To now analyse each element of Cunningham’s previously listed contributions and achievements, Cunningham has firstly contributed to dance his teaching, and through that, his knowledge of dance. He was ‘born in Centralia, Washington, 1919’ (McDonagh in Kostelanetz, 1992:1) and began teaching back in the 1950s as he tells here:
‘I didn’t have any money and I certainly couldn’t pay anybody since I was barely surviving myself, so I tried to think of what I could give the dancers in return for their labours [sic]. I thought, well, maybe teaching class’
(Cunningham in Morgenroth, 2004:14).
Cunningham still gives classes up to the present day with his ‘assistant Robert Swinston and others’ (Morgenroth, 2004:14).
Cunningham continues,
‘The class was used as a laboratory, as a way to try out movement material. It also helped to develop a common vocabulary’
(Cunningham in Morgenroth, 2004:14).
Therefore, through his teaching, Cunningham has created a wholly new kind of movement known today as the Cunningham technique, which shall be looked at further on in this essay.
Even after all these years of teaching, ‘his Westbeth Studio in New York’s West Village continues to be a prominent center [sic] for dance training’ (Morgenroth, 2004:11) thus proving the impact Cunningham has on people though his teaching. To go into more detail here, Cunningham has taught many students, who have then gone on to be widely known in the dance field, such as Siobhan Davies, Richard Alston, Carolyn Brown and Steve Paxton amongst many. Many can be arguably depicted here as a former Cunningham student, through using his work as a basis for their own. For example, Alston incorporates the formalistic approach within his work, which is very clear and not very balletic. Davies does the same, with a slightly blurred use of the Cunningham style, but the underlying technique is still there.
So finally, Cunningham has contributed to dance, his ways of teaching and passing on knowledge to others by his continual teaching, which he has now been doing for over fifty years, which is an achievement in itself.
Another one of Cunningham’s contributions to dance is as a choreographer, and with this contribution comes the achievement of incorporating chance methods and computer composition with his work, and in turn gaining acceptance. He ‘has been a prolific choreographer…and has been arguably the most influential choreographer of the twentieth century’ (Morgenroth, 2004:11). To look into this quote, Cunningham’s first piece of choreography was in 1942, and his most recent was in 2004, showing he has now been choreographing for sixty-two years. Furthermore, in these sixty-two years, Cunningham has created over one hundred and fifty works. In addition, to still be choreographing at the age of eighty-seven, can also be described as an achievement as Cunningham has long left behind the age of traditional retirement.
To look into his idiosyncratic style, ‘Cunningham was among the first to challenge the conventions of the founding generation of modern dance’ (Kostelanetz, 1992:1). Through this statement, it is possible that he can be labelled as a dance pioneer. He
‘aimed for a modernism that was not anti-ballet…but somehow beyond ballet. His desire was to combine what he saw as the pronounced use of legs in ballet with a strong emphasis on the upper body in modern dance methods. One of his technical advancements, related to ballet’s five positions of the feet, he referred to as the Five Positions of the Back: upright, curve, arch, twist and tilt’
(Bremser, 1999:73).
He also opens up the space ‘to consider it equal’ (Lesschaeve in Carter, 1998:29), which he drew from Einstein’s quote of ‘there are no fixed points in space’ (Einstein in Lesschaeve in Carter, 1998:29). Moreover, he chose to break away from having a meaning behind the dance and
‘every collaborative element maintains its autonomy. The choreography, the score, the settings are all created in isolation and often don’t encounter one another until the very first performance’
(Copeland, 1983:312).
These are all characteristics of Modern dance, so here it is already clear that Cunningham was (and is still) constantly striving for something new to bring to the world of dance, which can be described as a contribution.
A contributing factor behind Cunningham’s choice to remove all narrative form in his work was through his work with Martha Graham.
‘In 1939…Cunningham was invited to join the Graham Company…and remained with the company until the mid-forties’
(Kostelanetz, 1992:1).
Through closely working with Graham, he experienced her choreography first hand, which is described as expressive and very much about emotion; it ‘is based on introspection while Cunningham’s originates from a kind of anti-introspection which produces abstraction’ (Morris, 1996:280). Cunningham then went on to reject Graham’s ways of thinking, and in the process, ‘introduced a new concept of expressivity to dance’ (Morris, 1996:278). This new way of thinking led to Cunningham being
‘the first choreographer to achieve (or even attempt to achieve) the aims of the Russian Formalist Victor Shklovsky...who wrote that art is the effort to “remove the automatism of perception, to increase the difficulty and length of perception”’
(Copeland, 1983:314).
Since Cunningham broke away from Graham, he
‘has employed divergent styles that range from the virtuosity of ballet technique to the minimalism of pedestrian movement. By continually experimenting with artistic possibilities, which free his dances from predictability, he eliminates many of the familiar references used to decipher meaning and intention in choreographic art’
(Drown in Vaughan, 1997:17).
Here, Cunningham has opened up a completely new world of exploration, and this he has done through the means of chance methods and computer composition.
He introduced chance methods into his work, having been ‘influenced by composer John Cage’ (Morris, 1996:272), he
‘favored [sic] chance methods as a way of opening up movement possibilities beyond those he might customarily invent. When he uses chance methods, he prepares elaborate charts for such elements as body parts, directions, the duration of the movements, and the order of the choreographed sequences. Then he composes a dance by selecting elements from the charts through arbitrary means. These include coin-tossing, dice-throwing, or hexagrams’
(Morris, 1996:271).
To summarise the effect that Cunningham has created through chance methods, he has
‘used chance techniques to force his imagination past conventional patterns of theatrical movement…he separated dance from décor and music in order to avoid any overdirective unity of impression – anything that would force a “meaning” on his audience – and how, by these means, he released dance from any referential necessity, restoring to its true, self-sufficient essence’
(Acocella in Vaughan, 1997:3).
His choice of using chance methods has therefore opened up endless possibilities of dance, ‘and it is considered to be fortuitous because of its random selection process’ (Morris, 1996:272).
In addition to experimenting with chance methods to enhance his work, ‘Cunningham has been using the computer choreographic software, LifeForms, to make new dances since December 1989’ (Schiphorst in Vaughan, 1997:79). This software allows the user to decide how the body (or body parts) move, which in turn can be turned into phrases and eventually a dance. This interests Cunningham, as he says, ‘the resulting movements may be more peculiar than a body would tend to do’ (Cunningham in Morgenroth, 2004:17), and
‘it is directly through the dances he makes that Cunningham has amplified the understanding that choreographers can work with computer technology to extend possibilities in creating dance. Cunningham continues to be a mentor and inspiration to generations of dance and choreographers’
(Schiphorst in Vaughan, 1997:95).
This has led to the thought that Cunningham has gained the status of being an advocate for dance.
In conclusion to Cunningham’s work with computer composition,
‘while Cunningham’s method of creating movement for dance has evolved and expanded as a result of working with LifeForms, the LifeForms system has also evolved in response to Cunningham’s interaction and feedback’
(Schiphorst in Vaughan, 1997:83).
This contribution has led to others experimenting in dance composition through using a computer, which has improved through Cunningham being a pioneer of computer composition in relation to dance.
However, Cunningham’s choreography was not always recognised and appreciated as fresh and organic work, so for his work to have arguably grown in popularity there has perhaps been a degree of acceptance. In relation to his work with LifeForms,
‘when Cunningham initially began his work…public response to this new exploration was to treat it with curiosity, but still somewhat sceptically’
(Schiphorst in Vaughan, 1997:95),
yet,
‘the response to this prospect has moved forward with renewed interest, acceptance, and a willingness to explore the possibilities that could result from this intersection of disciplines’
(Schiphorst in Vaughan, 1997:83).
Cunningham has also gained acceptance, through his collaboration with Cage. In the 1960s, “it was not so easy to see Merce Cunningham dance, and the experience often involved incidental hazards’ (Kostelanetz, 1992:15). A performance in 1963 had a particularly aggressive audience;
‘after every cacophonous crunch from the orchestra pit, several people in militant unison hit the aisles, creating a comic, continuous, distracting stream of exciting herd for the duration of the performance’
(Kostelanetz, 1992:15).
At the time, audience members did not know what to make of Cunningham’s work, as it was so diverse to other works, yet now as society has moved on, and into the postmodern period, Cunningham’s work has grown in popularity and in succession, he has gained acceptance.
Cunningham has also achieved recognition in the form of awards from ‘France, Italy, Sweden, England and Spain’ (Morgenroth, 2004:12). In addition, he has accumulated various awards from his home country, America. Owing to the recognition from various countries and persons, this shows wide spread acknowledgement of his talent.
Cunningham has had quite an influence on me. I have nurtured a deep interest in his movement content and him as a choreographer since college, having studied his technique vocabulary as part of a core module there.
I have had the opportunity to see his work live, and in 2005 went to see Split Sides (2003) and How to Pass, Kick, Fall and Run (1965) at the Barbican Theatre in London. It had a huge impact on me, and I feel my technical skill in the Cunningham technique improved greatly after watching this performance. Being able to see the precision, the lines and the angles on someone else really helped me to grasp the concept of the technique more. Every movement was performed with so much energy as if it was to be the last so it really was enjoyable to watch as the energy levels never dipped. In relation to this, Copeland says ‘each moment – each instant of the present – is given the full weight of his attention’ (Copeland, 2004:37) and this is clearly portrayed in Cunningham’s work.
I also find it fascinating that one can dance purely because they want to and it does not have to convey a meaning. This has had the biggest impact on me, as I was brought up that dance always had to have a meaning. For this reason, Cunningham has influenced the work I produce when I choreograph. I often feel constrained when given a theme or a set idea to build upon and always feel much more free when allowed to just see where the movement takes me or to improvise. In addition, I have used some of Cunningham’s chance methods in my work, such as the rolling of a die, and can fully appreciate the idea within this choreographic method.
Cunningham once said, ‘The point is that dance need not to refer to something else. It is what it is’ (Cunningham in Schiphorst in Vaughan, 1997:80). I think this quote sums up Cunningham’s work, and it has inspired me to think that dance can simply be dance because you want to. For this reason, I believe my work has become less restrictive and I urge others to use this freedom of expression in their ways of thinking and choreographing.
Finally, to conclude, Cunningham has given to dance his individuality. With chance and computer composition, controversial musical accompaniment and scenic design and with his invention of steps to now be acclaimed as the Cunningham style, he has shown he is able to push the boundaries of dance, to constantly look for new ways to do this and for dance to be continually accepted as a way of simply dancing because you want to.
Bibliography
Bremser, Martha, 1999, Fifty Contemporary Choreographers, London, Routledge. Pages used: 72-77.
Carter, Alexandra (ed.), 1998, the Routledge Dance Studies Reader, London, Routledge. Pages used: 29-34.
Copeland, Roger, 2004, Merce Cunningham, the Modernizing [sic] of Modern Dance, London, Routledge. Pages used: 25-51, 229-245.
Copeland, Roger and Cohen, Marshall, 1983, What is Dance? Oxford, Oxford University Press. Pages used: 307-324.
Kostelanetz, Richard (ed.), 1992, Merce Cunningham Dancing in Space and Time, London, Dance Books Ltd. Pages used: 15-20, 40-43, 138-150, 173-186.
Morgenroth, Joyce (ed.), 2004, Speaking of Dance, Twelve Choreographers on their Craft, London, Routledge. Pages used: 11-21.
Morris, Gay (ed.), 1996, Moving Words, Re-Writing Dance, London, Routledge. Pages used: 270-285.
Vaughan, David (Issue editor), 1997, Volume 4, part 3, Choreography and dance, an international journal, Merce Cunningham: Creative elements, Amsterdam, Harwood Academic Publishers. Pages used: 3, 14, 17-28, 79-98.
Further reading
Banes, Sally, 1994, Writing Dance in the Age of Postmodernism, Hanover, Wesleyan University press. Pages used: 28-29, 103-109.
Cunningham, Merce in conversation with Lesschaeve, Jacqueline, 1985, The Dancer and the Dance, London, Marion Boyars Inc. Pages used: 105-109, 125-133, 161-166, 169-177, 231-233.
Foulkes, Julia L., 2002, Modern Bodies, Dance and American Modernism from Martha Graham to Alvin Ailey, Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press. Page used: 171.
Franko, Mark, 1995, Dancing Modernism Performing Politics, Bloomington, Indiana University Press. Page used: 77.
Harris, Melissa (ed.), 1997, Merce Cunningham, Fifty Years, London, Aperture Foundation, Inc. Pages used: 12-53, 276.
Mazo, Joseph H., 1977, Prime Movers, the Makers of Modern Dance in America, Highstown, Princeton Book Company Publishers. Pages used: 211-212.
Rickett-Young, Linda, 1996, Essential Guide to Dance, London, Hodder & Stoughton.
Starr, Francis, 1968, Merce Cunningham, Changes: Notes on Choreography, New York, Something Else Press.