(way preliminary)

performance of improv and set performance are in principle very similar in most ways, except for one aspect: amount of focus on the challenges of freedom.

the exact difference between improv and set performance is elusive, because that difference is more a matter of degree than one is tempted to think.

not matter how carefully set a piece is, the rendering of the script will be colored by the nuances of the performer[#]_. it can still be considered set if there is room for large variation and choice on the part of the performers, though it is then heading more towards improv.

conversely, almost any improvisation has some limits set, some containing score. maybe it has a start time and place, and participants who are performing. maybe it even has some rules, settled and agreed upon by the performers (and maybe audience) before the performance starts. at the least, there are the laws of physics, human conduct, aims and goals of the participants, etc. being a performance is, in itself, a delineation as opposed to just living life.

the fundamental diffence between improv and set performance, though, is in the degree to which freedom to choose is an ingredient of the performers palatte.

freedom presents particular challenges. trying to do everything is doing nothing. doing only what you know precludes discovery and development - surprise - the bread-and-butter of improvisation.

those challenges are particularly exciting when it comes to collaborative improvisation, where actually performing together depends on establishing some sort of connection. too much independence precludes engagement together, yet too much dependence precludes creativity. actually performing together entails arriving at some agreement about form in the moment, and about changing form as things progress.

in improvised collaborative performance, the performers are involved in the process of choosing and changing form and boundaries in the course of the performance. the performers and audience together get to discover surprises coming out of the performers choices and actions. in non-improvised performance, the boundaries are set beforehand and the performers are more concerned with presenting previously discovered surprises within those boundaries. (good performers can develop frontiers, discover surprises, in either mode - but the scale of the fresh discoveries is almost always bigger in improv.)

so improv performance is about discovery in the moment, while choreography is about conveying discoveries unearthed while the piece was being developed.

again, there is a matter of degree here - scores within which improv happens are themselves prior discoveries.

...

or, "How I Learned to Let Go of Perfection and Love the Moment"

... what's the difference between "work" and "play"? a wheel works on an axel when it can spin. it has "play" on the axel when it can wobble a little. it has to have a little bit of play, or the bearings will bind and break. ... work is what you do when the situation demands it. play is what you do when you have options, among them being some that you like to do, and you get to choose to do it. ... what kinds of things do we like to do, when we play? things that use abilities we enjoy to use, whether new and just innately enjoyable, or (particularly as we mature our abilities) building on abilities we've discovered we enjoy, and consequently continue to develope. ... play can occur in any activity - in very set activities, it's often in the small increments. there can be worlds of exquisite, varying nuance in every stroke of isaac stern's bow, as he plays exactly what the piece's composer described, plus more. ...

in both choreography and improvisation, play is the opportunity for discovery - the variability in which you discover new nuance in a routine, or new directions for an otherwise familiar activity, or new abilities and appetites in yourself as you grow. to perform, you have to be enabling your audience to discover, all those things - refreshed and/or new vitality in the familiar, and new directions, new and intriguing tastes to savor.

...the essence is that people fundamentally like to to engage the talents and the skills they've developed - to do what they do well, or are interested in doing, and thereby extend their frontiers (see Finding Engagement)... i suggest that the desire to be fully engaged is primary... the enjoyment in seeing anyone at the height of their abilities is often mistaken for an appetite for perfection. perfection is not just unreachable, it is also a tantalyzing red herring - its pursuit is one avenue towards fullness of involvement, but it can be a treacherous one if one's vision gets too narrow. how else can one pursue "fullness of involvement"? i believe that is a, if not the, underlying goal of improvisational and traditional arts, and why i relish - and struggle with - improvisation...

... walking to particular places in particular ways is choreography. walking such that your direction can change at a whim or a falter is improvisation. walking with the option to change opened to fundamentally changing your activity - running, or rolling, or singing - but without checking out of the collaboration at hand - is really improvisation...

... in classical arts, the framing is mostly taken care of. the performer has the opportunity to refine things - bias ingredients like pace or punctuation to set one tone or another. in choreographed art in general (which includes the classical arts i know), the choreographer may deal with some framing choices at some point, but the performers only have the option to make adjustments within the frame. in improvisation, framing is an active element at all points, from choosing an overall "score" and media to deciding how to engage (or not engage) with the score, if any, to making the refinements within the choices that occurs within choreographed structures. the advantage in choreographed work is the opportunity to focus on refinement, taking the overall shape for granted, while the advantage in improvisation is in getting to play with the shape, itself, and the stimulation that surprise can yield...

... Our CI Jam And The Underscore and Finding Engagement include a lot of the pieces of the story i want to tell ...

... i do not mean to say that doing something well lacks appeal - quite the contrary. it is in the effort to do well, and being at the limit of our ability - the frontier - that our faculties are most brought to bear ...

... surprise - "Surprise causes finite play to end; it is the reason for infinite play to continue." ... preparing for suprise, rather than against it ...

... "it's not whether you win or lose but how you play the game" is not trivial. at an alternative-energy festival, i heard a visitor at an Collaborative Games booth wonder why anyone would want to play a game that the can't win. seems like he was considering victory over others (or over a mountain, or whatever.) as the things worth winning. collaboration can have its own challenges and rewards, no less than competition. and, i suggest, some of the rewards come from the same underlying principles of being at ones frontiers, though some of the mechanisms and skills for satisfying engagement through collaboration are quite different, what's really interesting is that collaboartion may well be a primary component of satisfying combination - whether it's with your team, or in exquisitely orchestrating your own resources in some solo endeavor. one difficulty with collaboration as an avenue to thorough engagement is that success in collaboration is harder to measure - unless that collaboration as against something else, ie competition. and so structures for conducting non-competitive collaboration are harder to conceive and organize, if only because it's hard to objectively tell when your structure is more or less effective. this starts to get at how important it is to be able to discerning whether an improvisation (or conversation or whatever collaborative effort) is successful. and something i think is well examined in Our CI Jam And The Underscore ...

[green festival / cooperative games - someone at the booth asking "why would i play a game if nobody wins?"]

[and of course, the meaning of "perfection" depends on your definition. in some real sense, what is, is perfect - but coming to terms with how the perfection of each situation happens to affect you is another story...]