Talk:Laban movement analysis

I have to say that wikipedia has been the most helpful website in my search so far. I am trying to look for information on how Laban's Movement Principles can be incorporated into a drama scene and I can't believe how little information there is on the subject on the internet. The only thing I can find on the Principles is what they are and a bit on the flow and space used. As I have never really come across the Laban Principles before it would be good to find something that would tell me how I could use them, but there's nothing! I looked at the library too and there's still nothing! I think somebody who know's what they are talking about needs to create a website to help various unenlightened people such as me. At least I have a little information from wikipedia.

Yeah, the operative word is "a little." This is a somewhat misleading article in need of some cleanup. Not massively misleading, as in the page is science fiction, but not the best introduction one could have on this subject. 75.48.41.211 (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to clarify the in-line references. I'm also adding a section on Human-Computer Interaction, which I'll flesh out as my research progresses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanBob123 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Added a lot of information
I am finishing a certification program in Laban Movement Studies at Integrated Movement Studies in Utah. As a result, my information on LMA is from that Laban/Bartenieff perspective. I've tried to be as general and objective as possible, but I don't have a lot of information on what other branches of the tradition teach. I would welcome other perspectives and help to clarify which parts of the system are taught by which groups, and what is the core of LMA, as opposed to the larger curriculum that I have been taught. Chris 19:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC) mona lisa


 * Hi Chris. I am from the UK but learnt Laban more from the Bartenieff perspective too. However, my fiancé is taking a course with the Laban guild currently and they divide the system up a little differently. In the UK version, Shape is part of a mix of body and space and doesn't really have its own category. However, "Relationship" is its own category, which again further overlaps with the BESS descriptions. The British choreologers I met contend that Relationship is not the same thing as Shape in BESS but the American LMA/BF people I know say its directly equivalent. It's useful to remember that Bartenieff leart it all as "Effort/Shape" and then developed it into four, rather than two clearly distinct categories. Another thing to bear in mind, which I'm sure you know, is that obviously Bartenieff's contributions to the body category are huge - previously comparatively simple body actions were described. The Brits often dismiss the BFs as being something totally separate and not truly belonging to the whole system. SebastianBechinger (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Merge Proposal
I think the article Labanotation should be merged into this one. --DoSiDo 02:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge Labanotation should redirect to the section on this page title "Labanotation". There is a lot of duplicate material. It isn't about space. A user would waste time reading both article to find anything NOT duplicated or would miss such material because it would be buried in all the duplicate material. DCDuring 18:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think this is one of the problems with the page, and I made an edit, that i hope will contribute to the distinction: Laban Movement analysis (LMA) and Labanotaton (LN) are two separate systems promoted by separate professional bodies. Yes, they have the same origin with Rudolf Laban, but any review of this work needs to keep the two separate. They use the notation system differently. Qualifications in the two systems are separate.

A new page only on "Labanotation" needs to be made, and the Labanotation information here, on this page, moved to Labanotation.

Anatomy and Kinesiology
The lead suggests that there will be a section of Anatomy and Kinesiology. Where is it? DCDuring 18:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Organization problem
Laban Movement Analysis, the article, seems to include itself as a section. Does this article have the right title? If it is moved, the old name will redirect to the new one, so no on will be lost. DCDuring 18:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate Graphs
I'll defer to those who know more about the subject than I do, but is it really necessary to have two images of the exact same graph at different points in the article? SteubenGlass (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Differentiating different versions of LMA & Bartenieff Focus
I'll say from the start that my personal experience with LMA has come mainly from Bartenieff people and I love and respect this version of the work. HOWEVER...

This is not the final say on Laban and other expressions and organisations of his work exist.

When I read this article, I see that there is a very heavy Bartenieff version. This is a good start, but it is a little bit like talking about Freud from the perspective of a Jungian Analyst. For encyclopaedic purposes I believe that a clearer distinction needs to be made, historically, between the original ideas of Laban and then compared to how these ideas were developed and expanded on.

For example - the Body Category subsection on this page has no mention of Laban's own treatment of this and is pure-Bartenieff. Originally Laban talked about the basic whole body actions of Stepping (transferring weight), Turning (changing face), Falling (changing levels), Jumping, Travelling (locomotion) and holding still, alongside the isolated body actions of bending, stretching, side bending and twisting.

Also, the categorisation of this article into the BESS system is also a Bartenieff innovation which isn't universally used by all Laban Analysts and choreologers. I know that the Laban guild, set up by Rudolph himself organises this differently.

Just to be really clear, once again, I love Bartenieff's work and use BESS and the Fundamentals and all that stuff myself. But I also love history and I like to see things presented with accurate context.SebastianBechinger (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)