INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with with permission permission of the of copyright the copyright owner. owner.Further reproduction Further reproduction prohibited without prohibited permission. without permission. THE CARLISLE PROJECT:
AFFECTING CHANGE IN THE WORLD OF DANCE
by Jennifer M. Farrell
submitted to the
Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of The American University
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts in
Performing Arts: Arts Management Chair: ______Naima Prevots~
Valerie B. Morris 5 Sarah Kaufman
Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences
Date
1996 The American University
Washington, DC 20016
9BX AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 1381751
UMI Microform 1381751 Copyright 1996, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. THE CARLISLE PROJECT:
AFFECTING CHANGE IN THE WORLD OF DANCE BY
Jennifer M. Farrell
ABSTRACT
The Carlisle Project is a national center for choreographic development with the mission of fostering the professional growth of dance artists and new
repertoire, particularly in the field of ballet. In its eleven years, the Project has
sought to meet its goals through a program of workshops, residencies and
showcases that have provided choreographers with a nurturing environment and the resources necessary to experiment with new ideas and develop their
craft. Until this time, however, there has been neither a comprehensive
assessment nor formal documentation of the Project’s impact on its participants or the dance world as a whole.
This paper documents the Project’s evolution and examines the impact of
its program. A review of internal documents, books, periodicals, and interviews
with Project staff and twenty-eight alumni choreographers has concluded that the Carlisle Project effectively fulfilled its mission and significantly affected the
careers of choreographers by providing them with tools for learning, a source of encouragement, a forum for information exchange and networking, and a means of gaining exposure. By enriching the careers of these artists and
calling attention to the need for development opportunities in the ballet world,
the Carlisle Project has had a profound, positive impact on the dance field.
ii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT...... ii
Chapter
1. ORIGINS OF THE CARLISLE PROJECT ...... 1
2. CONCEPT TO PROJECT: IMPLEMENTING THE IDEA...... 13
3. THE FIRST YEAR OF PROGRAMMING...... 26
4. THE EVOLUTION OF THE ARTISTIC PROGRAM ...... 39 5. THE FINAL YEARS ...... 56
6. THE ARTISTS AND THE IMPACT ...... 72 7. CONCLUSION ...... 101
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 112
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 1
ORIGINS OF THE CARLISLE PROJECT
The Carlisle Project is a national center for choreographic
development. More specifically, it is a program of activities whose
purpose is to stimulate and nurture choreographers, enrich the
professional experience of dancers and foster the creation of new
ballet repertoire. The Project provides artists with the critical
resources of time, space and dancers. At the same time, it offers
them a supportive environment, meaning a place where they can
experiment without the pressure to produce a product, exchange
ideas with peers, and receive constructive feedback and mentoring.
This simple goal of promoting research and development is
a mainstay in most industries, but in the arts it is more often the
exception than the rule. When Barbara Weisberger1 conceived the
concept for the Project in 1984, there was no other organization of
its kind, and today the program remains unrivaled. While most
corporations allocate a healthy percentage of their budgets for
laboratories, proper equipment and well-trained scientists,
1
1 Barbara Weisberger, the Carlisle Project’s founder and artistic director, is also the founder of the School of the Pennsylvania Ballet and the Pennsylvania Ballet Company.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2
understanding that a commitment to education and experimentation
today is an investment in a company’s future, the majority of dance
companies do not have abundant resources to commit to
development. As Dance Magazine’s Camille Hardy noted in a 1988
article, the value of the Carlisle Project is that it works with “the
creative artist whose needs are largely unmet by professional
companies where the priority of mounting a season leaves little
time or resources for experimentation.”2
In addition to financial restraints, the philosophy and
structure of the dance field provide limited opportunities for
choreographers. A Village Voice piece, titled “Pressure Cooking
Choreographers,” that focused on the struggles of modern dance
choreographers, pointed out that “the main emphasis of the dance
world-not only downtown [referring to the base of many
contemporary New York choreographers], but in ballet and in
university dance departments--is on training dancers, not
choreographers.”3 The article went on to discuss the underlying
belief in dance that dancers instantly can become choreographers
2 Camille Hardy, “Onward and Upward: The Carlisle Oasis for Creativity,"Dance Magazine, February 1988, 74.
3 Sally Sommer, “Pressure Cooking Choreographers," The Village Voice, The Dance Supplement, 19 April 1988, S2.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3
with no instruction or practice.
Barbara Weisberger admitted that she, like George
Balanchine4 and many in the ballet world, believed that
choreographers were born to choreograph. They either had the talent
or they did not. Weisberger said that, when she first had the idea
for the Carlisle Project, she wrote several prominent artists for
their input. Renowned choreographer Antony Tudor’s response, she
recalled, was indicative of the attitudes in ballet companies. In his
opinion, choreographers need not be nurtured but rather should be
thrown in the water to either sink or swim.5
While Weisberger still maintains that geniuses are born,
not created, she came to realize that there was a need to help their
talents surface. Weisberger remembered Carlisle Project’s first
music director, Juli Nunlist6, telling her that even for a genius there
is craft. Nunlist further enlightened Weisberger by explaining
4 George Balanchine was considered by many to be the grandfather of American Ballet. He was the founder and long-time artistic director of the New York City Ballet.
5 Barbara Weisberger, interview by author, Telephone, 12 October 1995.
6 According to a brief biographical sketch printed on the Carlisle Project’s 1986 Factsheet, “Juli Nunlist, noted composer and teacher, is well-know to ballet companies across the nation. She has served as Director of Music at the NERB and NARB Craft of Choreography Conferences and her songs and piano, choral, chamber and orchestral music have been performed nationally. Mrs. Nunlist has advanced degrees in composition from the Manhattan School of Music, and her published works include poetry and articles forDance Magazine. She also helped edit Ann Hutchinson’s Labanotation, a definitive work on notating choreography.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4
that “when the gift, intuition and craft m e e t- then you have
something.”7 The Carlisle Project, however, did not spring forth
from this observation. Instead, its formation seemed to evolve from
what Weisberger called a combination of environmental and personal
factors. While she sometimes attributes it to being at the right
place at the right time8, clearly her strong vision and determination
also played a critical role.
Barbara Weisberger had been a student of ballet9 since
before the age of eight when she was selected as George
Balanchine’s first child student. She continued her ballet training
for many years, but eventually found her way into teaching and
directing dance.10 Weisberger is perhaps best known for founding
7 Barbara Weisberger, interview by author, Telephone,12 October 1995.
8 Ibid.
9 Barbara Weisberger, bom February 28,1926, began her ballet training at the age of five in New York. At age eight George Balanchine accepted her at his School of American Ballet She also studied with Margaret Curtis at the Metropolitan Opera School and Salvatore, the protege of Albertieri. When she later moved to Philadelphia, she trained with Catherine and Dorothie Littlefield.
10 In 1953 Ms. Weisberger started a dance school and regional dance company in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, and in 1963 she established the School of the Pennsylvania Ballet, which led to the creation of the Pennsylvania Ballet Company. As stated in her biographical sketch on file at the Carlisle Project's Arlington, Virginia office, “Within two years, abetted by the encouragement of her friend and mentor, Balanchine, and a Ford Foundation grant the Company gave its first performances in Philadelphia Under Barbara Weisberger’s guidance for twenty years, The Pennsylvania Ballet became internationally renowned.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the School of the Pennsylvania Ballet, which led to the
establishment of the Pennsylvania Ballet Company. As its artistic
director, Weisberger saw the company grow from a respected
regional troupe to one of national prominence.
Throughout her tenure as Artistic Director11 of the
Pennsylvania Ballet, Weisberger remained devoted to dance training.
To Weisberger, good training was the key to maintaining an
artistically strong company. She saw the New York City Ballet
under George Balanchine as a model. Their dancers, drawn from
around the world, largely were trained at the company’s school, the
School of American Ballet (SAB), where the most talented could be
identified easily, groomed and taken into the company. This
consistency of training along with Balanchine’s leadership made it
possible to develop a group with a coherent style and assured the
company a unified artistic identity. Weisberger realized that what
Balanchine had at the New York City Ballet was rare. Most
companies did not have such a strong artistic center. More often
companies had a frequent turnover or multiple artistic influences.
The growing trend in the 1980’s was to commission works from
free-lance ballet choreographers who created in a variety of styles
11 Weisberger directed the Pennsylvania Ballet from 1962-1982. The current Artistic Director, who was named to the position in 1995, is Roy Kaiser.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6
rather than relying on one or two internal choreographers. For
Weisberger this was all the more reason to maintain a strong
company school. If companies could not be identified by their
choreography, they could be held together by their style. In her
estimation, the school should serve as the company’s source of
artistic stability and truth.
Before her departure from the company in 1982, Barbara
Weisberger began to worry about the future of dance, in particular
the aspects of training and development. In a recent interview12,
she recalled a time during those years when the board gave her the
ultimatum of either increasing the enrollment in the company’s
school or having its budget cut. To her the school was the company’s
fertile training ground and, therefore, should have selected
enrollment and serious students. The board, she felt, cared nothing
for the school’s relationship with the company, but rather saw it as
a way to make money. While this step may have been fiscally
necessary, Weisberger saw it as one example of the shifting
priorities in policies toward the arts. Decreases in public and
private funding were forcing ballet boards to concentrate on the
bottom line. This narrow focus dictated artistic decisions and
12 Barbara Weisberger, interview by author, Telephone, 12 October 1995.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7
seemed to threaten all ventures that did not bring in revenue. She
was greatly disturbed by these trends in public policy and company
operations and felt they would have a negative impact on the
company’s artistic integrity. On a broader scale, she envisioned a
resulting decline in the overall quality of the art form in the future.
In the original proposal for the Carlisle Project, she later wrote as
follows:
While American dance companies grapple with the enormously complex financial and organizational problems which threaten their continuity, two areas basic to the art form itself are severely affected: one) professional training; and two) the nurturing of choreographers. Although these two areas have been preeminent concerns among artists, artistic directors and teachers of dance who form, work in and articulate a company’s artistic goals, their values often conflict with the economic and social objectives of trustee, administrators or public and private sources of philanthropy. 13
In 1982 when philosophical clashes with the Board of
Trustees made it impossible to stay, Weisberger reluctantly
resigned from the Pennsylvania Ballet. While the departure marked a
painful period for her, it afforded Weisberger the time and
13 Barbara Weisberger, “The Central Pennsylvania Youth Ballet (CPYB) Pilot Program," D, 28 March 1984,1, Personal files of Barbara Weisberger, Kingston, PA.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8
opportunity to assess the situation in the ballet world from a new
perspective.
After several months, Weisberger, a woman with great
passion for the arts, ballet in particular, found herself searching for
new ways to contribute to the field. Encouraged by others in the
profession to resume her involvement in the arts, Weisberger began
compiling research on the problems plaguing the dance world.
Inspired by her participation in an American Assembly on public
policy led by her friend McNeil Lowry, she had decided to write a
paper that would study the societal, cultural, economic, and
political issues that were affecting the performing arts. Her
intention was to present her findings at a conference of performing
arts professionals.
While collecting this information, Weisberger focused on
the issue that most disturbed her, the lack of training opportunities
for professional dance artists, and, consequently, she developed the
idea for the Carlisle Project. Her original plan was to establish an
organization that would provide special programs to enrich
professional dance training and to stimulate and nurture
choreographic development, in an environment independent of the
financial pressures of a dance company.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9
Weisberger envisioned attaching her program to an already
established and well-respected dance school. Her ideal candidate
for this base was Marcia Dale Weary’s Central Pennsylvania Youth
Ballet (CPYB) in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. As the original program
proposal stated, “The inspired quality of Ms. Weary’s teaching and
its remarkable results over the past twenty-five years make her and
the school and company she leads a natural choice.”14
While formulating her thoughts on this project, Weisberger
approached Ruth Mayleas of the Ford Foundation about the idea and
its feasibility. The Ford Foundation was one of the largest funders
of the arts and Mayleas at the time was the director of its arts
program. In a recent interview, Mayleas confirmed that Barbara
Weisberger, a long-time acquaintance, had expressed her interest in
working on an initiative in the area of training and choreographic
development. Mayleas indicated that the Ford Foundation at that
time was primarily focusing on creative opportunities for emerging
and established artists. She felt the foundation would be
particularly interested in the idea of choreographic training, the
creative process and furthering possibilities for those who wanted
14 Ibid, 3.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10
to create classical ballet.15 Weisberger was encouraged by this
meeting and began preparing a formal proposal for the Ford
Foundation.
The original plan for the Carlisle Project established the
Central Pennsylvania Youth Ballet Pilot Program, which was under
the auspices, and, more importantly, the tax exempt status of CPYB,
but which technically was an independent program run by its own
administrators. The idea was to expand upon existing CPYB training
programs while adding the additional component of a choreography
laboratory. The main thrust of the proposal, about 80% according to
Barbara Weisberger, was on training while the choreography element
was secondary.
Barbara Weisberger imagined a place where America’s best
ballet dancers could come to prepare for life as professionals. She
likened it to national academies in England, Western Europe and the
Soviet Union16 with the only difference being that it would not be
sponsored by government subsidy. Weisberger planned to cultivate a
group of apprentices, made up of some of the CPYB advanced
15 Ruth Mayleas, interview by author, Telephone, 9 October 1995.
16 Barbara Weisberger. “The Central Pennsylvania Youth Ballet (CPYB) Pilot Program,” 28 March 1984,1.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11
students and those selected from a national search, by exposing
them not only to Marcia Dale Weary’s strong technique classes but by
broadening the curriculum to include other dance forms such as
Spanish dance and modern, as well as music and dance education.
Weisberger felt that “the course of professional training should be
designed, not only to produce expert performers for the eventual
edification of spectators, but for the growth of the dancers
themselves.”17 Because of the intensive nature of the curriculum
and the national recruiting, the proposal also addressed the
provision of housing for the students and arrangements with the
local high school for them to complete their academic course work.
The second part of the plan was the creation of a
choreography laboratory to aid in the development of aspiring dance
artists. During four- to six-week residencies, selected
choreographers would have the opportunity to work with the most
advanced students and apprentices, while learning about craft and
production elements such as theatrical settings and costume design.
The choreographer’s laboratory would also incorporate a
performance element with showcases of new work one week during
the year.
17 Weisberger, Barbara. “The Central Pennsylvania Youth Ballet (CPYB) Pilot Program,” D, July 1984,8, Personal files of Barbara Weisberger, Kingston, PA.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12
With the assistance of Ruth Mayleas who worked with
Weisberger to fine tune the proposal, the Central Pennsylvania Youth
Ballet Pilot Program was awarded a first-year grant of $191,630 by
the Ford Foundation in October 1984. The initial award was on a
trial basis with the stipulation of more if the first year was
successful.
The CPYB Pilot Program was the beginning of what has
become the Carlisle Project. This was Weisberger’s original vision
backed with the support of the Ford Foundation and bearing potential
for a significant impact on the field. As will become evident in the
ensuing chapters, the focus of the vision changed as the emphasis on
training gave way to the mission of choreographic development. In
examining this evolution and uncovering the organization’s history,
the question to ultimately be answered is to what degree has the
Carlisle Project been effective in addressing the problems facing
the field that Barbara Weisberger first perceived in the early
1980s?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 2
CONCEPT TO PROJECT: IMPLEMENTING THE IDEA
Carlisle, Pennsylvania, may seem like an odd place to begin
a national center for dance training and choreographic development.
Tucked in the heart of central Pennsylvania, more than two hours
from a major metropolitan area, it is a small town still centered
around a few square blocks, lined with the storefronts of local small
businesses. This quaint appearance gives it a personality that
seems more characteristic of a Norman Rockwell picture than of a
major artistic center. Yet, in many ways, this intimate community
was the ideal place for Barbara Weisberger to develop her proposal.
What Weisberger had hoped to create with her initiative
was the antithesis of big city dance. Exasperated with the
bureaucracy inherent in large dance institutions, she was trying to
shape an atmosphere where, rather than revenues and audience
development, “the concept of service to the creative aspects of the
art form, and the collective process of dancers interchanging with
the creator/choreographer [were] paramount.”1 Establishing the
13
1 “Carlisle Project Three Year Plan”, D ,[1987],2, Carlisle Project files, Carlisle Project administrative office, Arlington, VA.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14
organization in Carlisle was a symbolic step in that direction.
Whether consciously or unconsciously, Weisberger had selected a
location that reflected her vision of creating sheltered settings for
dance artists to focus on their growth and development. As one
choreographer later said, “There was something about having them
[Carlisle Project activities] in Carlisle. It felt like a safe
environment. There you could make a fool of yourself and ask stupid
questions that may help you get somewhere new in your
choreography.”2 Her comment implies that what Carlisle offered
was unique and that elsewhere it was not so easy to take risks.
Further wishing to distance herself and her new
organization from the types of leadership problems she had
encountered at Pennsylvania Ballet, Weisberger was determined to
give the Project a minimal framework and staff. An internal
document reflecting upon the Project’s development later stated,
“Calculation, inflexibility and a ‘top-heavy’ administrative
structure were consciously avoided.”3 When the Project opened in
1984, it had only three staff members on the payroll. Barbara
Weisberger headed the organization as program director.
2 Bonnie Scheibman, interview by author, Telephone, 31 October 1995.
3 “The Carlisle Project Three Year Plan”, 2.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15
Juli Nunlist and Marcia Dale Weary were the music director and
principal teacher, respectively. While this core group of people,
with the aid of a part-time administrative assistant, was
potentially able to run the Project with the air of a family business,
Weisberger was aware of the need for additional staff to enrich
curriculum as well as to maintain ties with the rest of the field.
The purpose of the Project, after all, was to enrich the professional
dance community through its development of dance artists and new
repertoire. Like Carlisle, which offers the benefits of both rich
farmland and close proximity to the Pennsylvania Turnpike or, in
other words, access to larger markets, the Carlisle Project hoped to
provide artists with both a fertile training ground and strong
connections to the broader dance world. To bolster the program and
establish connections beyond Carlisle, Weisberger planned to
contract a variety of artists and scholars throughout the year to
share their expertise with participants.
The original project was seen as an experiment and was
expected to have a three-year trial period. Despite the
organization’s experimental nature and its objective to be a “modest
and efficient operation structured loosely enough to allow things to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16
happen organically”4, it, like all other programs and businesses, had
to have blueprints. This is particularly the case if an organization
is solely funded by an external source and if it is planning to merge
with an existing company. The Carlisle Project fit this description
with the Ford Foundation as its lifeline and Central Pennsylvania
Youth Ballet(CPYB) as its umbrella; consequently, Weisberger had
developed extensive plans and budgets.
The proposal was broad in scope, but its vague nature
allowed room for change as the program evolved. Basically, it
focused on the following three major program areas that would build
on the base established by CPYB: dance training, choreographer
development and dance production. CPYB already had a regimented,
intensive class schedule for its students, the advanced ones in
particular. Some of those dancers reportedly were taking as many
as fifteen classes per week.5 In addition to its regularly scheduled
classes, each summer, the dance school conducted a five-week study
program in Carlisle that attracted around two hundred students.
Barbara Weisberger’s program sought to expand the
capabilities of CPYB. Her initial idea had been to create a training
4 “Carlisle Project Three Year Plan,” 2.
5 Barbara Weisberger, “The Central Pennsylvania Youth Ballet (CPYB) Pilot Program.” July 1984, p 6.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17
ground for a select group of the most promising students and to
nurture their development with a broad base of activities. To do
this she planned to help Marcia Dale Weary increase enrollment
through national recruitment efforts and thereby augment the
number of dancers available to be advanced. From the ranks of
CPYB’s advanced students and these recruits, Weisberger hoped to
form an apprentice group that would participate in the existing CPYB
program of classes and productions but who would also take part in
the pilot program’s activities, including the choreography laboratory
and an increased performance schedule.
The second element of the Project’s training program was
expanding the school’s curriculum. According to the proposal, Dale
Weary hoped to add other forms of dance to her almost exclusive
ballet offerings. In particular she was looking to include Spanish
and some limited modern dance classes with the potential to
incorporate other styles in the future.6 Weisberger’s vision
embraced Dale Weary’s wishes but also went beyond the studio,
calling for classes in “dance history, kinesiology, nutrition” as well
as hope for lessons in dance education and related inter-arts
6 Ibid., 8.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18
subjects.7 These course expansions were contingent upon the
availability of money and the amount of time in students’ schedules.
With Dale Weary’s intensive ballet regimen and the students’
academic requirements, the feasibility of implementing all of the
proposed classes on a regular basis was questionable.
One component that would definitely be realized was a
music program. Juli Nunlist, teacher and composer, was contracted
to contribute to dancer training in two- to four-day periods and
would serve as a leader for portions of the choreography laboratory.
The intended frequency of her sessions was not clearly documented.
Ms. Nunlist’s program for dancers would include “assignments for
interim periods consisting of simple movement studies through the
learning of traditional and contemporary repertoire variations.”8 Ms.
Nunlist’s role also included securing live accompaniment for
productions and teaching sessions when and if funding permitted.
The choreography laboratory was to be centered around
workshops and residencies. Both types of activities would provide
the artists with necessary resources of time, space and mentors as
7 Barbara Weisberger, “The Central Pennsylvania Youth Ballet (CPYB) Pilot Program," July 1984, 8.
8 Ibid.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19
well as the freedom for pure experimentation. Weisberger, however,
felt that it was essential to facilitate the creative process by
challenging the choreographers with assignments. “Although the
Laboratory does not intend to ‘teach’ choreography per se, it must
provide a learning experience grounded on a good set of formulas and
some restrictions...”9 It was this stipulation that would continue
to set the Carlisle Project apart from other choreographic
workshops in the field and that many choreographers would later
report to be its real strength. (This issue will be discussed in a
later chapter.) The plan was to augment the creative studio time
with lectures and discussions led by other artists and scholars in
dance and related fields, such as music, literature, and the visual
arts.
Like the apprentices, choreography participants were to be
recruited from across the country. Because of Weisberger’s goal to
help the greater dance community by enriching its artists and its
repertoire, she planned to focus her search on the major ballet
companies, pulling aspiring choreographers from their ranks for
workshops and residencies. In her proposal Weisberger wrote, “Many
developing choreographers are active performers who can have the
9Barbara Weisberger, “The Central Pennsylvania Youth Ballet (CPYB) Pilot Program,” July 1984,8.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20
opportunity to work and experiment with the encouragement and
cooperation of their directors, under conditions not usually possible
within a more pressured company structure.”10
The final element of the program involved an expanded
performance schedule for CPYB as well as special performances for
participants in the pilot program. The proposal indicated that CPYB
already had an extensive production schedule that annually included
six “Nutcracker” performances, two Spring concerts, three school
recitals, shows and lecture demonstrations in area schools and other
public venues, and participation in the National Association of
Regional Ballet’s festival. Weisberger envisioned more local
performances and lecture demonstrations, with the former
potentially supported by a subscription series, and, starting in the
first year, she planned to produce a showcase of the new works
created in the choreography laboratory. Eventually she hoped to
develop a regional tour and arrange for locally televised
performances. This was a tall order for a school that according to
Weisberger already “worked ‘miracles’ on a very small production
budget and a great deal of dedicated volunteer help.”11
10 ibid.. 9.
11 Barbara Weisberger, “The Central Pennsylvania Youth Ballet (CPYB) Pilot Program," July 1984,11.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21
While seemingly encouraged by the ballet school’s past
success, Weisberger was keenly aware of the many factors involved
in making growth feasible. In addition to increased volunteer help
and improved production materials, she saw implementation of her
plans contingent upon “the formation of an apprentice concert group;
more available time for student dancers arranged through
cooperative academic school affiliations; the acquiring of more and
larger studio/rehearsal spaces; and very importantly, the securing
of increased performance/production funds.”12
An important part of all program areas was the allocation
of funds for transportation, housing and subsistence for
participating artists. Maintaining this standard became a valued
practice of the Carlisle Project, based on the reality that dance
artists often do not have the means to pay for enrichment activities.
The Project seeks to make its activities accessible to all qualified
artists. In a 1995 survey of its constituents, who include
choreographers, dancers, and artistic directors, among others, more
than 47% of the respondents indicated that this provision was of the
12 Ibid.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22
highest priority.13
In the original proposal, money was allotted for the
apprentices’ tuition and dance supplies. For those few who came
from out-of-state, the budget provided for their tuition to the public
high school. Housing and subsistence was to be made available for
the out-of-state apprentices as well as resident choreographers. At
first the Project planned to find local housing for them in rented
rooms but ultimately aspired to acquire a three- to four- bedroom
house for use by its participants. In addition to housing,
choreographers would be granted honoraria.
These cost factors, along with the others previously
mentioned, were of some concern to the CPYB board. When the
Project was first formed in 1984, it was identified legally as an
institute of the Central Pennsylvania Youth Ballet Grants Foundation,
meaning it utilized their tax exempt status. While this technical
ownership alone gave CPYB a vested interest in the Project, school
administrators were most concerned with what impact the Project
would have on CPYB’s programs and finances. John Gregor, then
president of CPYB’s board of directors, a board that also served the
13 The Carlisle Project Strategic Planning Process 1995: Results from the Questionnaire on the Work of the Carlisle Project, 14 September 1995,1, Files of the Carlisle Project, Carlisle Project administrative office, Arlington, VA.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23
Carlisle Project, drafted a document that specifically outlined the
responsibility of the interested parties, and, perhaps more
importantly, he stipulated how the grant money would be channeled
to each. The tone of the report was clearly defensive, indicating
that CPYB, while perhaps anxious to reap the potential benefits of
the Project’s national exposure, was worried about the risks this
new collaboration could present to its already successful program.14
Gregor’s report stated that the activities of the Pilot Program, as he
referred to the Carlisle Project, “may adversely affect the financial
well-being of CPYB if they [were] not carefully regulated.”15 To
ensure that CPYB’s interests were well protected, he divided the
budget of the original proposal by the amounts deemed for CPYB and
those to be given to the Carlisle Project. Money for all tuition and
teachers was under the jurisdiction of CPYB. Further, he asserted
that all “choreography, designs, costumes and sets generated under
the Pilot Program [would] become the property of CPYB; therefore,
the funds involved in this portion of the program should be under the
14 [John Gregor], “CPYB Pilot Program", D, Personal files of Barbara Weisberger, Kingston, PA.
15 ibid., 1.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24
auspices of CPYB.”16 The other program and staffing areas had
money going to both entities with the exception of the choreography
laboratory, which was to be funded solely through the Pilot Program.
While the activities of CPYB and its Pilot Program obviously
were interwoven, Gregor’s document was quick to point out the
differences between the two organizations. His guidelines
established that CPYB and the Pilot Project were virtually
independent entities on all levels, from financial, administrative
and staffing to having separate office space. 17 The sense of
resistance to the Carlisle Project’s programs that comes from the
clear distinctions drawn in this document may be a telling sign of
the Project’s future break from CPYB. Additionally, the fact that the
Project had complete control over funding for the choreography
laboratory may serve as foreshadowing for its later shift in
emphasis from training to choreographic development. These issues
will be explored in future chapters.
With the lines drawn, roles defined and money in hand, the
Project was prepared to begin programming its first year. While
funding changes, trial and error, and experience would shape the path
16 [John Gregorj, “CPYB Pilot Program", 3.
17 Ibid.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25
of the Project’s future, many of the philosophies, concepts and
programs discussed in the original proposal remained vital to the
Project’s identity and operations.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 3
THE FIRST YEAR OF PROGRAMMING
1985, the Carlisle Project’s first year of programming, was
a time of optimism, apprehension and learning. The grant from the
Ford Foundation had validated Barbara Weisberger’s ideas and
provided her with a means of implementing them, but with this
blessing came the reality of the daunting task at hand, bringing
these concepts to life. From the beginning, Weisberger, still haunted
by echoes of ballet masters telling her that choreography could not
be taught, looked upon the Project as an experiment with no
precedent to follow. Finding the most effective method of fostering
professional development would require some trial and error, and
determining a measure of success would be the ultimate challenge.
In its eleven-year history, the Project has continued to evolve and
mature, but much of its course was shaped by lessons learned in the
first few years.
“It was a circus,”1 said Barbara Weisberger of the Carlisle
Project’s first workshop held in the summer of 1985. “I thought we
26
1 Barbara Weisberger, interview by author, Kingston, PA, 20 November 1995.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27
were going to have two workshops in the history of the Carlisle
Project, that one -- the first and the last,”2 she reminisced with a
smile. In fact, there were many problems with this first endeavor,
but in the end there seemed to be a consensus of accomplishment
among the administrators and artists alike.
Bursting with energy and newly granted funds, Project
administrators were perhaps overly ambitious with the first
workshop. Ten choreographers, twenty-four dancers and four guest
leaders were invited to participate in this ten-day event. In theory
it had the potential to be a thoroughly well-rounded, enriching
experience. Choreographers would receive creative time to work
with dancers as well as instruction from experts on movement
therapy, lighting, costume design, and music. These technical
seminars were to be complemented by discussions on dance history
and philosophy led by dance writer Robert Greskovic, who also was
there to chronicle the events.
While the workshop delivered the above-mentioned
activities, it lacked the order and polish of a professional program.
Descriptions of the event ranged from fun to awful and from
disorganized to chaotic, depending on the speaker. Barbara
2 Ibid.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28
Weisberger remembered feeling frustrated because, among other
problems, there were too many dancers, not enough space, and
conflicts and crises among the leaders.3 With the intense schedule
and disarray, one choreographer recalled always feeling exhausted,
“like it was always almost too much.”4 What is remarkable,
however, is that, despite these negative recollections, no one
seemed to regret it happened. Nearly all of the choreographers who
attended in the summer of 1985 came back to one or more Project
activities in the future, indicating that they found some value in
what transpired. Those interviewed, who clearly acknowledged their
frustration at the disorganization, and the anger that was prevalent
during the workshop, were just as quick to point out the program’s
redeeming qualities. They felt privileged to have been a part of this
first Carlisle Project event. Choreographer Diane Coburn Bruning5
said that she was thrilled to have been one of the first ten. It was
sort of a seal of approval or validation of her talent.6 Another
3 Barbara Weisberger, interview by author, Kingston, PA, 20 November 1995.
4Bonnie Scheibman, interview by author, Telephone, 31 October 1995.
5 Ms. Cobum Bruning is a New York based choreographer who does free-lance choreography for ballet and opera. She is a 1994-96 recipient of a two-year National Endowment for the Arts Choreography Fellowship.
6 Diane Cobum Bruning, interview by author, Telephone, 3 November 1995.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29
participant, free-lance choreographer Bonnie Scheibman, said of the
workshop, “Even when it was miserable it was great.”7
Choreographer Lisa de Ribere8 thought of the first workshop as “an
experiment for all involved” and pointed out that “everyone was
trying to determine what would be valuable.”9 These comments
indicate that they all saw value in the concept and took away some
positive experiences. The participants found it a place where they
could make lasting connections with colleagues, recognizing that as
a rare opportunity in a very isolated field. Despite an overload of
information and seminars, the wealth of activity created a
stimulating environment and generated valuable discourse about the
art form.
At the end of the session, Barbara Weisberger, cognizant of
the problems, worried about how participants would respond during
the closing evaluation. She remembered standing nervously before
the artists and funders when the words of one choreographer allayed
her fears and put things into perspective. “It really doesn’t
7 Bonnie Scheibman, interview by author, Telephone, 31 October 1995.
8 Lisa de Ribere is a free-lance choreographer whose work recently was produced by Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre. Ms. de Ribere is currently pursuing an undergraduate degree at Fordham University in New York and plans to retire from choreographing indefinitely.
9 Lisa de Ribere, interview by author, Telephone, 14 November 1995.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30
matter what worked and what didn’t work. What really matters here
is that it happened,” stated the artist.10 For Weisberger it was a
telling statement, which made her realize the very vital role of the
Project. At that point she was well aware that there would have to
be changes to improve the organization, but she also knew she was
doing something right.11
One issue that surfaced during the workshop was the
definition of experimentation. Some choreographers felt they had
been invited to experiment without qualification, but found, when
they got there, they were expected to develop studies within the
context of classical ballet. Weisberger admitted that there was
confusion with regard to expectations and that perhaps she had not
explained her intentions fully.12 The majority of the
choreographers were from strict ballet backgrounds, and, for that
reason, Weisberger may have assumed that they would work only
within the classical idiom. Conversely, some of the choreographers
might well have felt this was a chance to try something completely
new, which was a credit to the Project and its ability to create an
10 As recalled by Barbara Weisberger during an interview with the author at her home in Kingston, PA, 20 November 1995.
11 Barbara Weisberger, interview by author, Kingston, PA , 20 November 1995.
12 ibid.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31
atmosphere in which artists felt safe to take risks. From the
confusion evolved a clearer articulation of the Project’s mission,
development of a choreographer’s own voice utilizing the ballet
vocabulary. Weisberger’s goal was to protect, nurture and ensure
the future of the classical art form by providing for and stimulating
experimentation within its boundaries. As she said in a journal
article on the subject of the language of ballet, “The whole spirit of
the Carlisle Project has been to say that there are ways of working
to enrich what we do, but it doesn’t dispense with what we do.”13
Weisberger’s philosophy is not shared by all in the dance
world and is at the heart of a debate that effects dance on many
levels. It also goes to the root of the Project’s work and its impact
on the field of dance. There are those who believe that ballet is
anachronistic and see it as the antithesis of growth in dance. This
belief has led an increasing number of ballet companies to
commission modern dance choreographers in lieu of developing their
own choreographers. This trend toward cross-over or a blending of
styles away from traditional forms is a needed and healthy direction
for dance. What Weisberger and supporters of the Carlisle Project
argue, however, is that ballet too should have the opportunity to
13 Anne Pierce, “Challenging the Language," Dance/USA Journal, 9 no.3 (Winter 1992): 19.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32
grow and develop without compromising its integrity. Choreographer
Bonnie Scheibman agrees, feeling that, with too much emphasis on
the mixing of styles, there is the risk of everything becoming the
same. She believes that ballet should be celebrated for its
differences from modern.14 Rick McCullough15, a free-lance
choreographer and Carlisle Project alumnus, observed that many do
not realize that ballet must grow to survive. He commented that
they have not seen the new directions that artists like Jiri Kylian16
are taking the art form, and feels that this myopic view will cause
ballet to die.17
Weisberger, too, sees ballet from this perspective and
seeks ways for it to improve and become more relevant to the times.
In recent years she has invited an increasing number of modern
dance choreographers to the workshops to give them an opportunity
to work with classically trained dancers. Many modern artists who
have been commissioned by ballet companies have sought the help of
14 Bonnie Scheibman, interview by author. Telephone, 31 October 1995.
15 Rick McCullough currently holds a teaching position in the dance department of the University of North Carolina-Greensboro.
16 Jiri Kylian is the Artistic Director of the Netherlands Dance Theatre.
17 Rick McCullough, interview by author, Telephone, 30 October 1995.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33
the Project. They are interested in workshops that will allow them
to experiment and learn about the vocabulary before having to do so
while under contract. In the summer of 1996, the Project plans to
conduct a Cross-over Workshop that will explore the different
methods of working in modern-based dance and ballet.
For all of the Carlisle Project activities, choreographers,
regardless of their backgrounds, must have a desire to work with
classically trained dancers and their technique. Because this was
not clear in the first workshop, some choreographers were
abandoning technique and asking ballet dancers to work in ways
completely foreign to them. While this can be broadening for the
dancers, there are limits to what their bodies and training permit
them to do. As choreographer Laura Dean said in an article on the
language of dance, “I will use their [ballet dancers] language, but my
use of structure is my own little pocket of tricks. Like a ‘poet’, a
good dance artist is going to challenge the language.”18 The
Carlisle Project encourages participants to experiment but imposes
restrictions. While some choreographers may find this stifling, in
some ways working within boundaries is liberating because it can be
18 Anne Pierce, “Challenging the Language,” Dance/USA Journal, 9, no. 3 (Winter 1992):18.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34
an even greater accomplishment when the artist is able to find
his/her own voice with this added challenge. Weisberger said, “It
takes a real genius to use the classroom vocabulary and make it
something wonderful. There is no doubt that other kinds of dance
touch ballet choreography, but I don’t believe the old has to be
rejected.”19 This belief defined the Project’s program.
Of all Carlisle Project core activities, workshops focus the
most on process and perhaps best capture the essence of the
Project’s goal to create stimulating environments and unique
experiences. On a different level, the Project aims to facilitate the
development of new repertoire and to serve the needs of ballet
companies and more advanced choreographers. The individual and
group residencies serve these functions by offering artists the
resources necessary to create works and a forum for presenting
them.
In the first year, the Project was host to three
choreographers for individual residencies at CPYB that resulted in
finished pieces, which eventually were showcased. Like Carlisle
Project workshops, residencies encourage experimentation with
process, but they have a stronger emphasis on the completion of a
19Jennifer Dunning, “A Ballet Experiment Ends Its First Season,” New York Times, 14 August 1985, C17.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35
work. Lisa de Ribere, who received one of the first three
residencies, likened the experience to a commission.20
What Weisberger learned from this first round of
residencies was the logistical difficulty of keeping choreographers
in Carlisle for an extended period of time. Many of the
choreographers still were dancing actively, which made it difficult
for them to be away for long blocks of time. As a result, efforts
were made in subsequent years to shorten or reduce the number of
residencies and also to arrange for choreographers to work with
dancers in their own communities.
Residencies at CPYB provided students with exposure to
new choreographers and expanded performance opportunities, and
were in line with the Project’s goal of enhancing dancer
development. Out of logistical necessity as well as a move toward a
more national profile, the focus of the Project’s work shifted from
dancer training to choreographic development. Although dancer
training is still a goal of Weisberger and the Project, after the first
few years, its attention to this goal became indirect.
In 1985 the Carlisle Project still was wedded to CPYB and
was committed to expanding the school’s enrollment and enriching
20 Lisa de Ribere, interview by author, Telephone, 14 November 1995.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36
the training of its students. Weisberger immediately began planning
for a national recruitment campaign and making housing and
schooling arrangements for the potential recruits. A particular
objective of this effort was to increase the number of male students
at CPYB. These recruitment efforts continued for the first few
years and were moderately successful, bringing in a handful of new
students that included at least two to three males. The Carlisle
Project funded their tuition and rented a house where they could
stay with a house mother and have free meals. The male students
also received small stipends from the Project in return for some
light office work. Maurinda Wingard, the Project’s administrative
director from 1986 -1993, recalled that the recruitment program
did not last long because CPYB had always taken students by
applications and recommendations rather than by audition. This
meant that the national auditions really were not needed. Further,
the program did not yield many students for the Project, which led
to the use of students from other local companies and professional
company schools to supplement their ranks. As early as 1986, the
Project began hiring professional dancers.
Despite this broadening in scope, the Project continued to
utilize CPYB students for its activities in Carlisle and some of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37
CPYB’s staff remained on the Project payroll for years. Weisberger’s
original plans to spend 80% of the resources directly on dancer
training seemed to fade as the choreography project took on a
national identity and required most of the staff’s time and effort.
Still, Weisberger did not lose sight of her commitment to teaching
and dancer development. She maintains that the choreography
workshops benefit the dancers almost as much as the
choreographers. Maurinda Wingard attested that the Project’s
greatest contribution has been to the lives of dancers. She felt it
had a great impact on them by encouraging them to choreograph,
giving them a place to work during summer layoffs, and allowing
them to succeed outside of their companies.21 For the apprentices
and corps members, the showcases permitted them to be seen by
their artistic directors in solo or featured roles.
The first year of the Project had its ups and downs but
established a solid foundation on which to build. At the first
workshop, Weisberger made an important contact that would help
21 Maurinda Wingard, interview by author, Telephone, 15 November 1995.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38
bring her work to a national level. Ian Horvath22, co-founder of the
Cleveland Ballet and a choreographer, attended the Summer
Workshop on a site visit for the National Endowment for the Arts and
was interested in becoming a part of its program. It was a very
timely meeting because Weisberger realized she needed some
artistic assistance with the Project to assure its future success. In
the next few years, Horvath, a man of great energy, put his mark on
the Project and together with Weisberger expanded the
organization’s programming and increased its national exposure.
22 lan “Ernie” Horvath was a soloist with the Jeffrey Ballet and American Ballet Theatre prior to his founding of the Cleveland Ballet Company and School. He was also a choreographer with works in the repertoire of the Pacific Northwest Ballet and Caracas New World Ballet In addition to serving the Carlisle Project as Artistic Associate, he was an artistic consultant to Cleveland Ballet, a member of its Board of Trustees and chairman of Dance/USA’s Board of Trustees. He also served as chairman of the NEA’s Challenge and Advancement dance panel and a member of the Ohio Arts Council. Horvath died in January 1990.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 4
THE EVOLUTION OF THE ARTISTIC PROGRAM
Despite a bumpy ride during the first year of programming,
Barbara Weisberger and the Project’s supporters were encouraged by
the promise of what they had seen and were anxious to more fully
develop the program’s potential. The steady addition of major
funding partners, including The Pew Charitable Trusts, Pennsylvania
Council on the Arts and the National Endowment for the Arts, in
subsequent years strengthened the Project’s position in the arts
world and helped it mature from a pilot program to an autonomous
arts organization. In the first few years, the Project remained
under the umbrella of CPYB, continuing to utilize their students,
providing some with scholarships, but, as choreography increasingly
became the focus of the artistic programming and the Project gained
a national identity, a break with CPYB seemed a natural next step.
Weisberger saw that the Project’s goals and operations threatened
to disturb the sheltered and successful program of Marcia Dale
Weary by bringing in too many outside influences. In 1988 the
Carlisle Project was awarded its own tax exempt status by the
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40
Internal Revenue Service and became an entity separate from the
Central Pennsylvania Youth Ballet.
In addition to securing autonomy, strong financial backing
allowed Weisberger and her new artistic associate, Ian Horvath, to
focus their energies on shaping and broadening the artistic program.
With a wealth of ideas and ample funding, the Project’s growth was
inevitable. Nevertheless, Weisberger was cautious about how
quickly and on what scale the program should develop. Her
experience at Pennsylvania Ballet had taught her that pure artistic
ideals were rarely allowed to flourish in the dance world. She sought
to protect this extraordinary opportunity she had been given to
nurture them. Perhaps her caution also arose from the Project’s
lack of precedence. With no example to follow, each step risked
both success and failure. There was security in the funding, but she
recognized that monetary support was a luxury not to be taken for
granted.1 Horvath, too, seemed to understand the delicate and
unique nature of the Project. In a 1988 Dance Magazine article, he
remarked, “We’re moving slowly and organically because we don’t
1 Barbara Weisberger, interview by author, Kingston, PA, 20 November 1995.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41
want to do anything artificially.”2
Still, both Weisberger and Horvath aspired to find the best
way for the Project to address the needs of creative artists.
Horvath in particular seemed anxious to develop an increased
national profile. Maurinda Wingard recalled Horvath being concerned
that the Project’s activities would be compared with Regional Dance
America’s program for emerging choreographers. Horvath saw that
the Project’s reach could surpass that of the regional association.
According to Wingard, his great energy, vision and strong focus were
instrumental in the Project’s growth.3 Weisberger speaks fondly of
Horvath but admits that the two of them did not always see eye to
eye. Despite their differences, during their partnership, they worked
together to successfully develop and implement new ideas while
honing a more defined framework for the Project. As Weisberger
said, “The concentration, the nerves, the energy, the metabolism
were all in the work.” 4
The work was to foster and stimulate professional
2Camille Hardy, “Onward and Upward: The Carlisle Oasis,” Dance Magazine, February 1988, 74.
3 Maurinda Wingard, interview by author, Telephone, 15 November 1995.
4 Barbara Weisberger, interview by author, Telephone, 20 November 1995.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42
development. Experience would show that one of the best ways to
accomplish this was through workshops in which process, as
opposed to product, was the foremost concern. After the 1985
workshop, Ian Horvath assumed the role of workshop leader for
annual summer workshops on choreography composition. These ten-
day to two-week sessions included “structured studies in dance,
music, stage craft, and other arts and [were] designed to stimulate
the exchange of ideas and information.”5 In addition to
instructional periods, choreographers were assigned groups of
dancers with whom to experiment and create new pieces. Feedback
from leaders and peers was an integral part of all Project
workshops. Choreographers seemed to find these critiques both
blessings and curses. Lisa de Ribere remembers at the time being
angry at Horvath and resenting his remarks, but later finding what
he had said to be right on the mark. “I learned to get off my high
horse and realize that he was trying to help me.”6 Kirk Peterson, a
Project alumnus and now artistic director of Hartford Ballet,
reflected that during the workshops the mentoring was “agitating,
5 “Workshops in Carlisle -1986", description of annual program, D, Files of the Carlisle Project Carlisle Project administrative office, Arlington, VA.
6 Lisa de Ribere, interview with author, Telephone, 14 November 1995.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43
aggravating, and challenging”, but that in the end it was positive
because it forced him to look at things in his work he had not wanted
to examine.7
Another part of the annual artistic program was Juli
Nunlist’s Music Workshop in which she taught dancers and
choreographers “what to listen for in music, how to hear it and how
it may be used in choreography.”8 Choreographer Diane Coburn
Bruning recalled that meeting Nunlist was perhaps the most
important and worthwhile aspect of the Carlisle Project for her.
Always having been attuned to working with music, Coburn Bruning
acknowledged that Nunlist opened the door to a broader, more
comprehensive musical approach to her choreography. She continues
to work with Nunlist when possible.9 Val Caniparoli10, conversely,
was pleased to be able explore the analytical side of music and its
application to dance, but actually learned how he could work without
7 Kirk Peterson, interview with author, Telephone, 7 December 1995.
8 “Workshops in Carlisle-1986”, description of annual program, D, Files of the Carlisle Project Carlisle Project administrative office, Arlington, VA.
9 Diane Cobum Bruning, interview with author, Telephone, 3 November 1995.
10 Val Caniparoli has been with the San Francisco Ballet as a dancer and choreographer for twenty-five years. He currently is their resident choreographer and also does free-lance choreographic commissions.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44
music, which he felt was a valuable lesson.11 While the music
workshops continued successfully from 1985 through 1991, it was
Nunlist who, according to Barbara Weisberger, saw how truly
interconnected music and dance were and suggested that they should
be taught jointly. In 1992 the Project conducted a combined
choreography and music workshop and eventually initiated a
Choreographer-Composer Collaborations Program (CCCP), which
fostered the simultaneous development of new dance and new music.
Workshops remained the more process-oriented part of the
Project, offering choreographers an opportunity to study craft and
experiment. Beginning in 1986, a second type of workshop was
introduced, the purpose of which was to expose participants to new
material upon which they could draw. Under the title Other Dance
Forms, these workshops included sessions on Baroque, ballroom and
The first of this category of workshop was Early Dance
Forms, an exploration of Renaissance, Baroque and 19th-Century
Dances, which included “discussions on technique, style, etiquette
and fashion in order to provide insight into the creative process of
11 Val Caniparoli, interview by author, Telephone, 15 December 1995.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45
choreographers of past ages.”12 Weisberger felt that a session of
this kind made sense as an addition to the Project because these
early dances had been the roots of classical ballet. Elizabeth
Aldrich13, co-founder of the Court Dance Company of New York, led
these workshops that were a part of the Project’s annual schedule
from 1986 - 1990. In 1987 the emphasis of the sessions was
changed to ballroom dancing styles and Aldrich was joined by her
partner Charles Garth14 as well the ballroom/adagio couple Pierre
Dulaine and Yvonne Marceau.15 Aldrich and Garth introduced
choreographers to ballroom dances from the late 19th and early 20th
century while Dulaine and Marceau took the artists through the Post
World War I and swing era dances. Ballroom Dancing became a
popular workshop at the Project and remains an active offering in
12 “Workshops in Carlisle-1986”, description of annual program, D, Files of the Carlisle Project, Carlisle Project administrative office, Arlington, VA.
13 Elizabeth Aldrich, according to the Workshops in Cariisle-1987 factsheet, is a choreographer who has created “dances for film, television and the stage and has lectured extensively on the subject of early dance forms.”
14 Charles Garth is the co-founder of the Court Dance Company of New York with Elizabeth Aldrich.
15 According to a brief biography in the Carlisle Project 1995 Annual Report, Pierre Dulaine and Yvonne Marceau are the founders and artistic directors of American Ballroom Theatre. In 1993 they received the Dance Magazine award for their contributions to the field of dance . They were also the recipients of the 1992 National Dance Council of America award, the 1990 Dance Educators in America award, as well as the 89-90 Astaire award for “best dancing on Broadway” for their roles in Tommy Tune’sGrand Hotel.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46
its repertory. Choreographer Bruce Ewing16 said that the ballroom
workshop “showed [him] there is a much broader range of material to
draw from.”17 In recent years the scope of the workshop has
narrowed, with Dulaine and Marceau leading intense sessions on
ballroom partnering techniques. This abbreviated version of the
ballroom workshop is more focused and more manageable. The Early
Dance Forms require large groups of dancers for each choreographer
to work with while the ballroom sessions can be conducted by
providing each choreographer with one male/female couple. In later
years, when funding became tight, this had to be considered as a
budgeting issue as well.
In addition to the workshops on court and ballroom dances,
the Project introduced a European Folk Dance Workshop in 1990.
Barry Glass, the Artistic Director of the Aman Folk Ensemble,
instructed participants in “learning authentic folk dances,
theatricalized repertoire based on folk forms, and individualized
fusions of folk forms as they exist in contemporary work”, while
Susanne Wood, a dance historian, presented the artists with
“anthropological, sociological and historical overviews of these
16 Bruce Ewing is a dancer, dance teacher and choreographer in Knoxville, Tennessee, who has choreographed extensively throughout the Southeast.
17 Bruce Ewing, interview by author, Telephone, 4 January 1996.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47
various dances.”18 Horvath served as a workshop leader,
participating in feedback sessions and mentoring as in the other
Project workshops.
In 1992 another workshop based on craft was introduced.
Titled Elements of Composition, this activity, like the Advanced
Choreography Workshop, investigated the how and why of movement,
but, unlike its predecessor, was geared to emerging and less
accomplished choreographers. Elements of Composition served as a
point of entry to the Carlisle Project and the analytical approach to
choreography. Barbara Weisberger realized how little exposure most
ballet choreographers have to the basic elements of composition. In
contrast with to many modern dance choreographers who have taken
composition classes in universities, ballet choreographers often
come straight out of ballet companies without any previous
instruction on creating dance. 19 Lynn Cote, recently named
Resident Choreographer of The Washington Ballet, likened the
Elements of Composition workshop to schooling. She remembered
that, before her participation in the workshop, choreography was
18 “Carlisle Project Workshops 1990”, description of annual program, D, Files of the Carlisle Project, Carlisle Project administrative office, Arlington, VA.
19 Barbara Weisberger, interview by author, Telephone, 14 December 1995.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48
completely intuitive for her. Afterward she realized that there
were theories and concepts that could be applied to the art. For New
York City Ballet principal and part-time choreographer Michael
Byars, the workshop gave him an opportunity to experience what it
might be like to choreograph full-time. “It was a valuable chance to
get to live out that part of the field.” 20 Tarin Chaplin,
choreographer, teacher and author of The Intimate Act of
Choreography, led the sessions. Chaplin became involved with the
Project in 1987, first as an interested observer and later as a
consultant and workshop leader. Eventually she was named artistic
associate of the Carlisle Project, a position she still holds.
Following the first year’s trial run, the focus and logistics
of the residencies also became clearer, and two distinct categories
evolved. Through its individual residencies, the Project continued to
provide opportunities for choreographers to work for an extended
period of time with a group of dancers . Instead of bringing them all
to Carlisle, however, the Project extended its reach to ballet
companies. Through a special initiative, the Project arranged for
individual choreographers to have periods in residence at various
other ballet companies. The Project sponsored the artists, providing
20 Michael Byars, interview by author, Telephone, 8 January 1996.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49
them with stipends and travel expenses. The ballet company
contributed space, dancers, rehearsal time, and a potential slot on
an already existing program for the completed work.21 Successful
matches included Val Caniparoli and the Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre
and Donald Byrd22 and the Nashville Ballet. This initiative not only
gave choreographers an opportunity to work but benefited the
dancers in the company and the company’s repertoire. Wanting to
maintain another place for choreographers to create outside of a
company setting, the Project also hosted group residencies in
Carlisle. Like the summer workshops, these brought five to ten
choreographers to Carlisle, but for an extended stay with more
emphasis on creative time than on structured sessions.
While the major focus of workshops and residencies was on
experimenting and creating, there was always an aspect devoted to
presenting. At the end of each activity, informal studio showings of
the studies or works-in-progress were shared with all participants,
leaders and some invited guests, who included funders, friends and,
sometimes, artistic directors. The purpose of the showings was to
generate a dialogue between the choreographers and the viewers
21 Maurinda Wingard, interview by author, Telephone, 15 November 1995.
22 Donald Byrd is the artistic director of his own contemporary dance company, Donald Byrd/The Group, in New York.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50
about the creative process and subsequent results. Choreographers
were told that there was no pressure to complete whole works, but
rather that this was an opportunity to try new things and to get
feedback from peers and outside observers.
By 1987 the Carlisle Project had received its first grant
from The Pew Charitable Trusts, a major source of support for the
Project since that time. After viewing one of the showings that
year, a grants administrator from The Trusts suggested that the
Project produce a more public presentation in Philadelphia as a way
of increasing the Project’s and its artists’ visibility. This proved a
turning point for the organization, which, until this time, had kept
its work contained to intimate settings. Showcases, the third core
component of the Project’s artistic program, developed from this
idea, and with this evolution came a debate of product versus
process.
Up to this point, the Project’s activities had evolved from a
purely process-oriented ideal. True, there were informal studio
showings, but they were considered part of the learning process.
Their rehearsal-style format in the studio with no costumes or
lights and a relatively intimate audience did not threaten the safe
feeling already established during the workshops and residencies.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51
The showcases, conversely, required putting the works on stage, and,
with the inclusion of the traditional production elements, brought
additional expectations and anxiety. Even with explanations given to
the audience that this was a showing of works-in-progress and an
opportunity to have a glimpse of the process, it was clearly a
performance. In addition to the local public, artistic directors,
presenters, and others from the field were invited and encouraged to
attend .
In one way the showcases were in line with the Project’s
mission. They provided artists with another step on the ladder of
professional development by providing them with a forum in which
to perform before a cross-section of potential employers. For many
choreographers this resulted in commissions. For example, Houston
Ballet’s resident choreographer, Trey McIntyre, a participant in the
1995 group residency and showcase, received one commission
directly from his participation in the showcase and has a second
tentatively in line.23 Lucinda Hughey, a free-lance choreographer
now based in Montreal and a frequent Project participant, also
attributed several commissions to her exposure at the Carlisle
23 Trey McIntyre, interview by author, Telephone,15 December 1995.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52
Project and the word-of-mouth it generated.24
The other side of the argument is that the focus on product
took away from the Project’s spirit and its emphasis on process. It
put back the pressure that the Project had sought to temporarily
remove from the artists’ creative time. As the program developed,
it became clear that group residencies were to be the development
and rehearsal period for the showcases. This was often only a two-
week period to create a study, which caused some artists to panic.
Most artists interviewed, however, admitted that, although there
was some additional pressure before the showcase performances,
the expectations were realistic. They did not feel that the
showcases had stopped them from experimenting. Colin Connor25, a
past participant, explained that artists must create their own
visions regardless of the pressure, and they must know when to stop
and polish. There is a balance between product and experimentation,
and he added, “If you want to make art, that’s what it is about.”26
San Francisco-based choreographer Victoria Morgan realized the
24 Lucinda Hughey, interview by author, Telephone, 17 January 1996.
25 Colin Connor is a modem dance choreographer who currently has his own company, The Salvage Company, in New York City.
26 Colin Connor, interview by author, Telephone, 8 January 1996.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53
expectations of the residencies and showcases before she started so
it was not a surprise or problem for her. She continued to
experiment despite the looming performance, finding that
expectations were not as high as with a commission.27 Bruce
Ewing, a 1995 participant, believes he grew more focused and
committed to his own artistic center because of the Project. At the
most recent residency he was encouraged by the leaders to stick to
his risky idea and to experiment, regardless of what may or may not
develop for the showcase. They stressed that he did not have to
complete an entire piece for the showcase. By having followed his
true vision in spite of the pressure of the pending public showing, he
now feels stronger artistically.28
Despite such testament in favor of the showcases,
Weisberger has admitted that they caused some tension during other
activities. In 1994 because of the cost of producing the
Choreographer-Composer Collaborations program, the Project was
unable to have a group residency. Instead they decided to attach a
showcase to the ballroom workshop. The risk in doing this was that,
whereas a residency had been determined to be a preparation period
27 Victoria Morgan, interview by author, Telephone, 21 December 1995.
28 Bruce Ewing, interview by author, Telephone, 4 January 1996.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54
for a showcase, workshops were still very focused on process.
Workshops covered a shorter period of time, sometimes only four
days, during which choreographers were fed an abundance of new
information to process. Adding a performance element threatened to
push the artists too far. Fortunately the 1994 showcase was
successful, but Weisberger admitted that they were lucky things
went so well.
Programming in the 1990s has continued to take the Project
in new directions as it has tried to address the needs of a changing
field. Even having maintained a degree of fluidity, however, Horvath
and Weisberger in the early years developed a progression that
loosely has defined the Project’s current structure and operations.
Workshops exposed choreographers to the Project and served several
functions. With the eventual addition of the Elements of
Choreography Workshop, the Project was able to stimulate and
foster both emerging and established choreographers by offering
instruction and experimentation on basic and advanced levels. Other
workshops enhanced choreographers’ personal styles and skills by
allowing them opportunities to examine specific types of dance.
Individual residencies filled the needs of both ballet companies and
choreographers by providing funding and creating the opportunity for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55
a potential commissions to develop. While not written in stone, for
the most part, choreographers were required to first attend a
workshop before being invited to a residency, and not everyone who
went to a workshop was later selected for a residency. The
residency was an opportunity for a choreographer who exhibited a
particular spark at the workshops to develop more of his/her talent.
With group residencies increasingly becoming rehearsal periods for
the showcases, participants were guaranteed some exposure to the
field. Even with this system, Weisberger stressed that there was
no exact formula for a choreographer to follow. She indicated that
sometimes alumni call and just “need a dose of the Carlisle
Project”, and she tries to meet their needs when possible.29 As Ian
Horvath said in 1988, “We don’t want to establish anything that
would stifle an individual’s own pace.”30 Maintaining that flexible
stance helped bring the Project into maturity with its mission still
intact.
29 Barbara Weisberger, interview by author, Kingston, PA, 20 November 1995.
30 Camille Hardy, “Onward and Upward: The Carlisle Oasis,” Dance Magazine, February 1988, 74.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 5
THE FINAL YEARS
By 1990 the Carlisle Project was an established provider of
development programs for artists. With its battery of workshops,
residencies and showcases, the Project was able to offer
choreographers unique and varied opportunities to explore their
craft, hone their skills, receive feedback, and gain exposure.
Encouraged by the success of the structure that had formed but also
aware of the complex and ever changing needs of individual artists
and the dance field as a whole, the Project continued its
evolutionary growth by experimenting with new ways to serve its
constituency more effectively.
One of the most significant additions to the Project was the
inclusion of the Choreographer-Composer Collaborations Program
(CCCP) as a core component. CCCP expanded the concept of joining
the creative processes of music and dance by bringing
choreographers and composers together to study, experiment and
collaborate with one another. The idea was to foster a deeper
understanding between the two disciplines and to stimulate the
56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57
creation of new choreography and music for dance.
The concept had been developed by artistic leaders of the
Boston Ballet, the Tanglewood Institute of Boston University,
Jacob’s Pillow, and the Carlisle Project. Each of these organizations
and their leaders represented an important part of the proposed
project: Bruce Marks, Boston Ballet’s artistic director, brought a
dance perspective to the table; Tanglewood’s then director of the
Young Composers Program, Dr. Robert Sirota1* offered direction on
music composition and a connection to some talented young
composers; Jacob’s Pillow, a dance presenting facility, represented
by Sam Miller2 , provided a potential setting for the showcases; and
the Carlisle Project contributed expertise in coordinating and
producing process-oriented workshops. Together this team of
collaborators sought to create a unique program, set apart from
others by its emphasis on process and by the broad scope of
its activities.
CCCP captured the Carlisle Project’s spirit by combining all
the elements of its core programming. The proposed seven-month
1 Dr. Robert Sirota recently became the Director of the Peabody Conservatory of Music.
2 Sam Miller is currently the Executive Director of the New England Foundation for the Arts.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58
cycle of activities was scheduled to begin with a workshop for
choreographers and composers, in order to introduce each group to
the other’s craft. This first gathering also served to acquaint the
artists with mentors and other support staff who would assist them
throughout the program. A residency/collaboration period, during
which pairs of choreographers and composers simultaneously
developed their music and dance pieces, directly followed the initial
workshop. The approximate six-month development stage called for
each pair to meet as often as needed or whenever possible at
locations convenient to them. In the middle of this unstructured
creative period there would be a four-day residency to bring the
participants together in one location with dancers provided by the
Carlisle Project. At the end of the cycle, a three- to five- week
residency/rehearsal period was scheduled for the purpose of
completing and polishing the works for the showcases. The first
year had performances at Boston Ballet’s studios, Jacob’s Pillow and
the University of the Arts’s Drake Theater in Philadelphia. The
program’s original case statement identified this extensive offering
of time, mentors and resources as its trademark.3 The length of
3 “Choreographer-Composer Collaborations Program 1991-1992 Pilot Year Report and Case Statement”, D.September 1992. Rles of the Carlisle Project Carlisle Project administrative office, Arlington, VA.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59
the cycle was cited as having particular value. In the case
statement, it was observed that “time for process is all too often
considered a costly and expendable luxury.”4
A project of this duration was a considerable financial
undertaking. The original budget was $235,000, but, as fundraising
realities set in, programmatic cuts had to be made to reduce it to a
still steep $148,000.5 To compound the already daunting task of
meeting this budget was the fact that the Tanglewood Institute was
forced to withdraw from the project when Boston University
instituted budget cuts. As written in the 1991-1992 report, ‘“Leap
of faith’ aptly describes CCCP’s first, pilot year. Every bit of
ingenuity, courage and patience was brought to bear by all
concerned; and difficulties were par for the course.” The report
explained that, despite the obstacles, everyone involved remained
committed to the concept, and, as a result, the project flourished.
CCCP was produced for three consecutive years, however,
after the third year, budgetary concerns forced it onto a biennial
cycle. By that time the Carlisle Project had become CCCP’s sole
producer, aided by whatever other funding sources the organization
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60
was able to secure. In 1996 the workshop portion of CCCP is to be
produced at Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre as a single five-day activity.
Four pairs of choreographers and composers, under the leadership of
Tarin Chaplin and Richard Cameron-Wolfe6, will participate in
structured learning sessions, mentored collaboration periods and an
informal showing.
As part of a long-range planning process in 1987, Project
administrators included conferences as one of the proposed
activities for the coming years. The plan stated, “The Carlisle
Project recognizes a need in the field for a forum in which artistic
issues can be discussed, and means of solving problems can be
identified.”7 The document also stipulated that the Project not
become an administrative service organization but that it would
“approach subjects from an artistic point of view.”8 The idea of
conducting seminars and conferences was not new to the
organization. The Carlisle Project’s very existence had grown out of
6 Richard Cameron-Wolfe joined the Carlisle Project as workshop leader for the 1993 CCCP. He has since provided music direction and mentoring to choreographers at other Project workshops and residencies. He is a composer and pianist, and he has served as the Musical Director for the Dance Division of the State University of New York at Purchase for eighteen years.
7 “Carlisle Project Three Year Plan”, D, 1987,15, Files of the Carlisle Project, Carlisle Project administrative office, Arlington, VA.
8 Ibid.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61
Barbara Weisberger’s idea for a paper that she hoped to present at a
forum that would center around concerns facing the artistic growth
of dance. Making conferences a part of the organization’s activities
would further the Project’s founding principle of promoting the
exchange of ideas and would help its leaders to keep a finger on the
pulse of the field.
It was not until 1990 that these plans came to fruition. A
two-day convocation was held in June in conjunction with
Dance/USA’s9 roundtable, a national event that brings together
leaders in the dance field for discussions of problems and issues
facing the dance community. The Project’s forum was open to all
those at the Dance/USA event and was titled “The Making of Dance
Artists: the Choreographer and the Performer.” Prior to the
convocation, Tarin Chaplin wrote a paper, outlining the intended
focus of the forum. She offered the following three questions as
springboards for discussion: 1) What will enliven, enrich, and
ensure the continued growth of ballet as a fine art?; 2)What factors
enhance and/or restrict the artistic potential of ballet dancers?;
and 3) What assists or limits the evolution of ballet dancers into
9 Dance/USA is a membership based service organization that serves the dance field.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62
choreographers?10
While a transcript and summaries provided evidence of the
issues discussed, the success of the convocation cannot be
determined because there was no follow-up to investigate if the
individual participants took concrete steps to address the problems
raised during the event. However, it is possible to assert that, by
generating discourse about existing trends in dance training, the
Project heightened awareness regarding a need of professional
development opportunities for dance artists. That alone was an
accomplishment and perhaps was the goal.
Just prior to the convocation, Project leaders and staff had
to cope with a loss that effected the very heart of the organization.
In January 1990 Ian Horvath died. It is impossible to know how the
Project might have evolved had he lived, and even Barbara
Weisberger admitted that conflicting ideas were bringing
their relationship to a head.11 It is clear that he had been a central
figure in shaping the Project’s structure and helping the Project
gain national attention. His loss was felt by all those involved in
Tarin Chaplin, “The Making erf Dance Artists: the Choreographer and the Performer," Introduction to the convocation, D, 1990,1, Files of the Carlisle Project, Carlisle Project administrative office, Arlington, VA.
11 Barbara Weisberger, Interview by author, Kingston, PA, 20 November 1995.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63
the organization.
Another change that had an impact on the Project’s
continued development was the end of its partnership with the Ford
Foundation. Ford had been the Project’s original supporter and
largest contributor for nine years. As Ford’s administrative staff
and goals changed, the Foundation made it clear that it had given all
it could to the Project. As it matured, the Project steadily had
increased its funding profile to include ties with The Pew Charitable
Trusts, now the Project’s largest donor, and an ongoing relationship
with the Pennsylvania Council on the Arts. Still, despite the other
support, Ford’s funding was significant and not easily replaceable.
Further, funding trends toward the arts were on an increasingly
downward slide with the status of the National Endowment for the
Arts in question and severe revisions in foundation guidelines that
negatively affected the Project. In 1995 the organization would see
its most challenging times.
In 1993 yet another longtime member of the Project’s team
left the organization. Maurinda Wingard12, the Project’s
administrative director, who had helped guide the Project through
12 Maurinda Wingard is now the Project Manager of the Workshop Physics Project at Dickinson College in Carlisle, PA.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64
its formative years, left after differences with Weisberger could
not be resolved. In anticipation of the extensive fund raising that
would be required in the immediate future, Weisberger decided to
hire an executive director to handle the business end of the Project.
In January 1994, Dianne Brace13 joined the Project in this
challenging role. Because of the downturn in financial support, the
Project’s future seemed uncertain, but despite the challenge of
maintaining base programming, the Project continued to find new
ways of serving its constituency and to look to the future.
One path the Project explored more aggressively involved
forming partnerships with other organizations. By increasing its
collaborations, the Project could cut costs by sharing resources
with other institutions. In addition this could expand the potential
revenue base for individual projects by spreading the fund raising
between the two organizations and by allowing them to apply jointly
for grants. From an artistic perspective, collaborations permitted
the Project to design activities that addressed the specific needs of
dance companies and to broaden the scope of its activities to include
investigations of ethnic and cultural influences on choreography as
13 Dianne Brace, a professional dancer for eighteen years, was the co-founder and Executive Director of Beyond Dance-Career Transitions for Dancers in Seattle Washington. She also was the recipient of an Arts Administration Fellowship at the National Endowment for the Arts and served as General Manager and Members Program Director at Dance/USA before joining the Carlisle Project
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65
well as choreographic approaches in different styles of dance.
One of the initiatives that never made it past the
development stage in 1995 was a proposed joint venture between
the Carlisle Project and Donald Byrd/The Group. This project would
have focused on the needs and styles of African-American
choreographers, exploring how a choreographer’s individual culture
and background can be weaved into his /her own personal style. The
program called for a workshop, residencies and a tour of the finished
works to provide the artists with national exposure and to increase
the awareness of the unique problems facing African American dance
artists.
A second proposed initiative was to produce a series of
activities that compared and contrasted ballet and modern-based
techniques. Plans were discussed with leaders from the
Cleveland/San Jose Ballet, the Limon Company, and the Luckman
Center for the Arts for a west coast series. As will be explained
shortly, this idea also never came to fruition.
While those two projects were being negotiated, the
Project formed a partnership with Philadelphia’s University of the
Arts. With support from the William Penn Foundation, over the
course of two years, the Project planned to produce several
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66
workshops at the University, using artists predominantly from the
Philadelphia area. Another component of the grant was the
renovation of the University’s Drake Theater, a performance space
used by the Project for showcases.
The partnership was titled New Impulses, and, in August
1995, the first workshop took place. Six choreographers and
twenty-one dancers from Philadelphia participated in an intense but
highly individualized program. This workshop was unique for the
Project because it represented the first time Project leaders did not
select the dancers who would participate; instead, choreographers
were able to invite dancers with whom they wanted to work. As a
result, not all dancers were classically trained, professional ballet
company dancers as traditionally was the case at Project activities.
This more diverse population of dancers contributed to the
experimental nature of the workshop. Choreographers were
encouraged to mix and match the groupings of dancers they worked
with each day and to try more than one piece or tackle more than one
problem.
Phyllis Lamhut, choreographer, teacher and artistic director
of the Phyllis Lamhut Dance Company in New York, led the workshop.
She, along with her assistant, improvisation teacher and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67
choreographer Rob O’Neill, helped choreographers investigate “new
concepts and structure to enrich and expand their craft.” 14 This
activity seemed particularly successful, perhaps in large part
because it brought together a community of artists. Since the
workshop, participating choreographers have formed their own local
network, holding regular meetings to discuss their choreography.
One participant said of her experience at New Impulses, “[I gained]
an appreciation of how useful choreographic feedback can be when it
is relayed with so much intelligence, thoughtfulness, and positive
energy by both the facilitator and your peers.”15
1995 also saw the Project assume the role of grant giver.
Asked by the Pennsylvania Council on the Arts to assist with the
administration of its dance fellowships, the Project formed a
partnership with the Council, the Philadelphia Dance Alliance and
the Pittsburgh Dance Council to organize, adjudicate and distribute
more than $75,000 in grants to individual artists.
Despite the expansion of activities and the continuation of
its core programming, the Project was struggling to meet its budget.
Long-time funders were changing their guidelines, requiring more
14 “The Carlisle Project 1995 Annual Report”, D, October 1995,5, Files of the Carlisle Project Carlisle Project administrative office, Arlington, VA.
15 ibid., 14.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68
educational and outreach programs to receive funds. The Project
tried to increase this aspect of its programming by introducing the
Open the Door on Dance series, which invited the public to open
rehearsals during workshops and residencies for a behind-the-
scenes view of dance. The Project’s process- versus product-
driven programs, however, limited the opportunities to serve the
public at large. The Project’s mission was to serve the artist, who
would subsequently serve the public with inventive new works.
While many argue that artists are an underprivileged population,
that was not an advisable tact to take with funders. Support for
individual artists has not been the most popular cause in the 1990s;
consequently, the Project has found the fundraising challenge
increasingly difficult. While some states such as Pennsylvania have
continued to give fellowships, the national trend seems to reflect
the decision by the National Endowment for the Arts to discontinue
grants to individuals. Many foundations and corporations have
changed their guidelines such that the Project’s mission no longer is
in line with theirs.
In 1995 the Carlisle Project embarked on a strategic
assessment and planning process to evaluate its program, determine
it future role, and devise strategies to help weather the downward
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69
economic trend. With large grants from The Pew Charitable Trusts
and The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and the assistance of
management consultant Stephen Richard16, the Project held a series
of meetings with staff, board and representatives from its
constituencies to review its history and chart a new course. These
sessions were aided by the results of surveys that had been
solicited from the Project’s stakeholders, including choreographers,
dancers, donors, presenters, artistic directors, and executive
directors of dance schools and other arts organizations. The
overwhelming response was positive. Respondents cited the rare
and critical opportunities the Project had provided to the field. Past
participants gave testimony about how the Project had helped
further their careers. Many also offered suggestions on ways to
become more effective, recommending new programs and ranking the
existing offerings. Some included criticism of the Project, but even
those stressed the value of the Project’s work.
The strategic planning committee was buoyed by this
feedback, but, at the same time, they were forced to struggle with
funding realities. The validation and gratitude were important and
heartening, but they alone could not sustain the Project’s budget.
16 Stephen Richard, formerly the Executive Director of Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre, is currently the Executive Director of Arena Stage in Washington, DC.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70
The end of the process came down to a decision of abandoning self
supported activities in favor of collaborations with established
institutions or closing the organization. While many might argue
that having something is better than nothing at all, the committee
decided that the true value of the Project was its ability to provide
artists with a safe place to experiment outside of the company
setting. As choreographer and Carlisle Project alumnus David
Shimotakahara17 wrote in a letter to Barbara Weisberger, “A part of
the Carlisle’s structure which I think served the project very well
over its first ten years was its ability to provide a relatively
autonomous learning environment where people could afford to
become a little creatively lost from time to time.”18
In December 1995 a formal announcement was made to
Project supporters that the organization would close effective
September 30, 1996. The Project administrators hope to secure
funds to produce a final season of activities to celebrate the
organization’s history and to help it leave a legacy in the field of
dance. These activities remain contingent upon a currently pending
17 David Shimotakahara. a dancer with Ohio Ballet is a free-lance choreographer and the co-founder of New Steps Choreography Project in Cleveland, OH. He was also a member of the Carlisle Project’s strategic planning committee.
18 David Shimotakahara, letter to Barbara Weisberger, DS by Mr. Shimotakahara, 22 October 1995, Files of the Carlisle Project, Carlisle Project administrative office, Arlington, VA.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71
grant proposal decision. If funds are acquired, 1996 will include an
alumni reunion, another New Impulses workshop focusing on cross
over issues between modern dance and ballet, and documentation of
the Project model. The choreo-music workshop previously
mentioned will take place in Pittsburgh February 28 - March 3,
thanks to the already secured support of the Vira I. Heinz
Endowment, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the
Pennsylvania Council on the Arts. Because of the lack of funding and
time necessary for planning and implementation, the initiatives
with Donald Byrd/The Group and the Limon Company, however, will
not be realized, and all other programming will cease. The decision
to close marks the end of an eleven-year history, and only time will
tell if the organization will rise from the ashes and, if so, in what
form.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 6
THE ARTISTS AND THE IMPACT
Over the course of eleven years the Carlisle Project has
hosted more than 300 artists at its activities. Its participants have
included dancers, composers, and musicians, but clearly
choreographers have been the center of the Project’s focus. By
nurturing and stimulating the talent of these artists, the Project
has attempted to infuse new life into the art form of ballet. It has
invested in promising artists with the hope that their work would
later flourish and benefit the field at large. To what degree has the
Project succeeded? Has its program been valuable, and, if so, how?
Determining the overall impact of the Carlisle Project is
not an exact science. Because its activities center around process
rather than performance, it is difficult to quantify the results of its
work. Unlike a ballet company, for example, which can use ticket
sales, market surveys, or reviews as measures of success, the
Project’s value is of a highly personal and subjective nature. The
most tangible results come from its participants’ individual
accomplishments in the field of dance. To try to track these
72
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73
accomplishments, the Project has compiled a list called Linkages to
the Dance Field that highlights achievements of its alumni. The
document cites ten choreographers who hold either artistic director
or resident choreographer positions with ballet companies. Among
them are Daniel Pelzig, resident choreographer of Boston Ballet, Kirk
Peterson, artistic director of Hartford Ballet, and Septime Webre,
artistic director of American Repertory Ballet. Thirty-six artists
are mentioned for having received recent commissions or awards,
including Trey McIntyre, resident choreographer at Houston Ballet,
who received a 1995 NEA Fellowship for $9,000; Betsy Erickson, a
choreographer at the San Francisco Ballet who was a 1994 recipient
of a $20,000 NEA fellowship; Broadway choreographer Joey
McKneely, a 1995 Tony Award nominee; and a handful of gold and
silver medalists at the Boston Ballet’s International Choreography
Competition.
The linkages Carlisle Project alumni have made with ballet
companies have been extensive, collectively. Among the more than
twenty participating ballet companies listed are Pacific Northwest
Ballet, New York City Ballet, Pennsylvania Ballet, Pittsburgh Ballet,
and the Dutch National Ballet. Choreographers with additional, more
recent accomplishments include free-lance choreographer Ginger
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74
Thatcher, who has been working as assistant choreographer on the
new Broadway musical Big; independent choreographer Graham
Lustig1, who recently set a piece on Hartford Ballet and was the
recipient of rave reviews from the New York Times for his work
performed by The Washington Ballet at the Joyce Theatre in New
York2 ; in the last year, Lynn Cote was named resident choreographer
to The Washington Ballet; Martine Van Hamel, a former principal
dancer with American Ballet Theatre and now artistic director of
New Amsterdam Ballet, was just commissioned by the Royal
Winnipeg Ballet. These are just samplings of the career
advancement of some of the Project’s alumni, and together they
suggest a correlation between the Project and success. Just as a
university may take credit for its alumni who gain success in fields
of study, the Project can derive satisfaction from the success of
those it has served. In either case, however, the organization cannot
be certain exactly to what degree it was responsible for an
individual’s achievements. For this reason, while counting the
leadership positions of alumni can be used as a source of pride, it is
1 Graham Lustig, who received his dance training with the Royal Ballet in England and has performed professionally in both The Netherlands and England, is currently a resident choreographer with The Washington Ballet and a free lance choreographer.
2 Anna Kisselgoff, “Some Visitors from Washington,”The New York Times, 25 January 1996.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75
not necessarily an accurate determinant of the Project’s impact.
The true value of the Project seems to lie not so much in
this kind of quantifiable approach; rather, it is found in the personal
experiences of participants. Interviews with twenty-eight
choreographer alumni have provided insights into the Project’s true
worth. Despite the subjectivity of individual opinion, four broad
themes surfaced about how the Project affected the careers of
choreographers. The following are the Project’s main areas of
influence as determined through a consensus reached from this
research: 1) a tool for learning; 2) a source of encouragement; 3) a
forum for information exchange and networking; and 4) a means of
gaining exposure.
A Tool for Learning
The Project’s methods of teaching craft, providing feedback
and fostering self-discovery and self-evaluation have proved to be
effective learning tools. For some choreographers the composition
workshops opened their eyes to a new approach. Where before they
approached the art from a purely intuitive base, after the workshop,
they were able to apply analytical concepts. Choreographer Lynn
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76
Cote said, “It was like going to school for me.”3 She explained that
the workshop was helpful in broadening her perspective from the
view of the dancer to the view of the choreographer who is in
control of creating all the movement.4 For Bruce Ewing workshops
took the level of learning a step further. Ewing had studied the
movement analysis theories of Rudolf Laban5 when he attended his
first Carlisle Project workshop. He felt that the Project applied
this approach more directly to the art of choreography. He said,
“It’s like learning to paint with oils [at Laban] and then learning to
paint a masterpiece [at Carlisle Project].”6 Not everyone found the
analytical approach valuable. Trey McIntyre said he tried to keep his
mind open to learning the technique of choreography, but found it
stifled his creativity. He prefers to rely on instinct when he
3 Lynn Cote, interview by author, Telephone, 15 January 1996.
4 Ibid.
5 Rudolf Laban, an artist and scientist developed a system of notation for the purpose of recording movement that helped with the documentation of dance. In developing this system he first had to devise a method for identifying the elements of movement in terms of body, effort, space and shape. As stated in an article by Ed Groff titled, “Laban Movement Analysis: Charting the Ineffable Domain of Human Movement," in the February 1995 edition of the Journal of Physical Education. Recreation and Dance. “The Laban framework provides differentiated concepts and a vocabulary which enables observers to identify the most salient features of a movement event and to relate them to the needs of the situation at hand.”
6 Bruce Ewing, interview by author,Telephone, 4 January 1996.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77
creates.7
What seemed to be particularly cogent about the workshops
was their structure. Leaders did not just raise principles for
discussion, but, rather, gave the choreographers assignments or
problems to solve. Some choreographers recalled with pleasure an
exercise on entrances and exits where the task was to come up with
as many ways possible to get on and off the stage. Others discussed
learning to work with different types of music and exploring
movement contrasts in their choreography. Graham Lustig felt that
this formal structure was a strength of the Project.8 Lisa de Ribere
added that the tasks pushed the participants to explore new things.
She said, “They made you uncomfortable, but you learned from
them.”9 Several choreographers mentioned that these concepts and
experiences have been useful in their work since their participation,
especially when faced with a block or a seemingly unsolvable
problem. In those situations they have been able to refer to their
notes or draw on their experience to break from habit and explore
new options.
7 Trey McIntyre, interview by author, Telephone,15 December 1995.
8 Graham Lustig, interview by author, Telephone, 28 September 1995.
9 Lisa de Ribere, interview by author, Telephone, 14 November 1995.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78
In addition to the elements of craft, the workshops gave
participants a lesson in working quickly. Because of the short
duration of the workshops and residencies, artists had to absorb,
process, and apply an abundance of information in a very short time.
Several choreographers remembered this as a valuable aspect of the
Project, including Val Caniparoli10 and Kirk Peterson11 who cited
speed as a vital ability for an artist to possess. Dane La Fontsee12
added that the pressure at the Project to create on the spot made
artists reach down “to work with their gut reactions and
instincts.”13 Lucinda Hughey further explained that the Project’s
time constraints were good because they reflected reality. They
helped teach her how to pace herself and to know when to get rid of
things and when to fix them.14
The Other Dance Forms workshops also enriched the process
of many of the choreographers by expanding their base of knowledge.
10 val Caniparoli, interview by author, Telephone, 15 December 1995.
11 Kirk Peterson, interview by author, Telephone, 7 December 1995.
12 Dane La Fontsee, a former dancer, choreographer and one time artistic director of Nashville Ballet, recently retired as the artistic director of the Milwaukee Ballet
13 Dane La Fontsee, interview by author, Telephone, 8 January 1996.
14 Lucinda Hughey, interview by author, Telephone, 17 January 1996.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79
Bruce Ewing cited the Ballroom Workshop as having an enormous
impact on the way he works because it showed him “there is a much
broader range of material to draw from.”15 Modern dance
choreographer JoAnna Mendl Shaw16 remarked that she came away
from the Ballroom Workshop “with a depth of information.”17 Lynn
Cote and Rebecca Kelly18 found that the same workshop gave them
new insights into partnering techniques. Kelly said she created
several works from the material she learned there.19
The music workshops affected choreographers on different
levels. For some it was the first time they had approached music
analytically. Diane Coburn Bruning learned to work with whole
scores and gained a “broader, more comprehensive approach to
15 Bruce Ewing, interview by author, Telephone, 4 January 1996.
16 JoAnna Mendl Shaw, the recipient of two NEA choreographic fellowships and the founder of the Seattle-based repertory company Danceworks, is now a free-lance choreographer in New York City and a faculty member at the Tisch School for the Arts/New York University.
17 JoAnna Mendl Shaw, interview by author, Telephone, 19 December 1995.
18 Rebecca Kelly is the artistic director of her own dance company, Rebecca Kelly Dance, in New York C ity.
19 Rebecca Kelly, interview by author, Telephone, 15 December 1995.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80
music.”20 For Monica Levy21, being introduced to a new composer
opened a whole other realm of music for her.22 Rebecca Wright23
remembered her first exposure to minimalist music at a workshop.
She found she did not have a taste for this particular style and
experienced difficulty with the assignments during the workshop.
Since then she admits she has developed a liking for this style of
music because of having been forced to deal with it. Of the
workshop she said, “I learned tremendous amounts of music theory
from it.” 24
Another of the Project’s tools for learning sets it apart
from other similar programs or workshops. That is the mentoring
and feedback that is an integral part of all Project activities. Some
interviewed argued that it was not particularly useful, but the
majority seemed to feel that, while at the time it was not always
appreciated, in hindsight it was truly valuable. In fact, Dane La
20 Diane Cobum Bruning, interview by author, Telephone, 3 November 1995.
21 Monica Levy is an independent choreographer and currently teaches dance at the Hart school in Hartford Connecticut.
22 Monica Levy, interview by author, Telephone, 21 December 1995
23 Rebecca Wright, a former dancer with Joffrey Ballet and American Ballet Theatre, is a full-time teach in the dance at UCLA and formerly was on the faculty at Cal State Long Beach. 24 Rebecca Wright, interview by author,Telephone, 15 January 1995.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81
Fontsee commented that “this is where the Project will be sorely
missed.”25 He admitted that, at times, the feedback was
intimidating and aggravating, but that it surfaced later to his
benefit. He recalled how when working on a piece back in his studio
the voice of Ian Horvath seemed to echo disdainfully in the back of
his head when he tried to rely on an old trick rather than coming up
with something new.26 Miriam Mahdaviani27, who had participated
in the New York City Ballet’s Diamond Project28, found the Carlisle
Project unique because, in addition to resources, it offered
mentoring. She felt the mentors, especially Richard Cameron-Wolfe,
gave useful feedback.29 Lynn Cote admitted that the criticism was
hard to hear but that she wanted to hear it.30 Septime Webre found
Tarin Chaplin beneficial because she encouraged him to let his
25 Dane La Fontsee, interview by author, Telephone, 8 January 1995.
26 ibid.
27 Miriam Mahdaviani is a former dancer with the New York City Ballet She has choreographed for the NYCB and now is an independent choreographer living in New York.
28 Begun in 1992, The Diamond Project was a choreographic workshop produced by New York City Ballet that provided opportunities for choreographers to create new works on City Ballet dancers and to have them performed by the company in biennial showcases.
29 Miriam Mahdaviani, interview by author, Telephone, 9 November 1995.
30 Lynn Cote, interview by author, Telephone, 15 January 1996.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82
activist process be more a part of his dances. 31 Colin Connor found
the mentoring to be extremely helpful from a compositional point of
view.32
For those choreographers not accustomed to creating with
the ballet idiom, the Project offered them a chance to learn about
working with classically trained ballet dancers. This was a
different experience for both Colin Connor33 and JoAnna Mendl
Shaw34, who appreciated the opportunity. Both acknowledged that
modern dancers tend to be much more a part of the process than
ballet dancers. Connor described it as learning about a whole other
culture. For him and Shaw this was a valuable lesson.
A Source of Encouragement
While enriching the training of dance artists was one half
of the Project’s mission, providing them with a safe environment in
which to experiment was the other. The overwhelming response
from the interviewees seemed to be that the Project did offer them
31 Septime Webre, interview by author, Telephone, 16 December 1995.
32 Colin Connor, interview by author, Telephone, 8 January 1996.
33 ibid.
34 JoAnna Mendl Shaw, interview by author, Telephone, 19 December 1995.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83
a secure environment and encouraged experimentation. This
assertion, however, seemed to be dependent on the location of the
activity, whether it was in Carlisle or at a company studio, and also
varied according to the artists’ feelings about process versus
product.
Undoubtedly the Project appears to have been most
successful in Carlisle in achieving its goal; Lucinda Hughey was not
alone in stating that the Project worked best at that location.35
Bonnie Scheibman remarked about the magic and security of Carlisle
because it seemed off the beaten path.36 It was in Carlisle where
the Project produced its autonomous programs, meaning those not
affiliated with a dance company. It was in the dance company
settings when pressure threatened the safe feeling. As David
Shimotakahara wrote in a letter to Barbara Weisberger, “I still have
some reservations about a choreographer’s ability and desire to
experiment freely within the framework of a professional company
residency.”37 Perhaps what he was referring to was the pressure to
meet the needs of a company or artistic director that
35 Lucinda Hughey, interview by author, Telephone, 17 January 1996.
36 Bonnie Scheibman, interview by author, Telephone, 31 October 1995.
37 David Shimotakahara, to Barbara Weisberger, LS by Mr. Shimotakahara, 22 October 1995, Rles of the Carlisle Project, Carlisle Project administrative office, Arlington, VA.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84
choreographers sometimes experience during a commission. Perhaps
it was the sense of security that the physical location of Carlisle
activities gave as opposed to the same activities in a major city
like Philadelphia.
A second issue that affected the Project’s ability to provide
a safe haven for experimentation came from the pressure associated
with the showcases. While this did not seem to be a widely held
view, several choreographers felt that, while process was spoken of
as the ideal, it was really the product that was valued. One
choreographer, who asked not to be identified, felt that she had
attempted to experiment but that her efforts were unfairly
criticized. She pulled back from trying new ideas as a result.
Another felt she was given a mandate to investigate process, only to
find that the idea behind the activity and the focus of others seemed
to be on producing a polished work for the showcase. She felt she
understood the true emphasis too late. That choreographer, who also
did not wish to be identified, commented that, even so, the Project
was a wonderful place to work. She just thought more time should
be given to pure process.
While other choreographers spoke of pressure surrounding
the showcases, they viewed the pressure as a natural part of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85
process that did not compromise their chance to experiment.
Overwhelmingly they reported that the Project created
a very supportive environment. How did this support affect the
choreographers? Septime Webre felt the lack of pressure enabled
him to be more natural about his movement phrases.38 Bruce Ewing
felt comfortable enough at the Project’s 1995 group residency to
develop what he felt was a risky concept. Encouragement from the
mentors gave him the strength to remain committed to his idea, and
he has since carried the confidence and focus he gained there back
home, where it has helped him stay strong and centered around his
artistic vision.39 Ron Cunningham49, already an established
choreographer and artistic director when he attended, said the
Project allowed him to get back in the studio and become a student
again. This made him feel like he could really take chances. He found
the whole experience “very inspiring.”41
The support provided at the Project seems not only to have
promoted experimentation, but it also offered encouragement and
38 Septime Webre, interview by author, Telephone,16 December 1995.
39 Bruce Ewing, interview by author, Telephone, 4 January 1996.
40 Ron Cunningham is the artistic director of the Sacramento Ballet.
41 Ibid.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86
vindication not easily found in the competitive dance world. JoAnna
Mendl Shaw commented that “there is plenty of rejection out there
and Carlisle Project provides support.”42 Graham Lustig43 and
David Shimotakahara44 also found an affirmation of their own skills
as well as of the field of choreography. Rebecca Kelly discovered
approval on a personal level saying, “Barbara Weisberger conveyed
that she supported me. To feel that kind of belief in me was new. It
was a wonderful feeling for me.”45
For several choreographers the Project provided validation
specifically in the ballet field. Because of ballet’s structure and
hierarchy it can be intimidating for someone not brought up through
the ranks of a ballet company to try to establish himself/herself as
a ballet choreographer. Three choreographers with extensive ballet
training who had pursued a more modern approach to choreography in
their professional years admitted that they felt they previously
lacked the credentials to work in ballet. After participating in the
Project, they gained the confidence to pursue their balletic visions.
42 JoAnna Mendl Shaw, interview by author,Telephone,19 December 1995.
43 Graham Lustig, interview by author, Telephone, 28 September 1995.
44 David Shimotakahara, interview by author, Carlisle, PA, 29 September 1995.
45 Rebecca Kelly, interview by author, Telephone, 15 December 1995.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87
Bonnie Scheibman remembered being the only woman at the
first workshop who was not from the world of ballet companies.
With her broad modern and compositional-based background, she did
not view herself as a ballet choreographer. When she left the
Project, however, she was intent on pursuing ballet as her medium
of expression. This was her most intense experience at the Project
because it was “life-changing.”46 Kathryn Posin47, a modern
choreographer, admitted to always having secretly loved ballet, but,
with her varied background and extensive experience as a modern
choreographer, she was not sure if she would be looked upon as a
legitimate ballet choreographer. She said, “Carlisle Project helped
me gain confidence to make a transition from modern to ballet.”48
She also felt that having participated in the Project gave her more
credibility in the ballet world.49 Rebecca Kelly had rejected her
ballet background in pursuit of her own style. She prohibited herself
from utilizing the ballet idiom in order to help her explore
46 Bonnie Scheibman, interview by author, Telephone, 31 October 1995.
47 Kathryn Posin is the artistic director of the Kathryn Posin Dance Company in New York City. She has had her own modem dance company for eighteen years.
^ Kathryn Posin, interview by author, Telephone, 22 December 1995.
49 Ibid.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 88
movement unfamiliar to her. Not completely satisfied working with
modern dancers, she eventually began to take ballet classes again
and soon found herself looking for a way to return to her ballet
background. In her eyes, the Carlisle Project was the only way to
make the break from modern. She saw it as a “tiny window where I
could go to get back to where I wanted to be.”50 Indeed she found
what she was looking for at the Project, stating, “Carlisle Project
gave me the confidence to reclaim my past.”51
A Forum for Information Exchange and Networking
In addition to providing a supportive environment during
activities, the Project helped choreographers build a support system
for life back in the “real world”. This was of profound importance
in what many choreographers acknowledged can be an isolated field.
As Bruce Ewing conceded, “I have always felt as a choreographer
that I was out there by myself.”52 By bringing together
choreographers, dancers and artistic mentors, the Project provided
the artists with an opportunity to meet peers, exchange ideas and
establish networks.
50 Rebecca Kelly, interview by author, Telephone, 15 December 1995.
51 Ibid.
52 Bruce Ewing, interview by author, Telephone, 4 January 1996.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 89
The benefit of bringing groups of artists together is the
feedback they can exchange, but also the lessons they can learn from
watching one another. As Bonnie Scheibman said, “When you get ten
or twelve people together for 10 days, a lot gets exchanged.”53 This
forum, where choreographers discussed their craft and ideas as well
as offered and received constructive criticism, contributed to the
Project’s ability to stimulate development.
Ron Cunningham, who originally had entered the dance field
in the early 1960s, commented on how wonderful it was to be around
a lot of young choreographers again. The experience left him
refreshed, and he felt he had been able to offer them
encouragement.54 Septime Webre, at the time a young
choreographer just about to embark on a career as the artistic
director of American Repertory Ballet, found it particularly valuable
to be able to share ideas about work experiences with fellow
choreographers and artistic directors.55 Rick McCullough
remembered long intellectual discussions and philosophizing which
were stimulating and created a sense of community and
53 Bonnie Scheibman, interview by author, Telephone, 31 October 1995.
54 Ron Cunningham, interview by author, Telephone, 18 January 1996.
55 Septime Webre, interview by author, Telephone, 16 December 1995.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90
camaraderie.56 Monica Levy remarked that choreographers never
usually get opportunities to talk and to spend time together like
they do at the Carlisle Project. 57
The discussions at the Project were similar to those
conducted at business conferences or retreats. At forums like
these, colleagues get together to share helpful industry tips, vent
frustrations, brainstorm, and learn. They gain confidence from the
support of their peers and a renewed commitment to the field,
critical in a fickle field like choreography where one day you are on
top and the next day you are out. Further, with the constant struggle
for funding and other resources, it is easy for choreographers to get
discouraged and to burn out. The Project was effective in
revitalizing the dedication and determination of many of its
participants.
From viewing each other’s work, the artists collected new
ideas, broadened their perspectives and developed a sense of their
own abilities. Victoria Morgan observed that “there is no formula
for being a choreographer so it was great to be exposed to how
56 Rfok McCullough, interview by author, Telephone, 30 October 1995.
57 Monica Levy, interview by author, Telephone, 21 December 1995.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91
others work.”58 Meredith Rainey59 . who had participated for years
as a dancer and, in 1995, came as a choreographer, found that, in
both cases, being around other artists helped him realize some of his
own capabilities. As a dancer in a company setting, an individual
already has an idea of where he falls in line in terms of talent.60
Conversely, at the Project, everyone starts off on equal footing,
which makes them want to excel and prove themselves.61 David
Shimotakahara agreed that exposure to other choreographers with
similar experiences and backgrounds gave him a better measure of
his own talents.62
The connections made at the Project continued to linger
after the activities ended. Many of those interviewed spoke fondly
of lasting ties made during their experience at the Carlisle Project,
and some considered these ties to be where the Project had its
deepest impact on their lives. Diane Coburn Bruning cited her
58 Victoria Morgan, interview by author, Telephone, 21 December 1995.
59 Meredith Rainey is a dancer with Pennsylvania Ballet Company and a n independent ballet choreographer.
60 Meredith Rainey, interview by author, 17 January 1996.
61 ibid.
62 David Shimotakahara, interview by author, Carlisle, PA, 29 September 1995.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92
relationship with Juli Nunlist as highly significant to her career.63
Miriam Mahdaviani64 and Trey McIntyre65 mentioned the useful
contacts made with music director Richard Cameron-Wolfe. Several
modern choreographers spoke of the important contacts they made in
the ballet world. As JoAnna Mendl Shaw explained, “The contacts
have been helpful in a dance world that is not my own.”66 Several
alumni artistic directors have commissioned choreographers they
met at the Project. Dane La Fontsee, former artistic director of
Nashville Ballet and Milwaukee Ballet, said he hired two dancers he
met at the Project because he knew from seeing them dance during
the activities that they were more than technicians.67 Kathryn
Posin offered another example of the benefits of connections made
at the Project. When she was commissioned to do a work at
Milwaukee Ballet, she was elated and relieved to find that the
dancer assigned as the lead in her piece was someone with whom she
had worked closely at the Project. This was extremely helpful
63 Diane Cobum Bruning, interview by author, Telephone, 3 November 1995.
64 Miriam Mahdaviani, interview by author, Telephone, 9 November 1995.
65 Trey McIntyre, interview by author, Telephone, 15 December 1995.
66 JoAnna Mendl Shaw, interview by author, Telephone, 19 December 1995.
67 Dane La Fontsee, interview by author, Telephone, 8 January 1996.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93
because they had already developed a trust, which made Posin feel
comfortable experimenting. Several other choreographers mentioned
the benefits of knowing some of the dancers before walking into a
new commission. It expedited their work because there was a
history together and a knowledge of each other’s styles.
A Means for Gaining Exposure
While the activities of the Project helped establish an
internal network among participants, it also provided them with a
forum for connecting with the greater dance community. While
maintaining the stance that its work was geared toward process,
there was no mistaking the Project’s involvement in promoting the
product as well. Whether it was through showings, showcases or
word-of-mouth, as choreographer alumna Rebecca Kelly said, “The
network at the Carlisle Project should not be underestimated.”68
The Project’s ability to put choreographers in contact with
commissions is clearly one of its strengths. While choreographers
cherish the rare chance to focus on process, they certainly do not
dismiss the importance of increased exposure and help in gaining
paying jobs. Over half of those interviewed felt that, either
directly or indirectly, the Carlisle Project had contributed to
68 Rebecca Kelly, interview by author, Telephone, 15 December 1995.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94
the receipt of additional commissions.
The most direct manner in which the Project facilitated
commissions was through showcases and individual residencies.
Lisa de Ribere commented that “the best thing about Carlisle
Project showcases [was] that artistic directors really came.”69
Indeed, Dane La Fontsee had viewed the Carlisle Project first as an
artistic director rather than as a participant.70 Monica Levy, who,
along with de Ribere, recently completed works for Pittsburgh
Ballet Theatre, is certain that her commission was a result of the
company’s artistic director, Patricia Wilde, seeing her work at the
Carlisle Project.71 De Ribere had done previous work for Pittsburgh
when Wilde had her develop part of a study de Ribere had begun at
the Project. 72
Individual residencies and staging of works created at the
Project were an effective means through which the Project aided in
69 Lisa de Ribere, interview by author, Telephone, 14 November 1995.
70 Dane La Fontsee, interview by author, Telephone, 8 January 1996.
71 Monica Levy, interview by author, Telephone, 21 December 1995.
72 Lisa de Ribere, interview by author, Telephone, 14 November 1995.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95
the production of new pieces. Jeffrey Satinoff73 and Rick
McCullough74 recalled receiving commissions at Hartford Ballet and
Lake Erie Ballet, respectively, after completing individual
residencies at those companies. Hartford Ballet was the scene of
more Carlisle Project work in 1995 when artistic director and
Project alumnus Kirk Peterson hosted an evening of works developed
during the Project’s CCCP. Peterson had served on the selection
panel for the activity and was impressed by the talent he had seen.
In a program note he wrote, “Gone are the days when there are five
or six interesting choreographers using the craft of ballet as their
means of expression.”75 Having begun a series at his company for
innovative new work, Peterson selected the works of Project
participants Colin Connor, Graham Lustig, Jean Grand-Maitre, and
Monica Levy. He explained his reasoning for this particular program,
writing, “I have always maintained that we must develop a repertory
that is stimulating, thought provoking, entertaining, and always
73 Jeffrey Satinoff is currently the Dean of Dance at Palm Beach School of the Arts in Florida. Jeffrey Satinoff. Telephone interview by author, 9 November 1995.
74 Rick McCullough, interview by author, Telephone, 30 October 1995.
73Kirk Peterson, “Expect the Unexpected,” to audience members at Hartford Ballet’s Dynamic Directions II, February 24 and 25,1995, LS, Hartford Ballet Program for Dynamic Directions II, Files of Carlisle Project, Carlisle Project administrative office, Arlington, VA.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96
challenging to both artists and the audience.”76 His use of Project
artists to demonstrate this philosophy indicates the Project’s
impact on him and suggests how the Project has instilled its values
in the field, encouraging others to support the development of new
work.
The Project also seemed to work in mysterious indirect
ways. Many choreographers felt that new work had come their way
through word-of-mouth somehow connected to the Project. In many
cases, the artists acknowledged Barbara Weisberger’s commitment
to them and her behind-the-scenes promotion of their talents.
Victoria Morgan77 and Val Caniparoli78 received commissions
directly from their involvement, but they suspected some of their
work was generated through word-of-mouth by Weisberger or others
who worked for the Project. Some felt the fact that they had
attended the Project increased their chances of being considered for
new work. Lynn Cote believed that having the Project on her resume
was a definite selling point.79 Modern choreographer Colin Connor
76 ibid.
77 Victoria Morgan, interview by author, Telephone,21 December 1995.
78 Val Caniparoli, interview by author, Telephone, 15 December 1995.
79 Lynn Cote, interview by author, Telephone,15 January 1996.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 97
felt his experience with the Project opened doors for him within the
ballet world.
Summary
This research has shown that the Carlisle Project has had a
notable yet disparate effect on its participants and subsequently on
the field of dance. Regardless of the choreographers’ levels of
instruction or bases of knowledge, the Project’s activities have
proved to be an effective tool for learning. The testimony of the
interviewed alumni indicated that for some the Carlisle Project
activities were their first exposure to the concepts of craft and for
others they provided a time to reexamine their own work in relation
to these theories. In either case, all seemed to come away with a
broader approach to composition and an ability to work within
deadlines. Another aspect that aided the learning process was the
role of feedback, and its long term effects on choreographers. It
served to give them perspective, constructive criticism, and a
means of measuring their talent. Further, it remained a source of
checks and balances when they returned home.
For modern choreographers the Project helped them learn
about the capabilities, limitations and expectations of classical
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98
ballet dancers. Other modern choreographers discovered their “true
voice” while working within the ballet idiom during Project
activities. The activities helped all of them to establish contacts in
the ballet field and to develop a support network of ballet
choreographers.
The Project also seems to have achieved its goal of
establishing a safe environment in which choreographers feel
comfortable enough to take risks. There were some who disagreed,
feeling that security was compromised when too much emphasis was
placed on product. Still, the overwhelming response was that
choreographers found the Project’s programs to be a rare chance to
focus solely on their craft, with all the necessary resources at their
fingertips. The fact that most activities took place outside of a
company setting was critical to the Project’s success in achieving
this objective. The experimentation that ensued led to the
development of new works and also served as a means of
rejuvenating choreographers and stimulating the creative process.
Networking with colleagues continually was cited as an
important aspect of the Project. This impacted the careers of
individuals by helping them establish a professional support network
of peers and mentors and by fostering commissions. Several
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99
participants who have since become artistic directors have
commissioned or plan to commission works of colleagues they first
met at the Project. The contacts made between choreographers and
dancers also had long-term positive effects, enhancing the working
environment for choreographers when they went to work at dance
companies. In addition, being surrounded by other choreographers
helped artists feel less isolated and afforded them an exceptional
opportunity to assess their skills in relation to others.
The most tangible impact the Project has had has been in
its ability to promote the work of its participants, benefiting the
artists and the field by generating the development and production
of new work. The Project has succeeded in doing this by hosting
showcases and encouraging artistic directors to attend, by
informally promoting the work of alumni, and by adding to their
credentials.
Because the responses of each individual were personal, it
makes it difficult to present a scientific conclusion. What can be
ascertained from these results is that the Project has succeeded in
meeting its goal of enriching the professional development of
choreographers. For some, the effect has been more profound than
for others. Nevertheless, even those who had criticisms of a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100
particular experience were adamant about the importance of the
Project to the field and about their desire to participate again,
strong testimony to the Project’s effect on their lives. Whether
their subsequent work will be of a higher quality is a subjective
matter and yet to be fully realized. Clearly, though, the Project has
provided a fertile ground for promising choreographers to grow and
flourish.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION
While the previous chapter provided evidence of specific
ways in which the Project has impacted choreographers and the
dance field, perhaps what best captures the overall value of the
Carlisle Project requires again going back to the matter-of-fact
statement of a choreographer at the end of the very first workshop.
As recalled by Barbara Weisberger, the young woman said, “It really
doesn’t matter what worked and didn’t work. What really matters
here is that it happened.”1 While this hardly may seem grounds for
establishing the program’s success, the truth is that the Project’s
philosophies and methods addressed a true problem in the ballet
world. As previously discussed, there is a pervasive philosophy in
the ballet world that choreographers are born, not taught. Many of
the choreographers interviewed concurred that there were not many
opportunities to learn craft, especially through any type of
structured sessions. A few, such as Val Caniparoli at San Francisco
Ballet and Trey McIntyre at Houston Ballet, were lucky enough to be
101
1 Barbara Weisberger, interview by author, Kingston, PA, 20 November 1995.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102
tapped early on as potential choreographers and given opportunities
to try, but most found little or no encouragement in the field. Even
when they did, it was not accompanied by any instruction or
feedback.
Barbara Weisberger’s concern was that, without careful
attention given to the development of new work and to its creators,
the art form would suffer and stagnate. It seems she was not alone
in her view. For example, in a 1988 Dance Magazine article, Murray
Louis2 , well-known dancer, choreographer and artistic director of
the Nikolais/Louis Dance Foundation, discussed the importance of
choreography and the lack of consideration and respect given to
developing the craft. He argued that none of the money going toward
dance seemed to find its way to the creative process. Of this he
said, “Today, as the profession faces the bleakness of its creative
future, the lack of choreographic training becomes evident. Being a
good choreographer takes time.”3
Peter Martins, artistic director of the New York City Ballet,
began a choreography workshop at his company in 1992. Titled the
2 Murray Louis also is currently the artistic director of the Murray Louis Dance Company.
3Murray Louis, “On Six Hundred Thousand Choreographers,” Dance Magazine, December 1989, 102.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103
Diamond Project, this program, which has since ceased to exist,
invited several choreographers for several years to create works on
City Ballet dancers. At the end of the completed event, the works
were showcased. It differed from the Carlisle Project because it
placed more emphasis on the completion of a whole work. It also did
not provide the mentoring that the Carlisle Project does. Still, it
addressed some of the same concerns held by Weisberger. In a 1994
Dance Magazine article, Martins explained the difficulty in finding
choreographers who fully understood the complexities of ballet. He
acknowledged that risk-taking and experimentation are the only way
to ensure the future of classical ballet. “Choreography is a craft
that has to be practiced,” he said.4
The root of the neglect may be that the structure of dance
is geared to train performers. As Barbara Weisberger stated,
“Ballet choreographers are performers first. Performing is usually
the end all, not choreographing.”5 Ballet, in particular, is a highly
rigorous discipline; perfecting the technique takes endless years of
study and practice, not to mention the time it takes to acquire a
sense of style and to develop the art of interpretation. In a Village
4 TriciaTrucco, “The Diamond Project II: A new tradition at New York City Ballet," Dance Magazine, May 1994,56.
5 Barbara Weisberger, interview by author, Telephone, 12 October 1995.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104
Voice article on choreographers, the writer Sally Sommer observed,
“Given today’s high technical standards, it can take half a lifetime
just to become ‘good enough’.”6 The problem is compounded further
by a ticking clock for most dancers, who end their performing
careers before most business professionals hit their stride. These
elements leave little time for the extra-curricular study of
choreography. It is assumed that years of training to be a dancer
leads to the simultaneous development of choreographic skills
through osmosis. Murray Louis called the idea that dancers
automatically know how to choreograph “a naive misconception.”7
He asserted, “Compositional skill is acquired.”8
With the focus on performance, how do dancers become
choreographers? As George Balanchine said, “Dance does not exist
unless someone provides it.”9 This goes back to the issue of
whether being a choreographer is an inherent or learned trait. Some
dancers choose choreography as a way of remaining in the dance
6 Sally Sommer, “Pressure-Cooking Choreographers,” The Village Voice, 19 April 1988, S2.
7 Murray Louis, “On Six Hundred Thousand Choreographers,”Dance Magazine, December 1989, 102.
8 ibid.
9 Quote attributed to Balanchine by editor Richard Philp in his Kickoff column in the May 1994 issue ofDance Magazine.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105
field when their performance careers have ended due to either age or
injury, such as Cynthia Pepper10- a Carlisle Project alumna, who
decided to try choreography when she injured her knee following her
college graduation. Some discover it as a result of being given an
opportunity to try, or due to the influence of other choreographers.
Bruce Ewing recalled being made aware of the craft of choreography
as an audience member watching a work by a resident choreographer
of the Atlanta Ballet and another by Antony Tudor.11 Lynn Cote
remembered that she was given a chance in 1991 to choreograph a
piece on The Washington Ballet as part of their Ballets From Within
program, one of the rare opportunities offered by ballet companies
to encourage dancers to create. From that moment on, she fell in
love with it.12 For Lucinda Hughey, a former ballet dancer,
choreography was a means of gaining more control over the creative
aspect of dance.13 In support of the innate theory, many of the
Carlisle Project alumni said that they began putting steps together
10 Cynthia Pepper participated in the Carlisle Project as a choreographer. She currently has her own non-profit company which produces a variety of special events in California
11 Bruce Ewing, interview by author, Telephone, 4 January 1996.
12 Lynn Cote, interview by author, Telephone, 15 January 1996.
13 Lucinda Hughey, interview by author, Telephone, 17 January 1996.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106
when they were children. Kathryn Posin remembered14 making up
dances when she was four years old, and Lisa de Ribere15 recalled
wanting to be a choreographer since she was at least eight or nine.
Whether they were born with the desire to create or found
it later, they seemed to share a certain drive to choreograph.
Certainly without encouragement or easily accessible resources,
developing their skills was difficult. Kirk Peterson recalled
grabbing dancers whenever he could just to practice choreography.
Jeffrey Satinoff had always had an interest in choreography but
found it hard to get an opportunity to try it, let alone find the
dancers and the space.16 One choreographer explained how he took
jobs choreographing for local musical theatre while he was dancing
with a ballet company. He used a pseudonym for fear of being found
out by the artistic director, who did not encourage dancers to create.
Another impediment to pursuing choreography as a career
was the field’s trial-by-fire approach. As written in the Village
Voice, “Most dancers would not dream of going onstage without
years of training. Young choreographers are thrown out there with
14 Kathryn Posin, interview by author, Telephone, 22 December 1995.
15 Lisa de Ribere, interview by author, Telephone, 14 November 1995.
16 Jeffrey Satinoff, interview by author, Telephone, 9 November 1995.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 107
only a few classes.” If they even get a few classes they are lucky.
Yet, their works are put onstage under the same microscopes as
others who have years of experience, with expectation that their
years of dance training should immediately translate into great
choreography. As Robert La Fosse, a dancer and choreographer with
New York City Ballet who took part in the Diamond Project,
lamented, “Writers can write experimentally, then throw it away.
But when we experiment, it’s shown on a stage and very smart
people talk about your process.”17 This is unfortunate because, as
Peter Martins acknowledged in the same article, “Maybe not the first
ballet or the fourth ballet, but maybe the seventh ballet will show
something.”18
In light of these challenges, Barbara Weisberger saw a
chance to make a difference by addressing some of the needs of
choreographers and the art form. She was not delusional, thinking
that her small Project could single-handedly save the art form, but
rather that she could draw attention to the problem and take her own
steps to help correct them.
17 Terry Trucco, “The Diamond Project II: A new tradition at New York City Ballet,” Dance Magazine, May 1994, 57.
18 ibid., 56.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108
What the Carlisle Project did was acknowledge the
struggles of choreographers and the faults of the system. Its
mission was not to create geniuses but to assure that those who had
a spark or talent did not fall through the cracks, that they had an
opportunity to discover and develop their gifts and “achieve at their
highest level.”19 Weisberger acknowledged that not everyone would
succeed, but that “those with talent and resourcefulness [would]
look back and pull from what they experienced at the Project.”20
As the Project now approaches its end, there seems to be a
strong sense of loss in the field, which implies that the Project had
been making a difference in the lives of choreographers.
Additionally, with the current negative funding climate toward
individual artists, there is a fear that, when something as unique as
the Project disappears, it will not be replaced. As Michael Byars
said, “With Carlisle Project gone there is one less avenue for people
in my situation.” 21 His situation is like that of many professional
dancers, one of looking for opportunities to try choreography to
determine if it is their calling when their performance careers end.
19 Barbara Weisberger, interview by author, Telephone, 12 October 1995.
20 ibid.
21 Michael Byars, interview by author, Telephone, 8 January 1996.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109
Monica Levy and Val Caniparoli were thankful for the opportunities
they had and feared for the choreographers starting out today. Levy
felt that if it were not for the support given to individual
choreographers by the National Endowment for the Arts and the
Carlisle Project, she and many others would not be as successful as
they now are.22 Caniparoli added that the current funding crisis
makes the Project’s role ever more pivotal to choreography. He
noted that, with so many small companies closing, emerging
choreographers will not have the same opportunities that he did to
practice choreography.23 Lisa de Ribere, who has decided to leave
the profession for a while to pursue other interests but also because
she is discouraged about the current climate in the arts, pointed out
that dancers who aspire to choreograph are “not getting guidance
from artistic directors” because fewer and fewer artistic directors
are choreographers themselves.24
Some alumni who are artistic directors have instituted
choreography projects within their companies or at least they would
like to. As Meredith Rainey, a dancer with Pennsylvania Ballet,
22 Monica Levy, interview by author, Telephone, 21 December 1995.
22 Val Caniparoli, interview by author, Telephone,15 December 1995.
24 Lisa de Ribere, interview by author, Telephone, 14 November 1995.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 110
believes, “Carlisle Project put the idea in artistic directors’ heads.
Everyone is taking their lead from Carlisle.”25 American Repertory
Ballet artistic director and Project alumnus, Septime Webre,
recently initiated his own workshop for company dancers and hopes
to invite someone such as Weisberger or Tarin Chaplin to serve as a
mentor. 26 The problem he and others face is the lack of time they
have to devote to mentoring themselves. Further, finding money to
support these activities within their companies is difficult.
There also is the question about whether the nurturing
environment established in Carlisle can be replicated in a company
setting. Of course, any strides to address the needs of
choreographers are in line with the Project’s original goals and
certainly contribute to choreographic development. As
choreographer Colin Connor stated, “In some form, it’s something
that has to be done. There has to be a place in the ballet world
where people can work and learn.”27 Still, Bonnie Scheibman said
she couldn’t think of anywhere else where a choreographer could find
25 Meredith Rainey, interview by author, Telephone, 17 January 1996.
26 Septime Webre, interview by author, Telephone,16 December 1995.
27 Colin Connor, interview by author, Telephone, 8 January 1996.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 111
the combination of services that Carlisle Project had to offer.28
On September 30, 1996, the dance field will lose a valuable
source of stimulus for the creative process. The choreographers the
Carlisle Project has served already are contributing to its legacy by
creating new works, instituting similar programs at various
companies and commissioning pieces from other alumni. These
efforts will help to ensure that the Carlisle Project’s ideals are not
lost with its demise, and they further show that the Project’s
existence has had a profound impact on the field of dance.
28 Bonnie Scheibman, interview by author, Telephone, 31 October 1995.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Acocella, Joan. “The Middle of the Journey.” Village Voice, The Dance Supplement, 19 April 1988, S7-S8.
Brace, Dianne. Interview by author, 17 January 1996. Face to face. Arlington, Virginia.
Bruning, Diane Coburn. Interview by author, 3 November 1995. Telephone.
Byars, Michael. “A Muse-ing Project: Fine-Tuning the Choreographic Craft in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.” New York Casting, November 1993, 8.
Byars, Michael. Interview by author, 8 January 1996. Telephone.
Caniparoli, Val. Interview by author, 15 December 1995. Telephone.
“Carlisle Project Three Year Plan.” [1987]. Files of the Carlisle Project, Carlisle Project administrative office, Arlington, VA.
“Carlisle Project Workshops - 1990.” Description of annual program. Files of the Carlisle Project, Carlisle Project administrative office, Arlington, VA.
“Choreographer-Composer Collaborations Program 1991-1992 Pilot Year Report and Case Statement.” September 1992. Files of the Carlisle Project, Carlisle Project administrative office, Arlington, VA.
Connor, Colin. Interview by author, 8 January 1996. Telephone.
Cote, Lynn. Interview by author, 15 January 1996. Telephone.
112
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 113
Cunningham, Ron. Interview by author, 18 January 1996. Telephone.
Dacko, Karen. “Dance/USA Panel Discusses Internationalism.” Dance Magazine, September 1990, 16-17.
Dacko, Karen. “Women Who Make Ballets Wonder Where Their Female Colleagues Are.” Dance Magazine, June 1988, 5.
de Ribere, Lisa. Interview by author, 14 November 1995. Telephone.
Ewing, Bruce. Interview by author, 4 January 1996. Telephone.
Fanger, Iris M. “Donald Byrd: Prodigal Talent.” Dance Magazine, July 1993, 42-45.
Garafola, Lynn. “Stretching Dance is Aim of New Project Grants.” Dance Magazine, August 1985, 4.
Gladstone, Valerie. “Alonzo King: Making the Big Connections.” Dance Magazine, June 1995, 43-46.
[Gregor, John.] “CPYB Pilot Program.” Personal files of Barbara Weisberger, Kingston, PA.
Groff, Ed. “Laban Movement Analysis: Charting the Ineffable Domain of Human Movement.” Journal of Physical Education. Recreation and Dance (February 1995): 27-30.
Hardy, Camille. “Onward and Upward: The Carlisle Oasis for Creativity.” Dance Magazine, February 1988, 74-75.
Hughey, Lucinda. Interview by author, 17 January 1996. Telephone.
Kelly, Rebecca. Interview by author, 15 December 1995. Telephone.
Kisselgoff, Anna. “Some Visitors From Washington.” The New York Times, 25 January 1996.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 114
Laine, Barry. “Choreographers’ Workshops.” Dance Magazine, August 1981, 44-45.
La Fontsee, Dane. Interview by author, 8 January 1996. Telephone.
Levy, Monica. Interview by author, 21 December 1995. Telephone.
Louis, Murray. “On Six Hundred Thousand Choreographers.” Dance Magazine, December 1989, 102-103.
Lustig, Graham. “A Choreographic Adventure.” The Dancing Times, December 1987, 238-240.
Lustig, Graham. Interview by author, 28 September 1995. Telephone.
Mahdaviani, Miriam. Interview by author, 9 November 1995. Telephone.
Mayleas, Ruth. Interview by author, 9 October 1995. Telephone.
McCullough, Rick. Interview by author, 30 October 1995. Telephone.
McIntyre, Trey. Interview by author, 15 December 1995. Telephone.
Morgan, Victoria. Interview by author, 21 December 1995. Telephone.
Netzer, Dick and Ellen Parker. Dancemakers. Washington, DC: The National Endowment for the Arts, 1993.
Pepper, Cynthia. Interview by author, 15 January 1996. Telephone.
Peterson, Kirk. “Expect the Unexpected.” To audience members at Hartford Ballet’s Dynamic Directions II, 24 and 25 February 1995, LS by Peterson. Hartford Ballet Program for Dynamic Directions II. Files of the Carlisle Project, Carlisle Project
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 115
administrative office, Arlington, VA.
Peterson, Kirk. Interview by author, 7 December 1995. Telephone.
Peterson, Laura. Interview by author, 9 January 1996. Telephone.
Philp, Richard. “Kickoff.” Dance Magazine, May 1994, 5.
Pierce, Anne. “Challenging the Language.” Dance/USA Journal, 9, no. 3, (Winter 1992): 13,15,19.
Posin, Kathryn. Interview by author, 22 December 1995. Telephone.
Rainey, Meredith. Interview by author, 17 January 1996. Telephone.
Satinoff, Jeffrey. Interview by author, 9 November 1995. Telephone.
Scheibman, Bonnie. Interview by author, 31 October 1995. Telephone.
Shaw, JoAnna Mendl. Interview by author, 19 December 1995. Telephone.
Shimotakahara, David. Interview by author, 29 September 1995. Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
Shimotakahara, David. To Barbara Weisberger, LS by Shimotakahara, 22 October 1995. Files of the Carlisle Project. Carlisle Project administrative office, Arlington, Virginia.
Sommer, Sally. “Pressure Cooking Choreographers.” Village Voice, The Dance Supplement, 19 April 1988, S1-S3.
Terry, Walter. The Dance in America. New York: Harper and Row, 1971.
"The Carlisle Project 1995 Annual Report.” October 1995. Files of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 116
the Carlisle Project, Carlisle Project administrative office, Arlington, VA.
“The Carlisle Project Strategic Planning Process 1995 Results from the Questionnaires on the Work of the Carlisle Project.” 14 September 1995. Files of the Carlisle Project, Carlisle Project administrative office, Arlington, VA.
“The Making of Dance Artists: The Choreographer and the Performer.” Introduction to the Convocation, 1990. Files of the Carlisle Project, Carlisle Project administrative office, Arlington, VA.
Trucco, Terry. “The Diamond Project II: A New Tradition at New York City Ballet.” Dance Magazine, May 1994, 54-57.
Webre, Septime. Interview by author, 16 December 1995. Telephone.
Wechsler, Bert. “Ballet Builders Build Slowly." Attitude, 8, no. 3, (Spring/Summer 1992): 62.
Weisberger, Barbara. Interview by author, 29 September 1995. Telephone.
______. Interview by author, 12 October 1995. Telephone.
______. Interview by author, 20 November 1995. Tape recording. Kingston, PA.
______. Interview by author, 14 December 1995. Telephone.
______. “The Central Pennsylvania Youth Ballet (CPYB) Pilot Program.” 28 March 1984. Personal files of Barbara Weisberger, Kingston, PA.
______. “The Central Pennsylvania Youth Ballet (CPYB) Pilot Program.” July 1984. Personal files of Barbara Weisberger,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117
Kingston, PA.
Wingard, Maurinda. Interview by author, 15 November 1995. Telephone.
“Workshops in Carlisle - 1986.” Description of annual program. Files of the Carlisle Project, Carlisle Project administrative office, Arlington, VA.
“Workshops in Carlisle -1987.” Description of annual program. Files of the Carlisle Project, Carlisle Project administrative office, Arlington, VA.
Wright, Rebecca. Interview by author, 15 January 1996. Telephone.
Zimmer, Elizabeth. “Against All Odds.” Village Voice, The Dance Supplement, 19 April 1988, SI 3-SI 4.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.