Margaret Fuhrer:
Hi, dance friends. I’m Margaret Fuhrer, content director for The Dance Edit newsletter and podcast. Welcome to this special episode in partnership with The Kennedy Center.
We are thrilled to be teaming up with The Kennedy Center for a series of episodes featuring artists from different companies, or different generations, or different areas of the dance world, in conversation with each other. Our first pairing is Janet Eilber, who has been artistic director of the Martha Graham Dance Company since 2005, and Michael Novak, artistic director of the Paul Taylor Dance Company since 2018. Both of those iconic modern dance institutions have had deep relationships with The Kennedy Center for decades.
As their leaders, Eilber and Novak face two big challenges simultaneously: preserving and maintaining these bodies of historically significant dance works, and then finding a way to bring their companies forward into the future. Their approaches to those challenges run on both parallel and crisscrossing tracks, much like the lives of Graham and Taylor themselves. And they both have really illuminating things to say about the field of modern dance today more broadly.
Here are Janet and Michael.
[pause]
Margaret Fuhrer:
Hi, Janet. Hi, Michael. It is such a pleasure to be here with you both today. Thanks for coming on.
Janet Eilber:
Looking forward to it.
Michael Novak:
I’m excited. Thank you.
Janet Eilber:
Michael, you and I should take our act on the road one of these days, right?
Michael Novak:
Presenters everywhere are tuning in!
Margaret Fuhrer:
Actually yeah, how often are the two of you in communication with each other? It sounds like a lot.
Janet Eilber:
Well, we’ve been in at least one other discussion of the future of modern dance, and how we’re placed in it, and that sort of thing.
Michael Novak:
I think we’re always orbiting and intersecting, and seeing each other at events. It’s ships in the night sometimes, but also, yeah.
Margaret Fuhrer:
So a continuation of an ongoing conversation, that’s great.
Michael Novak:
Always.
Margaret Fuhrer:
All right. So the topic today is how you are leading these two historic companies, Martha Graham Dance Company and Paul Taylor Dance Company, into the future. So let’s start with a big question that’s really the question, which is, how do the two of you think about the balance between preservation and innovation?
Janet Eilber:
Oh, I’ll start. It’s the center of everything we do. I mean, it’s 100% and 100%. The preservation and the authenticity of our legacy is paramount, and we spend a lot of time making sure that it’s still singing and connecting and speaking in its authentic voice. We’re lucky enough to have films of many generations of the Martha Graham Dance Company dancing these classic works. And variations that Martha herself directed, because she lived so long, so that when we remount a work, we have plenty of material to understand what Martha considered to be important, the sort of emotional message of a work, while dancers changed, audiences changed.
Janet Eilber:
And we sometimes look back on our archives and what is back there, and we’ve actually reinstated some of what Martha did in the early years. For example, in the ’80s, she had a tendency to sort of freshen her works with new costumes. Halston did a variety of new costumes for us. And now when we look at them, well, they’re from the ’80s. And we really prefer sort of mid-century modern choices she made in the ’40s and ’50s when she was creating the dances, when the Gucci was creating the fads that created this really pure world, that modernist world that she was after.
Janet Eilber:
So that’s one half of it, and the other half of it is innovation, and then I’ll let Michael take it over, because Martha was also all about innovation. And we are totally dedicated to using that authentic legacy to spring into the future, bouncing off of it, mining it for ways to be creative and to reach today’s audiences in new ways.
Michael Novak:
I agree 100%. My goal, as artistic director, is to always create a transformative theatrical experience for audiences. And that requires both preservation and innovation. And I don’t see them as opposites, I actually see them as fairly interconnected, because as Janet just said, there’s innovation even within preservation. There is going back into the vault. We actually remounted a bunch of early Paul Taylor works in his collaborations with Robert Rauschenberg, from the 1950s and 1960s. And even in going through archives, reconstructing works, in some cases, having to reimagine costuming, there’s a great deal of innovation, collaboration that’s happening. And these works, even if you kind of remove the date they were made, if you’re able to think beyond that, some of these works are still innovative and could still be considered avant garde, or pushing boundaries, or timeless, whatever that phrase is that you want to use.
Michael Novak:
So I think innovation’s very applicable in terms of the preservation of preexisting work, but I also think preservation is actually essential in the creation of new work. And what I mean by that is how you’re reporting it, how you’re documenting it. The intention of choreographers when they create work, at least in our world, is essential. It’s not just steps and counts. There’s usually a feeling, an emotion, an inspiration, a current of electricity. And that’s gold for the preservation of that innovation going forward.
Michael Novak:
So I see them as constantly influencing each other and dialoguing, in a way. And as director, the goal is to really kind of steer that conversation. Sometimes you get out of the way and it’s like a loaf of sourdough, or the sourdough starter, you just kind of let it to its thing. And then you help it when it needs help, and then sometimes your hands off. But legacy is always evolving. It’s always innovating. And Martha and Paul were massive innovators, and their collaborators. And not just even in dance, I mean, visual art, music, reimagining the proscenium stage, reimagining what the human form can do. They were constantly innovating. So keeping that spirit alive is essential.
Janet Eilber:
Yeah. And Michael I think you’ll agree with me, those two giant creative artists were far less concerned about preservation. They were totally… Martha was all about-
Michael Novak:
That’s true. Next, next, next.
Janet Eilber:
Yeah. Yeah. Martha embraced change. She was always trying to figure out what was different about her audiences day to day, and what she fcould put on the stage that would astonish them. So, people may have a tendency to think of these August, now the pioneers of modern dance, as being very sort of held frozen in place, but far from it. They were constantly moving into the future, in fact, you couldn’t keep up with them.
Michael Novak:
Yeah.
Margaret Fuhrer:
When that connection between the present and the past is less a line and more of a Möbious strip, as you’ve been articulating, what challenges does that create? And what opportunities does that open up? You’ve already started talking about this, but can you talk more about that?
Michael Novak:
I think the challenges are recognizing that it’s a living thing, that art is a living thing, and it’s always new because you have new bodies executing it. You have new personalities in the room. There’s an element of that is different with every generation. And the challenge, and the excitement, is nurturing that and figuring out that chemistry, and honing in on it so that when it’s a dancer in the role in a certain moment, whether it’s a new work or an old work that there’s a spark that happens. So the challenge is figuring out what’s that chemical reaction that we’re looking for. Then the opportunity is magic when you hit it and audiences see it and feel it.
Janet Eilber:
So we had a big challenge to overcome our reputation, when I took over the company. Martha Graham had been kind of frozen in a certain kind of expectation that the Graham Company only danced works by Martha Graham, and that you revered everything she did. That’s the reputation, that’s not necessarily what was happening in the company. So for us to develop new systems of reaching our audiences, there was resistance. What we were doing was going from this sort of, I call it the goddess-centric company, where everyone came to see what the goddess up on the mountain was doing. We had to turn around and make it completely opposite, a 180. We had to come down off the mountain and figure out how we were going to reach out to today’s audiences. And we began to do things early on, such as our spoken introduction.
Janet Eilber:
We have a spoken introduction to all of our performances now to bring context, to allow audiences into these works. And it’s not a secret club, you don’t need a handshake to understand modern dance or Martha Graham. And certainly our commissioning of new work was part of that contextual curation, frankly, of our legacy. So that we would bring in artists to create new works that reflected on the same themes as Martha’s dances, or reacted to them in some way. I think our Lamentation Variations, which was sort of our first foray into new work, it was dipping our toe in by inviting three contemporary choreographers to create short work inspired by a film of Martha dancing her iconic solo Lamentation. It was supposed to be a one night only event. We happened to have an opening night on the anniversary of 9/11.
Michael Novak:
Oh I didn’t know that.
Janet Eilber:
Yeah. And we were at the Joyce and on the sixth anniversary of 9/11, and felt that we had to commemorate the date. New York, especially six years after the event, it was a topic that you just couldn’t go out and have a gallant celebration on that day. So at any rate, we asked Aszure Barton and Richard Move and Larry Keigwin if they would create these short dances. We didn’t have much time. We didn’t have much money. We said, we’ll give you all exactly the same thing. 10 hours of rehearsal, keep your dance under four minutes, because that’s what Lamentation is. Simple dancewear costumes, simple lighting, no props, no sets. You can use any number of dancers in the company.
Janet Eilber:
And that night we showed the film of Martha followed by these three gems of contemporary choreography that were totally organically tied to our legacy. And it was so moving and beautiful that we, of course, we said, well, forget the one night only thing, we’re taking these the road. And we began commissioning new ones, Lar Lubovitch, Yvonne Rainer, Doug Varone, Michelle Dorrance, Sonya Tayeh, Liz Gerring, we have 15 Lamentation Variations now. I’m sorry, I’ve gone off on this tangent, but it’s just fertile, these legacies are so fertile. If you’re not limited by what other people think you should be, certainly Martha never allowed herself to be pigeonholed.
Michael Novak:
Neither did Paul.
Janet Eilber:
Right.
Margaret Fuhrer:
When we’re talking about commissioning new work, as part of this way of building the future while connecting to the past, how do you select the choreographers that you would like to help create that vision?
Michael Novak:
It’s interesting. So when Paul Taylor started commissioning other choreographers to come in, it was in 2014, it was on our 60th anniversary. And Paul wanted to build, as part of a larger transition plan for the company, he had a plan and he called it Paul Taylor American Modern Dance. And it was this idea that our Lincoln Center season would be a nexus for the icons of the past and the innovators of the future. And, I was in the company at the time, and I think that idea for Paul came from Martha, it came from Merce, it came from learning about Tudor and Balanchine, and how do we keep the art going forward? Or in Merce’s case, how do we disband the company? And how does the trust, that is empowered to take the work, how does that go forward?
Michael Novak:
So I think Paul was kind of listening to all of his contemporaries. And I was never privy to the process of how these outside choreographers were brought in, Larry Keigwin, and Doug Elkins, Lila York, Kyle Abraham, Margie Gillis, Pam Tanowitz, an incredible roster of people, as artistic director, and being part of that process was helpful. And I’ll tell you why, is that often a lot of the choreographers after their first work with the Taylor Company would say something to the extent of, “Knowing what I know now, I would do something different next.”
Michael Novak:
And it made me realize that commissioning isn’t just finding a choreographer whose work you like, you’re really, you’re commissioning a person. You’re commissioning a relationship. So I started looking at my commissioning project, you would say, as I’m building relationships. The product is art, but I’m really who are people that I can bring into the fold, who I want to get to know, whose work and maturation I’m excited about, someone who I may want to commission 3, 4, 5, 6 times over the next 10, 15, 20 years.
Michael Novak:
For me, it was not so much like a one and done. It was no, who have I really… Who’s interesting to me. So when I look at choreographers, one of the things that catches my eye is how they move large groups across the stage. We have 16 dancers who are known for running, very dramatically. So I look for how the choreographer guides a mass across the stage, that’s very important to me. Emotional range, depth is important to me. That’s also a hallmark of the Paul Taylor repertory and style is that you have the light in the dark, and everything in between.
Michael Novak:
But I also look for choreographers who remind me of a facet of a work by Paul. And I say that because I think the new work can inform how dancers do the Taylor work. I think it’s a dialogue. And I think if I commission intelligently, the new work will only make them better at Taylor, and Taylor will make them better at the new work. And so I’m also looking for where do they fit within Taylor’s spectrum? And then how do I program and curate other dances into Taylor cannon to compliment that? So it’s much more than just, oh, I like their dance. That’s good. It’s a much larger, complicated matrix for me.
Janet Eilber:
Yeah. There are too many talented people out there to just say, oh, I like their work or I like their work. And then the choice is endless. Our system was a little more… Again, because we felt we were sort of fighting this reputation that everything was very frozen in place for the Graham Company, our way of looking for artists to work with sort of grew out of this idea of bringing more context to what Graham is doing. And opening the doors in many different directions, many different points of access for audiences to come and understand our work. And so along with that, we began to use what we call our season scenes. We have an overarching idea for each one of our seasons. We’ve been doing this for over 10 years now, for example, Myth and Transformation was a theme that allowed us to, of course, bring forth all of Martha’s Greek works, and works that were inspired biblically or by other stories.
Janet Eilber:
And another theme was Shape and Design where we leaned into all of her modernist work. Sacred Profane, where we went with the more religious works and her ritualistic works. So there were themes that were sort of born out of these different approaches by Martha Graham. Many of these years had the same Graham works on them, they fit under different themes, of course, but it also steered us toward who we would commission to do a new work under that heading. And I looked for artists who were as different from Martha Graham as possible, really I have to say. I have masterpieces by Martha Graham. I don’t want something that’s Graham-esque. That choreographer would suffer in comparison. I was really looking for something that would stand in contrast to Martha’s work, but would have a conversation with Martha’s work through the thematic material. So we hired on [inaudible 00:17:58], the Greek choreographer, during our Myth and Transformation season.
Janet Eilber:
During Sacred and Profane, it was Sidi Larbi Cherkaoui. We’re working now in our theme, HUMAN/NATURE, talking about Martha’s reverence for the human body, but also our relationship to the planet and nature. And we did a work, actually by eight different choreographers, eight vignettes inspired by nature, sun, moon, stars, wind, water. It was a format, actually, of a dance Martha created in 1952. And Paul Taylor saw it and said, as he was a student in Julliard, said it was the reason he became a choreographer. But the work disappeared. So we only had the structure of it. And we invited Sonya Tayeh to oversee this group of very diverse voices, dance voices, that came together in this work.
Janet Eilber:
So again, the idea of having a structure, this contextual curation, that might seem limiting, is actually very freeing. And allows the artists, that come to work with us, to be wildly inventive in their own voice. I mean, I don’t want them to try to conform to the Martha Graham voice or style or anything. I want them to be their own distinctive and wonderful creative self. And that’s worked very well for us.
Margaret Fuhrer:
This idea of contextual curation actually seems related to the way that both Graham and Taylor chose dancers as well. Because they’re both known for finding and cultivating these really singular performers. So I’m wondering now, when selecting dancers for your companies, what do you look for? Are you looking for qualities that you know that Graham, or that Taylor, sought out? Do you have your own criteria? Is it some combination of both?
Michael Novak:
I would say knowledge of the style is helpful. So is technique. I don’t want to downplay the significance of those, but I’ll say having done a number of auditions at this point, that when I watch an audition, I look for tells about how a person is as a person. Especially when they mess up. Do they laugh? Do they commit to the mistake, and they do it so perfectly wrong that everyone else looks wrong, even though they’re doing it right? Do they stomp off because they got frustrated? Do they laugh and check in with everyone else and make it… There are these little moments that reveal themselves in auditions that I can teach you how to do a scoop and a contraction and jump. I can work with you on that. Hiring a good person, like a genuine, like a team player, that’s what I’m looking for.
Michael Novak:
I’m looking at who’s that person going to be when we’re at 10,000 feet, and we’re jetlagged on a rake stage, and half the company has the Montezumas. Who’s that person who’s going to be like, “We got this guys, we’re going to do it. We’re going to go, let’s go.” That is revealed so apparently it’s so easy to see actually. And I want to hear Janice talk about how she sees that, too.
Michael Novak:
We give them combinations of stuff that’s very classical and stuff that’s more grotesque and modern. We have them walk across the floor one by one, as Paul Taylor did, still. And that’s where you see the person away from the artifice of a technique and a style. You see just that lone individual and who they are. And it reveals a lot.
Janet Eilber:
I agree, Michael. I mean, it’s something probably dancers don’t think about when they come to an audition, and we’re auditioning this weekend, so it’s something I’m thinking about. The importance of their personal interaction with the other dancers, with the other artists in the room, and with the guest artists in the room. And on the road, and with our production crew, and with the production crew at every theater we walk into, and the presenter of every theater we walk into, and their VIP waiting at the reception in the green room. It’s incredibly important to our work that we find artists who are a mature and wonderful human beings, I think, I have to say. I’m lucky enough to have a company full of them right now. We’ve got a company that has been with us, almost all of them, for six, seven seasons, at least now. So they’re a wonderful community.
Janet Eilber:
That aside, what we’re looking for in audition, you touched on it when you mentioned technique. We’re also looking, and I bet this is true of you, Michael, of expression within form. We have-
Michael Novak:
I like that.
Janet Eilber:
The Graham… Martha didn’t want you to get out on stage and just emote, your body was supposed to reveal the expression through the movement.
Michael Novak:
Yeah.
Janet Eilber:
She also expected you to be an individual on stage. So you have to let yourself come out through that form. Even if you’re in a Graham chorus, you are supposed to be presenting yourself and expressing yourself as who you uniquely are. So that’s one of the things we look for in an audition, if someone can really bring themselves through the movements that we’re asking them to learn on the spot. So combination of things, and I think dancers also don’t realize when they come into audition, how much is out of their hands. We might need a tall woman and everybody in the room is 5’2″. We might need a follower for Appalachian Spring and the tall ladies are kind of automatically disqualified. Of course, we love to see them. We want to see them dance. We want to get to know them, but there are certain things. So I always hope that dancers will come into an audition just there to enjoy it as if it were a workshop, or to really relax and have a good time because that’s when they’ll show us their best selves, I think.
Michael Novak:
And you never know as an artist. I can speak to personal experiences of not getting a job, and then two months later, I get a phone call.
Janet Eilber:
Right.
Michael Novak:
That happened quite a bit. And it makes me think it’s a good thing that, “Thank you so much that I had a great day. Hope to hear from you soon,” and then you end up hearing from them soon. The world is so small, so you don’t know. I mean, we’ve had emails back and forth about artists, Janet, about like, “Listen, I have someone in mind. I am not in a position right now, please consider if you know someone, if you know a company who’s looking.” We’re trying to help artists do what it is they’re here to do. We really are. There’s this underground network that I had an audition a couple months ago. I sent out emails about like, “What type are you looking for? Because I might have someone for you.”
Janet Eilber:
We want them to succeed, so.
Michael Novak:
Paul had a made up word that he used called zunch, Z-U-N-C-H. And zunch was a word that he would describe as this he’d say, “Let’s be ourselves, but more so.” And it was kind of this call to action that when you’re dancing, hopefully you are not just you, that you are this expanded version that’s more alive, more powerful, more sensitive. Everything is at the Nth degree. And nervousness can get in the way of that, of living on the edge like that and feeling things so deeply. So if there is a way that artists listening in, as much as you can, live what it is, your dance, express what you’re feeling through Graham’s work, through Taylor’s work. Even if it’s new, still living and embodying it is so beautiful and exciting to watch. And it’s so, it’s rich and allows us to, it makes our jobs harder, but it helps the field in the long run.
Margaret Fuhrer:
I’m going to go embroider two pillows, one “expression within form,” and the other one “zunch,” and put them on either ends of my couch. But you both danced for the creators of your companies, the companies you now lead.
Michael Novak:
Yeah.
Margaret Fuhrer:
So how did those experiences factor now into your leadership? Do you hear the voices of Graham or Taylor in your ear when you’re making decisions?
Janet Eilber:
She’s in my body. I don’t hear her in my ear. I learned so many life lessons from having her direct me in roles, from having her as the third eye to help me understand what my unique powers were and to use them to the fullest, to 100%, my own power. I danced roles that were hers, but I was six inches taller than she was. And I had a much more lyrical style. I was quite a different dancer, of course everyone’s a different dancer from Martha Graham, but I would perform the movement she created for herself in a different way, just in terms of my physicality. And she expected that. It wouldn’t have crossed her mind to ask me to perform a role, the way that she performed it.
Janet Eilber:
But she would encourage me to dig into myself and understand what of myself I could bring to all of these characters. And those were life lessons. When someone teaches you to be your most powerful self that’s not just something that stays on the stage. The other thing was her courage. She was in a constant state of free fall. This idea that she was constantly stepping into the future, which means stepping into the unknown, you don’t know if there’s anything you’re going to step onto, so to speak.
Janet Eilber:
And that kind of watching her embrace change and understanding that change is with us. You can try to hide, but change is what’s happening. So embracing it, seeking it, is an exhilarating ride. I don’t have the same bravery and courage as Martha Graham, but she certainly opened that door for me to allow me to say yes to everything. Yes, we’re going to take Lamentation and let other choreographers create new works to it. We’re going to go to Anne Bogart and say, “Use these notes from Martha Graham and create a new work for us.” We’re going to create a digital community. We’re going to have Instagram. All of this new stuff that Martha was not aware of, she would’ve loved.
Janet Eilber:
People say, “Really? Martha Graham on Instagram?”
Janet Eilber:
I say, “Yes.” I think I told [inaudible 00:30:10] magazine-
Michael Novak:
Oh, she would’ve.
Janet Eilber:
…or somebody. Yeah. Her handle is [inaudible 00:30:16].
Michael Novak:
I love that [inaudible 00:30:18]. That’s another pillow.
Margaret Fuhrer:
I was going to say.
Michael Novak:
We got a lot of pillows by the end of this conversation. I think, hearing you talk about Martha, Janet, and that sense of free fall. And I think of Paul, when I knew him, towards the end of his career. And I think Paul was in a observing phase, or stage, I think, coming to the end of his life, the end of his [inaudible 00:30:48]. And I, having done so much innovation and so much risk taking and pushing his own art form forward, my takeaway in working with Paul, was the power of the subtle in the simple and knowing when to employ it.
Michael Novak:
And in terms of sometimes just touching someone on their hand and looking them in the eye could be more impactful than a bunch of jumps in a row. And how he would demonstrate how to do that was hypnotic. It’s not to say he didn’t get up and demonstrate how to do a contraction. Because he did do that once. He was watching class one day, and he was smoking a cigarette, and he did not like how we were contracting, and he got up and he said, “You have to do it like this.” And he, it was his whole rib cage inverted. And you saw this like, oh my, it must have been amazing when he was as tall as he was when he was younger.
Michael Novak:
So he still had that physicality of when something needed to have that zunch, he could do it, but then he would give you something so delicate. So that I took away for me. I also think Paul was able to kind of chuckle things off, you know, “That didn’t work.” He would try something in the studio and there was a sense of trying to do the impossible, don’t get me wrong. But when it wouldn’t happen, he’d be like, “Well, we’ll try something else.” And that’s been very helpful in the pandemic as we’ve been innovating and launching our digital programming, trying new ways to engage with our archives, new programming models that I’m playing with when we go on the road. And learning from what doesn’t work, we’re like, “Well, we’re going to do that better again.”
Michael Novak:
And not obsessing about, “It wasn’t perfect.” And recognizing that it’s a process, it’s a journey. I think that’s one of the things, Janet, I’m interested to hear your thought on this, that as a dancer turned director is that as a dancer, you’re rehearsing daily, your product is fine tuned daily. Your coaching happens daily. As a director, your programming is over years. You learn from the programs that you create and curate start to teach you and your audiences teach you. And the rate is slower. The feedback is a different feedback loop. So having patience, the way Paul had patience, is something that I try to embrace. Especially through the past two years we’ve been through.
Janet Eilber:
Yeah, yeah you’re right. The programming, of course it’s a completely different art form, if you will. And I find there are certain logistics that means you have to plan in advance. What dances you’re going to take on the road next year, what presenters want. Costumes have to get ready, you have to commission artists 18 months to two years in advance, that sort of thing. And I find one of the challenges with that is we want our programs to resonate with the times, if you will, with the audience that is coming into the theater. And especially in the last two or three years, the social political atmosphere has been so charged, and so changeable, with the pandemic, with the Me Too movement, with George Floyd’s murder. The audiences are, when they have been allowed back in the theater or when they were watching us digitally, were coming with a completely, I won’t say a completely different mindset, with a supercharge that we could not have anticipated when we planned our programming.
Janet Eilber:
So being able to respond to what’s happening in the world and audiences needs, not just their expectations, but their needs. I feel like we need a lot of joy right now. We need a lot of love and a lot of community, and at the same time dances that move discussions and conversations forward. And so staying on top of that actually is kind of not only a day to day, but hour to hour, minute to minute, 3:00AM kind of creative curation conversation that you’re constantly reacting to.
Margaret Fuhrer:
Actually speaking of resonating with the times, and also coming back to the idea from before about innovation within preservation, have you ever faced questions about something problematic in a classic work by one of your founders? And how do you approach those types of situations if they do arise?
Michael Novak:
I would say that I haven’t necessarily. I’ve managed some conversations about questions about work that are on the darker side, of which Paul has several things in his dark works. My job right now is largely looking at all those works that haven’t been back in a while and trying to figure out knowing what I know now, having done the readings, the anti-racism work, looking at the climate ahead, looking at these preexisting works that were made in generations of multiculturalism and white supremacy and patriarchy. It’s not necessarily never performing art again, it’s figuring out how to show it responsibly and to talk about it responsibly.
Michael Novak:
I think it goes back to Janet’s, this idea of the pre-show conversation giving audiences a lens, or an entry point. Because there are dances that even in the short window of two years, the topic that may be a red flag can change considerably depending on the composer, the visual artist, or the work. So it’s been a lot of thinking for me, as a leader, as a curator, when it comes to work that’s preexisting. But also wanting to make sure that we’re curating responsibly, and making sure that if we do want to have a work that provokes thought and dialogue and questions and reveals facets of humanity that are difficult, that we don’t not show that because that is a facet of humanity.
Michael Novak:
Sometimes art is a mirror, and it’s meant to be a mirror. And sometimes it’s a blanket that will hold you. So thinking through all of that, it’s been on my mind a lot over the past two years.
Janet Eilber:
Oh yeah. It’s very present, and I think something that the modern dance community, as a whole, should be talking about, talking about together. More has been done, I think, in the ballet world. Looking at The Nutcracker, for example, and all the cultural appropriation in The Nutcracker, and really taking that on more than those of us in the modern dance world have. When I look at other art forms, which is something I do a lot to get inspiration for how we move forward, they’ve been talking about monuments around the country and what those monuments mean in today’s context. And 20th century dance has a lot of monuments that we should be asking. What context were they born out of? And does that still resonate for today’s world? Or can we make it resonate better? Can we open conversations to it?
Janet Eilber:
And so, Martha Graham was incredibly inspired by the rituals of Native Americans that she observed in the late 1920s and ’30s. And it was an experience that she carried with her, her entire life, and quite often informed her work. You look at the ritual walks that she used. I mean, no one would ever say, “Oh, well she’s stolen that from, she’s appropriated that from Native Americans.” but she called their dance a dance of necessity.
Janet Eilber:
The Native American rituals were about the need for food, or rain, or they were about being one with nature. I’m sorry, I don’t want to characterize them because I’m not an expert in it, but Martha said they were dances of necessity. And that was something that she was seeking in her own art form. So as we look at her works, I think our question is, well, what is the line between inspiration and cultural appropriation?
Michael Novak:
Appropriation.
Janet Eilber:
Yeah. But there are other works that I’m rewriting many of our program notes, Appalachian Spring can be looked at as a very colonization type of ballet. Where in fact, Aaron Copland and Martha Graham, at the time, were very much involved in understanding all facets of America. They considered Harpers Ferry, and abolitionists, and there’s a depth to these works that should be in conversation, I believe. As we look to our next seasons, that’s part of one of the things that I’ll be weaving into the first of our three year celebration of our 100th anniversary.
Michael Novak:
That’s wow. [inaudible 00:41:15], Mazel Tov, all the things.
Janet Eilber:
Thank you.
Michael Novak:
That’s amazing. That’s a lot of champagne you’re going to be opening.
Janet Eilber:
Oh God, I hope so. I may have to start now.
Michael Novak:
100 years, damn.
Michael Novak:
And I think, I just want to say, I think these are conversations that, to Janet’s point, must happen. I think it’s conversations over time. One of the things that I’ve been trying to fix all this, and solve all of it, like by Friday at 2:00PM. And these topics are so important, and so layered, that I think taking the time to have these dialogues, and to listen, and to check yourself in your own privilege or your own opportunities, listening and recognizing that this, I think the responsibility of evolution and moving the field forward, there are things that we can do quickly and immediately. We can do program notes, and we can kind of talk about things in new and exciting ways, but I think the long term goal of looking at equity, looking at diversity, looking at representation, accessibility in the next 50, 60, 100 years, what does that look like? And then work backward from there. And that’s the goal. So recognizing the rate of time that these different things can evolve and improve through.
Janet Eilber:
And I just think we’ll benefit from coming together to talk about these things. I can defend Martha Graham and Appalachian Spring, and I know her history and everything, but I would like to have a conversation about our 20th century master works with you, Michael, and with Eduardo at Ballet Hispanico, and Virginia Johnson, and Bill T. There are so many people who have so much knowledge about these works, that come at them from different perspectives. And I know I would benefit greatly from how they would talk about these things.
Michael Novak:
I would as well.
Margaret Fuhrer:
Actually talking about dances as monuments, I thought was such an interesting idea. I think a lot of people think of the single choreographer, modern dance company model, itself, as a kind of monument. And I know neither of your companies are single choreographer companies anymore, but do you think that that model today is still viable or still valuable? What are your thoughts on that?
Michael Novak:
One of the things we didn’t talk about in the previous topic was capitalism. Because I think you can’t talk about any of these cultural and social things without talking about money, frankly.
Janet Eilber:
Totally.
Michael Novak:
And I bring that back to this conversation about the single choreographer model, because I know that much of our company’s touring, and exposure to the world, came from government funding, almost exclusively, in the early years. And I think a lot of the single choreographer companies, and I could be wrong, I’m happy to learn more, but I think the amount of art funding that was coming from government support was very different in the 1940s, ’50s, ’60s, ’70s than it is now. So I think philanthropy and capitalism supported a single choreographer model in a way that I think is different from what’s happening now. Not that we don’t still have single choreographer companies, we have Kyle Abraham, we have Pam Tanowitz-
Janet Eilber:
Mark.
Michael Novak:
Mark. We have Andrea Miller. It’s still there, but I know the philanthropic systems that-
Janet Eilber:
Totally influence it.
Michael Novak:
…sustain those companies are different.
Janet Eilber:
Absolutely.
Michael Novak:
Than what I think Martha, than what Limón, Taylor, Merce had, even Twyla. So that I think is where the difference is.
Janet Eilber:
Yeah, I agree. The philanthropic model has changed and the generation has changed. I mean, when we talk about Merce, and Paul, and Martha, and José, these giants of the art form, were really, were the foundation, were the revolutionaries, basically, one generation or the next generation.
Janet Eilber:
And so many things have changed that allow… There are new systems that support creatives today in a much different way, but allow them to take advantage of being freelancers, in a way, and not have the burden of paying 15 dancers a living wage. They can be much more flexible and fluid. That’s supported by technology, social media. There are so many different ways to reach audiences now than there were back when our mentors were creating their works and their company. Just so many things have changed that I really think that the single choreographer company is, it’s a bit cumbersome. It’s a bit of a dinosaur. I mean, it’s why we’re both doing repertory companies at this point, rather than the work of only one choreographer. Someone like Andrea Miller, yes, she has dancers she uses regularly, but her gigs are with the Metropolitan Museum of Art, or she’s making a film in the Lincoln Center pool, or she’s doing a commercial, or people do operas. It’s just, these creatives have a much wider range of opportunities now.
Michael Novak:
It’s one of the reasons why we launched a resident choreographer position, specifically. Because choreographers do freelance so much now that they can kind of build a brand based off of their choreography, rather than their company, and the opportunities are huge. And I was thinking about this idea of a single choreographer company. And I was like, having a position here where a choreographer can come home. They can do all the things, but they know that they have a creative place in which they can maybe take more risks, because it’s not a new team that they’re working with, that the artists that they come back to are the ones who know them. Trust is different, it’s more established. And the idea is that a choreographer can learn with that home base in a different way than they can going from project to project.
Janet Eilber:
And let’s face it. You’re giving them a financial base, too.
Michael Novak:
And a financial base.
Janet Eilber:
This conversation came around, you say there are so many opportunities out there. I know there are a lot of young choreographers listening to this that are saying, “Where? I can’t make a living. I can’t make a living.”
Michael Novak:
Where are they? Yeah.
Janet Eilber:
I don’t know how these young artists really can do it. They do do it, because it’s their love and they figure out a way. But the financial part of this conversation is-
Michael Novak:
It’s huge.
Janet Eilber:
It’s huge.
Michael Novak:
I think that’s why a lot of foundations right now are allocating funds and financial support specifically to artists, in terms of they’re going through the dance makers rather than going to institutions, to trying to offset what you were just talking about. That these choreographers do have the financial support to keep creating, independent of a general operating support for a larger institution. So offsetting that balance, as well, is something that I think is influencing this conversation about a single choreographer company and philanthropy.
Margaret Fuhrer:
So, this is not a great segue, but I’m going to close with a question just acknowledging how intertwined your founder’s lives were, how intertwined Graham and Taylor’s lives were. How do you think their resulting interconnected legacies are similar and different? And how have those similarities and differences shaped your two approaches to leadership? Two huge questions.
Michael Novak:
Those are two huge questions.
Janet Eilber:
Yeah. I’m not sure I can see the contrast. I’m so over on Martha’s mountain, I like to say Martha taught Paul everything he knows.
Michael Novak:
Yeah.
Janet Eilber:
Of course that’s not true. He left her. She was in love with Paul. He was a swimmer before he came to be a dancer, and she loved his wingspan, she created roles for him. But you have to take his history from there, Michael. And when he broke away and started experimenting with those new, those works that you brought to the Joyce here and partnering with these great contemporary artists.
Michael Novak:
Yeah, I think through Martha, Paul, I think she taught him the contraction and how to use his back and pelvis in a way that I don’t quite think… Maybe he got a little bit of that from Balanchine in a, albeit, different way. But when I look at Graham, I look at Paul, I see the use of the arms, the sculpture, the torso, the-
Janet Eilber:
Expression through form.
Michael Novak:
Through the pelvis, the expression through the pelvis. I see that in everything we do. And a lot of the dancers that he worked with in the 1960s had extensive Graham training or Cunningham training. And I think that’s important to note because when, when I bring back work, frankly, through every decade… Every decade’s slightly different in terms of the dancers knowledge of dance technique or dance style. The dancers in the 1980s moved differently, their training background was different. You go into the ’60s and a little bit into the early ’70s, you’re seeing Paul wrestling with Graham, like loving it, and wanting to do his own thing. And rather than doing a contraction this way, I’m going to spir… Finding new ways to explore it.
Michael Novak:
So that wrestling, I love in the early work. And I try to get our dancers to understand that and see that and make sure that they embody that in a way, when they do a work from the ’60s that they would not do in a work from the ’90s, it should be different. Watch your original cast is something that we do a lot. Look at those dancers, look how they were moving, look how they were falling to the floor.
Janet Eilber:
Michael, wouldn’t you say that what connects our work, Paul’s and Martha’s work, is that they were both interested in expression through form to expressing… As opposed to say Merce.
Michael Novak:
Yeah.
Janet Eilber:
Now, Merce really broke away and wanted nothing but the design to speak to the audience. And I know his disciples, I’ve spoken with them, we’ve done sort of common programs comparing the two, say, “Yeah, but the emotion was there, but he didn’t talk about it a lot.” But if we really want to be the short form, Merce was more about lines and designs, and modernist design. Whereas Paul and Martha really stayed with that idea of having humans on stage, that were relating to other and relating to the audience. And I think that’s something that kept them connected. And of course there are many other choreographers who are of that same ilk. They want humans on stage, not just designs.
Michael Novak:
And I think Paul also liked… Martha called him “naughty boy” in 1957, because he covered the dancer’s faces with the Robert Rauschenberg costume. And there’s something endearing and also kind of, like a mentor who’s going to always kind of push you a little bit, and I see that. I see that relationship there kinetically, too, and in the stories. But Paul didn’t do a lot of Greek myths in his rep. I think he kind of was like, “Okay, thank you, Martha.” He didn’t do a lot of chance procedure. He tried it, he did it with Merce. Did it and was like, “That’s not quite for me.” Worked with Balanchine, tried… So, I think it was all part of Paul forming his own way of creating and creating art.
Michael Novak:
And I think for me, to make it back to leadership, I think I’m doing the same thing. I’m borrowing from Paul and I’m learning from Paul. I’m learning from our rehearsal directors, from our alumni. I’m learning from the culture I’m in. I’m learning from social media and digital content, and philosophy on futures and futurism. And I’m pulling from all these different sources to figure out what I think is truly going to make impactful art for the future. And I do think expression is essential in that.
Janet Eilber:
And we’re lucky. We’re lucky we have these incredible core collections.
Michael Novak:
Yeah. And the timelessness of some of these works.
Janet Eilber:
Yes, we have these masterpieces.
Michael Novak:
I was talking about Chronicle with someone earlier today and I was like, “I don’t care what year it was made, every time I see it. It’s brand new.” It’s still new to me. It’s like, God, this is such a good work.
Janet Eilber:
How lucky are we? We have these masterpieces, they’re masterpieces. All we really have to do is put them on stage, and open the door. We have spectacular dancers, we have spectacular art, and we’re lucky enough to be commissioning work from some of today’s top artists and curating it in a way that resonates in today’s world. And I just think I have the greatest job ever.
Margaret Fuhrer:
Well, that seems like a lovely place to end. Janet and Michael, thank you both so much for making the time for this conversation. I really appreciate it. I’ve got to go—I have to go embroider some pillows.
Michael Novak:
Tune in next time! [laughter]
Janet Eilber:
Let us know when they’re on Etsy, so we can order a few.
Margaret Fuhrer:
I’ll give you my shop name, yeah.
Janet Eilber:
Okay, great. [laughter]
[pause]
Another big thank-you to Janet and Michael. In the show notes we have links to both the Martha Graham Dance Company and Paul Taylor Dance Company websites as well as their social pages, so that you can find out what both troupes have planned for their seasons this year—a lot of exciting things on the horizon. We also have links to The Kennedy Center’s website and social accounts, so you can keep up with all of their great dance programming. And finally there’s a link to Dance Magazine’s August cover story on the Taylor company, which is not to be missed.
Thanks to all of you for listening. Keep learning, keep advocating, and keep dancing.