Moving in Circles: Reflections on Improvisation, the Body and Bharathanatyam
Written by: Sivathaashini Karunnamoorthy, Kamalavarshini Gobinathan, Elakiyaa Vasantha Kumar
The circular movement activity invited three dancers to move continuously using every part of the body, without relying on a prescribed dance technique, fixed rhythm or set of rules. Beginning by sharing one another’s body weight through contact improvisation, the dancers then explored circular actions through the hands, legs, hips, knees, neck and the whole body. They moved across standing, middle and floor levels, allowing one movement to lead into another until tiredness naturally brought the exploration to an end. Although the task appeared simple, it prompted all three dancers to reconsider how training, environment and habit shape the way they move.
At the beginning, moving without a predetermined structure was challenging. Siva found herself thinking constantly about the movement that should come next even while performing the present movement. Elakiyaa experienced a similar uncertainty, particularly in deciding how long to remain with one action before changing it. In Bharatanatyam, rhythm, choreography and instruction usually establish when a movement begins, develops and ends. Without these familiar guides, the dancers had to make such decisions for themselves. As the activity continued, however, Siva realised that its purpose was not to plan every action intellectually, but to move and allow the body to respond instantaneously. This shift from thinking about movement to sensing movement opened a wider field of physical possibilities.
Varshini’s reflection develops this idea by asking whether the body can become a ‘house for dance.’ If movement already exists within the body, the dancer does not always have to wait to be told what to do. The body can listen, respond, initiate and discover. From this perspective, dance requires physical effort, but it also requires release. During the circular exercise, Varshini became aware that movement could arise through letting go rather than through continuous control. Her observation connects closely with Elakiyaa’s recognition that she sometimes depends on a teacher, choreographer or music to tell her what to do next. Both dancers therefore arrived at an important realisation: movement does not always require permission. Trusting the body means becoming comfortable with making independent choices and allowing movement to emerge before deciding whether it is correct.
This freedom also revealed the ways in which formal training can restrict the body. Varshini observes that Bharatanatyam constructs the body in a particular manner through specific postures, alignments, gestures and uses of the joints. Elakiyaa similarly began to distinguish between joints and actions commonly used in Bharatanatyam and those that rarely receive attention. Instead of treating circular movement as one broad action, she isolated areas such as the knees and neck, and later combined movements of the hands and legs. Siva was equally surprised to encounter movements that felt entirely new, despite having practised Bharatanatyam since the age of five. Their reflections do not suggest that Bharatanatyam training is without value; rather, they show that its specialised vocabulary develops particular capacities while making other physical possibilities less visible.
Get Tripataka danceLab’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
At the same time, the dancers recognised that unfamiliar movements may already exist within Bharatanatyam in less noticeable forms. Siva wondered whether they appear in the transitions between adavus or hand gestures but remain overlooked because attention is usually directed towards the purpose, shape or completion of the movement. The improvisation reversed this emphasis. Instead of moving towards a recognised position, the dancers attended to the pathway itself: how a joint circles, how weight shifts, how the feet slide and how one action transforms into another. This attention to transition allowed them to experience movement as an ongoing process rather than as a sequence of correct endpoints.
Their exploration also extended beyond the boundaries of codified dance. Elakiyaa drew upon movements used in everyday life and exercise, recognising that walking, crawling, reaching, bending, rolling, pushing and shifting weight are actions the body already understands. Varshini likewise emphasised that human beings possess natural locomotive skills that can be explored through dance. Beginning from these familiar bodily actions can reduce inhibition because the dancer is no longer preoccupied with whether an action belongs to Bharatanatyam. Instead, an ordinary movement can become the starting point for experimentation and transformation.
Siva adds an environmental dimension to this discussion by asking whether the way people move reflects the body’s full capabilities or merely what the surrounding environment requires. In an urban landscape, technology and automation have reduced many forms of physical labour. Washing clothes by hand, for example, might require squatting, bending, scrubbing, wringing, reaching and repeatedly shifting between positions. A washing machine removes the need for most of these actions. Consequently, certain movements may remain unexplored not because the body is incapable of performing them, but because contemporary life no longer asks for them. The circular exercise therefore became a means of recovering possibilities that training, convenience and daily habit may have left dormant.
Working across different levels further exposed the difference between familiarity and adaptability. Elakiyaa found the middle level particularly demanding. Although araimandi is central to Bharatanatyam, familiarity with this position did not automatically make continuous improvisation at a middle level comfortable. This discovery supports Varshini’s view that a dancer needs to be supple. Suppleness is not limited to flexibility; it also involves openness, adaptability and a willingness to enter unfamiliar patterns. Increasing the range of motion in the hips, joints and other parts of the body makes those areas more available for movement and can expand the dancer’s physical awareness, control and expressive range.
The absence of rules also required the dancers to negotiate the influence of one another. Elakiyaa noticed that watching the other dancers generated ideas, yet she had to resist simply copying them and return to her own exploration. Improvisation was therefore neither complete isolation nor imitation. The shared space offered stimulation, while each dancer remained responsible for listening to an individual bodily response. Their preferred movements reflected this personal process. Siva was especially drawn to a full-body circular movement, sliding the feet while travelling in a circle, and kneeling while drawing a circle through the upper body. These choices demonstrate how a single instruction could produce movement at different scales, levels and points of initiation.
Fatigue and the process of ending were equally important parts of the activity. Because the dancers were asked to continue until they became tired, the body’s changing energy determined the duration and quality of the movement. Varshini notes that winding down is naturally gradual: the body slows and returns progressively to a stable state. This differs from Bharatanatyam, where the dancer may be required to shift quickly from one energetic or expressive state to another. By allowing tiredness to influence the movement, the activity made bodily limits perceptible rather than asking the dancers to conceal or overcome them. The slowing body was not separate from the dance; it became part of the dance’s unfolding.
When the activity was repeated, the dancers were able to move from broad experimentation towards greater specificity. Elakiyaa selected three movements to develop through a crescendo, progressing from slower, controlled actions to faster and more dynamic ones. This suggests that freedom and structure do not have to be opposites. Improvisation can first uncover unexpected material, after which the dancer can choose, refine and organise it. The exercise therefore did not reject technique; it created a space in which movement could arise before technique, rhythm or choreography shaped it.
Taken together, the three reflections show that the circular movement activity was an inquiry into bodily agency. It revealed how Bharatanatyam training, external instruction, urban environments and everyday habits influence what dancers believe their bodies can do. More importantly, it encouraged them to move past these limits by releasing control, exploring neglected joints and levels, increasing their range of motion and trusting natural movement. For these dancers, becoming less inhibited does not mean abandoning Bharatanatyam. It means developing a more attentive and adaptable body — one that can recognise the structures it has inherited while remaining open to movements that have not yet been named, taught or given permission to exist.
