Advertisement
Video demo of things I talk about:
www.youtube.com/watch
I think what I have been calling plane bending has been called 3-D spinning by Alien Jon, I like both terms. Is there a difference between them? I am thinking of spinning where the planes are continuously changing, for the most part using gravity to do so. Correct me if I’m wrong about this, other non-linear planes (I like this word) like atomics do not change planes, ideally they stay fixed relative to each other. So plane bending would not be an accurate adjective because the planes remain still. Is there something else besides 3-D spinning that that term ‘plane bending’ includes?
My specific investigation of plane bending utilizes planes between vertical and horizontal, and spinning with less force than what is required to keep the plane still. As the poi goes up to the highest point gravity will be pulling it down, sliding it into a different plane. Sometimes I think of it as a mini upward stall with an additional horizontal spinning component; in fact, I liken most of my plane bending to partial stalls. For example, at the moment in an upward stall where the poi is still, there is the choice to bring it into any plane, the poi has no momentum therefore it can be directed in any direction. What I do is spin the poi up on a diagonal lightly and at the top the poi does not have too much momentum, which allows me to direct it to a degree, or just let it fall into a new plane. Or to put it a different way: Since the poi is spinning between vertical and horizontal there is both a vertical component and a horizontal component that are for the most part independent. What I am trying to describe and utilize is when the vertical component period (time for complete circle) is shorter than the horizontal component period.
I have not found plane bending where the poi remains vertical throughout the entire shift particularly interesting (i.e. Nick Woolsey). I believe this technique requires shifting the plane in opposite directions every half spin, half to shift planes, half to correct to maintain verticality. I do not do this because planes have inertia (the amount is correlated with the speed of spin); when a plane is set in motion it takes effort to stop it and make it go the other way and my style is one of finding paths of least resistance. The idea is demonstrated by turning around in circles while spinning at a 45 degree angle. The plane maintains it self, relative to me not the audience, as long as my poi does not go the other direction. This is an example of plane bending in the same direction. When I do decide to stop and turn the other way the plane pops back to vertical before tilting the other way and it required more energy to avoid hitting yourself (it doesn’t have to go through vertical, but a certain amount of anti-spin will start happening). This is plane bending the ‘opposite direction’. Compare that with the feeling of keeping the plane vertical and shifting from one wheel plane to the other. This idea of plane bending ‘in the same direction’ is a bit tricky there must be a better way to describe it.
(Demonstration of the previous paragraph is on the accompanying video, number 1)
Another good example of this technique for the type of plane bending I am writing about, is:
(#2 on the video)
1.) Start spinning with your right hand in a plane that is 45 degrees between a vertical and horizontal plane, make sure it is slanted toward you at the top of the spin and away from you at the bottom and that you are spinning counter-clockwise from your point of view.
2.) Put hand directly above head and begin to only apply force directly upwards. As less force is applied, the plane will start to rotate around to the left in a precession.
4.) If this is continued the plane should slide all the way around the head always tilted between horizontal and vertical upwards towards the head.
Beyond that control of the amount of bending is desirable. Try doing four beats and going all the way around the head. One beat at the front, side, back, other side.
Very often while plane bending the planes will be approximately at 90 degrees from each other, like an atom. At this point, the two poi are half way between at least two easily definable timing-directions. Any pattern done with planes at 90 degrees to each other will be some mixture of moves in each of those timing-directions. I’m sure this has been talked about in other threads, it is my favorite part of exploring non-linear planes, finding the connection between the timing-directions.
(The following two paragraphs are #3, on the video))
To illustrate this idea I use the atomic split-time weave. The pattern I am thinking of is very similar to the linear plane version, each hand does two beats on the away side and one on the home side. It’s different in that the ‘away’ side is more in front, 45 degrees towards the wall plane and the home side is 45 degrees behind, and this applies to both hands. Doing this atomic weave there is the option of stopping in the middle, as either hand crosses over the other, into a split-time, crossed-hands, butterfly. The way that both a weave pattern and a butterfly exist in this move illustrates that the atomic weave is half way between a weave and a crossed-hands butterfly and uses principals from both. When both hands are on the same side of the body, the arm the movement acts like that of a weave. When one hand is crossing over to the other side it’s like an opposite direction move, in that there is a moment when the hand comes up and over and must avoid the other poi in a similar manner to a butterfly.
If the planes continue past a 90 degrees orientation towards the opposite direction, the weave pattern can continue however it becomes more awkward the closer to opposite direction the planes come. But the weave pattern is still possible in that opposite direction pattern.
What I find fascinating about this is the conceptual connections that are made between the planes/directions/timings. As I have explored the possibilities between the planes/direction/timing (dimensions), sharp conceptual distinctions between them disappear. It becomes a matter of perspective. Instead of ‘same direction, split time’ opposed to ‘opposite direction, same time’ moves, they all become part of a spectrum. The box is filled in with possibilities and gravity.
To illustrate a different way: There is a conceptual connection between a weave and windmill, in so far as they use similar principals. There is the same type of connection between the weave and butterfly, they also use the same principals and it is difficult to see without exploring what is between them. I enjoy trying to see 3-D tricks from many different plane perspectives. When looked at from different planes perspectives, the same pattern can be both same-direction, split-time and opposite-direction, together-time.
Right now my terminology and understanding exist mostly in 2-D. Coming from that thinking, there are at least three or four perspectives to see most 3-D moves from, the three different planes, and also pendulums (maybe; I don’t quite know how to fit pendulums in yet, I have been thinking of them as another plane (ever tried a pendulum weave?) but I am starting to see them as the normal timings/directions only folded in on themselves). Every thing becomes relative to every thing else, in a smooth continuum, in a multi-dimensional space of possibilities.
My goal has been to be able to stop time, put the poi in random spots around me and give them random direction to start traveling in, then start time and I wouldn’t tangle because no matter what they will be within 45 degrees of a move I know and can define. To me 3-D spinning feels like it fills in the grid of what is defined in 2-D. It connects everything through a path of least resistance and might result in a grand unifying concept of poi, an understanding that will encompass all possible poi movements! ... …
Realistically though, I’ve felt like this several times in the past and whenever I get close to my conceptual goal the ceiling breaks, I have a wonderfully frustrating epiphany and I see a whole new aspect to explore. When that happens I feel like there will never be an end, a complete understanding of poi cannot possibly exist. However, whenever I am close to reaching my current conceptual ceiling I say, “This must be it! After this I will know everything.” This cycle starting to amuse me, but I cannot help it, it is exciting and keeps me motivated and moving forward.
So, onwards! When I started looking at this stuff I was just throwing my poi around and trying not to tangle, spinning at 45 degrees and much as possible. Then I got more specific and tried to find smooth pathways between same direction and opposite direction. This actually got me somewhere. After a while I started to flow without using any concept of planes. I did not know what I was doing, just letting my unconscious learn by trial and error. I really enjoy this method of dynamic intuition (to take a term from Alien Jon). I believe that my unconscious mind is much better at comprehending and utilizing complex systems than my conscious mind (I believe there have been studies that came to this conclusion, i.e Blink by Malcolm Gladwell). Almost right from the start I have always been able to do things that I did not understand. The analytical understanding, which I think is very important, always came later as I watched what I was doing and made generalizations which lead to a filling out of technique that I had not stumbled upon during the trial and error, like trying it in another direction-timing or upside-down. I think this is an important point especially for people learning from teachers. Just because a move can be done does not automatically mean the understanding is there. Not only do the mechanics need to be understood, it also needs to be placed in a relation to every other move, extracting the essence of the move that will allow for variations and for it to be transferred to other timing-directions.
In my personal practice there has never been a time when there been such a spread between what I can do and what I understand. I am only just beginning to understand what is going on with this 3-D spinning and I have been doing it for a year. Trying to teach it at Wild Fire really made me realize how little I consciously grasped what I was doing. All I could do was try to lead people through the same path I took. Since then I have found much shorter paths, while trying to explain it to several people at the Vulcan. I have identified two moves I believe are central, I have been calling them the 3-D weave and the 3-D corkscrew. The name analogy only goes so far. As I explained before each of these tricks are halfway between several moves. For example the 3-D weave is between an atomic weave, a horizontal together-time Thread the Needle (TTN), a together time pendulum TTN, and a side-to-side one point five, among others. I have started work on a tutorial for these moves, I will try to get it out soon.
www.youtube.com/watch
I think what I have been calling plane bending has been called 3-D spinning by Alien Jon, I like both terms. Is there a difference between them? I am thinking of spinning where the planes are continuously changing, for the most part using gravity to do so. Correct me if I’m wrong about this, other non-linear planes (I like this word) like atomics do not change planes, ideally they stay fixed relative to each other. So plane bending would not be an accurate adjective because the planes remain still. Is there something else besides 3-D spinning that that term ‘plane bending’ includes?
My specific investigation of plane bending utilizes planes between vertical and horizontal, and spinning with less force than what is required to keep the plane still. As the poi goes up to the highest point gravity will be pulling it down, sliding it into a different plane. Sometimes I think of it as a mini upward stall with an additional horizontal spinning component; in fact, I liken most of my plane bending to partial stalls. For example, at the moment in an upward stall where the poi is still, there is the choice to bring it into any plane, the poi has no momentum therefore it can be directed in any direction. What I do is spin the poi up on a diagonal lightly and at the top the poi does not have too much momentum, which allows me to direct it to a degree, or just let it fall into a new plane. Or to put it a different way: Since the poi is spinning between vertical and horizontal there is both a vertical component and a horizontal component that are for the most part independent. What I am trying to describe and utilize is when the vertical component period (time for complete circle) is shorter than the horizontal component period.
I have not found plane bending where the poi remains vertical throughout the entire shift particularly interesting (i.e. Nick Woolsey). I believe this technique requires shifting the plane in opposite directions every half spin, half to shift planes, half to correct to maintain verticality. I do not do this because planes have inertia (the amount is correlated with the speed of spin); when a plane is set in motion it takes effort to stop it and make it go the other way and my style is one of finding paths of least resistance. The idea is demonstrated by turning around in circles while spinning at a 45 degree angle. The plane maintains it self, relative to me not the audience, as long as my poi does not go the other direction. This is an example of plane bending in the same direction. When I do decide to stop and turn the other way the plane pops back to vertical before tilting the other way and it required more energy to avoid hitting yourself (it doesn’t have to go through vertical, but a certain amount of anti-spin will start happening). This is plane bending the ‘opposite direction’. Compare that with the feeling of keeping the plane vertical and shifting from one wheel plane to the other. This idea of plane bending ‘in the same direction’ is a bit tricky there must be a better way to describe it.
(Demonstration of the previous paragraph is on the accompanying video, number 1)
Another good example of this technique for the type of plane bending I am writing about, is:
(#2 on the video)
1.) Start spinning with your right hand in a plane that is 45 degrees between a vertical and horizontal plane, make sure it is slanted toward you at the top of the spin and away from you at the bottom and that you are spinning counter-clockwise from your point of view.
2.) Put hand directly above head and begin to only apply force directly upwards. As less force is applied, the plane will start to rotate around to the left in a precession.
4.) If this is continued the plane should slide all the way around the head always tilted between horizontal and vertical upwards towards the head.
Beyond that control of the amount of bending is desirable. Try doing four beats and going all the way around the head. One beat at the front, side, back, other side.
Very often while plane bending the planes will be approximately at 90 degrees from each other, like an atom. At this point, the two poi are half way between at least two easily definable timing-directions. Any pattern done with planes at 90 degrees to each other will be some mixture of moves in each of those timing-directions. I’m sure this has been talked about in other threads, it is my favorite part of exploring non-linear planes, finding the connection between the timing-directions.
(The following two paragraphs are #3, on the video))
To illustrate this idea I use the atomic split-time weave. The pattern I am thinking of is very similar to the linear plane version, each hand does two beats on the away side and one on the home side. It’s different in that the ‘away’ side is more in front, 45 degrees towards the wall plane and the home side is 45 degrees behind, and this applies to both hands. Doing this atomic weave there is the option of stopping in the middle, as either hand crosses over the other, into a split-time, crossed-hands, butterfly. The way that both a weave pattern and a butterfly exist in this move illustrates that the atomic weave is half way between a weave and a crossed-hands butterfly and uses principals from both. When both hands are on the same side of the body, the arm the movement acts like that of a weave. When one hand is crossing over to the other side it’s like an opposite direction move, in that there is a moment when the hand comes up and over and must avoid the other poi in a similar manner to a butterfly.
If the planes continue past a 90 degrees orientation towards the opposite direction, the weave pattern can continue however it becomes more awkward the closer to opposite direction the planes come. But the weave pattern is still possible in that opposite direction pattern.
What I find fascinating about this is the conceptual connections that are made between the planes/directions/timings. As I have explored the possibilities between the planes/direction/timing (dimensions), sharp conceptual distinctions between them disappear. It becomes a matter of perspective. Instead of ‘same direction, split time’ opposed to ‘opposite direction, same time’ moves, they all become part of a spectrum. The box is filled in with possibilities and gravity.
To illustrate a different way: There is a conceptual connection between a weave and windmill, in so far as they use similar principals. There is the same type of connection between the weave and butterfly, they also use the same principals and it is difficult to see without exploring what is between them. I enjoy trying to see 3-D tricks from many different plane perspectives. When looked at from different planes perspectives, the same pattern can be both same-direction, split-time and opposite-direction, together-time.
Right now my terminology and understanding exist mostly in 2-D. Coming from that thinking, there are at least three or four perspectives to see most 3-D moves from, the three different planes, and also pendulums (maybe; I don’t quite know how to fit pendulums in yet, I have been thinking of them as another plane (ever tried a pendulum weave?) but I am starting to see them as the normal timings/directions only folded in on themselves). Every thing becomes relative to every thing else, in a smooth continuum, in a multi-dimensional space of possibilities.
My goal has been to be able to stop time, put the poi in random spots around me and give them random direction to start traveling in, then start time and I wouldn’t tangle because no matter what they will be within 45 degrees of a move I know and can define. To me 3-D spinning feels like it fills in the grid of what is defined in 2-D. It connects everything through a path of least resistance and might result in a grand unifying concept of poi, an understanding that will encompass all possible poi movements! ... …
Realistically though, I’ve felt like this several times in the past and whenever I get close to my conceptual goal the ceiling breaks, I have a wonderfully frustrating epiphany and I see a whole new aspect to explore. When that happens I feel like there will never be an end, a complete understanding of poi cannot possibly exist. However, whenever I am close to reaching my current conceptual ceiling I say, “This must be it! After this I will know everything.” This cycle starting to amuse me, but I cannot help it, it is exciting and keeps me motivated and moving forward.
So, onwards! When I started looking at this stuff I was just throwing my poi around and trying not to tangle, spinning at 45 degrees and much as possible. Then I got more specific and tried to find smooth pathways between same direction and opposite direction. This actually got me somewhere. After a while I started to flow without using any concept of planes. I did not know what I was doing, just letting my unconscious learn by trial and error. I really enjoy this method of dynamic intuition (to take a term from Alien Jon). I believe that my unconscious mind is much better at comprehending and utilizing complex systems than my conscious mind (I believe there have been studies that came to this conclusion, i.e Blink by Malcolm Gladwell). Almost right from the start I have always been able to do things that I did not understand. The analytical understanding, which I think is very important, always came later as I watched what I was doing and made generalizations which lead to a filling out of technique that I had not stumbled upon during the trial and error, like trying it in another direction-timing or upside-down. I think this is an important point especially for people learning from teachers. Just because a move can be done does not automatically mean the understanding is there. Not only do the mechanics need to be understood, it also needs to be placed in a relation to every other move, extracting the essence of the move that will allow for variations and for it to be transferred to other timing-directions.
In my personal practice there has never been a time when there been such a spread between what I can do and what I understand. I am only just beginning to understand what is going on with this 3-D spinning and I have been doing it for a year. Trying to teach it at Wild Fire really made me realize how little I consciously grasped what I was doing. All I could do was try to lead people through the same path I took. Since then I have found much shorter paths, while trying to explain it to several people at the Vulcan. I have identified two moves I believe are central, I have been calling them the 3-D weave and the 3-D corkscrew. The name analogy only goes so far. As I explained before each of these tricks are halfway between several moves. For example the 3-D weave is between an atomic weave, a horizontal together-time Thread the Needle (TTN), a together time pendulum TTN, and a side-to-side one point five, among others. I have started work on a tutorial for these moves, I will try to get it out soon.
posted by:
|
SF Bay Area
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: My thoughts on Plane Bending...
Wed, March 5, 2008 - 4:32 PMSorry, don't have time to read this all right now but just a quick note...
I believe Arashi is the originator of the term 3D spinning. This includes atomics, conicals, and helixes. -
-
Re: My thoughts on Plane Bending...
Wed, March 5, 2008 - 4:45 PMIan has got totally different ideas on the subject, similar but more expansive system.
Takes a little time to start thinking in the right way, but once you do the value of the system as a performer is evident.
werd....good job Ian, making the vid and posting it! -
-
Re: My thoughts on Plane Bending...
Wed, March 5, 2008 - 6:12 PMIan:
Sweet post and nice tutorial video! I think this is going to be one of those posts that I keep coming back to and re-reading. I think there's a lot of stuff embedded in here. We totally need to jam with Arashi at Fire Drums!!!
The flavor of plane bending I've been doing (and Insignia and Baz have been playing with) tends to rely less exclusively on gravity to do the bending. When we spin in more traditional manners gravity is always there, but we tend to spin in a way that adjusts for gravity to keep our orbits consistent. If you were to take say, a 3-beat forward weave and flip that pattern upside down, you'd get a reverse 3-beat weave. However, the places where your upstroke adjusts for gravity need to be flipped as well in order to make a reverse 3-beat weave work.
I've been playing more with moving in and out of isolations and/or partial stalls, wile moving my hand to a new 3D location in order to bend the plane. If I were doing this in a micro-gravity condition (poi on the international space station anyone?), then I could flip the over all plane bending pattern around into a different orientation, and the forces that my hand would apply would be the same. What I've been doing seems to be finding the ways to adjust for gravity to bend in different ways. This seems like the other side of the coin with your flowing with gravity to find the path of least resistance. I have a feeling that some interesting stuff comes out of the other side of Fire Drums. ;-)
Mike:
Arashi was definitely one of the first on HoP to talk about 3d spinning, but I seam to remember Coleman and Glass also making posts on the subject. Often times when one person is viewed as the originator they are actually one of several people that are riding the crest of a wave as a new meme washes over a culture at large. A good example of this is Henri Poincare coming up with similar ideas to Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, in a similar (actually slightly earlier) time frame as Einstein. Although Arashi has been spinning a long time so, I'd imagine he was onto it pretty early on.
Before I knew what I was doing was "poi" (glowstringing at raves) I was coming from a much more 3d conception of what was happening, a lot more like my dancing. I didn't really pay as much attention to a performance plane, as all my movement was trinity or atomic, and tended to play with plane-bending to different orientations around my body in interesting ways. Granted at the time my palette of movements where far more limited and once I found HoP I went in the direction of "cleaning up my planes" rather than fully delving into 3d spinning. Once I got heavy poi, I could no longer force them to do the same things. In my circle of friends in Colorado, we definitely talked about 3D spinning with glowsticks vs poi, but this was in passing and I wasn't a highly active poster on HoP at the time, so I never got into the discussion.
It takes more finesse and true control to plane-bend heavy poi. So, now that I have developed a better feel for manipulating the center of rotation and the impulses involved in poi control, I've naturally gotten back into 3D concepts with heavier poi.
Noel:
I'm hoping that getting together with Ian, Arashi, Andy Haus, Rovo, Yuta, Zan, hopefully Insignia and Baz all in one place at Fire Drums will do a lot for 3D spinning (Lucas, you need to get your @ss out ther etoo!). It seems like everyone mentioned has been working with some aspects of it. I think Nick Woolsey's "Orbing" has a lot of value too. I'd be psyched if we can get closer to a more cohesive arrangement of what we are doing into a system for understanding AND teaching it.
In summation, er.... Fire Drums is gonna rock!!! ;-)
-Alien Jon -
-
Re: My thoughts on Plane Bending...
Fri, March 7, 2008 - 8:09 AMnice thread Ian
looking forward to meet all the plane-benders @ firedrum -
-
Re: My thoughts on Plane Bending...
Fri, March 7, 2008 - 3:28 PMWoohoo! There is going to be quite a turn out for Fire Drums! Ok, Everyone tell Ronan to come and maybe he will!! -
-
Re: My thoughts on Plane Bending...
Mon, March 10, 2008 - 5:49 AMI am REALLY going to try and get out there for this. As it appears that much progress is going to be made XD
-
Re: My thoughts on Plane Bending...
Mon, March 10, 2008 - 8:40 AMYou keep forgetting me, jerkass!
And I am sick and therefor am not functioning enough to have anything relevant to say. -
-
Re: My thoughts on Plane Bending...
Mon, March 10, 2008 - 8:51 PM>_< arrrgg!
I'm sorry Sarah! I must be buying into the universe's trend of giving you crap. ;-(
Hope you are feeling better, and yes I'm sure you will be well immersed in the craziness at FireDrums too. -
-
Re: My thoughts on Plane Bending...
Sat, March 15, 2008 - 10:23 PMgod i wish i had more time. unfortunately ill just have to get my hands dirty w you guys at fire drums. was considering doing some stuff with this for the wshops... 3d spinning and plane bending are coincidental for sure... been working on excersises to develop dexterity in multiple dimensional patterns. nice posting on the subject. n yes as far as invention glass and coleman and im sure a few others all were conceiving them as we were linked psychically together. felt the hunderdth monkey thing happening i must say... the jedi thread brought us together and i felt less alone in the world :)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: My thoughts on Plane Bending...
Wed, March 5, 2008 - 8:34 PMVery nice post Ian. I'm glad you got these ideas out there, so we can all mess around with them. This realm will no doubt see a lot of growth i the coming months, and it is due in no small part to your contribution. Way to be.
I'll have a new video coming out in the next couple weeks, and it'll have some Alien Jon 3D spinning in it, among other new ideas.
