TOPIC OF THE FORTNIGHT: 19/03/17 DEFINITIONS!

Props, Styles, Moves, dancing, Rolling, Skills + Techniques
Post Reply
Briney
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 2:56 pm

TOPIC OF THE FORTNIGHT: 19/03/17 DEFINITIONS!

Post by Briney » Sun Mar 19, 2017 5:03 pm

Welcome to the board.

This is our first topic of conversation for the next 14 days, or realistically a little bit longer as we work out our teething issues.
We will try and keep our posts and discussions in these threads to keep the topics alive and I cannot stress enough how much we want to see your contributions, if you've got a camera (which of course you do) make a video, fire it on youtube or instagram, tell us your definitions.

We'll be posting more content through the fortnight with a second conclusion discussion that you guys can contribute to, we were thinking youtube live and have actual real faces to talk to.

JUMPING OFF POINT: Definition This is the beginning of us defining our terms
Now all gatherymost to amuse it and have a tilty elbow or a nice cuffle-oteedee - Oh Yes!

User avatar
dawndreams
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 4:38 pm

Re: TOPIC OF THE FORTNIGHT: 19/03/17 DEFINITIONS!

Post by dawndreams » Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:46 pm

If you didn't see the facebook video yet, these are some of our questions Briney and I have been asking:

Why do we need to define ourselves?

Is it for ‘us’ the community or ‘them’ outsiders?

Existing definitions of contact?
- Micheal Motion : Object manipulation - his rejection of the name
- ‘Contact Juggling’ name from James Ernest: Manipulations of a single Object or Object groups, usually involving very little tossing or spinning. Ex. balls, ball stacks, and some types of stick, hat and plate work…”
- WIKI: Contact juggling is a form of object manipulation that focuses on the movement of objects such as balls in contact with the body. Although often used in conjunction with "toss juggling", it differs in that it involves the rolling of one or more objects without releasing them into the air.
- Erik Aberg: Juggling is the manipulation of an object where the only intention is the manipulation of the object.
- Other names given : sphere play, F*sh!g!, ball contact etc…
- FLOW...

How has the definition changed over time?

How did these definitions affect our learning?

In which ways did they help and/or hinder?

Why is nomenclature important?

Is there a point where nomenclature and documentation stops being helpful? Cross reference Siteswap and poi/double staff diagrams?

An alternative approach, Top down analysis vs Bottom up?

Contact can be the nexus of a lot of different disciplines, it can be the lens through which we view the world.
Discuss

Cross reference, if a painter uses mixed media do they stop being a painter?

What does contact juggling include? Iso hoops? Rhythmic Gymnast? Dance?

Where does PLAY fit into the world of ball contact?

Put the question out there, What is your definition of contact?



Are there any questions we are missing? what part of the definition is important to you? How do you define it and where does that bring you?

User avatar
Bri Maneely
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 6:20 am
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: TOPIC OF THE FORTNIGHT: 19/03/17 DEFINITIONS!

Post by Bri Maneely » Mon Mar 20, 2017 6:01 pm

Wow... That's a lot..

I guess I'll just start a rant and perhaps something will come to me.

I feel like the definition- the literal definition- of what we do is very fluid. I've heard heaps of definitions. Contact jugglers, jugglers, CJ-ers, sphereplayers, object manipulators, malabaristas... the list goes on. Those who are fans of abbreviations in the community had even turned to calling us "Dotorgers" (which, BTW, I'd love to restore. I'm a sucker for nostalgia). And if you think about "Dotorgers" being a solid definition for a juggling community, it's insane! But it works.

Back in the day, referring to "dotorg" or the "dotorgers" meant more than just "someone who practiced contact juggling". It meant that even when you weren't practicing, wether you were being lazy or were injured, you were a part of something. You were pushing the community forward. Every "I Am" post about having tea was keeping the community glued together- keeping the website active- keeping everyone together for the time when we would do the next Collab video. It was all relevant.

Thinking more about it, definitions are hard. I feel like when I joined CJ.org back in 2009, there was a funny rift- a rivalry if you will- between contact jugglers and toss jugglers. Contact jugglers were the weirdos. We didn't do siteswaps. We liked doing isolations. It was different. It wasn't regarded as 'difficult'. But then something happened... First, I noticed at EJC 2013 in Toulouse, EVERYONE was doing headstalls. It seemed like suddenly, it was the new thing. And from that point on, it really seemed like the tossers (tee hee) tried to see into our world. They realized that bridge rolls, and chest rolls, and BTN's were actually difficult- they required a LOT of training. Then it started to happen. The cross pollination. Suddenly, those who were toss jugglers AND contact jugglers that were experimenting with the fusion weren't alone. Those who had only looked at the weirdos on the sidelines were suddenly interacting. Some of the best jugglers I personally knew were suddenly on the edges of the gym at a festival absolutely struggling with inner-arm stalls. They were where I was years ago.

All that is to say that definitions can be constricting. If CJing was openly accepted as "juggling" from the start, maybe toss/contact fusion would be much more advanced at this point. Though perhaps our community, and the community we seem to still hold within ourselves wouldn't have been as strong.

Perhaps our definition helped us grow.

Perhaps if it were just "juggling.org", we never would have done the collaboration videos. Or the camps at EJC. Or meetups in random small towns in the North East United States.
Never underestimate the complexity of buttered toast.

OcTavO
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:06 pm

Re: TOPIC OF THE FORTNIGHT: 19/03/17 DEFINITIONS!

Post by OcTavO » Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:38 am

I've struggled with this for years. Here's the definition I currently lean towards:

"Contact" is the manipulation of objects in ways that challenge traditional expectations - either by appearing to defy the laws of physics, or by creating visible pattern and form where none was anticipated.

The name of the object being manipulated is usually added as prefix or suffix to the word "contact" to be more specific - e.g. contact staff, club contact etc.

This is the only definition I've been able to come up with that can include bodyrolling, multiball and isolation styles under one umbrella. What still bothers me about it though, is that it kind of suggests that a viewer or audience is required in order for there to be "contact", so when I'm playing alone in my back yard with no one watching, am I still doing contact?

One of these days I'll just have an aneurysm while thinking about this stuff,

User avatar
Flow_Rar
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:38 am
Location: Indiana USA

Re: TOPIC OF THE FORTNIGHT: 19/03/17 DEFINITIONS!

Post by Flow_Rar » Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:06 am

I'm relatively new to flow arts/object manipulation and so my perspective might be very different from many other posters.

I found hoops about 3 years ago. I fell into the trap of most beginners, thinking I had to master x things before anything else. I put it down. I picked it up. I put it down.

I started watching videos and going to flow events (Flow camp 2015, Flow Down 2015, FlowMoSympo 2016) and watching lots of people. Since I didn't have any sort of formal introduction, I started seeing elements of different prop manipulation all over the others. For instance, the bridge roll in CJ is so much like the steve in contact staff, at least from what I've learned. I see people using contact with poi, toss juggling, and hoop at least. For me, contact is a method, or flavor, of manipulation. Otherwise a toss juggler who suddenly adds a chest roll in the middle of toss juggling isn't toss juggling anymore, right? Rather the juggler is fusing two approaches to manipulation of the prop.

To be able to talk about these approaches we have to have definitions and terms and those, by default, are exclusionary. You can't have a word that don't exclude things from it's definition. Even the word "everything" excludes "nothing". Contact then, for me, is about manipulating the object without grasping it. Isos would be part of a different approach to manipulation that works well with CJ, much as club jugglers will often add some contact in to their performance. This doesn't preclude tossing exactly, if it's done without grasping the object, thereby ruling out toss juggling as being contact. However, where does this leave something like the Bramson (I think that's right) roll? Isn't that a toss that contacts your shoulder and sort of rolls over it from the front or back?

Briney
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 2:56 pm

Re: TOPIC OF THE FORTNIGHT: 19/03/17 DEFINITIONS!

Post by Briney » Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:56 pm

OcTavO wrote: "Contact" is the manipulation of objects in ways that challenge traditional expectations - either by appearing to defy the laws of physics, or by creating visible pattern and form where none was anticipated,
This is really relevant, and expands the Erik Aberg, more tautalogical definition we talked about in the video. Makes it more applicable in a way, I'm going to think on it as it definitely speaks to me.
Now all gatherymost to amuse it and have a tilty elbow or a nice cuffle-oteedee - Oh Yes!

User avatar
dawndreams
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 4:38 pm

Re: TOPIC OF THE FORTNIGHT: 19/03/17 DEFINITIONS!

Post by dawndreams » Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:26 am

We have been endiing this chat with Nim's interview, but it's sure to come back up for reveiw. Before we do a write up, is there anything else you found interesting or relevant to the definition discussion?

User avatar
Bri Maneely
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 6:20 am
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: TOPIC OF THE FORTNIGHT: 19/03/17 DEFINITIONS!

Post by Bri Maneely » Sat Apr 08, 2017 6:29 pm

It was all pretty interesting! Though unfortunately, with everything my brain is trying to process (working our land) I feel like I'd have to re-watch the whole thing and take notes- which is something I truly don't have time for :/
Never underestimate the complexity of buttered toast.

Post Reply