Martha Graham was born in Pennsylvania, USA, in 1894. She died in 1991 in New York having already written her autobiography “Blood Memory”, which reminds us of (and perhaps is associated with) Donald McKayle’s choreography Blood Memories for Alvin Ailey’s American Dance Theatre. It may sound too complicated but it is not. Suffice to point out how significant it was for both Graham and Ailey the concepts of exploring the past and one’s cultural heritage.
Ailey was committed to the rediscovery of the Black Continent and the inclusion of all African Americans in everything that the American way of life had to offer, especially following the social upheaval of the 60s. Martha Graham was of Irish decent, equally alien, but always fiercely dedicated to her American identity. She found a great source of inspiration particularly in the first years of opening her school (1926-27) in the Indian traditions of Southwestern USA. She gradually developed her own unique dance technique which bears her name and is taught worldwide either in its original form or with modifications and additions. Graham’s interest in the diversity of communities is traced back in the 6 years that she had spent with the Ruth Saint Dennis and Ted Shawn groups (1916-1922). These groups made use of dances from other ethnic sets, though their interest appeared to be focused on the exotic and superficial; Graham wanted to delve deeper.
There are two distinct axes to Graham’s work since the foundation of her school with only four female dancers in 1926, USA and Greece. We should not rush to any conclusions however, as Martha had nothing in common with short mantles, sandals and paganistic pilgrimage to the Parthenon. The Greek mythology (and secondarily the Bible) pivoted her quest for a psychological exploration of archetypal female images and to seek the common characteristics which differentiate human behaviour. Furthermore, her invented technique, based on the contrast between contraction and release favoured the kind of internalised and almost epic approach to the “universal questions” on humanity, which preoccupied her. Woman is the central theme of Graham’s work, which can be gleaned in the terminology if not the execution of her basic technical innovation, that of contraction, a state mainly associated with the birthing process. Graham was dynamic and creative, so much so, that she became an icon for the emancipated woman who asserts herself and claims what is her right even in a traditionalist epoch having been subjected to the puritanical teachings of the early 20th century. In her long career she became Clytemnestra (Clytemnestra), Jocasta (Night Journey), Medea (Cave of the Heart), Ariadne (Errand into the Maze), Judith, Circe (Circe), Joan of Arc (Seraphic Dialogue), Emily Dickinson (Letter to the World), an anonymous woman who tries to follow her own path against the current (Heretic), the chosen one who is sacrificed (Primitive Mysteries), the American who fights for her nation (Frontier).
In the early years Graham was more impulsive, subversive and experimental though later on she reconciled with classical ballet which she had denied for years by creating choreographies for Nureyev in 1975 and 1977. Her group was the first foreign group to perform at the Paris Opera and has visited Greece on many occasions participating in the Athens Festival in the summer. Martha Graham was herself the history of dance, modern dance longest living institution which has just reached its first centenary. Graham and her troupe were the best evidence of a revolution which following an hierarchical structure ends to the pinnacle where the “sacred being” is worshipped unconditionally. Graham became authority. It is not therefore accidental that Graham who is one of the triumvirate of American modern dance (the other two being Charles Weidman and Doris Humphrey) has been considered by the revolutionary choreographers of the 60s as the epitome of conservatism or in any case that she expressed an art form in creative stalmate. How can a choreographer who prefers big theatres, is interested in good PR and steady benefactors to understand her times? What is the relevance, despite its innovation or talent, of a stylistically glorified Joan of Arc or the almost rigid Glauce at the feet of an enormous Jason? The critique of the male ideal has moved on, men themselves but the women too deal with their relationships in a different way and feminism has also entered a new stage.
What has been left of Graham’s work today? What led to the recent dissolution of her group amidst financial chaos after seventy years? This is a sad day for the world of dance. I cannot be sure what is to blame for the disbanding, failings of the management or the repertory. The ascendants, like swans, might have forgotten to leave the lake before its waters froze and their feet got caught in the ice. Martha might have overstayed her stage welcome; perhaps by far too long. For someone who loved the stage so much, she would be heartbroken by what has happened to her group. Perhaps a solution might be for her former dancers and members of her company to teach her works in other companies. Thus, they will avoid the inevitable mummification, by adapting the repertory and accept that not all can survive the tastes of a modern audience.
Although unfortunate, the ending can be understood within the parameters of an era which showcased the founder of a Company and a modern dance format that encouraged inflexible and entrenched affairs between the choreographer and his or her disciples. Martha Graham, could have been more tolerant as she held in deep respect both the ancient rites but also the American dream…