Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

Modern Dance -- Sinking Like a Stone?


Recommended Posts

Robert Greskovic had an article in The Wall Street Journal this week where he reviewed the current anniversary seasons of Paul Taylor and Mark Morris. (Sorry, no link -- you still have to register to read the Journal.)

I found his side comments about modern dance to be more interesting than the actual review. He placed the Taylor and Morris seasons in a context of a modern dance in decline. Specifically, he cited the Graham company as being in "dire financial straits" and "in doubt of holding even a single gala performance mid-month to mark its 80th anniversary." He also talks about how other formerly prominent modern dance companies are either "less prominent or no longer in existence." (He mentions the Alwin Nikolais and Murray Louis companies as being once-prominent but now-defunct.)

All this left me thinking -- what is the current health of modern dance?

Link to comment

Well, there isn't the steady supply of interesting young choreographers that there was 20 years ago, and no major trend or movement seems brewing. More troubling to me -- and maybe this is just a local problem -- but I'm afraid we're running out of dancers. At one D.C. university, not a single modern dance major plans to have a career in dance. Why? Not enough money.

Thanks for raising the question!

Link to comment

I also have not been able to read this piece. And I don't want to digress from miliosr's interesting question about the state of modern dance today. However, some aspects of this are addressed indirectly in a review of Mark Morris Dance Group's 25th anniversary season by Joan Acocella in the latest issue of The New Yorker (4/10/06). (Nothing from this issue was up on their website when I just checked.)

She discusses Marris' decision to re-cast "Dido and Aeneas" by dividing the Dido/Sorceress roles (both originally played by Morris) to be performed by two dancers: a woman playing Dido, a man playing the Sorceress. She laments his partial retirement as a dancer. About Morris the dancer, in one last performance of "In Old Seville": "Has any other performer shown such rhythmic and dynamic range -- early, late, hard and soft -- and always told us something thereby? When willwe see a dancer like this again?"

Acocella certainly does not seem to think of Morris, his company or his aesthetic, as in decline. Among the quotes: "It was all quite grand and -- typically, for Morris -- brash ..." "a month-long blowout" -- and : "We don't ask for a hit every year. We're just grateful, by now, for the body of work: that the idea of our generation produced something so serious, and that we were there to see it."

So now it's ff to the library to find the Wall Street Journal and read that Greskovic piece! :)

Link to comment

Thanks, drb, for the Link. I don't know why I couldn't find it.

Just read the Greskovic article, which is more thoughtful than dire, it seems to me. It's an excellent appreciation of the Taylor and Morris companies at this stage of their development. His conclusion about the current status of modern dance is really quite realistic and (I think) inarguable:

_____________________

QUOTE: "There was a time when it seemed that modern dance was here to stay and that all new generations needed to do was keep the faith and follow in the footsteps of the form's founders. That is apparently not enough in 2006. Some mysterious blend of art, craft, and inspiration is required. Mr. Taylor and Mr. Morris have each managed a mix that's led them to new golden and silver plateaus. Each is distinct, and each remains a step ahead of the rest of the pack and of his audience."

_____________________

I also wonder what the future is for these choreographer-based modern companies. Not so very long ago people assumed that a company like Martha Graham's could remain simultaneously (a) a museum of her work and (b) a living, vital, creative source. Turns out -- especially in these high-cost days -- that this has not been possible.

On the other hand, Limon's company certainly seems to have found the knack of balancing the two. Maybe it depends on who inherits the reins.

And what about Alexandra's point: that dancers are not lining up to enter the modern category? This seems like quite a difference from what I recall only a decade or so ago.

I suppose you might invision a future in which the best of the Cunningham, Graham, Humphrey, Nikolais, and other modern dance makers would be presented by an umbrella company -- rather like ABT does the work of a variety of choreographers on their mixed bills. But can so many distinct styles be maintained in a mixed repertory system without changing and blending? Ballet companies which attempt to mix "contemporary" with an occasional Swan Lake or Giselle have discovered that preserving high levels of performance style appropriate to each kind of work is not an easy task.

The best modern choreographers have also created works suitable for ballet companies and even Broadway. But these works, however brilliant, are not not typical of what makes Tharp, Taylor, Morris, etc., unique. It would be sad and ironic if these works survived -- because of the relative strength of ballet-based and Broadway-style institutions -- while their other, more characteristically modern work diisappeared.

Seems like quite a predicament. :)

Link to comment

These are indeed an interesting pair of articles, and bring up some juicy ideas.

Perhaps it's just a feature of being in the "other" Washington, but most of the college dance students I've met here are planning on at least some career as performing artists. Indeed, a higher percentage of them now seem to feel that life is within their grasp than did when I first started teaching in colleges in the early 1980's. What may be the difference is that many of them right now don't look towards joining large/established companies, but instead are working with new choreographers in pick-up groups, or banding together with colleagues to present themselves. The master/apprentice relationship that was more of a standard when I was training isn't as common today. Part of this comes from current training styles -- the egalitarian feeling of a contact improvisation class gives all the practitioners a sense of autonomy. There may be a teacher, but they are less of a leader than a facilitator. Even in more traditional technique classes the gestalt is less formal.

I'm not willing to say that modern dance is sinking like a stone, but it is changing. I think it's doing what it's always done -- mutating based on the concerns and interests of the artists involved. It's an art form that was born of difference -- the early moderns often thought they knew more about what they were not, than what they were. For many of them it was a process of discovery, often mysterious, and highly personal. It was about those individuals and those times -- modern dance today is about a new cohort and a new century. If the mandate has always been to "dance who you are" we have to expect that the landscape will change.

I do think that right now we have fewer significant mid-career choreographers -- like everywhere else, AIDS has painfully thinned the dance population, and many artists will only ever have been promising newcomers. A couple of years ago in The Guardian, Ismene Brown was very concerned that the major modern dance companies visiting Britain that summer were run by people who were either dead or nearly there (and then she made a reference to the unfortunate Tom Cruise movie "Vanilla Sky," but we won't go into that here).

But I think part of the difficulty comes from the very good work people do trying to maintain the connections to the classics while we still make room for the new. Many repertories are indeed in danger of being lost, or have been absorbed into other ensembles to avoid that catastrophe (with much of early Tharp going to Hubbard Street and big chunks of the Nikolais/Murray rep being taken up by Ririe-Woodbury). This conservatorship takes resources, and if this means that we are not "developing" master choreographers at the same rate as we used to, perhaps that's another part of the changing dynamics.

Like most of the people on this board, I see a lot of work over the course of the year. And like most of the people on this board, a big chunk of what I see is not destined for greatness -- it serves a purpose (sometimes several purposes -- we're thrifty folk), acting as a kind of training wheels for artists and communities, and then fades. It helps the choreographers learn how to make a better dance, helps the dancers learn how to perform, helps the audience learn how to see -- it keeps all of us ready for when something special comes along.

Link to comment

If Modern Dance is sinking like a stone in the U.S., in Europe the opposite is true. Not only is modern dance thriving but it is making such inroads into classical ballet companies that some have ceased being classical altogether and redefined themselves as modern dance companies. The Paris Opera ballet should be considered 'at risk' as a huge percentage of their performances are now given over to modern dance and even the Kirov has started to dance Forsythe. From this side of the pond it often looks like classical ballet that is "sinking like a stone".

Link to comment

Forsythe considers himself a Ballet choreographer. He may be post-neo-classical, but he does not consider his works Modern Dance.

The same phenomenon, however, prevails here as the works of Paul Taylor, Mark Morris, Martha Graham et al. comprise increasing amounts of ballet companies' reps.

Link to comment
Forsythe considers himself a Ballet choreographer. He may be post-neo-classical, but he does not consider his works Modern Dance.

I think that depends on the time period, and perhaps where he's speaking. the works he does for his own company (and the last tour of the late Frankfurt Ballet) were called modern dance. When he works for a ballet company, he says his works are ballet (and some are :thumbsup: ) but I don't think that's a general statement. He was very influenced by Piina Bausch and the whole tanzteater movement.

Link to comment
Robert Greskovic had an article in The Wall Street Journal this week where he reviewed the current anniversary seasons of Paul Taylor and Mark Morris. (Sorry, no link -- you still have to register to read the Journal.)

I found his side comments about modern dance to be more interesting than the actual review. He placed the Taylor and Morris seasons in a context of a modern dance in decline. Specifically, he cited the Graham company as being in "dire financial straits" and "in doubt of holding even a single gala performance mid-month to mark its 80th anniversary." He also talks about how other formerly prominent modern dance companies are either "less prominent or no longer in existence." (He mentions the Alwin Nikolais and Murray Louis companies as being once-prominent but now-defunct.)

All this left me thinking -- what is the current health of modern dance?

In London we have also heard of the alleged parlous financial state of the Martha Graham Company. Graham’s contribution to the arts is sustained by performances and in the same way that other choreographer’s works are sustained as living entities by companies that mainly sustain the work of particular choreographer. In Europe, major opera and ballet companies are seriously considered to make a significant contribution to a countries cultural stature and are funded from taxes. I personally find it shocking that the USA government has so far failed to recognise the international contribution that the Graham Company has made to world art through both Graham's choreography and dance method. It is not enough to say other companies get no such financial support from government. There should be a first and Graham can be said to be the most important American born choreographer so far to emerge from a country that widely celebrates an interest in dance.

Link to comment
In Europe, major opera and ballet companies are seriously considered to make a significant contribution to a countries cultural stature and are funded from taxes. I personally find it shocking that the USA government has so far failed to recognise the international contribution that the Graham Company has made to world art through both Graham's choreography and dance method.
The US subsidizes companies indirectly, through substantial tax deductions to individuals and foundations. While I would not argue that there are never enough private donations to go around, it is a different value system, and one that is being adopted within Europe and Russia, as tax-based budgets shrink and fewer institutions receive state funding.

There is a big difference between state-supported ballet and opera institutions in Europe and support of a company dedicated to a single choreographer. While the repertoire for Paris Opera Ballet, Mariinsky Ballet, Royal Ballet, Bolshoi Ballet, La Scala Ballet, etc. has focused more on specific choreographers within each period of artistic leadership, state institutions are cross-choreographer repertory companies dedicated to an evolving art. There is no large scale institutional equivalent for modern dance.

Link to comment

Well, here in the UK, contemporary dance is flourishing. There are several established contemporary dance conservatoire schools (eg Northern Contemporary Dance School in Leeds, or Laban in London), and mostvuniversities which offer dance degrees offer them in contemporary dance, with ballet as training, but they're not aiming to produce ballet dancers as such.

There are many small experimental companies based around choreographers - some personal favourites include Vincent Dance, Akram Khan, Volcano, Richard Alston Company. And some of these have become very successful, performing in larger and more prominent venues (Russell Maliphant comes to mind). And that's before we start on Europe & some of the extraordinary stufff in Belgium. for example.

Of course, there's project-based and ongoing funding, but I wonder if it's more than that. There's a conscious desire to experiment and kick against the mainstream. Perhaps the idea opf "success" is different here than in the States? Also, it's a smaller country, and performers can tour widely. THere are also several very interesting festivals in which dance is prominent. And then there are dance festivals - NottDance (in Nottingham) coming up!

Link to comment

Thanks for the many interesting replies to my original post.

This thread and the Elizabeth Zimmer article in The Village Voice about the Graham company's travails [as posted in the Links section] got me thinking about something that has been in the back of my mind for some time: For modern dance companies, what are the key ingredients to "survival after death"?

To my mind, there are only three companies that have managed this difficult feat (and they are the same three mentioned in Zimmer's article): the Limon company (since 1972), the Ailey company (since 1989) and the Graham company (since 1991). But why were they able to endure when so many others have disappeared or live on as the dance equivalent of the living dead?

I would agree with bart that having the right person in place at the moment of succession (or its relatively immediate aftermath) is crucial. What Carla Maxwell (at Limon) and Judith Jamison (at Ailey) have accomplished is testament to that. (Just as the Graham company's near-death experiences are a testament to their succession problems.) But as a corollary, I would add that the successor must have a vision as to where to take the company once the founder is gone. (Or, at the very least, the successor must build on the vision of the founder.) I don't think it's enough to say, "Oh, we're just here to maintain the company/dances/technique." I think it's absolutely crucial to have an approach that allows you to branch out beyond the core repertory and try different things.

Of course, the problem with this is that I'm not so sure every modern dance company has the capacity to branch out in different directions. One interesting similarity between the Limon and Ailey companies is that they were both (to differing degrees) repertory companies while the founder(s) were still alive. The Limon company presented the works of Doris Humphrey and Jose Limon while the Ailey company featured all sorts of different choreographers under Alvin Ailey's directorship.

This -- to me -- is the issue the Graham company is going to have to confront. Because of all the leadership/legal problems of the last 15 years, it has been hard to get a sense of whether or not the Graham company can buck the Limon/Ailey trend and flourish on the basis of one woman's choreography. Is the Graham repertory large enough and -- more importantly -- diverse enough to power a company not just in the immediate future but for the next 10-25-50 years? Obviously, the Graham people think so but I can't help thinking that even someone like Balanchine, whose repertory really was large enough and diverse enough to power a company all on its own, thought it was wise to present other choreographers in the name of broadening the appeal.

Sorry if this post doesn't make much sense -- I'm having a hard time putting my thoughts into words today. I guess I would just say that, for modern dance companies, I don't think it's enough to have a fine repertory or technical basis in order to "survive after death". I think there has to be a philosophy and that philosophy has to be expansive enough that it can withstand fads and changing tastes over the long haul. (The Limon company is a good example of this -- they couldn't possibly have been more unfashionable than they were in the aftermath of the postmodern explosion and yet they have outlasted most of the postmodernists who were going to sweep them aside in the 60s/70s/80s.)

Any thoughts???

Link to comment
Sorry if this post doesn't make much sense --

Miliosr, I'd be thrilled if I could operate on your level of "not much sense." A really thoughtful and interesting post.

For example:

Of course, the problem with this is that I'm not so sure every modern dance company has the capacity to branch out in different directions. One interesting similarity between the Limon and Ailey companies is that they were both (to differing degrees) repertory companies while the founder(s) were still alive. The Limon company presented the works of Doris Humphrey and Jose Limon while the Ailey company featured all sorts of different choreographers under Alvin Ailey's directorship.

What does this say about other single-choreographer showcase companies? Morris? Taylor? Cunningham? King? I hope others more famliar than I am with today's modern dance scene will pitch in.

Link to comment

Boiling it down, it's easier to preserve an institution than a corpus of work. Subtle changes that reflect the surrounding culture are "adaptation" on an institution and "adulteration" on artwork. Not only that, but "the canon" changes slowly with each generation - every generation needs to add in its own art, and there's only so much room in "the canon" even if in theory it could expand indefinitely. With less available methods of preservation the turnover was more organic (in a grisly way, kind of the same as people once referring to pneumonia as "the old man's friend"). It's more painful now because with better preservation and the concept of intellectual property and copyright, good older works don't naturally vanish or get supplanted by newer versions.

Link to comment

Thanks for that article. Janet Eilber, the brand new Artistic Director, explains the difficulty and the problem from her perspective.

QUOTE:

"In the 15 years since Martha's death, funding changed, presenting changed, audiences changed, and what we rebuilt last year was based on the old model," Ms. Eilber said. Her predecessors "got the Picassos out of the attic and dusted them off beautifully," she said, "but the connection to how the field had moved forward wasn't addressed."

"We had a goddess up on top of a mountain and everybody came to her. But without the goddess, we're just another mountain."

Those last two sentences seem very a propos.

Link to comment
QUOTE:

(Janet Eilber) "We had a goddess up on top of a mountain and everybody came to her. But without the goddess, we're just another mountain."

I take this to mean that the company had a charismatic leader who became a charismatic leader annointed by the press as a celebrity. And I have to confess that I really don't comprehend why the loss of this figure should make a decisive difference while the work for which she gained her stature and fame still exists in living ("8 p.m. tonight" on easily accessible 55th Street) form.

I ‘ve seen very little Graham live or even on video, so I can't begin to venture an opinion on the lasting worth of her work. But ever since I was a teenager, I've eagerly sought out critical opinion and then if possible sought out the work the critics praised. Did it sound difficult? Difficulty just promised greater reward if I could crack the code. Surely this spirit isn’t dead, least of all in NYC. I know it lives here on Ballet Talk.

Is there just too much dance competition? Perhaps Graham isn’t perceived as relevant (but didn’t she make a few implicitly anti-war works?) -- the triumph of cultural politics over versatile movement vocabulary. Or it is possible that, as revered as she is, that papered house for last year's season reflects the relative significance, not the hipness quotient, of her choreography? Are today's critical champions somewhat blinded by nostalgia? (My own bet -- not likely).

What little Graham I’ve seen didn’t thrill me, but if I had the chance I’d make it a priority to see more, in order to learn my history, and in hopes of revelation.

I'm rambling, but to my mind the through line here is, to paraphrase milosor, does the company have a philosophy expansive enough that it can withstand fads and changing tastes over the long haul?

Link to comment

I don't know much about Graham's theories of movement or choreographic achievement. But her larger aesthetic and her theatricality were very original and very powerful.

This included dramatic llighting, stunning costumes, frequent commissioning of original modern scores, work with major artists like Isamu Noguchi -- a complete and very classy package which was not to be found in the work of other modern dance companies at the time, or indeed in very few ballet companies either. (I'm talking about the late 50s and the 60s, the period when Graham began withdrawing from performing her own major roles.)

It was all very stylish and very well coordinated. In this, Graham was not unlike Diaghelev. I think it was definitely a big part of the appeal of the Graham Company seasons for the non-specialist, edkucated dance audience, in those days at least.

Maybe, if the Graham dances seem less original and essential today, it's because other companies have have also learned how to put these elements together in a striking theatrical package.

Link to comment

When Graham came upon the scene, modern dance troupes were not (I'm sorry) a dime a dozen, as they are now. And every year, there was a new work or two -- or more. That kept people coming. Graham doesn't speak to me, but I can see how her creativity was a big draw. I certainly understand how she became such an icon.

Regarding preservation. With cheap video widely available, I foresee a danger. Reviving a particular great work might be put off because "we've got it on DVD." But the "great works" have to be danced by every generation, in order to keep it alive, to keep the connection with the original spirit.

Of course, those of us who are old enough know that for that, even regular performances may not be enough.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...