mairead started an interesting discussion in another thread, which i have moved here:<P>it began when i had posted June 18, 2000:<P>...i think 'LIMON' work is really good for ballet dancers, to teach the concept of weight and falling and to add that dynamic to ballet movement...<P>i LOVE 'graham' technique - but boy it hurts!- but i've never done cunningham (well, only a few classes).<P>mairead posted:<BR> <BR>if you are from England and are a Cunningham fan you may be interested to know that there is a Cunningham conference day on October 14th at the Barbican here in London. This is followed by a performance of Summerspace and Byped - Cunningham's latest work.<BR>&<BR>Grace, just to let you know I am Limon mad and am going to New York next October to take<BR>lots of classes.<P>Our Grahman teacher at uni was a complete fruit cake and spoke about "Martha's spirit"<BR>as if she was about to walk into the room!!! You're right it hurts like hell!!! <P>One thing my teacher did say was that techniques such as Cuningham and Limon were not in fact techniques but STYLES derived from techniques. <P>What do you think about this? Do you think that Cunningham's and Limon's technique stand in their own right?<P>grace responeded June 20, 2000 <P>re your last question, mairead...hmmm: i'll have to THINK about THIS one! <P>where are you doing the limon clases in october, if i may ask?<BR> <BR>mairead posted June 20, 2000: I'm going on a one year course at the Peridance Center. I get to do a Limon class six days a week, totally impossible to do this in England. Do you know of the school?<P> <BR>grace posted June 26, 2000 06:04 PM: wow - sounds great! no i don't, but i'll see what i can find out, for my own interest.<P>and back to your earlier thought about technique vs. style: i just don't have time lately (thanks to this board!) to REALLY THINK - about ANYthing! but my instant rejoinder is inclined to be that:-<P>graham is unquestionably a technique.<BR>cunningham, i regard as more of a style...limon sort of falls (haha! )somewhere in the middle, in terms of this classification divide...<P>i think it IS technique, but a mini-one!<P>what do YOU think about that? <P> <P><BR>

Grace, <P>I think I'll initially have to go with this. I think with any issues regarding classification we have to some extent dodge the raindrops!!! Let me have another think about it. Maybe I am arguing that Limon is a technique because I personally love it so much!!!<P>I'll get back to you!<P>Thanks for setting this up as a discussion, I hope we will get responses from others.<P>Mairead<P>

I would say that Limon is a technique, as his work is distinctive from Graham, Cunningham, etc. who came before him. Also, I have taken classes in Limon technique, and because his concepts can be methodically taught, I would call it a technique rather than a style.

I am replying very late on!<P>I think that this is a fascinating discussion! I love the Limon work and I studied it throughout my time as an undergrad student.<P>Since working and now back in college I have found that it has given me a useful understanding of my body and has given me tools to manipulate movement in an articulate and fluid way. I trained as a ballet dancer before encountering Limon and I agree with Grace that it is an excellent combination when the two methods are studied in tandem.<P>Limon principles have given me survival skills as a dancer and I now consider it my homebase when I am in unfamiliar territory as it gives me an extremely elastic yet reasoned framework from which to adapt.<P>I hope there are more people out there who want to share their views. I encounter fewer and fewer people who are aware of the value of the Limon work!<P>Twiglet

Thanks for your comments, Twiglet, and welcome.<P>I'm sure others will have responses to your post.

Wow. Nice. Thanks Twiglet for the articulate and simple statement of "what Limon means to you". <P>Is Limon different from other techniques in its serving as this kind of place to start from/place to return to? I guess what I mean is: are some techniques more limiting than Limon seems to be for Twiglet? From what she said it sounds as though it both freed her and gave her a solid base to come from/return to, which seems to be the best thing a particular vein of study could do for a dancer.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>it sounds as though it both<BR> freed her and gave her a solid base to come from/return to, which seems to be the<BR> best thing a particular vein of study could do for a dancer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>excellent summation, priscilla, of what technique is FOR! <P>hi twiglet (cute name!) btw, 'twiglets' are little pretzels, in australia....... <P>but it also sounds very winnie the pooh.....?<P>anyway, re limon - unfortunately you are absolutely correct, i think, that limon is under-acknowledged these days as a valuable technique. same - actually - in many places with graham technique! without graham and limon......where is modern dance left? abandonment of technique is one thing AFTER one has got some - but not BEFORE! (IMO)

I love Winnie the Pooh!! But Twiglet is my nickname because I used to eat twiglets all the time (the wheat crunchie things coated in Marmite).<P>I think that it is hard to know what to teach to students in today's climate. I find my Limon training very relevant to current professional problems but as the requirements of the profession are shifting constantly then the technical training systems should be trying to move forward with the needs of the profession.<P>I think an interesting question to pose would be - what is it that makes a technical system a stable yet flexible base for dancers?<P>Graham, Limon and Cunningham seem to be the most recognised systems for the training of modern dancers. But modern dance is a highly creative force and has been a reactionary movement throughout its history. So does codification, which seems to imply a set of rules, standards and expectations depart from the idea of reactionary?<P>Sometimes I think that modern has become more classical in its approach.......<P>What I am also trying to say is, how do teachers provide students with a relevant yet well reasoned technical training?<P>Twiglet<BR>

well, at the risk of cries of 'heresy' i am willing to go out on the limb to say that ballet training has well proven it's worth as just such a beast!<P>a training which equips the body to DO things, including dance things which are different to the specific training. <P>that doesn't mean ALL-inclusive, of course, but ballet is certainly BETTER at this than any other technique yet invented by dancing humans!

twiglet, you might like to look at<BR> <A HREF="http://www.criticaldance.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000103.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.criticaldance.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000103.html</A> <P>

I too think that Limon is a technique...it is not as codified as Graham is (or was....gulp), but it has definite concepts (fall, suspension, succesion) which evolved from the ideas of Doris Humphrey/charles Weidman, and evolved further through the teaching/repertory of Jose Limon. It is a very organic, beautiful, breathy technique, and plays with humanity's relationship to gravity...which gives it universal appeal.<p>[This message has been edited by trina (edited October 29, 2000).]

I had a very interesting discussion with Gary Masters about this earlier tonight. He definitely believes that Limon <I>is</I> a technique.<P>Perhaps Gary would like to address this question himself.

i agree also that Limone is a technique and<BR>was my first exposure to modern dance and<BR>was the base for the company i danced with.<BR>I learned to like the method even more<BR>when i found myself using the rebound and<BR>recovery and suspension exercises i learned<BR>when teaching classes other than modern. i never mastered the technique but to watch some one do it properly is very beautiful