Investigating Theatricality in Trisha Brown's Work
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
arts Article Investigating Theatricality in Trisha Brown’s Work: Five Unstudied Dances, 1966–1969 Susan Rosenberg Department of Art & Design, St. John’s University, Queens, NY 11439, USA; [email protected] Abstract: Trisha Brown (1936–2017) forged her artistic identity as part of Judson Dance Theater, which embraced everyday pedestrian movement as dance. Between 1966 and 1969, Brown’s work took a surprisingly theatrical turn. Five unstudied dances from this period reflect concerns with autobiography, psychology, and catharsis, influences of her exposure to trends in Gestalt therapy and dance therapy during a sojourn in California (1963–1965). Brown let these works fall from her repertory because she did not consider them to qualify as ‘art’. Close readings of these works shed light on a period in Brown’s career before she rejected subjectivity as the basis for her creative process prior to her consolidation of her identity as an abstract choreographer in the 1970s and 1980s, while raising intriguing questions as to Brown’s late-career devotion to exploring emotion, drama and empathy in the operas and song cycle that she directed between 1998 and 2003. Keywords: Trisha Brown; drama; emotion; Anna Halprin; Fritz Perls; opera Citation: Rosenberg, Susan. 2021. 1. Introduction Investigating Theatricality in Trisha Brown’s Work: Five Unstudied Between 1966 and 1969, choreographer Trisha Brown (1936–2017) created a small body Dances, 1966–1969. Arts 10: 31. of dances whose basis in subjective experience lent them a theatrical flair quite different https://doi.org/10.3390/arts10020031 from other works in Brown’s oeuvre. With the exception of one work, Brown consigned these dances to her juvenilia, as she had with three of the four works previously presented Academic Editor: Michelle Facos at Judson Church (all likewise performed once or twice and never seen again). Four out of the five dances were brief solos, shown at obscure locations for small audiences and 1 Received: 18 March 2021 received almost no critical attention. Focus on these works contributes to disentangling Accepted: 23 April 2021 Brown’s work of the 1960s from the overarching construct “Judson Dance Theater.” Published: 6 May 2021 Looking back on a brief period of Brown’s beginnings as an artist when personal narrative and emotion impregnated her dances also sheds light on Brown’s astonishing Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral late-career devotion to creating operas: in the interim (1970–1987), she closely adhered to an with regard to jurisdictional claims in abstract aesthetic. However, following her 1987 contribution to Lina Wertmuller’s direction published maps and institutional affil- of Bizet’s Carmen (1875) at the Teatro di San Carlo, Naples, Brown tentatively explored the iations. introduction of character and narrative into her abstract works—a process that culminated in her creation of an abstract-representational movement syntax developed while directing significant operas and an important song cycle Claudio Monteverdi’s L’Orfeo (1607) in 1998; Salvatore Sciarrino’s original libretto and music Luci Mie Traditrici (2001) and Franz Copyright: © 2021 by the author. Schubert’s Winterreise (1827) in 2002. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Brown’s unstudied dances of the mid–late sixties—Homemade (1966), Skunk Cabbage, This article is an open access article Salt Grass and Waders (1967), Medicine Dance (1967), Dance with a Duck’s Head (1968) and distributed under the terms and Yellowbelly (1969)—share dramatic effects related to their ritualistic function within Brown’s conditions of the Creative Commons artistic development. Notably Brown cast all but one (Homemade) to oblivion as she Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// pivoted to create works defined by impersonal, objective and conceptual approaches to creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). 1 One of the five works, Dance with A Duck’s Head (1968), involved seven performers: Steve Carpenter, Peter Poole, Elie Roman, Melvin Reichler, David Bradshaw, as well as Brown and her then-husband Joseph Schlichter. Arts 2021, 10, 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/arts10020031 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/arts Arts 2021, 10, 31 2 of 11 choreographing from 1970 onward, fulfilling her criteria for serious art.2 As was true for her peers in SoHo, where she lived and worked, this equated to abstraction and dances that had “no emotional base or content.” (Goldberg 1985, p. 11) Having fallen from Brown’s repertory, these dances resurfaced in the compendium of brief entries published by Hendel Teicher at the end of the catalogue accompanying her 2002 exhibition, Trisha Brown: Dance and Art in Dialogue—information sourced from Brown’s unpublished handwritten and typewritten “Chronology of Dances”. During the catalogue’s making, Brown added little to the record beyond what she had told Marianne Goldberg as part of the latter’s research for her 1990 dissertation, Reconstructing Trisha Brown: Dances and Performance Pieces: 1960–1975—an invaluable record of remembrances by Brown that date to a period closer to the time when she created and performed these five choreographies. All of these works reflect a vector of experimentation emanating from Brown’s experi- ences from late 1963 to early 1965 when she decamped to Oakland, California, teaching dance at her alma mater, Mills College, while her then-husband Joseph Schlichter studied dance therapy. Created by Brown on her return to New York, these experimental dances suggest influences of her exposure to developments in Gestalt therapy, information that came to her not only through her husband’s dance therapy studies, but also through her participation in workshops held by Ann Halprin in which the boundaries separating the theatrical and the therapeutic were porous. All of the dances that Brown presented after returning to New York operate within this terrain, When Brown explained her exclusion of this works from her curated oeuvre she said that she considered “[these dances] too personal to be called art” (Goldberg 1990, p. 169) Rather, she identified their performance as fulfilling a private cathartic function in her artistic development: that of exorcizing of vestiges of emotion and drama from her work and creative process. 2. California Sojourn (1964–1965) As a measure of the transformation that occurred during Brown’s time in California it is worth considering the piece that she performed at the California College of Art in April 1964: Target (1964). In a letter sent to Yvonne Rainer on 27 April 1964, Brown described this duet with her husband as derived from a numerical score juxtaposed with a limited repertoire of spoken phrases, which served as cues. In other words, it demonstrated zero emotionality and no any relationship to ritual or catharsis—although Brown’s statement to Rainer that “I love it because it scares me so much to do it” does presage her later interest stage fright as a choreographic motif.3 (Brown 1964) Brown excitedly told Rainer that Halprin had invited she and her husband to perform at the workshop on May 13 and 18, where she planned to show one of her rulegame works—likely Rulegame 5—with “repeats if necessary.”4 (Brown 1964). 2 Having first performed Homemade on a 29 and 30 March 1966 program at Judson Church, she reprised it on 22 June 1989 on commission from the eighth edition of the Montpellier Dance Festival in the no longer extant Jacques Coeur courtyard. (Confirmed an email with photographer of this event, Vincent Pereira 8 February 2021). In the absence of walls, Trisha Brown Dance Company member, Wil Swanson, moved behind her holding up white screen to catch the moving image projections. The piece was again reprised for the Trisha Brown Dance Company’s thirty-fifth anniversary, with Brown making it a dance of the sixty-year-old Brown juxtaposed with the film of her thirty-year-old self. The dance was remade for performance by Mikhail Baryshikov with a new film, shot by Babette Mangolte as part of the Baryshnikov’s Judson Dance Theater program PAST/Forward, at the Brooklyn Acadmey of Music, 2000. It was last reprised by Vicky Shick at the Brooklyn Academy of Music in 2013, with a film of Shick shot by Babette Mangolte. 3 Trisha Brown, letter to Yvonne Rainer, 125 East 25th Street”, sent April 27, 1964. Getty Research Institute, V. Yvonne Rainer papers, 1871–2006 (bulk 1959–2001); Series II. Correspondence, Box 8, Folder 6 Container List Series II. Correspondence, 1953–2005. Also remarks by Judith Shea from a November 20, 2001 interview with Hendel Teicher, published in Teicher, “Chronology of Dances, 1961–1978,” 300, Target involved six specific movements (what she called ‘phrases’) performed in random order and combined with “4 events that are performed according to mutual verbal cues or when we run into each other.” A page in Trisha Brown’s Personal Archive, provides more specific information, including how the six phrases, i.e., the gestures associated with the numbers 1 to 6, were organized into a sequence of sixteen movements differently ordered for each performer, and that the four interrupting phrases: “Seeming to come by wing; Let’s hug; Going West and Joe-Look Out.” 4 There is no documentation to back up the claim that Rulegame 5 (1964)—which Brown presented at Judson Church on the same 29 and 30 March 1966 program at Judson Church where she showed Homemade—was first performed at Humboldt State College, Humboldt, California on 13 April 1964 (as it states on the website of the Trisha Brown Dance Company). It is likely that this dance was performed at California College of the Arts, along with Target—since the program date was about one week before Brown’s 27 April 1964 letter to Rainer, where she mentioned these works. Arts 2021, 10, 31 3 of 11 However, her next five documented dances rejected Target’s use of scores that include numbers and language combined with everyday gestures, carryovers from Robert Dunn’s teachings of John Cage’s methods of composition to dancers/choreographers in workshops that spawned Judson Dance Theater.