because, with the circular model there
are, in fact, many vertical planes. In addition to the lateral plane,
there is the sagittal plane and planes on the diagonals as well as all the
possibilities between.
4. The spatial analysis in Labanotation does not rest
on Laban's spatial theories, we needed to use an analysis that was more
universal. Our model and that of the Eshkol-Wachmann movement notation
are the same. Their book contains excellent drawings showing the planes,
the arcs and conical movements.
5. Practitioners have simplified the signs for
indicating the icosahedral points. The side-high points, for instance,
are not true side high but part-way closer to place high, These
intermediate points require more skill in drawing and look more fussy, hence
the understandable decision to simplify them.
6. Despite the facts of life, it is easy to
produce straight line movements, or shall we say, movements that project a
straight line image. Starting with the arm near the shoulder (i.e. hand
near shoulder) the focus of energy can be on the hand as it follows a straight
path moving forward, to the side, straight up, etc. The arm (hand) can
follow a horizontal straight path, as when polishing a table.
7. Similarly, through energizing the hand, the viewer
can be made aware of arcs and circular paths in the air. By energizing
the appropriate surfaces of the arm and some use of the weight of the
limb, the eye can be drawn to see the description of a cone.
I hope this is interesting; I welcome comments.
Ann
From Jeffrey-Scott
Longstaff, November 4, 2012
Hi Ann
Thanks for all your great information
and analysis!
- I want to comment on your point
number 2 (see below)
Sure, if only one skeletal joint is
articulating, then the arc of motion would be circular. However, when
researchers in ergonomics (human factors) studied human motion (with intentions
of designing efficient work spaces such as airplane cockpits etc.) they found
that the planar motions people actually produce with their limbs are not
circular, but tend to be elongated along one dimension more than the other.
-- Some of this is famous research
conducted by the military for designing airplanes etc. (some of this is briefly
reviewed in my thesis - a link to this in my email below).
-- Apparently this partly occurs
because humans usually do not use just one skeletal joint to make a motion, but
typically limb motions result from multiple joints articulating.
-- Further, later researchers
(Morasso and others - some references in my thesis) found that humans were not
actually even able to make a circular motion with their arm, but that the
articulations in wrist, elbow and shoulder, elbow (and torso if this is free to
move) would always be combined, thus creating bumps and elongations along
various part of the curvature (even if the instruction was to draw a large
circle with the arm)
-- surely advanced movers might be
able to get closer to a pure circle, but the tendency is there: In
typical human movement - planar motions tend to bulge.
-- Interestingly, this does provide
some support for Laban's idea of elongated planes ("Dimensional
planes" they were sometimes called - each of the cardinal planes elongated
along one of the dimensions), and some of the ergonomic measurements showed
shapes of the cardinal planes to be elongated along the same directions as Laban
reported.
Sure - single-joint motion would
create a circular arc.
But the vast majority of the time,
people use multiple-joints when moving
So, planar motions are generally not
not-circles but are more like ovals - this is typical for actual body motion.
Maybe this distinction is
between
Local - motion resulting from each
single joint
Global - resultant motion from
combined motions of several joints.
Perhaps it could be generalized
that:
- Labanotation more often uses a
local analysis
- Space Harmony (Choreutics) more
often uses a global analysis
Interesting!
Jeffrey
From Martha Eddy, November 4, 2012
Great to read this. It raises a few questions for me:
Is it safe to say arc like human movement is elliptical?
Are there mathematical relationships between ellipses and the golden mean?
What is the relationship of Space Harmony to DaVinci's famous drawings? (And how would that figure dance?)
On another front:
Does dimensional movement exist (given our three-dimensionality)?
When I was co-teaching with Bob Dunn 20 years ago he postulated that its easier to do 3D movement (most often with unequal pulls) than 1D given the nature of control of musculature needed in operate along dimensional lines. What does everyone think about 2D movement in regards to ease and efficiency? Perhaps allowing for the elongation Jeffrey refers to helps ease.
Fun to read Ann and Jeffrey's brilliance.
Martha
From Tara
Stepenberg, November 4, 2012
i'll join the comment and add that
it is always fun (and breathtaking) "to read ann and jeffrey's
brilliance"
and have to think about dimensional movement given our "3-dimensionalness" -- "feels" like I can access the "line" of energy being talked about, even with my 3-d being, but perhaps it need to be called something else......
(ah, for a bit of skype or instant video here)
cheers
tara
and have to think about dimensional movement given our "3-dimensionalness" -- "feels" like I can access the "line" of energy being talked about, even with my 3-d being, but perhaps it need to be called something else......
(ah, for a bit of skype or instant video here)
cheers
tara
From Leslie
Bishko, November 5, 2012
Martha's comments remind me of some
things I learned when I animated the A Scale, and what I learned from Jeffrey's
thesis (it's been a long while since I've read it), having to do with motor
planning relating to our conceptualization of Trace Forms.
When I kept the animated figure's
trace form precisely within the icosahedron, and made transitions as transverse
as possible, her movement didn't look connected, natural and believable.
When I changed my approach and worked from body connectivity and Shape,
much more was possible. My animated figure actually revealed a preference
for the saggital! (or is that my preference?) The broad, eliptical
shapes of some of the traceforms (left-forward-middle > right-side-high >
right-back-middle)clearly result from weight-shift, spine, shoulder, elbow,
wrist kinetic chains.
So based on this experience, in
response to Martha's question: Does dimensional movement exist (given our
three-dimensionality)?, I would say definitely not in the sense of movement
along a pure dimension. But yes in the sense of slight deflections from
the dimension, because we breath and have intention. I could animate pure
dimensional movement without a problem, but it would not look believable, or
alive.
Leslie
Hi;
Thanks for bringing it up.
Ellen
Oh thanks for this input Ellen. I'm very curious about so much of the information in the Kestenberg work but I am only generally acquainted with it.
I'm curious what other KMP practitioners think about those.
From Ellen Goldman, November 6, 2012
Hi;
Just glancing at this, and need to mention that
Dr. Kestenberg and I discussed this a lot. The ellipse is the Planar
shaping that is so valuable for the understanding of development of the
Horizontal, Vertical and Sagittal planes. The human body naturally
shapes in the ellipse, which is based on the golden mean dimension.
Arc-like directional can be a circle, like the hands of a clock. For
more detail, we would have to involve Janet K and Susan Loman, but I
know I have this right. It is very important to me. The ellipse holds
the volume, while the arc-like cuts through it.
Thanks for bringing it up.
Ellen
From Jeffrey-Scott Longstaff, November 6, 2012
Oh thanks for this input Ellen. I'm very curious about so much of the information in the Kestenberg work but I am only generally acquainted with it.
I just want to ask / clarify a tiny detail:
You wrote: "the ellipse holds the volume"
-- technically, an ellipse is just a 2 dimensional (planar) form, so it's contents would properly be described as an "area"
-- So, I'm wondering, if you are thinking about
"volumes" (which technically must be a solid form), for example torso
shaping creating volumes, perhaps "Ellipsoid" might be more correct (a
solid, which is the 3D form of an ellipse) - these technically DO
contain volumes!
For example, I love the little ellipsoidal figures created by Leslie Bishko in your online article about animation:
http://journal.animationstudies.org/leslie-bishko-the-uses-and-abuses-of-cartoon-style-in-animation/
(if you scroll down the page there, you can see her figures for depicting polar and bipolar shape flow) I think these are great little figures for representing the shaping process.
I'm curious what other KMP practitioners think about those.
Jeffrey
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment