Can Improvisation be Taught?

The aim of this article is to reconsider the (age old) problem of relating theory to practice in art education by placing it within the largely ignored context of improvisation. In so doing it is hoped that some of the well-known ‘difficulties’ art practitioners have when confronted with the (usually mandatory) history and theory components of their programmes of study might be better understood and, perhaps, managed rather differently. At the centre of the debate between theorists and practitioners in the arts is the question of ‘relevance’: which histories, theories, methodologies are relevant to the artist in the studio, video maker on location or designer confronted by a brief? Within art education however, the question of relevance has been understood in a specific way, casting history and theory in the role of providing contextual and analytical support for practice, thus complementing and supplementing that practice rather than directly engaging with it. At best, within such an educational model, the theoretically orientated art student develops a more sophisticated understanding of the history of their practice and the conceptual concerns and practical solutions of other practitioners, they become more knowledgeable and, often, more self-reflexive: excellent. At worst, such an approach seems irrelevant to the day-today productive concerns of the artist faced with the reality of making aesthetic judgements (often on the hoof), solving problems, taking chances and capitalising on the unforeseen. From within this, the predicament of the artist as producer, historical and theoretical models can appear hopelessly rigid, formularised and cumbersome, quite apart from their ‘difficulty’ in other respects: their ‘intellectualism’. As a response to this rather familiar picture, this article will propose, albeit schematically, an alternative approach, one intended to augment rather than negate the current provision briefly sketched above. In particular, it will be suggested that history and theory teaching within art education needs to widen its focus, drawing into its remit a more direct engagement with the creative process itself, an approach traditionally reserved for practitioner/teachers working ‘in the studio’. The central, albeit implicit, claim here will be that in order to be effective the theorisation of creativity must liberate itself from a whole set of assumptions inherited from romantic and post-romantic art and recognise instead the particular structure of improvisation within which the artist works. At present there is very little writing on improvisation and most of that has emerged within music practice, usually written by musicians, as well as within the area of dance where improvisatory techniques are central. By placing an emphasis on ‘self-expression’ and ‘collective interaction’, the musical account of improvisation, while important, has proved less engaged with the particular structure of improvisation. One of the intended aims of the current research is to both broaden this perspective while offering a more theoretically sophisticated model of improvisation that reflects more accurately the particularity of aesthetic production acrossthe disciplines and which draws upon primary, although often ignored, aspects of contemporary theory. Although, as said, there is relatively little written on improvisation, it does quite frequently appear in course documentation across a range of disciplines in the arts. Within this context, it is evident that a particular model of improvisation is often assumed, one that connotes a set of positive values that can take on, and often dotake on, an emancipatory force that is politically empowering and emotionally alluring. The teacher and improviser LaDonna Smith, who has written extensively on improvisation and education, will be allowed to set the tone here: The act of engaging in free improvisation will become a liberator, and emancipator, for many people to touch into their emotional lives in a nonverbal and non-judgemental way. We must introduce this healthy way of life [1]. This is stirring stuff, pitched as it is against everything that is negative in our experience as teachers, the curricula and bureaucracy that too often constrain us, the institutions and their ‘mission statements’ that deflect or frustrate us, the hoops to jump through … and so on, who wouldn’t want more improvisation? So let us take a more detailed look, then, at the most familiar components of this model of improvisation before considering an alternative that, although somewhat less inspirational might, perhaps, be more valuable pedagogically: a suggestion that will be left open for debate at the conclusion of these current remarks. In the meantime, here are some key assumptions of what I will call Improvisation ‘model A’.