“Kultur, Kreativität und Improvisation”

 

III Treffen des Kooperationsnetzwerkes

August 2011

Instituto de Investigaciones Gino Germani, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad de Buenos Aires

 

Link: "Kultur, Kreativität und Improvisation"

 

Ad-hoc-Gruppe: "Improvisation und Professionalität"

"Analysing Action, Interaction and the Emergence of Micro-Social Orders within Musical Improvising"

 

University of Konstanz, November 26th – 27th 2009

 

Theoretical Background

The answer to the question, ‘what is human action?’, determines the cultural image of the human being as a social subject. Within sociology, we can look back at a rich tradition of theories of action that aim to explain not only how human beings act and interact, but also, as a consequence of action and interaction dynamics, how social order emerges. While the concept of conduct does not emphasize the difference between animal and human conduct, action is understood as being attached to subjective meaning and thus as explicitly human. Depending on the theoretical background, action can be defined as an activity guided by individual interests (utilitarianism, rational choice theory), as an activity guided by normative rules (voluntarism), as a process towards the concretization of a project (phenomenology), as a practice that results out of routine and implicit know-how (social practice approach), etc.

Although assumptions about the constitutive and contextual factors which determine (social and coordinated) action differ, most of the past sociological theories of action have tended to conceive of the notion of human action as a (rationally) projected, conscious type of behaviour which is meaningful for the subject and works according to the principles of a means-end-scheme: action is goal-directed, conscious and drafted, for individuals project (evaluate, calculate) their actions and choose between different plans, i.e. the ends and means of action before acting. However, given that the dominant conception of action does not do justice to the complex variety of existing human practises, these assumptions that shape not only sociological, but also economical, psychological and philosophical theories of action have been questioned from different theoretical perspectives.

Despite the fact that each of the classical theories of (social) action stresses different yet fundamental elements and factors that constitute action, critiques of the means-end-scheme, as an almost “common denominator”, point to the tendency to over-rationalize human action and to stress the role of the mind. Thus, the constitutive role of the body and objects within action, as well as the role of implicit knowledge, are easily overlooked. Moreover, as a result of the tendency to emphasize the reproductive aspects of action in order to explain the emergence and maintenance of social order, spontaneity and creativity have either been regarded as less relevant or have been explained as problem-solving processes that emerge when routine action proves to be inefficient in reaching the intended goal of action. In the last years, however, a turn within action theory can be discerned: Its focus has moved from the means-end-scheme to other aspects or forms of action, assigning creativity a more central role. However, an alternative theoretical model of action that reformulates the means-end-scheme and integrates, within action, the role of creativity, spontaneity, aesthetic and expressive features, the body, the objects, implicit knowledge and the interaction context has yet to be clearly formulated.

Noticeably, artistic practices, for which the above mentioned features are central, have been less regarded as relevant within sociological theories of action, despite the fact that they represent a considerable part of human action and interaction. Artistic action is not mainly characterized by its “pragmatic” but by its expressive and aesthetic features; improvising artistic action tends especially to concentrate more on the process of production and expression itself than on the achievement of a goal or the interpretation of a draft, to stress creativity and experimentation more than the reproduction of action patterns, as well as to evolve within risk and uncertainty and without previously defined projects and goals. Although these features of artistic practice have been undermined by the logics of industrial production, art nevertheless plays a central part in society as a sphere where creative, experimental or spontaneous practices can be expressed and developed.

Aims of the Workshop

The general aim of the workshop is to fill the theoretical gap between action theory and improvisational artistic practices by analysing and taking the specific characteristics of the latter into account.

Within the workshop, a particular form of artistic practice, namely musical improvising, will be reflected upon within a specific field – free jazz. Characterized as a radical improvisational practice, free jazz questions many of the axioms of action theory as mentioned above. Historically regarded as liberation from traditional musical (jazz) conventions, free jazz introduced a radical approach to music: the employed musical material is extracted from any given source and is brought into relation with other materials, provided the conceptual expressive frame is correspondingly extended. As a result of the refusal of harmonic-metrical binding patterns, the regulatory effect of the rhythm and the structuring principles of the “jazz-piece”, the conventions regarding instrumental technique, ensemble playing and formal musical organisation in free jazz are not universally binding, as opposed to those in traditional jazz. The rejection of traditional jazz conventions also resulted in the interactive emergence of musical form and structures within the playing process and without recourse to composed works. In addition, interaction within free jazz takes place on the basis of decentralized self-coordination, in other words, in the absence of a coordinating instance, such as an orchestra. Since each musician can play, or stop playing, at almost any time, music playing results in a dialogic, constantly changing, highly dynamic interaction. Moreover, improvisation within free jazz takes place in the absence of fixed roles for each instrument – the drums, for instance, can generate “melodic” sounds, whereas the piano can contribute with rhythmic elements. Under these conditions, musical coordination becomes more complex and the planning or carrying out of individual action projects becomes almost impossible, since music has to be performed within a highly contingent context. Since not only new musical material, playing techniques and interaction forms are developed within this musical genre, but also well-known sounds and techniques are employed, interplay between the expected and the unexpected emerges, which determines the interaction and drives the performance forward.

Within the workshop, the following questions will be discussed:

Action/Interaction : How can improvising musical action be characterized from the point of view of action theory? What are its constitutive and specific features? How can musical interaction, the instruments and the body, be integrated within a theoretical model of improvising action? What is the relationship between musical material, playing techniques, creativity and automatism or routine?

Interaction/Coordination/Order : Which factors within musical improvisation enable the coordination of action? How does musical coordination emerge, and along which musical parameters does it emerge? What is the relationship between the coordination of action and the emergence of musical forms? Does social order emerge from free jazz improvising? What are its characteristics?

  Workshop_Improvising.pdf