When Merce Cunningham passed away three weeks ago the world lost a dance legend. But I mourn not just the passing of one of the great geniuses of our time but also the state of modern dance.
Modern dance is one of the glories of American cultural history. From Isadora Duncan to Martha Graham to Alvin Ailey to José Limón and on and on, the ranks of the great modern dancers and choreographers pay tribute to American creativity.
But virtually every great modern dance company was founded more than 40 years ago. Where is the current, not to mention next, generation of great modern dance companies to carry the torch?
I do not worry as much about ballet companies. While we are still searching for the next Balanchine, ballet companies can continue to produce the great works of the past -- from Giselle to Serenade.
But modern dance depends on new voices, new vocabularies, new works. Since so many modern dance companies are single choreographer companies, they do not have the ability to sustain themselves easily when their founder passes away. The organization needs an entirely new mission and that is not so easy to accommodate. (The exception that proves the rule is the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater. Alvin never intended his company to depend solely on his works. He encouraged many other choreographers to make work for his company; this made the transition to new artistic leadership far easier.)
Merce understood this conundrum. That is why he explicitly planned for the demise of his company in favor of a structure to oversee the dissemination of his works.
But which companies will have the wherewithal -- both artistic and financial -- to do justice to his masterpieces?
I used to think of Bill T. Jones as the "young man" of modern dance. But in three short years, Bill T. will be 60 years old!
Where are the young companies that are gathering strength and are prepared to accept the mantle from the Twylas, Pauls, Merces and Marthas?
To be sure, there are wonderfully talented and prolific young modern dance choreographers producing great work. I am fortunate to know, and to present, many of them. But I fear that in our culturally dense world it will be difficult for any of them to attain the level of recognition that their forebears have enjoyed.
And I worry that the level of administrative and board support our young choreographers enjoy is not sufficient to compete with the major musical, ballet and theater institutions.
Does this matter? Does a dance company have to be big and famous to be of importance? I think the answer is no, and yes. A great work of art is a great work of art. It need not be produced in the biggest theaters in world capitals to make a difference.
But I fear that without large role model organizations representing modern dance around the nation and the world, the field will lose its luster, its ability to attract young dancers and choreographers, and its funding.
I am so lucky to have lived during the golden age of modern dance. I just hope I live long enough to see the next one.
There is innovative, fresh, and relevant dance happening in almost all metropolitan areas around this country. The issues is these artists and companies don't have access to the ample resources it takes to establish more than a regional reputation.
Rosie Trump
http://readingthedance.wordpress.com/
Hopefully now someone can make a work without a technique labeled after it too!
http://collectiveartsthinktank.blogspot.com/
How do developing artists today survive? For one thing, look in the universities. Many notable artists are taking teaching positions, or pursuing advanced degrees as a way to be able to continue making work.
Merce benefited from living and working in Westbeth, one of very few buildings in NYC with subsidized living space for artists. The waiting list there is many, many years long.
Choreographers need time and space to play with ideas, to scrutinize and refine them, to dig into the research and development for new work. Many young choreographers are, of necessity, working on a smaller scale as living and studio space costs are prohibitive. Artists are partnering up in creative ways in order to keep making and presenting work. We are working smaller and scrappier, building networks.
As dance journalism (beyond obituaries) has pretty much disappeared, choreographers are looking for ways to let people know what we are up to, and finding out what our peers are doing. We’re utilizing social networking tools, writing blogs, Twitter-ing. We may not be "big and famous" but we are here. We are making work. Look around.
- Meg Wolfe, co-editor of itch dance journal
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=49630404854
This is the same old conversation regurgitated once more, a reflection after the passing of not one, but three GREAT figures in dance- Michael, Pina, & Merce.
Others have achieved greatness of the same level as some others have pointed out, but this persistence in conserving the manners in which we bestow our esteem or our qualifications of greatness needs to shift. Truly, there are many great artists working today right here in New York. But the media and the power centers have shifted, and artists themselves aren't necessarily interested in notions of GREATNESS, so much as they are trying to make their art as close to their vision that the limited resources our great country gives to dance allow.
There is a much deeper conversation to he had here, such as why those who are supposed to be journalists ignore the real story and just rehash old tropes, like trashing art and artists to 'kill the surplus population' or 'help the audience separate the wheat from the chafe.'
(some of the greater stuff I've seen lately Kaiser et al would undoubtedly classify as chafe.)
in an age where technology affords us all to be critics, the printed opinion of one old white guy lamenting the past is definitively OVER.
My own thought is that modern dance will become a repertory form rather than a single-choreography model. As the Merce trust illustrates, the masterpieces of the "golden age" will and are increasingly for sale, and a repertory company would have a very wide range to choose from. Much will be lost, I think, but much has already been lost in the demise of the "cult company" but the glorious repertory will be preserved. Few choreographers can sustain a full evening of their own work - imagine the marketing and funding possibilities of an evening of older brand name masterworks mixed with new choreography.
That being said, the various factors you mention are true. The administrative and management support for new companies is not there today, although I am more optimistic going forward thanks to the leadership development program run by the Kennedy Center.
As far as the general belief that there is declining interest in the art form - that's a widely accepted falsehood. The problem is simply access.
http://www.lehrerdance.org/Home.html
But as a result of that show, we now have conversations about how we prefer the excitement of the Paso Doble to the Tango, or how much more difficult it is to do a quick-step than the Lindy Hop. We are too old to become dancers now, but if I was 9 years old and watching these shows right now, I would have really wanted to become a professional dancer and would have taken dance instead of gymnastics or tennis. We even talk about the choreography and have favorite choreographers!
I think that in 10-20 years, we will really start to see the results of these influences in dance.
(Obviously, I am a fan of Charles Darwin and his impersonator)
So weird the author doesn't mention him.... what gives?
We are fortunate to have very fine artists come to our little city and give workshops and some of them have very innovative modern dance ideas. But when I look at big city 'modern dance' performances on pbs, either as you say they are 'dry and sterile' or they are 'obscene and sterile' as in the dancers are practically having choreographed sex onstage. My son considered a career in dance but decided he didn't want to be at the mercy of the choreographers and artistic directors all of his life. There are many very well trained dancers out there like him. We need new ways for them to dance and perform on their own terms, rather than the terms of others who to be honest are usually not very good role models in many ways . . .
now to the present. perhaps the greatest choreographer working in modern dance today is Mark Morris, who inexplicably goes unmentioned by you. there are also some younger artist working, such as Urban Bush Women, Azsure Barton, Mark Dendy and many others.
let's face it, all the arts are in trouble, due to the aging of the audience and the changes in taste.