Laban Resources
Transcripts – John Hodgson
34 Individual Files Listed Alphabetically
Martin Gleisner (Tapes 60 & 74)
Biography
(1897–1983)
Martin Gleisner began as an actor, working with director Max Reinhardt, but after meeting Laban in 1923 he turned towards dance. He specialised in community dance and collaborated with Laban on a number of public dance events. He published Tanz fur Alle (Dance for All) in 1928. He left Germany in 1933, and eventually settled in the US, no longer practising dance.
Summary of Tape 60
Laban’s contacts in Nuremberg and Mannheim. First meeting with Laban in 1923. He heard about him through readings reviews and then the text of Die Welt des Tänzers. The dancers around Laban in the 1920s. Working with the Laban Kammertanzbuhne in Hamburg. Gleisner’s shift into Lay Dance (bewegungschor). Meets the publisher Eugen Diederichs (who published Laban’s Die Choreographie in 1926 and the journal Die Tat). Laban’s recitals with Gertrud Loeszer. 1927 he becomes chairman of the association of Laban schools which in 1929 joins with the Deutsche Chor Singer und Ballet Verband, of which he is chairman and which now includes Free Dance. Laban is interested in anatomy. Movement is central to Laban’s world outlook. The fight with Wigman. The first Dancer’s Congress in 1928 which he co-organised. How Laban could be fickle in his loyalties. 1933, Laban stays, MG leaves. MG’s quarrel with Laban’s My Life in Dance (Jooss called it a ‘Nazi book’).
Summary of Tape 74
Laban’s ability to work with the Nazi’s: ‘If the Nazis had allowed him to work, he would have stayed there. He was forced to go away.’ The Mannheim Festspiel (1929). Vilma Mönckeburg (expert in the spoken word choir, and collaborator with Laban on Faust (1922). Gleisner’s work with the Social Democrats and movement choirs. The difference between his choirs and Nazi processions. His meeting with Sergei Eisenstein. His work Volkserschule (primary and junior schools). Gaukelei. Laban’s philosophy is informed by Nietzsche. The cultural scene during the hyperinflation in Germany 1922 – 1923. Laban’s recitals with Gert Loeszer (1924). Die Nacht in the 1927 Dancers’ Congress in Magdeburg.
Tape 60 [Side B from 09.48]
Laban’s contacts in Nuremberg and Mannheim
MG: Heinrich was then the first Weimar Republic, I guess, Burgermeister of Nuremberg who Laban had somehow known for years. Who was the reason he came to Nuremberg. And Heinrich was later the UberBurgermeister of Mannheim when he made that Festspiel for the 100 years theatre. And after Second World War Heinrich was minister of state for Baden Wurtemburg. I thought a few years ago he had died. He was a really prominent Weimar politician who was very much interested in Laban and arranged for that festival thing and so a quite interesting connection with Laban, who had known him I guess as a young man when he was a student in Munich in a time when Laban was in [inaudible name] at the beginning of the Century. I guess now it is lost but Mrs Meisenbach, if she is still alive would have lots of material, photos of
JH: The early days
MG: With her husband maybe. I guess the present Mrs Meisenbach between the wars in the ‘20s was the second wife from the pre-war time. He has died long ago, [Jo] Meisenbach. But it was very interesting in this transition time. But now ask me a question, I don’t know what…
JH: Well, I want to know everything.
MG: What is everything?
First Meeting Laban
JH: Begin at the beginning. When did you first meet Laban?
MG: Laban personally? The beginning of 1923, about fifty years ago. Personally, after before having corresponded with him, etcetera.
JH: How did you first hear of him?
MG: I heard first of him in that book of Brandenburg which you know. Do you understand German?
JH: No, but I’ve had most of it translated for me.
[break in tape]
Finding Out About Laban
MG: 1930 dances by [inaudible] Pavlova. [inaudible] trying to look at dance as what was then the [inaudible]. I then went into theatre school, to the Reinhardt School and became an actor. In between I got interested more and more in dancing. Originally I tried once in my free time to learn ballet for six weeks but it didn’t touch me anything. And then it must have been I was in Frankfurt, must have been 1920 Die Welt des Tänzers came out, I read reviews of it and I saw Mary Wigman on her first tournée and then I read this Die Welt des Tänzers and this might be typical. After I had read it in the winter of ’21/’22 I guess, I wrote to Laban, so and so, an actor, but I believed that movement is very important for acting and I wanted to learn this modern movement. I had tried ballet but this had not given me anything for acting, but I read in this book, it touched me very much and whether he has not a summer courses in my vacation where I could learn about these things. Laban wrote me back, he himself cannot do anything, he goes to Gleschendorf that summer, it was ’22, to form a dance theatre and he cannot choose people who don’t want to be dancers but there was Mrs [Edith] Walcher in Stuttgardt who has a school in Stuttgardt and is one of his best teachers and I should write her and then I went to a Summer course in Blaubeuren where we were four people with Miss Walcher and then I became more and more convinced. Next winter I came to Berlin and then did … did somebody tell you about the first appearance of von Laban in Berlin?
JH: No.
MG: That was… in the meantime there had been, in that… an interest in what they call in German Kultur Modern, Gymastik and so weiter. There had formed a Deutsche Gymnastik Bund that its first big congress in the fall of ’22. And they were all from [Bess] Mensendieck, Loheland [Körperkultur group] Bode, and Laban was also invited. And came the six men of his dance theatre group, Berlin. There was [Kurt] Jooss, [Albrecht] Knust, [Jens] Keith, [Edgar] Frank, [Julian] Algo, and still one. And by the way, I was in America at a school in the middle West. I forget the name. But anybody in London can tell you easily. So there is really nobody of this time. These are all later people. Lisa Ullmann is relatively late and Snell is also late. Knust is still the only one who knows all these people. Anyhow, that interested me very much. I was still playing small parts in Berlin theatres and at that performance I made the acquaintance not of Laban himself but of Knust and Jooss and Keith and whoever the rest … I asked them then, who was that? One of the people there, Dusia Bereska, also told me that there is nobody yet that Herta Feist opened a school in Berlin. And I started to work there the whole winter. To make the matter short that was the first performance of Laban in Berlin where he … people who were interested [inaudible few words]. When I came back to Berlin in the fall… oh yes, I was still directed by Walcher to Fritz Böhme, you know Fritz Böhme? And he spread the rumour among the people who were interested in learning about Laban things, the Helene Paetz, Juta Klamt, they were modern Berlin dancers who had heard of Laban, and had seen him, and friends [inaudible]… they asked me to show him to work with him and we exchanged then things in studios.
How Gleisner Met Laban
And then came about in December or January ‘22/’23 Herta Feist opened her school and I and Lutzie Wins - have you heard of her? – worked in the Spring of that year, must have been April/May. Herta Feist invited Laban for a - as he liked to do it – for a lecture-demonstration to … it was the Spring of ’23 … for a lecture-demonstration to Berlin. She arranged this; rented a hall, the Sehengruppehall and Laban, I guess he had no money to bring anybody from Hamburg… there was the sponsor of that, somehow I guess Laban head of Heiss or Böhme’s connection… there were always some sponsors. There was a Geheimratmoll, a physicist who sponsored that. Geheimvatmoll who introduced him and Herta Feist who wanted two people, a male student and a female student to show his Schule [school], his movement scales. Herta took me and Lutzi Wanes. This was an hour before and we had this lecture and he was very satisfied with our demonstration and things, and after that he thanked us of course for helping him in that lecture and then I asked him that I was seriously thinking to switch over to dance. What he would think? And then he made with me an appointment for the next morning and what you would call in theatre an audition. And said ‘I can’t offer you very much but you can come as apprentice to our Tanz Buhne if you want in October to Hamburg. This was the beginning of inflation in Germany. I cannot offer you anything similar to salaries which you would get at the theatre but I can give so much as all the other people get paid in Hamburg. So I said, Fine. Yes, before you come to Hamburg I want to see you [a lot of words obscured by microphone interference]. …the Tanz Buhne Berlin studied in two or three big… he had the Kammer Tanz Buhne which gave two performances every week in the Zoo on that little stage, and the people there were Jooss and Keith and Dusia Bereska and this was the October/November, early December of ’23 which was a very … was it ’23? … which was very restless time in other parts of Hamburg there were shootings and this was the same time as the ten days which shook the world [i.e. the beginning of the Russian Civil War] – there were the Hamburg riots at this time. But we quietly danced in another part of town.
[jumps in tape]
MG: …Tanzbuhne… After the Berlin Gastspiel which was no financial success, which was to a big part financed by Hahn, the banker in Berlin. Have you heard of Hahn?
JH: No
MG: He arranged, he was also interested in Lotte Reiniger, and she made the costumes which Hahn paid for these two big productions, she designed the costumes. I don’t know if you want to know about that, but she remembers. She lives in London, near London in High Barnet, I can give you the address. But her costume business she knows. Not very much about Laban, but about this project. Hahn roped her in. Koch is her civil name now. She was married to [Director] Karl Koch.
[Jump in tape]
MG: The very small group of the Tanzbuhne and we all went back to Berlin and so on. And in the winter did some acting and my things are not so interesting. We can skip most.
[Jump in tape]
Gleisner’s Shift into Lay Dance
MG: I guess at that time he was still somewhere in Southern Germany in Munich or in Bamburg or that was before ’24, after the stabilisation of the mark which came in January ’24. Then I looked around and I looked around for dance jobs and became the leader of the dance school in Gera [a town between Leipzig and Erfurt] … [Jump in tape] …very much impressed since the first day in Hamburg by the Bewegungschor [movement choir] business which was really also Knust’s hobby. And very much interested. My whole political attitude and my whole interests in adult education und so weiter [etc.]. And after a year in Gera, I didn’t like it very much at the theatre there as Tanzmeister, I decided to leave the theatre and to try to do only lay-dancing and I was helped in establishing that by Diederichs. You know about Eugen Diederichs?
JH: No, tell me.
MG: aside from a direct connection with Laban he was the publisher of Die Choreographie, the first book about choreography by Laban. You know about that?
JH: Yes.
MG: And Diederichs was funny to understand but he got very much interested in Laban, probably through Brandenburg who had written [about Laban in a book called Der Moderne Tanz]. He was a funny publisher for German [inaudible], and was interested in all kinds of such things. Very much interested in modern dancing, that is why he published the Choreographie. And as I was [inaudible] in Gera he was very glad that they had got a Laban person there. I went to Jena where the publishing house was and stayed in Jena for the Folkschule which was the adult education and for the teacher’s seminar and Diederichs was very much interested by the way… While I was in Jena I was the only one that understood somehow … I read the proofs of Choreographie [laughs], of that book. I have my copy for proofreading still here of the Choreographie. And I kept pretty close contact with Laban in the fall of ’24, the beginning of Spring ’25 while I was in Gera. He had been touring to Germany with Gertrud Loeszer. Did you hear about that tour?
JH: No, tell me about it.
Gert Loeszer and Laban
MG: A very funny thing. He travelled with Gertrud Loeszer and a pianist and had a full programme of dances. Dances to Wagner music, from Tristan, from Tannhäuser, from I don’t know – all Wagner! He and Gert Loeszer, very sexy and very involved, and I arranged two of these evenings in Gera while I was there.
And then when I was in Jena the next year he had a programme that he travelled with a small group and had Gluck’s Don Giovanni, of that you know, his Don Juan? It was his tour in ’26. And when he came he needed a Bewegungschor [movement choir] for the mass scenes, and he did that in Jena and in Weimar also. And then we kept contact. After developed Laban School in Jena and the whole matter that he tried to get structure in Diplomas and schools and I then went back to Berlin in ’27 and we founded the Association of Laban Schulen and officially I was the chairman … we founded in ’27. We had every year at Easter a one week meeting with Laban. And in the meeting in ’27 I guess we founded this Association of Laban Schools, and I was the chairman and had the office of that Association until ’33. I had to leave.
JH: How many schools was that?
MG: There were quite a lot. I should have prepared that. I have all that material there. Have you not seen our pamphlet with all the names of the schools? [Jump in tape] … we all of course, respected him, practically adored him, found him a genius what he was, and all that. And Laban had a knack to use people in a very sensible for a man of that context, of that stature, who used people that could be helpful. [Gertrud] Snell for keeping order, Ullmann, later in England for organising and for keeping things together. And very quickly he used me very much for bringing order for being able to do this organisation and also for publicity. I was very facile [handy] in writing little articles and lecturing, popularising the idea of lay dance and the idea of dance notation, when the first dance notation was attacked by other systems, I wrote against this. I had accessed in the house publication, Die Tat, the monthly magazine of the Diederichs Verlag, I could always have place to write, and I wrote regularly every two months about events in dance. I spoke about Bewegungschor or the dance congress, and so on. He used me … And we consulted, of course, quite often together. Then there were difficulties in organisation, money difficulties, he very much used me, very willingly I did a lot in organisational things. We decided about, I guess in ’29, that we, with the necessity that modern dancers found jobs on stages, that we needed the affiliation with the Union for ballet, this was the Deutsche Chor Singer und Ballet Verband, and we renegotiated, that means chiefly, I, with the Union which changed its name to Tänzer Verband and accepted also dancers who were not on the stage, who were free dancers. So we all collectively went into this and then, as a representative of the ‘free dancers’, the modern dancers, I went onto the board of the Chor Singer und Tänzer Verband, of the Union and was there from ’28 to ’33 and with Laban very much reorganised the dance community of which Laban was the chairman and ballet masters, the one from the staatische oper Berlin and Olga Brandt-Knack (1885 – 1978). Have you heard of her?
MG: It would be interest for you. She is now a very old lady, 88 or 89 and lives in the Municipal Old Age Home. A very interesting woman. I don’t know how much you can get off her now. But from another side, again, she was one of the first classical ballet masters who got interested in modern dance and was instrumental in paving the ways for Laban in Hamburg. She was until 1918 Ballet Mistress of the Hamburg Opera and she introduced Laban. Her husband was in the city parliament and was the director of a big municipal hospital and was in the Social Democratic Party. She was a woman who had a great union history. She organised the ballet dancers and brought them into the Union. And after the war she was politically very active until her eightieth birthday in the Hamburg parliament. And was very active there. And she in these Hamburg years of Laban quite some memories. This summer before I was in London to visit her. We were both… she was the other dancer on the board of the Union. We met there and [inaudible] … afternoon where Laban came to Hamburg and what she discussed with him and she told things which I didn’t know. For instance, that he was rare [?] in his interest in anatomy and so got her husband, who was later [inaudible] got him to allow Laban to assist operations that he saw, and he saw the cramp movement. He was interested in the operation of muscles. He told me that she introduced him to her husband and that he very much was interested in the mechanics of involuntary movements. Everything in the movement very much interested [him]. And that she remembers. Olga Brandt Knack.
[break in tape]
MG: It was to arrange the performance of Midsummer Night’s Dream in the Kammerspiel, and I guess Olga Brandt Knack recommended him for that. And there was of course money. It was one of the ways the Tanz Buhne could earn money. And Laban was until the English time very short of money, all kinds of things he did to get his hands on some few Marks. And when he had money he spent it very royally. Did you know him still [to Viv Bridson].
VB: Yes.
MG: But only in the English time?
VB: Yes.
MG: When he had the money he was very well. And it was not important. He was only interested in movement. Everything was translated into movement. That was his only interest. And any kind of movement. And this seeking for movement laws and movement harmonies and space harmonies and [inaudible] he could throw out ideas, not so good in working them out, but brilliant in finding new things. And about the other big things he did in Hamburg. [Inaudible] De Prometheus and that, yea?
[jump in tape]
MG: …in these Hamburg years was a production of Prometheus or Prometheus Bound, the real old Greek which he did together with a speaking choir of Miss [Vilma] Mönckeberg, and was very famous then, and where the action was in movement choir and solo dancing.
JH: Did you see that?
MG: No, I came later to Hamburg.
JH: But it made quite a reputation?
MG: yes, it made quite a reputation in Hamburg. There were wonderful, true dancers who supported him in Hamburg very much. These reviewers. It was different. Fritz Böhme was one. Schikowski. Other were violently against him. The Wigman party. Later the fight between the Wigman school and the Laban school. It was very bitter and we were all engaged in very much hostility.
JH: Now what initiated that?
MG: Difficult to say. Difficult to say. I guess it was the competition for very little living space, for very little money at every level, and for every little bit of advantage. So access to money sources, to publication sources and so … there was so little money, so little broad interest. There was much interest in young people but in something which had an existence, the schools brought money... It’s difficult to say who initiated that. I guess Wigman, after a while … obviously there was a coterie that was around her, and wanted to emphasise that she was everything… [inaudible few words] … she had a few lessons and so on… but I guess really behind was the paucity of means available, the poverty…
[Jump in tape]
MG: … modern dance, that it is not as good, for instance, the… what was his name, this man [inaudible] critic who, the critic who found that all that Laban was a theoretician, but all that created was not as good, with the exception of Jooss. In a matter also of taste. The Wigman school was an organisation which competed with ours, so there was of course also for the full finances for the available students, for all that. [inaudible] … sometimes ridiculous. Joining with the Union was anyhow treason to free art, she intimated it was even labour, going to labour on what we are free artists, and all that. It was a matter… Anyhow, Laban then came, you know Laban was trying to find really a room for his school. He tried at first in Würzburg which was the home town of Loeszer. That was the time he was practically with Loeszer, living. It was first Bereska, now she always stayed in the background and so was never completely [inaudible]… other girls in between. I guess later also Lisa had a child or an abortion from him when he has produced quite lot of children and in this respect he was very male, and very much potent and then from Würzburg he went to Berlin and had this institute in Haransee for a few years. Also then the finances went down with the common crisis. And then he was, after Terpis was fired, he became Ballet Master at the Berlin opera which was of course the first secure earning job he had. And there he started with
JH: The only…
MG: In England
JH: No job
MG: And that was of course … a bourgeois existence … and the first thing he did was a staging of The Mikado where he did the … not of The Mikado, of The Geisha and that was a success. It was [inaudible] done. Really total theatre and that was a success. The second was Dances in Prince Igor. That also had good press. But then came, which didn’t have good press, and it was in ’31 that he became Ballet Master. We hadn’t seen… there wasn’t much contact. I don’t know whether I should tell you about my differences with him.
JH: yes, yes
MG: We had someone in … perhaps I am too bourgeois, too organisation man and too much stick to principles which are outside of dance. The only loyalty he had was to dance, to movement. That was his only loyalty, his only real loyalty. Now people who served him, he could be charming to people who worked with him and very nice, and he could forget you the next day. There was the Dance Congress in Munich 1930, a big international dance congress where there was also a day about lay dancing, educational dancing, where I had the introduction from the labour side and then the very famous [Friederich] Muckermann from the Catholic side on use of movement and education and in the use of organisations. But that’s not … and there was an organisational meeting where … what was really the beginning? In the union Laban was the chairman of the art committee of the Union, the Dance Committee of the Union and in an open meeting and I was on the Board of the Union and represented the dance side. And in an open meeting Jooss started out to criticise, ‘What do we need an Art Committee [for]?’ And they had obviously with Jooss and Wigman got in agreement to attack the Union. That was the beginning of that. It was an open meeting. So I was up sharing and I said, Laban you are Chairman of the Art Committee, please explain. And he very weasel-mouthed, retracted from the Chair, he doesn’t do committees. I was very angry. It was in an open meeting. It was my first disagreement with him. The rest of the days… we had a big bewegungschor demonstration and I co-organised this Dance Congress as representative of the Union, I was on the organising committee. Then he was in Bayreuth in summer and the Venusberg in Tannhäuser, so then in the summer I worked in an international labour children’s camp in Switzerland and after that I went to Bayreuth and we made a reconciliation. He just apologised, ‘I am just an artist what do I know about organis…, you must tell me before that I have to say…’ and such things, ‘You are the man for such organisations’. Okay. Of course I stay as chairman of this committee and so on. By the way, before he became Ballet Master in Hamburg he was in Essen in the Folkwangschule with Kurt Jooss and that I had forgotten. That was the first.
Then came 1933. And immediately when Hitler came to power I could not stay in Germany and I left Germany in April of ’33. Hitler came to power in March ’33 and I left. I went illegally to Czechoslovakia. The day before I went to Laban and had a long talk with him and he was very sympathetic and gave me letters of recommendation and so on, and I said to him, ‘What are you still doing here? Nazis.’ And I said, ‘Look, I get to go to Prague. I cannot advertise myself but I could advertise you. When you would go with me to [inaudible], make a declaration that you resign your job as Ballet Master of the Staatsoper as you don’t want to serve under, as to have your top boss, Mr Göring with his bloody hands. This is the sensation and you get a foothold in the Western world. I am sorry. During a few years, it will not last for ever these Nazis.’ He said, ‘That’s my first … here I have a job… I am a dancer, my dancing, that won’t care about the politics…’ And I said, ‘But you cannot stay out. Your work for a man like Göring practically, and you will get the demands for making Nazi dances and for things and when you then will be thrown out by them, and maybe I don’t see you, don’t speak of imprisonment and danger, and then when you come as a poor who has been thrown out and went away, it’s not infected when you make it at the beginning out of free will.’ He said, ‘I hate this sort of thing and cannot see it. But is doesn’t [inaudible] my dancers, my work with my dancers, anyhow I have nothing to do with politics’ and so that was that. Okay, you know how he got out of Germany. I was then, when he came, he came from Germany first to Paris, because Miss Bereska was there, and then I heard that he was in France… Yes, and in the meantime, while he must have come to Paris in the beginning of 1938. I guess he was forbidden to work in Germany in 1936 with the Olympiad, where, incidentally, they all tried to make Nazi art. But it was not good enough for, probably, Wigman and people. And he was then as result working somewhere in Bavaria. He came 38 to … But before I got very, very angry at him. I did some work in the international library of the dance in Paris and there came this book which he published in Germany, My Life as a Dancer or something like that. Do you know it?
JH: yes, The Life of a Dancer, yes
MG: And I find that this is typical, to be mellow and more tolerant and so. But in that time it is typical of what all German intellectuals who were not under… but the little adaptations to the Nazi ideology. And I got personally very angry at him. It is typical… which went… I don’t know whether I should tell that. You want only… you want an official biography and only emphasise the strengths of this…
JH: No, no, no, no
[cut in tape]
MG: For instance in this Mannheim Festspiel I wrote the texts for the piece, I directed the sprichchor, there was the last one, the last big dance was about, how shall one say? In The Ninth Symphony [by Beethoven] is all men are brothers. And the sprichchor, the speaking choir, in my text, ‘So grosse, community, from family, to city to nation and mankind.’ Laban in this book wrote this, because this is very close to me, but quotes in the book, ‘So grosse, community, from family, to kin, to city and nation.’ ‘Mankind’ is left out, it doesn’t exist with Nazis. So when I read that I became very, very angry. Besides it is as if he had written the text. As a professor so does this, stealing papers, that I don’t mind.
JH: Any other points in the book?
MG: What?
JH: Can you quote any other instances in that book
MG: I don’t have the book.
JH: But you feel it’s full of that sort of thing.
MG: Yes, these small adaptations which, when you were real anti [inaudible] I found at that time, small and wouldn’t say ‘mean’ today but, such adaptations. Also, such a man like he who really was no Nazi. And was probably disgusted and so, but in all that you say of his [inaudible] and so of course when you know I have worked in the sixties three years in Germany now, [inaudible] have become a social worker, you come across such things all over in Germany, adaptations. Maybe it was right to save one’s skin. One cannot ask heroism, Only when one wants to be a great man that is… [end of tape]
Tape 74
[to 00.50.38]
MG: [returning to Laban’s rewriting of Gleisner’s words from the 1929 Festspiel in Mannheim] … and this ends, von Familia, zu Freunden, zu Stadt, zu Folk, und zu Menschheit. And in his book under the Nazis he left out Menschheit, mankind. My text which I had written, he had written and left out in his adaptation to the Nazis which didn’t happen very much, the mankind.
JH: Do you think that he was very aware of the Nazis in writing that book? Because.,.
MG: Very aware. He was like now, what is
JH: Jooss says it is a very Nazi book. I don’t think I agree with him.
MG: It is [inaudible] you don’t agree because you are an Englishman and you are young and far out of the atmosphere. These were the small betrayals which were so disagreeable to the people who really were refugees and were opposition, and the small adaptations which gave Hitler the chance, why he got so many years long. He was not a Nazi, but he lived through that, he wanted to make this holiday and this work for, and so he made these adaptations. Mankind was not popular, the top was the Nation, so he stopped with ‘the Nation’, falsified the intention of this last [inaudible]. But we all, but I, was very angry with him. For years I could not speak with him or didn’t contact him when he was in England because these are the small details. These help. That is… Lisa also was in fear to give the whole sequence, so she quotes me, but she also hesitates in order to lay cosmetic [inaudible]. If the Nazis had allowed him to work, he would have stayed there. He was forced to go away. These are the things which seen from today are understandable. He had for the first time in 1931 with Ballet Master at the Staatsoper, it was the first time had a secure financial foundation. He always had never money. He was always short. And everybody who had some money loaned him some money which they never got back, which was very right, and with an absolute man of his capacity one should make it possible to live. But it’s understandable, and he did not do anything cruel, but same with Wigman’s group. It is exactly the same line.
JH: More so since she stayed in
MG: Wigman was much more in the line; mystical, which was not, in this sense, Laban’s way. But these are the adaptations which disappointed us very much like [inaudible] like Knust, Laban summer courses in 1935 or so. A Dutch colleague of mine attended a course and came back to Amsterdam, I was then living in Amsterdam, horrified. There was in the entrance to that camp was ‘Jews not allowed’. They made exception with her, she was a Nederlander, a Hollander. These are the summer camps which Knust directed, and these are the things which are not really right and are not gentleman like.
The Mannheim Festspiel (1929)
JH: Tell me about the Mannheim occasion. When did Laban ask you to write the work, how long did it take you and what discussions…
MG: I guess it started in ’29 in the Spring, but we started on that the fall before. When were the dates? [sound of pages being turned]. The third of June ’29. Probably, we started to work the year before. In the same year there was the Viennese matter [the procession of the trades]. And he asked me, ‘We are so busy with the preparation of Vienna.’ I was also very busy, but he asked me to help him in that. And there was, practically that whole winter, I guess from Wednesday morning till Thursday night in Mannheim, I don’t know how often.
JH: How much collaboration? What did you do?
MG: We talked about the whole plan, and we planned the first rehearsal and that he had to plan to have a real expressing to all that individualistic, human, basic, strife and fight, love, and then over this, everything belongs to mankind. And then I wrote a frame, I offered texts for each. He wanted an introduction to each of the [phone rings, tape cuts] participated in the choreographic details and [inaudible few words]. I had the school in Mannheim which then was a year old and I went to the [inaudible] houses and probably went to
JH: Did you lend a hand with the speech choirs too?
MG: each one I directed from the beginning. We were about 80 or a 100 kids, borrowed from one of the Mannheim gymnasium. Gymnasium is what you call a Grammar School. Also kids of sixteen years. That I did completely.
JH: And how did you work on that?
MG: I worked with them in rehearsal
JH: What was your theory?
MG: What?
JH: What was your theory? Did you used solo voices, group voices…
MG: I distributed the voices. I was very much on rhythmical dynamics in speaking and then of course… You see, at that time the whole business of using … it was the first time possible that you could speaking in the open air. It was very new, as one used microphones and loud speakers. It was always a problem, no stage then had any installations. We wanted power from
JH: From the numbers of people
MG: From movable electric generators in big trucks. I’ve done that a few times later, also in Berlin, Amsterdam and so on. So that one had technical … and I tried to coordinate the technical last rehearsals in the stadium along without the dancer. Tried to adjust that so that it was really understandable in the Stadium. The time of use of loudspeakers, of microphone, was still, at least in Germany, and I guess in all of Europe, was quite new.
JH: But you used them?
MG: Yes, of course we used them.
JH: How many microphones would you have for a hundred youngsters?
MG: I have no idea.
JH: And they stood on one part of the stage
MG: I had also, I did also some solo lines. So we changed between solo and then parts of the choir, and so forth.
JH: And they spoke it with natural rhythms or with … specially emphasised rhythms or with natural inflections.
MG: Slower, faster, louder, softer. [Inaudible sentence, possibly German] But these were, so to say, interludes, not with the movement. That was before the arrival before
JH: I see, so you never danced the stage?
MG: Not in this thing. I did things with sprichchor [spoken word chorus] together later, a few years on.
JH: Did Laban?
MG: Not with Laban, but in my own work?
JH: But did Laban do it with anyone else?
MG: No, as I told you, Laban did only work with words in that Vienna big procession, so to say, in that Vienna pageant and with Vilma Mönckeburg, together. Of course, now, probably the relationship to… I wasn’t there in Hamburg. I would suppose that Knust would know more. He was very active in that … the Vilma Mönckeburg was of course another matter. Laban was a newcomer in Hamburg and Vilma Mönckeburg was the authority for speaking choir in Hamburg, for dramatic speaking. So probably the relationship added support. But have you tried to reach Mrs Mönckeburg?
VB: Yes we have and we’ve had a letter from her and she was due to come to England last summer but she didn’t in fact come in the end and she may be coming [jump in tape]
MG: … Berlin, when I started to teach I worked three years in Jena with Gerhart [inaudible] in Thuringia. And there I did with Laban, I played with Laban. He had Don Giovanni there. And I made a performance that was in Thuringia. I worked there for 1924 – 28. And I went back to Berlin in ’27.
JH: Tell me about Berlin in those years. Can you give me some feeling of the political and social atmosphere.
MG: Ah, there are so many people who write about that in the Weimar time.
JH: But they don’t give me the colour.
MG: for us it was a good time because one could experiment and there was interest in everything. Now, political is how you stand. I was more and more [inaudible] at that time. While many people of my generation post-war, 1918 and already before during the world war, we were very much interested in the world and in politics but one had this kind of liberal sympathising fellow-traveller, all kind of organisations which did not really get involved, most of the people had remained with …People like Kurt Jooss all his life really never got formally organised, got part of an official part of a party of the organisation. Now I went a little but different and that was really the first… The bewegungschor which I had there in Gera, that was at a theatre in Gera, the director of the dance group that I started with the Volksschule. Do you what a Volksschule is?
JH: Yes.
MG: An adult education movement which was in Gera, a Social Democrat organisation. I got involved and I liked these people. They had a Volksschule and so on. Then I decided to officially become part of the Social Democracy and I was probably a rear guard for the dance teacher to do that. I left the theatre and started completely to specialise in the teaching and in movement choirs and as soon as I started my first movement choir with the socialist youth group, there was a demand for that. And this demand quickly spilled over, not only dance, but also movement. I responded to a demand, to a market, so to say. Our whole Laban group were, at that time at least… Two of Laban’s leading teachers who were involved really in political parties, that was Jenny Gertz, who was a communist from old and remained that and tried to express that, and later also went to Russia, and came back after the war to Halle in East Germany and died about fifty years ago. And I. We were the only red ones who lived officially. For instance when we founded the Association of Laban Schools, I became the Chairman. There were many who came, good bourgeois young ladies, girls who found [inaudible German words] somebody with a party affiliation is real. In England somebody would say, somebody who was in the Labour Party cannot be real! I don’t know how it would have been fifty years ago in England. If somebody of the Labour Party was affiliated with the Labour Party might have directed the Association of Dance Teachers. In 1925 it would have been possible. But I cannot say; today, certainly is… Laban had no [inaudible]. On the contrary Laban liked this populist connections. He wrote very nicely, he was really affected by big festivals and music, orchestras, speaking choir, which I made in Berlin for the fiftieth anniversary of the Labour singers, National Association. He liked it very much, this outspoken, less political. That was possible in Germany and in general, there was a very lively time in Theatre and in literature and experiments, directly after the war. The expressionist time. And time had support for all kinds of experiment, also governmental support. Of course this is only the basis of the whole social climate where masses of organisations representing masses were interested in culture. The German Social Democracy, I don’t know if the Labour is similar, was as well a cultural organisation. They had their own adult education, they had … you see this is the amazing thing. You take the … somebody … all these young local kids who have no formal schooling for fourteen years who were aged fourteen. But when then, to the workers who studied the socialist classics and studied the literary classics, you have something similar when you look at Aneurin Bevin and certainly some of the other, then you have that kind of type, the academicians didn’t direct [inaudible] the groups. Former workers who sat down and were very intellectually interested.
JH: And you say Laban enjoyed that support.
MG: Laban enjoyed it. He was very interested [inaudible] and these organisations. He was probably more interested than in the little circles of middle class girls who did very nice aesthetic things. At least I had the impression. Laban was giving me that impression and could give to, say, Lola Rogge, that impression. Laban was very adaptable, was a very generous man. And whoever was caught as interesting, he built on it. He impressed himself that I mobilise in that Stadium in NeuKölln [District of Berlin] in 1931 that I mobilised 2,500 people to work together, an orchestra of 200 and a speaking choir of 100. He was impressed I could mobilise them. The possibilities when you go back to his first book Die Welt des Tänzers and you see how the … and also how Wigman speaks about his festival ideas. It was of course one of his basic interests and
JH: And long before the Nazis were on the scene
MG: yes, long before this. All that the Nazis did was destroy. That is another matter. Long before.
JH: But it was a good basis for the Nazis.
MG: You see that is one of putting it [tape cuts]… An organised march, a procession. A deployment of masses. A disciplined movement of masses. This is of course a thing which has an emotional and enthusiastic impact. Now these are forms and the content, what you express with this, as you would say, you can get an enthusiastic crowd with a lively, rhythmic melody, for that you cannot say the rhythm is for the Nazis. That music in general. These are forms which are there for ever.
JH: Large crowds
MG: Yes,
JH: Mass movement
MG: But you use it, you give for content, for that he cut out the ‘Mankind’ but he left it with the ‘Nation’ as climax. You see, that is what you can … one nation more or less, obviously he was no Eisenstein. I had an occasion, Eisenstein spent about one year of his disgrace in the late ‘20s travelling around in Europe. And he came to one of the editors of the film, who was an old friend of mine, and Eisenstein asked him was good in the theatre. It was all realistic. And this friend told him about me and Eisenstein asked him whether he couldn’t see something. Then he got sick so I went to him. He wasn’t bad and I spent the whole morning talking with Eisenstein. I told him how I liked his handling of masses in Ten Days That Shook the World. And he said, ‘Look, look, I would have liked much more. I couldn’t do more because I could only let them march down the ramp and around the … I don’t know there were many people marched down Leningrad or Moscow. Which I liked very much. But nothing came from it and no real development. And I cannot do much. When I get anybody of thing, I have either soldiers or I have our old ballet masters, and they cannot really do free movement. But you will show me on pictures that the group splits and against it, and things around. Why don’t you come to Russia? There we could do wonders with what you are doing. There you have thousands of people, here you have hundreds.’ And I said, ‘No, I am a Social Democrat and I am not a Communist.’ ‘We are artists. Say you are a communist, say you are a communist and I will have an invitation to Russia in two months, but never as a Social Democrat. If you would be a Nationalist or Conservative I could get you over in a few months, but not as a Social Democrat, that is the worst thing.’ It was not for me. He said, ‘In Western Europe I would also be, and therefore I would also adapt to things.’
JH: What was it like economically then? What did you
MG: We did not all much more. Later I was pretty safe. I owned a house in Berlin and had tenants and what I did in Jena and Berlin, I started to make money with these big festivals where the organisations can really pay what I wanted which really covered in a modest way … the Festspiel in…
JH: The people in your festivals were they…
MG: The festivals started the last years
JH: The people who took part were they well-fed and economically secure?
MG: The Social Democratic party or the Association of Workers singing choruses, all the Unions, the districts of the parties. For instance, when did it start? Somewhere around ‘20/’30, 1929, before I had made any of the big festivals came suddenly the … I had started about ‘28/’29 in Thuringia making little choruses of 10 – 12 minutes for meetings of the workers, of the young workers’ organisations and that found attention. And as the speakers come from other places. When the secretary of the Berlin [inaudible] phones me, ‘Can I come over to you with the secretary of the Magdeburg party, that was in ’29 or ’28, when the party congress of the Social Democratic party was in Magdeburg that year, so they came. The same was in Mannheim. I spent that year, Wednesday and Thursday in Mannheim and Friday to Sunday in Magdeburg to preparing. And that was probably very modest, but it got more and more. For instance, May Festivals, was the old-fashioned probably today all over, there was a speech and the chorus sang and the gymnastic group did something to show culture, but it was all disconnected. My idea when I made a festival, it had to be one fluid thing where these different elements were worked in but expressed the whole idea where also the speaker was put in the middle. But in one fluent thing. For instance, I had once my first Mime Festival, you are too young for England history, and [Ellen] Wilkinson [of the Labour Party] was enthusiastic. Do you know who Wilkinson was?
JH: Yes
MG: It was my first May festival and the groups who looked for new… See, these old men were cultural chairman. Oh dear, there must be something more than the old-fashioned thing. And she came to the first May festival. I was told we must have a gymnastic group, we have this and we have that. And we have a little choir here. But bind that whole thing together. And then … but after that, next year three districts came to me for the May Festival. I could have built up a business simply on May Festivals. Berlin had 24 districts and each district had these evenings. There was the big demonstration in the centre, but in the evenings they had to do something, and then some of my … I rehearsed the last year before Hitler, so ’32. I had three May festivals, one afternoon which was very interesting which I made in a park in Neukölln on a big stair.
JH: Now what difference did Hitler’s arrival and when did Hitler really
MG: Hitler probably did similar. I left when Hitler came.
JH: He didn’t just come. He gradually came.
MG: He did not. It this area it is not clear. I don’t think Hitler and the Nazis did anything in the cultural area before. At least not in Berlin.
JH: And this happened overnight.
MG: He got then the power. That I cannot tell you, ask Knust about that. I was not in Germany.
JH: You left when?
MG: Hitler became Dictator on the 5th March 1933 and I left on the 18th April 1933.
JH: His influence had not been felt before that?
MG: No
JH: But he was trying
MG: Not in any cultural sense. Not that I know of.
JH: But he was already
MG: Also not even in the theatre. There were of course when I was in Gera, later wife of Göring, the actress. Everybody laughed at her, she was pretty well known in the provinces, in the Weimar National Theatre. I saw her once in Romain Rolland’s Rue D’Amour where she played the wife very decently. But everybody in the theatre laughed about her already in the ’25/’26. She went around with a big gold swastika. A crazy woman. An exceptional actress but a crazy woman. But any cultural activity, probably then, when they were in power, they brought a mass youth movement, they had to do something. But it was much more militaristic. Much more marching and such. I do not know … Knust ought to know.
Gaukelei
JH: But Laban did a … did you ever see Gaukelei, the ballet?
MG: No.
VB: Gaukelei
MG: Oh yes, that I saw. You find that very dictator-like?
JH: I find it against dictators.
MG: Yes, it’s against dictators, yes. But that was
JH: Was that not dangerous?
MG: I was very impressed by Gaukelei. And Wigman also
JH: But was that not against dictators?
MG: Yes, but in general. It’s against dictators.
JH: But very dangerous when Hitler comes.
MG: That might be but it was probably well played. Jooss played quite long, all over Germany. That was one of his stand-outs before he made The Green Table. Laban had general pacifist and the whole time very decent ideas against dictatorship.
JH: But in the same book that he left out ‘Mankind’, he includes a synopsis of Gaukelei.
MG: I don’t have the book and that might be. He might not even realise the political implication.
JH: I think I would agree.
M: For him is that the individual against the… and the tragedy of the man who becomes the dictator, who gets isolated. That is probably… You see, Laban’s roots ideologically are in the 19th Century in Nietzsche and all this … already there is the motto, the anti-Nietzsche, against the dictatorial ideas in Nietzsche, the rebellion. That is of course where he realises where he relates this to politics. That I don’t know. You also know who was involved in the Mannheim Festival? Dr Heinrich.
JH: Tell me about him?
MG: You had no occasion to meet him? He died three years ago. Dr Heinrich was basically a municipal functionary and Laban came after the First World War, 1918/19, exactly I don’t know. It was first in Nuremburg where a student of his a friend, Meisenberg, and she came to Jooss in England, in Dartington. And Dr Heinrich was then a commissioner, I don’t know where or of what, of streets or so. A young municipal official who was a Social Democrat, met Karolina in municipal administration and Dr Heinrich became Lord Mayor of Mannheim about 1925 and he was interested in Laban’s work. All the time they corresponded, they were quite friendly. And he gave him the business, and Heinrich wanted also, not only performances and theatre and opera, but a mass festival, so he asked Laban to do that. That was Dr Heinrich.
JH: A medical doctor?
MG: No, a Doctor of Law.
JH: A doctor of philosophy.
MG: In Germany we have doctors of everything. Of administration, probably. Municipal administration. They studied administration which is not a simple thing. And Heinrich was after the war, after the Second World War, what was he? Either a minister in Baden Wurtenburg or the Mayor of a big city. No he was one of the Hessian ministers. He died four or five years ago. He was very interesting. He was the kind of man who out of the populist ideas, out of Social…, Laban also came to befriend, such people always find in Laban’s life the cultural, political side.
Hyperinflation in Germany 1922 - 1923
JH: Can I take you back to 1923 to the fall of the German Mark? When the mark collapsed.
MG: You know that Laban had, the year before, build up his Hamburger Tanz Bühne? It paid very small salaries but it had an ensemble of students of maybe 25 – 30 people. And which was partially financed by all kinds of sources. By a Berlin banker - what’s his name? - who financed also Lotte Reiniger’s silhouette films, with dollars, when the inflation came. But Laban sent away and kept only a small nucleus of five or six people – the Kammertanz Bühne. Dusia Bereska and Gert Loeszer. These are names, eh? That was financial. But then he started with just a small group to build up bigger. There he had movement classes in Hamburg with Knust. In Jena with me, he did Don Juan where he came like a touring company with his three or four soloists and then used the choruses which came. A few months before he showed what he wanted of movement, and music…
JH: This collapse of the economy, did it not affect the artistic environment very much.
MG: No. During that time everything went helter skelter. Nothing was solid. It happened things in the theatre which were marvellous; for instance, Rheinhardt’s production of Saint Joan by Shaw and such things. We had no money so we lived from week to week. When we were with Laban in the Tanzbühne, it was Christmas 1923 shortly before the stabilisation… but for instance, we were not Hamburgers. We lived in furnished and there was the mother of one of the clerks in the office who had a big house and cooked for 20 – 25 people so we got the money on Friday and we rushed to her and gave her 90% and for that she fed us the week and for the rest one bought bread for the week and milk for the week. Thus we had one meal. And it was a very convenient, as long as it went, as long as there were a few dollars. And that is the… And Laban prepared two or three, he prepared for December a Gastspiel in Berlin and he worked very hard on preparing. He didn’t care very much for politics. On the other side of Hamburg there was shooting. There was what John Reed [American author Ten Days that Shook the World] so falsifies as if all Hamburg was in flames, but it was only three sites in Barmbeck [a distinct in Hamburg] in reality. But the American journalist make a bigger story of the events, of everything.
JH: what else was happening in Berlin, besides, say… Brecht?
MG: Brecht was in Berlin and very young.
JH: So Laban would never meet Brecht.
Laban’s recitals with Gert Loeszer
MG: He didn’t go much to the theatre, and he had no time. [Inaudible sentence] He was very much attracted by Wagner and he had a programme with Gert Loeszer of dances to Wagner music. That was in 1924. A whole year. All kinds of Wagner music, much from Tristan and Isolde and Götterdammerung. That was one of his … the same idea of the gesamtkunstwerk. Word and ton [sound] and movement. That was of course his line. I don’t know where he got some of his first ideas from Wagner. That was the atmosphere where he grew up, the gesamtkunstwerk. For him, he had to bring the dance in and put it on the basis of dance. Berlin came on the height of inflation. We had prepared three big dance dramas, one was a re-study of the Gaulelei and two others. And it was a complete fiasco. The philharmonic hall was three-quarters empty. It was a complete … What was the name of the banker? The old man lives in Munich, the old man who co-financed him and his son managed Lotte Reiniger. You’ve heard of her in England? This banker paid for the costumes?
JH: Which Berlin occasion was that?
MG: That in December ’23.
[cut in tape]
JH: When was Die Nacht?
MG: Die Nacht must have been 1927 at the Dance Congress in Magdeburg, the first Dance Congress. That was in the Festhalle in Magdeburg and was based on some lines of Goethe. I cannot find it now, with its forty volumes. But you have programmes in the archives about that. You would be amazed when you would move what happens in your chest in the night in dreams, what you all can have for ideas. All kinds of grotesque and things try to… and the darkness of the night can be in your mind, and you are lost.
[cut in tape]
MG: In ’27 in Dusseldorf, Tanz Congress was two years later. But I think it was Die Nacht in the first.
JH: I can check it anyway.
[cut in tape]
MG: What’s it called?
VB: Barnet.
MG: Oh you know her, yes?
VB: I’ve had contact with her.
MG: In High Barnet she lives there in what do you call that Abbey, that former artist’s colony?
[Ends 00.51.00]
Der Moderne Tanz, Hans Brandenburg (Munich, Georg Müller, 1917)
See reference in Valerie Preston-Dunlop’s Laban: An Extraordinary Life (London, Dance Books, 1998) p.75
Charlotte "Lotte" Reiniger (2 June 1899 – 19 June 1981) was a German film director and the foremost pioneer of silhouette animation. Her best known films are The Adventures of Prince Achmed, from 1926—thought to be one of the oldest surviving feature-length animated films—and Papageno (1935). [Wikipedia]
Hanya Holm (Tape 95 - 102)
Biography
Hanya Holm was an influential modern dance choreographer and teacher from Germany. She studied with Mary Wigman and Emile Jacques-Dalcroze. She choreographed several Broadway shows, including Kiss Me Kate (1948) and My Fair Lady (1956), as well as producing modern dance pieces like Trend (1937). Holm taught many students, most significantly figures like Glen Tetley, Alwin Nikolais, Don Redlich, and Valerie Bettis.
Tape 95
Summary of Side One
They talk about Mary Wigman and her personality as an artist. The ‘artist’ as a concept is discussed, particularly what it means to be an artist and a teacher. They also talk about the ego and its role in art. The conflict that Laban and Wigman felt about staying in Nazi Germany or leaving is brought up and Holm talks about her awareness of Hitler. They debate the morals of Laban working with Hitler and whether or not it can be overlooked. Holm’s students in Germany were tired and dispirited. Holm describes the piece Totenmal a piece by Albert Talhoff.
Biography
Hanya Holm was an influential modern dance choreographer and teacher from Germany. She studied with Mary Wigman and Emile Jacques-Dalcroze. She choreographed several Broadway shows, including Kiss Me Kate (1948) and My Fair Lady (1956), as well as producing modern dance pieces like Trend (1937). Holm taught many students, most significantly figures like Glen Tetley, Alwin Nikolais, Don Redlich, and Valerie Bettis.
Tape 95
Summary of Side One
They talk about Mary Wigman and her personality as an artist. The ‘artist’ as a concept is discussed, particularly what it means to be an artist and a teacher. They also talk about the ego and its role in art. The conflict that Laban and Wigman felt about staying in Nazi Germany or leaving is brought up and Holm talks about her awareness of Hitler. They debate the morals of Laban working with Hitler and whether or not it can be overlooked. Holm’s students in Germany were tired and dispirited. Holm describes the piece Totenmal .
The Interview
Holm: egoist- in a way, you see, every artist in a way is an egoist to a certain degree. You see, when it doesn’t interfere- at the moment it in interferes, then it of course changes the colour of the artist immediately, would I be wrong?
Hodgson: yes, no I think you’d be right
Holm: you know what I mean. But I mean if you are not a personality, there is no artist. You see that is a terrible interwoven thing which means the one really feeds the other. You can’t quite say, “heed that one, heed that other,” that’s one thing. But it depends who gets the top hand. If the ego you see then the other one suffers, if the other overrides then the ego becomes a washcloth you know and it’s a little bit of a- like this. But you need the proper proportions
Hodgson: so, you discussed all this with Mary Wigman before?
Holm: we had sometimes discussions about that when we got in trouble, you know, with where is me- what can I ask, what can I do, what am I, who am I, what am I supposed to do, am I a servant of something, am I an ego, who am i?
Third Voice: this was in Germany you were having these? -
Holm: yes oh yes
Third Voice: - before you left?
Holm: before I left. You see, we came to the point, you see that the art is something beyond the human being, and the human being is- the sum total is not cleaned up, not purified- my golly not. You see, all the stink which goes with it makes finally the thing you see which is the last one only it sublimates, if you may say that word, and then it turns out to be that the human being is the servant of the artistic desire and talent if there is one
Hodgson: without asking you to be disloyal, how far did you feel Mary Wigman submerged her artistic self to become a hopeful aspirant to be able to exercise her artistic potential?
Holm: you have to, that’s why she never got married. That’s why I never got married again
Hodgson: but she- you wouldn’t have done I don’t think what she did
Holm: no, because I’m a different personality. You see she was much more- well, much more an ego if you- but I don’t mean it the wrong way, you see but I mean she was more- the importance of her capacity, what she knew she had- it was that was so closely interwoven with her personality that she could demand things in life which maybe a common person wouldn’t demand. You know, sacrifice from the others for her benefit. If it was good or no good that’s another question- that is the personal drama, you see, which has to be lived out eventually-
Hodgson: but she could, like Laban- she was like Laban in the sense that she could, for a while at least, sacrifice the others for her ambition-
Holm: definitely, definitely, oh definitely. And yet you know it goes like you throw something in the water and you see a cork disappears and it pops up again, it’s a thing which you can’t escape, you have to live with yourself and after all you mustn’t give up yourself, you see, because it’s needed-
Hodgson: so Hanya are you more the teacher than the dancer-
Holm: it finally turned out to be. I started as a dancer and then I turned out to be a teacher now because there was no choice
Hodgson: you see, I think that’s a very significant difference between the first- I think the teacher, the real teacher, is more likely to sacrifice him or herself than the artist-
Holm: [inaudible 00:04:59]
Hodgson: - who essentially is an egotist
Holm: is an egotist you see but I mean, you see that is the breaking point, that is really the breaking point and that is the sacrifice of your ego for the benefit of the continuation of the [inaudible 00:05:19 to 00:05:21] little frivolous and call it a culture. You see, if you can’t keep that up to that way, well then you should leave the teaching up to the others because they do it better in the general sense and that’s what it is. I mean, the general sense of passing on some knowledge, whatever. You see, you have to add something to it, you can’t do that, you can’t pass on what somebody else has already stated, that is fine if you understand it, you give it a little more, which of course is a tremendous help because they start again with a question in the eye, and they are lost you see because they have the human battle
Hodgson: what does the artist give then, to the next generation?
Holm: the inspiration, the example, maybe the solution, you know if they cut the green tape a little- present it without what it’s worth- we have artists to do it who understand it fine, if not we only get a copy
Hodgson: so, they can’t in fact live up to the inspiration?
Holm: it must be inspired. Anything must be, you see, you can’t hear, let’s say a Beethoven sonata from somebody who is just making finger exercises, can play it a little faster than the other one but who cares? On the expense on anything worth what the worth is- maybe they haven’t gotten it, maybe they are not able to feel anything, I don’t know. You see, if these people are not human beings and pardon the word there is that respect for being a human being- I mean we are not automations not yet, I hope not- we are computers, period but it depends what you put in for that which comes out
Hodgson: so, would you distinguish very clearly then, between the artist and the teacher?
Holm: well, the performing artist you see as such, is really the ego which is dominating for the complimentary thing according to its inner drive and its must. You see, that is essential, you see the ego is essential. But not ego, capital ‘e’ capital ‘g’ capital ‘o’ and gild it. Not that kind of an ego, you see that is again going down the drain. But I mean the natural thing of, ‘I have to do it,” you know. And the must which is behind it, the must- not the want- and that is again the drama which is behind it, which has to come out, and that is again the problem which the so-called artist has to do with delivering the goods. It’s the birth pains
Hodgson: was Mary a good teacher then?
Holm: yes, she was but not as good as she was an artist
Hodgson: and that was an ego problem you would say?
Holm: in a way- I mean not ego in a wrong way but I mean it was the natural thing which has to happen, has to go with it. But I mean you see there are two ways you see, either the sacrifice of the ego for the benefit of being an instrument of communication and of stimulation and of what should I say, starting something, arousing something in people, putting the finger on something where people never think of because time goes too fast. And time is still demanding you see, and life with the young people is too hectic for them, I said, “by golly,” I told them this morning, I said, “listen children, we cannot teach you anything unless you do your homework, that means you are the teachers not I. I only am an instrument of stimulating, and the rest you have to do.” They looked a little dumb- they were not quite opposed to the thought, but I mean it was frightening. You see, they realised they were lazy bums, and they realised you see, that they expect- you put a nickel in- you see, and I am not a nickel-
Hodgson: Hanya not even a quarter?
Holm: I’m not a quarter, not even a dollar, I don’t want to put anything in- you see, they have to do it and they don’t like it
Hodgson: no well that is a very - unhappily – an unusual approach to teaching
Holm: the only way my dear. It is the only way. I wish we would have more people who do that
[From 00:11:17 to 00:14:06 they continue to discuss Holm’s teaching methods and her ideas around ego]
Hodgson: but you see that’s when I think- and it comes to a real testing point when you’re faced with a Hitler but until you are faced it doesn’t show. When you’re faced with a Hitler, the testing time comes and you either do a you, and say, “I smell things not very good, I want to be adventurous and go somewhere else,” or you say, “I think this could be good for me and my artistry and I will stay here- if they’re going to give me money, conditions and so on – at least start off with some kind of” –
Holm: if I would have felt at that time, that there was something to be achieved, I probably would have stayed
Hodgson: yes. Laban felt it, Wigman felt it
Holm: yes but Wigman was stubborn, she was such an ego, you see, and her ego was stubborn and she thought she lives it through, there have to be people afterward- too late you see, years go by, time does not stand still
Hodgson: but how do you discover what is- which way it’s going to go? How did you know which way Hitler was going to go?
Holm: gambler
Hodgson: right but how did you know Hitler was not good? Because he seemed good at the beginning
Holm: no, I wouldn’t be able to say no good, there was only something I didn’t like, and it was intuition, I couldn’t have written it down in a book. You see, there is something- and I think way back in my family there were Huguenots, long time back. Well, already these are people who are revolutionaries are they not or were, and that is generations and generations back, but I don’t care, and I don’t look into it. But still there is something, you see, I do not like to be handicapped, that’s the one thing I don’t like. If I go up the steps and somebody for a joke holds on to my ankle, he gets a kick in the nose, and that is so fast, and no thinking about it- now what is that? That is spontaneity is it not? It is a reflex you see, but I mean it shows that there is something which basically is not accepted in that- never mind how much I try to educate myself in being patient in - what I gained a lot of patience but there was a time I didn’t have any and kicked very quick. Now then, you see when I felt something like Hitler coming, I kicked-
Hodgson: but you didn’t know, did you? Because at that stage –
Holm: no, but I felt it
Hodgson: it’s very worrying because neither Laban nor Wigman felt it. They were told- Laban was told by everybody, by Jooss, by everybody, “get out it’s not good, get out, get out.” Their egos didn’t want to know
Holm: well, but that’s their problem. You see, they caught- they were caught in their ego. You must admit that is the truth
Hodgson: I think they had it- I think, to be fair to them, it was slightly more than that because they also felt they were doing the dance a service, it was more than their ego
Holm: as I’ve told you, that Mary felt that Hitler can’t last forever. That there must be somebody afterwards-
Third voice: Hitler supported Laban?
Hodgson: for a while
Holm: well I think he may have offered, but I don’t think he supported him, I think he may have reached out a hand for something
Third voice: because Hitler needed it?
Holm: yes, but Laban didn’t do that, then finally didn’t he?
Hodgson: no, I suppose, finally- but all that time he didn’t do it, he played along for a while, it seemed to be going the same paths. Sooner or later it had to arrive that they discovered- well they discovered they were not compatible
Holm: listen, if you are there, and it happens at the moment, how do you know at that time what you know now? You see, now we look back and its history, but that time it was present. What do we know what happens tomorrow, you see, maybe tomorrow that Hitler falls dead? He didn’t. You see how do you know that?
Hodgson: but you do say Jewish friends of yours are being put into gas chambers-
Holm: certainly, they were-
Hodgson: and you say to Laban, “this is not good, you’re supporting this regime,” and he has to say, “I think it won’t last forever,” or, “I don’t want to know,” or, “but I’m getting on okay,” so-
Holm: some of my Jewish friends supported Hitler -now what do you say for that? - and landed in the gas chamber, so
Hodgson: it wasn’t as easy as that. It is I think- this is what makes the Laban story, for me, you know, absolutely incredible because he is a real dilemma, I mean it’s a problem anybody has to face
Holm: you see, don’t also forget, Laban he was a military man. I mean, he was an officer of higher rank, what was he?
Hodgson: his father was a governor of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Holm: there you are, that is a breeding question. You see, there is more than just education. Now then, you know these things don’t sit in your clothes, they go deeper than that, and there are things to be considered, people here are so nonchalant, very quickly condemn. You know they condemned Wigman, you see, and I said, “alright I’m not going to sign any papers and I’m not going to do anything.” Well, I was right
Hodgson: yes, you were. What’s interesting to me is your suggesting that most of what you did was on a kind of feeling, intuitive level-
Holm: intuition mostly
Hodgson: which is difficult because if you haven’t got the intuition, it’s difficult to blame me because I haven’t got it, and you have it. You may advise me, but I won’t see it
Holm: well the difficulty arises of being either somewhat rather- not to your reasoning but you are convinced by another- oh boy, not force- [inaudible 00:21:05 to 00:21:11] … well intuition is the easy word to use but you really don’t know what the thing is. There is something going on in your plexus solaris, and you do not know, it doesn’t speak but you only have something of a vibration- might that be the right word? And then you begin to get aware and you get warned that there is a vibration, now what is it? That’s for you to find out, and if you are patient enough, you see, it finally reveals itself because that is what it was, but it doesn’t tell you point blank what it is
Hodgson: it’s a very risky business
Holm: you can’t depend on it my dear, you can’t depend on it
Hodgson: what if you had been wrong?
Holm: I pay the price. I don’t know if all my expectations were fulfilled, I do not know
Third Voice: did Wigman pay the price?
Holm: yes, yes. She paid the price by staying and being forgotten. You see, now she is a legend
Hodgson: distinct by, made clear by the [inaudible 00:22:44] roots of American dance, Wigman
Holm: now wait a minute, not quite right, you see the actual repetition of something isn’t it. I think what should stay is her spirit
Hodgson: but that does seem to be pervading
Holm: because people don’t understand-
Hodgson: her legend is worse than her spirit –
Holm: people don’t understand the spirit you see, I fortunately I lived long enough with her under circumstances which were quite unusual. Circumstances which were personal, we had a lot of tiffs, we were not just honey cakes. The tiffs were usually not artistic but they were humorous, so after all, you know, that is where you lose, all of a sudden, your [inaudible 00:23:37 to 00:23:42]… on the same level where you are, which is good because there’s no person who is a god, that is stupid right? I mean, that shouldn’t be- I think I tried to prevent it if I find a student who comes kind of and turns the eyes up, you know, I say, “woah cold water, quick.” I don’t allow that. I don’t want any dependent, period. I said, “I’m not going to bring anybody through, you bring yourself through, and if you can’t do it, go to hell.” You have to be hard in that way, no sentimentality. It’s not good
Hodgson: well, it’s the only way- it is life’s way of survival, and it would be a mistake to help anyone-
Holm: the only way of surviving
Hodgson: it’s life’s way and you can’t do anything else. But you see, it just worries me in whom I believe-
Holm: you should
Hodgson: - has this terrible dilemma, and it seems to be so problematic as to how that dilemma is resolved when it comes to big decisions like a Hitler, you know when none of us can discover it’s a Hitler until we’ve seen history, we didn’t know it’s Hitler when it’s happening. You seemed to know-
Holm: no, no, no
Hodgson: - but they didn’t, oh you didn’t?
Holm: I didn’t, I had a personal feeling of warning, whatever that is, as I said a vibration, that’s all there is to it, not more
Hodgson: but you get it, Laban doesn’t get it, Wigman doesn’t get it
Holm: well, maybe they had other- maybe they were [inaudible 00:25:39 to 00:25:41] I don’t know
Hodgson: no no, Laban was pushing the ’36 Olympic games, going to go great guns, ignoring–
Holm: but I mean he found his ego; you see he was ego-bound. I wasn’t. I didn’t know what happened here, I don’t care what happened here, I didn’t really. At the very beginning, when I started studying, I can tell you, I once told to Wigman, I said, “I don’t care what comes out of me, I have to wait and see, and I shall do what I can and I’m able, and I shall not do what I’m not able, I have no ambition, I have no false illusions, I shall find out.” Now that is one safe point to let time tell you as you go along, as you either grow, stand still, or regress. You see you can do either
Hodgson: I don’t know what they did though, what did they do? I think they- I don’t think they stood still; I think perhaps Wigman did stand still-
Holm: well, they hibernated, is that a word?
Hodgson: yes, I think Wigman hibernated. Laban would have possibly, but he wasn’t able to, he was picked, because he was perhaps a little bit stronger than Wigman and-
Holm: in a way, you see, let’s say he was- he had the man’s ego working and his past, you see, was more square than Wigman’s was, so that makes a difference
Hodgson: but his path was that, but he was still hoping for something actually beyond his ego, I think. It was linked to his ego, but he was hoping for-
Holm: well, who doesn’t? because they ego is not to their knowledge, if it would be, they would be clever enough not to accept it. You know, there is a moment sometimes where you are a little bit, what is it?
Third voice: blind?
Holm: blind, you know. Where you can’t quite see, you see, where- well, it’s human too, and it’s happening in our procedure, where you not always on the alert, sometimes you are a little tired
Hodgson: but sometimes you’ve worked a long time, like Laban had, and you get to be the age of 50 and you think, “goodness, at last I’ve made it,” and you don’t want to-
Holm: what did you make, you can make anything?
Hodgson: you think you’re going to make something
Holm: that’s an old-fashioned point of view
Hodgson: but it was his point of view, and he felt-
Holm: well, its old-fashioned-
Hodgson: but he felt he only making. Hitler was taking notice of him and giving him money presumably-
Holm: that was his mistake
Hodgson: it was his mistake. A grave mistake in historic returns
Holm: - a human mistake, understandable
Third voice: it’s an artistic mistake
Holm: it’s a mistake in any direction
[inaudible 00:29:12 to 00:29:17]
Holm: it hurt his artistry
Hodgson: but in terms of human mistake, it’s too grave to be overlooked
Holm: my dear, you cannot overlook it because you don’t know it-
Hodgson: I know it-
Holm: when it is, how do you know?
Hodgson: I know it looking back
Holm: ahhh, that’s different, you have perspective. But if you were here you see how can you say?
Third voice: is this happening today, are there parallels?
Hodgson: what’s worrying me is -the whole thing I’m worried about in terms of writing this biography- how universal is this? How-
Third voice: I mean, just because Hitler isn’t here, it isn’t quite as discernible, but it may be happening in other ways-
Hodgson: and it wasn’t discernible then, its discernible now in terms of then
Holm: I don’t think you give, or I do think you give Hitler too much of an importance in that whole thing, do you?
Hodgson: he was crucially important for you, you wouldn’t be here
Holm: I know, but I mean that’s not crucial to me. If there was another reason, there was another reason so-
Hodgson: but if it happened to be a good reason you wouldn’t be here-
Holm: I’m not so sure, there were other reasons too
Hodgson: but the other reasons, I doubt that they would have pushed you-
Holm: no, you see, sometimes things fall together like this, and they are of different nature. When this is happening, you see, it happens no problem. But …
Hodgson: but Hanya, without, what I feel is, for me a very strong image that you gave me some years ago about your students- do you remember what you said?
Holm: no
Hodgson: you said that one of the prime factors in moving to the States was you discovered your students were tired- your students in Germany were tired, and you discovered why they were tired
Holm: well, I’ll tell you what, let’s call it, not so much the students were tired, as there was a general, should I say, dispirited?
Hodgson: but you suggested your students were tired because they were not doing just their work in dance, but they were spending their nights-
Holm: oh, that was, wait a minute, that was only in Munich. That was a very short period that was the period of Totenmal rehearsals- that were the last six weeks of rehearsals, that is not the year, that is not ages-
Hodgson: but significant in your thinking, feeling, intuition?
Holm: well, no it was an observation. It was an observation that there were- they were not all the students, there were only some which really were interested in that movement of so-called freedom, which is of course, to my feeling, quite a different story. You see freedom is discipline not anarchy, well, that’s another problem
Hodgson: but that didn’t have a strong influence
Holm: that doesn’t mean the students per se, that meant the people who worked with us in the Totenmal. These were more than students, these were really dancers that were actors, these were performers. Of course, there was that sign, that there was a diversion going on these peoples’ mind which was not conducive to that what we were doing. They had another interest. And that interest, which was influential in their goodness of their behaviour, that is not to be taken as a general statement, that is a specific statement because the students then I had again in Dresden, when we came back there, it was a different story. They were again dedicated but they had nothing to do with Hitler, there is again might be a slight misunderstanding there. They were tired because they were up all night, not tired because they were tired, they were tired because well, every human being can do only so much then the energy fizzles out
Hodgson: a different kind of tiredness then?
Holm: a different kind of tiredness. They were not tired of the dancing; they were physically exhausted by spending their waking hours with something else
Third voice: so, it wasn’t disillusionment or –
Holm: no, that wasn’t it
Hodgson: so, how many of his students were really involved with the Hitler Youth movement?
Holm: no idea, there were not more than five or six
Hodgson: there would have been enough for you to-
Holm: they were not only students; they were also stage managers and people who were instrumental in running the shows. It was a thing- it was not like you would say the students of a university, dedicated to a certain thing and they revolved. No, it wasn’t that way at all. That was something extraordinary
Hodgson: did you ever discuss with Wigman the problem?
Holm: we did at that time
Hodgson: and what did she have to say about the Nazi movement?
Holm: well, that wasn’t outspoken, it wasn’t called Nazi yet, that came later. That’s all later. Time is a little bit telescoping
Hodgson: but you worked on Wigman, rather- as I suspect some people worked on Laban- you said, “look, these are the signs, get out,” but neither of them would take any notice
Holm: who was that?
Hodgson: Wigman or Laban wouldn’t take any notice-
Holm: no, I couldn’t you see, by that time I was gone. When I went it was ’31. Hitler hasn’t opened up-
Third voice: it was late?
\Holm: it was early, he came in ’33, I went very early. When we were in Munich, the Totenmal was ’30, in the summer of ‘30
Hodgson: what is Totenmal? Translate please
Holm: Totenmal was a tremendous piece, it was a piece of Albert Talhoff. He was the originator of the idea, he also composed it because we had only percussion instrument, no orchestra or anything but we had vibraphones, we had melodies, we had percussion, it was a whole orchestra of that kind with which we operated. He wrote it and there was speaking, choral speaking, single voices and dancing and it was kind of in memory of all the dead in the previous world war. It was a monument to them. It was very interesting to do
Hodgson: and very prophetic in many ways
Holm: huh?
Hodgson: so, kind of a lift towards the next war
Holm: no, it wasn’t from war to war, but it was a lift, a dedication to the people who really showed their- you don’t say, “I give my life, it’s taken.” The recognition afterward, peer respect that you did it, I also [inaudible 00:37:53 to 00:38:00] in honour of. It was a beautiful work-
Third voice: this was performed throughout Germany?
Holm: no, just in Munich, and Munich gave us one of the halls, which were built on the festwiese, you know what that means? That is a meadow, which is the meadow where celebrations took place, and that was the thing which was built for it- very simple, it was a rectangular hall, with a path through the audience, there was no curtain but the other side was dedicated to that which you call the stage. It was just about maybe not more three feet in height from the seating capacity of the people, and it was almost one third stage and two thirds audience, and there was a little room in between which was dedicated to the orchestra, the musicians, that was it. It was a regular place, very high, extremely spacious, you had a feeling of space, period. Very good lighting system and then that’s where it took place. And we also had elevations on the stage in order to get higher situations. We had even the men who came over wear masks which were supposed to, not represent but to symbolise the dead man, and they were all equal in height, so we had to build, cothurn, you know what a cothurn is- these high-
Third voice: the shoes, as in the Greek theatre, the cothurnus
Holm: the cothurnus, in different sizes because if one was higher-
Third Voice: to equalise them
Holm: to equalise them, I was in charge to do it, so I know what it means. So, also, they wear masks and all the masks- we wear masks [inaudible 00:40:10], we were women with any forms of agony you could have, either a stern face which was frozen or a face which was distorted, or whatever, there was a variety-
Third Voice: and this was produced by the government?
Holm: no, I do not know who produced it but it was Talhoff who wrote that thing and I think maybe the town of Munich did it, I do not know-
Third voice: there was a summer performance?
Holm: it was during the summer
Third voice: it was outdoors?
Holm: no, it was a hall, it was a rectangular hall, like a box, tremendously. Without decorations or anything it was-
Third voice: did it have a political content?
Holm: no, none whatsoever, it was only, I would say [inaudible 00:41:10 to 00:41:13] … when it was spoken it was keyed to a musical delivery, and it was beautifully sung. And rhythm, an enormous emphasis on rhythm, speaking in rhythm, speaking through rhythm, count to rhythm and what not. And it was really quite an approach of using the elements which are not musical as orchestra goes with instruments, the instruments were only percussion. We had drums, plain drums, kettle drums, and the so-called Hindermith drums which was a set of four drums where each drum had a different tone level. Then we had a vibraphone, which means a xylophone with these turning things underneath which was electrically run which gave the tone much more vibration to it, it was beautifully sounded. Glockenspiel, anything which you could imagine, ham drums, anything, whatever was desired was either made up, invented, or done from that that was existing. So there was- and the had a conductor, he was the conductor, Talhoff was the conductor of the orchestra, and the orchestra was really conducted, it wasn’t playing by ear or anything, it was all written down, all conducted, all choreographed in relationship to movement- music was made to music and movement to music- it was a very integrated business. And then the spoken word and movement to the spoken word alone, and also singing speakers, actors were involved. So, it was quite a big pageantry. It was a pageant; you can call it that way. Well, that big thing happened which lasted for one full evening session, so-
Third voice: and you performed in that?
Holm: yes. Performed in it, helped to rehearse it, was stage manager in it, broke my foot in it.
[from 00:43:43 to the end of this tape, Holm describes how she broke her foot]
Tape 96
Summary of Side One
Germany was hit badly by the First World War. Many male artists had died, and the country went into depression, affecting the arts. Holm studied with Dalcroze. Dalcroze training is all about rhythm. Holm describes Hellerau and how her Dalcroze training influenced her. Geometric form and shape. Holm was originally trained as a musician but through Dalcroze training moved into dance. Wigman developed her principles from Laban’s teaching. She describes what it was like to work with Wigman. American dancers like Isadora Duncan. Holm moved to America.
Summary of Side Two
Martha Graham and her followers in America. Holm’s experiences in America. Different movements emerging from Germany.
The Interview (side one 62’ 580)
Holm: … trial and error period. Anything goes, sort of, whatever
Hodgson: yes, did Laban meet them and work with them?
Holm: I don’t know if he did
Hodgson: did Mary show interest?
Holm: yes, Mary met these people, yes, she did. Mary had a lot of connections you know, Nolde, as I mentioned, he was a good friend of Mary’s. [inaudible 00:00:25] good friend of Mary’s
Hodgson: no, there was friend of Mary’s before she ever met Laban
Holm: that couldn’t be
Hodgson: no, there was one of the people who supplied her with some of the initial cash to get to Laban
Holm: really? I didn’t know that; you know more than I do
Hodgson: and I think that makes an interesting difference
Holm: there are very few people left who are in that time and knew what happened then. Everybody has died away
Hodgson: did she go to- did Mary go to the Bauhaus?
Holm: no, I don’t think she went to, but I mean she visited the- she had contacted the Bauhaus people, exchanged ideas. Also, it was- we talk about times before you were born- 1925 was after the First World War [inaudible 00:01:29 to 00:01:33]. It was- Germany was demasculatated if you may say, there were no men anywhere, they were all shot dead. That was a big- Germany is not more than one of maybe not more than Scotland, I don’t know how big it is, but you know in proportion, and if that country has to defend itself on four sides water included- they had the Russians there, they have the Italians there, they had the French there, they have the Belgium, and then they had the whole water front. Now, that country cannot deliver so many men to man all the things so there was an overlap of the military people. I lived in Mainz and that was a garrison. By that time, people wore black when somebody died, you dressed in black- it got blacker by the day, every day. Finally, there was nobody who wore any colour anymore. Oh God, it was terrible
Hodgson: and so how did this affect the arts then?
Holm: well a lot of these young artists had also died, and some of them who came back they were, shall I say, suppressed, that means their flow was not going because they had to serve a more severe service, which dealt with life and death. And then, when they were released from this- and that started with- and then we had the big depression, was ’23, ‘4, ‘5- and then when it became so that life started again, it started first in the arts. It started, all the painters came up again, the poets came, the theatre started- that’s when Reinhardt begins also in his upTrend. And that’s when we started, ’23, Wigman, we were going for the first time to Berlin, we got there with a kind of, “hmm hmm hmm hmm,” so we were invited nine more times. But everything worked- at that time was we didn’t have a theatre, there were podium or podia, whatever you call it, that means these hollow things which some of them were built on horses with the boards on top and if you stomp a little loud the echo comes back to you because it’s thunderous. There was no footlight and they were on the outlights, the ones you know? And when it’s burnt out it gets a moment of dark and then it starts again? Well that’s what we had and two only, one for me and one for her. So it was-
Hodgson: how did you find your time with Delsarte?
Holm: I never worked with Delsarte. We only used it at that time because it was the thing to do, it was already beginning a systematising of emotions, if you do this, you do this, typical things which you can’t stylise and almost systematise, and again it is one of those things which is repeating again and again, that if it is Laban or if it is Wigman or whoever it is, if it is Graham, people copy and then that is the easy way because they go from the outside not from the inside, and if you do that and you go from the outside, it stays there. Now, development cannot take place very well except variations can happen
Hodgson: so, when you came to thinking about your initial training, and you presumably could have chosen Delsarte or Dalcroze, what made you chose-
Holm: I chose Dalcroze, I went through that and because I went through as a musician - I started as a musician- and that’s why I came to Dalcroze. And from there on, I realised what Dalcroze wanted, needed body flexibility and possibility, and knowledge. That’s when [inaudible 06:48] left Dalcroze behind, not forgetting it because it’s still with me, that is a thing you never will forget and hope never will because it trains you so rhythmically, so thoroughly, and so inwardly, not on the outside, there is no method, there is only experience and when you get that experience that is what stays, and that is what you can also alter
Hodgson: was Dalcroze teaching you?
Holm: no, he was- as a very tiny, little girl, I think I was about six years or seven years, he came and gave demonstrations and I wasn’t the demonstration group, so we did the children’s songs and whatever there was to be done, then I forgot about it and then I continued with music, then I came back again, but then Dalcroze was different, it was not child’s play, then it was musical knowledge and rhythmical analysis. Very sharply. But then coming through the difficulty that the body wasn’t free enough to make a realisation of that rhythmical experience. Then came the desire to have more, then I saw Wigman performing and I said, “that’s it,” and then I settled there
Hodgson: did you know she came from the same background?
Holm: I know she had- well, I mean she didn’t as much as I did. I passed my exams, but Mary didn’t, I don’t think so
Hodgson: I though she also wanted to be taught- be one of his teachers
Holm: I don’t think so
Hodgson: or he wanted her to be
Holm: I don’t think she did because she- then Laban came in the way
Hodgson: yes, quite. Were you there at the time when Appia and Dalcroze were together?
Holm: well, I knew of Appia and he was there, but I didn’t meet him because they did the first thing in Hellerau, and there I wasn’t there yet, I came after. After they did the Claudel, ‘the Annunciation.’ But there was [inaudible 00:09:07 to 00:09:09] Steinwender [inaudible 00:09:11] if you remember her. She was a big Dalcroze representative, she was- I think she was with Suzie Perrottet too
Hodgson: so, did you ever- presumably you worked in the Appia design theatre
Holm: oh yes, marvellous. Appia designed also- there were the- what was his name of the lighting-
Hodgson: Gordon Craig?
Holm: no, no, Gordon Craig was the other end. Well, I’ll come to it- and he did the lighting in Hellerau, marvellously, I have never seen such lighting arranging- it was a Russian- beautiful and he belonged to Appia, belonged to the Dohrn family who were, at that time, Hellerau- making Hellerau as such. And then came the war, and then Dalcroze did something that he spoke against the Germans, then he couldn’t come back
Hodgson: describe Hellerau to me then
Holm: Hellerau, well, it was quite a unique thing. First of all, it was outside of the town, where there was nothing, just a little hill [inaudible 00:09:40] in the settlement- what you would say where people settled down who want to emancipate themselves away from the others, out of town
Hodgson: like Ascona became later?
Holm: even less than that, more primitive, Ascona was much more, with the lake and so forth, it had more- an old town, this was no old town. These are only settlers, people who duck in the earth and build a house and then it was even a little farther out on the top of a hill, and there they built that beautiful performing space, which was rectangular, and there was no curtain, and there was no stage, there was nothing of that kind. It was like a [inaudible 00:11:36 to 00:11:38] very high, very long- I don’t know the dimensions- and very wide
Hodgson: what date would this be?
Holm: what?
Hodgson: date
Holm: when that was built that must have been maybe 1908? As early as that
Hodgson: incredible to be thinking of-
Holm: and then around about all little houses which were one storey houses with a semi-little thing on top which had crooked rooves, gables, maybe there was a square room and the end was a gable, so they were for the students to live in, and the teachers to live in. so they were about, let me count it- one, two, three, four- at least six of these houses if not more. And then the actual institute as such, that had- as a main thing- it had that beautiful, big performing area, call it that way. And then on the sides there were practise rooms of all sorts, big, small and so forth. Every one, of course, furnished with a piano because that was the thing to learn, we learned to improvise on the piano and to direct the movement and execution of rhythm physically. Experience of rhythm physically. So, we had to have space in order to do, and it was mostly done to walking or to violent exertions in the body, whatever was required. And timing and so forth, all of that is just invaluable, what every dancer should have as a child
Hodgson: whereas he was training musicians though?
Holm: yes
Hodgson: [inaudible 00:13:44 to 00:13:45]
Holm: yes, definitely
Hodgson: incredible avant-garde attitude towards things. It’s amazing that he had such a good following because it’s got lost since
Holm: no, it’s still there
Hodgson: but I mean it’s got lost in terms of influence
Holm: well the influence- because people are lazy
Hodgson: it doesn’t infiltrate English education- in terms of education-
Holm: unfortunately, not, because people are stupid. Also, there is something to that which I think in general is a main criticism with all the arts, as you know, you can’t teach the method. That is Laban or Stanislavski-
Hodgson: but the principles are still incredibly valid
Holm: but the principles are still good
Hodgson: but they don’t get the time
Holm: yeah no but the people cannot teach them. You see, they teach not the principles but they teach the evidence and that is sure to do because that is what you can- like these little copy things you can stencil on the people and that’s what they can take otherwise they have to work personally. That is my problem, in order to get the people to think, in order to get the people to realise, in order to make it their business, rather than, “it’s your fault that I cannot do it.” That is not it, but they have to make the effort, they want to live, and it should come, it doesn’t, you have to go and get it
Hodgson: so how did you get on in Hellerau, there was this marvellous atmosphere-
Holm: well we did- I studied all of it and then I made the examination and I must say, it stayed forever and also musically, I can talk to every musician and he cannot say, “shut up,” and I said, “I give you one, because I know it better than you do.” Well, not in their way as they do their combinations mathematically, I cannot follow that but basically as far as timing goes and impulses and efforts go, yes, I know it.
Hodgson: know it in the body as well as in the head?
Holm: that’s what the whole Dalcroze method is. I sometimes, in New York, I send some of the students when they are so impossible in timing, I send them to the Dalcroze institute
Hodgson: oh, there is one in New York?
Holm: yes, very big one
Hodgson: but where else is the Dalcroze work happening, not in this country at all
Holm: in Geneva I think
Hodgson: is Hellerau disappeared?
Holm: yes, I think it is some kind of a school or something. Oh, it was marvellous. The floors were all white and new linoleum, and oh, the actual performance hall was half performance area, half audience which was built up in, like amphitheatre, but it was not round it was square, so every seat saw whatever
Hodgson: we haven’t travelled any further than that now, that’s where we’re at now, in terms of many good performance spaces
Holm: well, maybe we’ll go back again, we have travelled but we have gone away to the old picture book thing but- now wait, what happens on the other side- also the white linoleum but in the floor between the audience and the performer, there was a possibility of elevators we had at that time, and that was for the orchestra, which either could rise or could just move away and it was sitting in a sunken area, where the orchestra could be, see there it was but then the rest was done, that was really the true space stage because what we have were all sorts of elevations, stairs, columns, anything which was moveable, shiftable and put together in several ways. You could make all sorts of landscapes with these kind of elevations from which, of course, you had to treat your space right. It’s not only climbing up, it is different rhythm, first of all, and second, it is different spatial value to it. If you come down a stairway very slowly, or if you fall down, or you roll down, or you have a smaller elevation and all of a sudden, a higher elevation, how do you get up there? What movement do you have to do to do? You may roll up there, you may jump up there, you may not. All these things give you movements, stimulant because again, related to space
Hodgson: what kind of performances did you give there?
Holm: well, we did little Wagner things, sometimes we did the Venusberg out of- where is Venusberg? [Wagner’s opera Tannhäuser] - whatever. Anyhow- or otherwise we gave dance performances, which were based on rhythmical bases, rather than on movement or emotional bases but strictly rhythmical motivation with the body able to handle it. That’s where the shortcoming came about, but I felt the need and desire for training farther than only, “do it,” then how
Hodgson: yes, because in fairness to Dalcroze, he was in fact concerned with musicians, not dancers
Holm: only musicians, then also, another thing, for Salzmann- Salzmann was the light man- the walls of this whole house were covered with muslins, and behind the muslin were thousands and thousands of lightbulbs, so there was not a lamp shining, the whole house was aglow, you could dim it to the finest or extinguish it or whatever. Then, in the ceiling, there were also- well that means the size above, well I would say about, I would have to guess now, let’s say eight feet long, or seven feet or six feet long, which flopped down, and if the ceiling is square, and then let’s say if we have two, and then they flop down. And in this, there were light instruments from which you could do all sorts of angles, that was space lighting, the first one
Hodgson: in 1910?
Holm: oh yes. And also, we had for instance, a column there, and that column had light in itself, that could have been visible more or less, or just be as is, or be made transparent, that is values shifted. It was really a true space stage, just wonderful
Hodgson: were people excited by it?
Holm: yes, yes. But nobody kept it up, then finally- well, Dalcroze institute was- when Hitler came everything was kaput. I think it is a school for trade or something, it really is- probably all built up and what not
Hodgson: did you do performances for the general public, did people come-
Holm: they came out from the city, from the neighbouring cities oh yes. I didn’t do the big ones, that was done before I came, that was done before- I think I came ’15 and these big performances with Salzmann and Appia and the Dohrns, well that was done in ’10 I think. Claudel, well they were all one unit, these people worked together very beautifully. They had an idea
Hodgson: right, and made it work
Holm: yes but they made the idea work, they did not make the construction and put an idea in, that’s the difference, and that I think is the difference of lots of approaches now, that people do things because that would be nice to, but the idea is not which motivates the doing, it’s the doing and then the idea is superimposed. Well, it happens constantly because people want to be different
Hodgson: yes, but it is fine being different as long as it’s got some good foundation on which to-
Holm: you have to have the idea first in order to be different, isn’t it?
Hodgson: so, did you find it a very exciting time being there?
Holm: oh yes, oh definitely. That time, it just popped and all of a sudden, like you would say, there is a thing full of, and the lid is tight on and all of a sudden, the lid is off- “poff” it comes out. It had to, it broke loose, it was almost a- well, I think, a fight for survival [inaudible 00:24:51 to 00:24:59] … if you do have the idea, how to I bring it into something which is visible, understandable, or at least- well maybe it might not be understood because it is a new way of thinking, but in order at least to start something, or start a ball rolling, or start a Trend of difference rather than to go in the humdrum
Third Voice: there seems to be a big preoccupation with space, not only as a dancer but Bauhaus is set up by [inaudible 00:25:41] and architects-
Holm: yes
Third Voice: - looking to make environments and spaces that-
Holm: also, it became a little mechanised and so films there- and it was not the way, as you would feel. It was geometrics. Geometrics is something else again, like something which is living. A square, a box, a cube, or a triangle, all these forms shapes and they are means to, of. Well you have to understand what a triangle is in order to use a triangle, it’s not just a form, or the execution of a line, or lines related to each other. In our living thing because, after all we are human beings, we are not a piece of paper and a pencil. That is where the trouble comes in, that people translate it from that, almost external thing and try to imitate it with their own capacities and it doesn’t turn out right because it is minus, because it needs another understanding and another way to get at. And that’s what the whole space problem is about. For us, it’s experience only, not design for designs sake, or form for form’s sake. Why is a form good, why is a form still good? Because it fulfils its purpose of content
Third Voice: which is more than the form-
Holm: it is more than the form- well the content almost motivates the form, isn’t it? If the form should be alive, well there are a lot of dead forms too. I find that, for instance, the Indians, the American Indians, good examples, they were potters and they have pots which are about, ohhh wide and open like a bowl, why? Because when they contain something- either it’s liquid or it is solid, and you can get easy at it, in and out, you can pour it at once, or it should evaporate or whatever the reason is, and then you have a form which has a big bulb at the bottom and a thin neck and a tiny opening, keeps the water cool and it doesn’t evaporate. Well, that is not a form done because- that is done because of form- it’s done because it does something, then you can take a variation of that but there is a principle behind it
Third Voice: there is a function
Holm: there’s a function, and yet it’s beautiful, and it’s beautiful, aesthetic, and it has- you like to look at it because it is kind of, I wouldn’t say balanced, but it has a- you feel that the purpose and the being is matching
Third Voice: did you ever see any of Oskar Schlemmer’s performances?
Holm: no, only the times with the- the things were done in order to do something with the Triadic Ballet
Third Voice: that’s when you were invited to-
Holm: to do one but I didn’t do it because it was a little- you had to be ballet because it was that style of movement and more than that because in itself, it really distorted the human body quite a bit
Third voice: because that seems quite-
Holm: interesting
Third Voice: - occupied with geometric form and shape
Holm: yes, true, and with mass, with quantity
Third Voice: and it seemed as the relationship between the dancer and the shape that is built on the dancer-
Holm: yes definitely
Third Voice: - and the set
Holm: oh definitely
Third Voice: and, it might be a bold to say it was early, what Nikolai- well, I don’t know anything about Nikolai apart from what I’ve seen on slides but what he’s doing with the shapes, to do with shapes, environmental-
Holm: yes, but he tries to manipulate shapes. For instance, if he goes in a sack, and what happens to the sack, and the one who moves inside, how the shape changes, or if you see some of the molluscs, you know what I mean, these animals which have really no form, which just move and you have the feeling that there’s somebody in it but it’s life in it but it doesn’t have a definite shape to begin with but it takes shapes and shifts that shape according to its own need, whatever it wants to do, move away or something. So, there is always a reason, but a lot of people forget that when they do that that there is the reason for, gives really rise to the shape. And if there is no reason, then the shape is shape for shape’s sake
Third Voice: which is what- is that what you’d suggest Oskar Schlemmer’s doing?
Holm: no, well he tried, he tried not to, but he tried a certain dehumanisation, and tried to formularise the emotions into patterns of arrangements. I don’t know what he would do today. That is very hard to shift, it was interesting at that time but that stopped, it didn’t continue, he’s gone but maybe now he might like to laugh at himself, I do not know. But then, if you make an ism out of all these things, that is where the danger comes in. you have to learn to evaluate
Third Voice: it’s always other people that make the isms. The artist puts something forward and somebody else puts i, s, m on the end of it
Holm: exactly, and they make it immediately permanent, “I can do it too.” It’s the essentials which are not really very much in use, people want to go sure, they don’t like to be at limbo, and you have to be
Third Voice: how profound- it must be profound- did you ever experience any effect of the Bauhaus?
Holm: oh yes, yes, yes, yes. A big influence. A greater sensitivity to materials for instance and forms and shapes, particularly architects. As principles, again, these people had principles but then, they didn’t live long enough in order to go through their really courageous beginnings. Still there are people who can pick up the principles and start them anew again, but I wouldn’t call them a new Bauhaus unless they do that. The word which is a trademark doesn’t give you a guarantee for that which you do. And also, to be different because you want to be different is not the point either. So, it all has its point, and of course you can’t get around to it, the learning is inevitable, you have to do it
Hodgson: right [inaudible 00:34:44 to 00:35:11]
Holm: … Dalcroze was a Swiss, French Swiss gentleman who got very much interested, through music, in the arrhythmic quality of musicians and from there on, he began to develop a system whereabout it was really almost impossible not to understand rhythm and to understand it by ways and means of feeling it, that was his point, and in order to sense it rather than to make it an arithmetic problem by adding and detracting and whatnot. It was so that he felt rhythm is within and then it comes out as the pulse, and the pulse is the underlying thing from which really the variations come of stress, of heavy, of light, of shaping it, of ordering it. And then also, to stress the inner dynamics which are underlying any music principle. So, that was really the main thing which was at that time in the- because I started as a musician not as a dancer, and that was natural that I learned it there. And then, from then I felt that, for instance, the requirement to be instrumental physically, in order to do, to make a realisation of rhythm through physical activity precisely to that which was required. I felt there was a handicap that I was not physically enough prepared to do so. So therefore, came the desire to go farther, and there is where the dance came in. And then, of course, when the dance started, naturally that pretraining rhythmically was just a godsend and I’ll ever be thankful I have it, and I wish sometimes when it is too hard, the dancers can’t hold a beat, which is happening quite often, then I send them to the Dalcroze school and as they go ahead and study because it won’t hurt. This is one of these things you have to really be a little bit practical about it because otherwise the struggle is really so much that youngsters want to do, and then there is some unspoken handicap that it doesn’t go but then when you begin to pick these things apart and find out what it is, it’s not so difficult after all
Hodgson: he seems to have released a few dancers, though he was meant to be training musicians. What was the quality of his-?
Holm: well, that was it, that really the dancer also felt the extreme need of being in accordance with the time element. Wigman had Dalcroze training, and I think many others had. I don’t know if they came the same way as I did but we never studied together because Wigman was before me, I was there after. But quite a number- I think Perrottet was also at time with Dalcroze. And Dalcroze was- at the time he was there, he was really quite, shall I say, somebody who assemble the various, most exciting people in the theatre. He brought in a man by the name of Alexander von Salzmann, and he was light-orientated, that means new, entire new, principles of lighting a stage, like Appia, who was then later on quite closely related to the [inaudible 00:39:25] festivals. But his principles are still basic principles in stage design today as they were a long time ago
Hodgson: Dalcroze must have also been a good teacher, did you learn anything about teaching from him?
Holm: yes, yes, he was, he was, also what he did, he was very much interested, mostly to teach children, started at a young age. And I think that is really the great thing. It’s must easier that you start early, you learn it almost by musical plays, and that was really where I once got acquainted with because he came to demonstrate something and children were asked, “and can I have some children,” I was one of them. So, you see how sometimes things are falling in place, you don’t plan on it, it finds you or maybe you find it, I don’t know how it goes but so it is. But it wasn’t an outsider business, it was belonging to the same profession, it was an inside gig
Hodgson: so, when you went to Wigman, what did you carry over and what new did you learn?
Holm: well, how to handle the body in order to become from a mere body, an instrument. The whole- well, the laws or what you call the obedience to that which is required in order to express, in order to bring forth that what you wish or that what is asked for you to do. And yet there was the previous teacher and that was Laban, who taught Wigman again, and then on the basis of Laban’s principles, Wigman developed her own principles and again, out of that, I developed my own principles, but they are all familiar. They are not, I say, “I throw these overboard,” not at all. The times have changed and with the change of time, you are forced to acknowledge this, which doesn’t mean you are throwing something out, nothing is thrown out, but it might have changed, only because the situations have changed. Shall I say, almost generations change, now it’s another principle, thinking next generation. I must say, I was fortunate to go through these beginnings which were troublesome, they were not easy, certainly not. What is easy? That’s another question
Hodgson: yes, who taught you to think most, Dalcroze or Wigman? Or was it there in you anyway?
Holm: well, if you have to solve problems you might also be forced to-
Hodgson: who gave you the most problems to solve?
Holm: well, the presentation of laws and requirements of that movement, if you choose it in relationship to time and space, problems arise. And these problems, which arise out of this combination, that space is not a thing of just going here or there, that is becomes an element which belongs to the entire behaviour in space, that it becomes a dramatic element, I dare say, or a joyful element, or a whatever because it is up to you, as you shape it, as you employ it, and as you use it, so it shall be with you or it shall defeat you if you are not right with it. That I have seen too and experienced too. Our own experiences, which we have, I will say, these were the most wonderful things and they were not prepared, you had to find it out. Now as it is, by having gone through all these things, you hand it out very nicely and the young people take it as a matter of fact. We had to find it, that’s a different thing altogether. So, I wish they wouldn’t have it that easy, and would be forced a little bit in order to discover, and do a little thinking, it won’t hurt
Hodgson: [inaudible 00:44:10 to 00:44:12] one with, answer the questions you were already asking at Dalcroze?
Holm: I didn’t quite get that, what was the question?
Hodgson: did you go to Wigman hoping to find some of the answers to the questions you’d raised with Dalcroze?
Holm: yes, not only answering the questions but also being challenged again to something which was far beyond what I thought it was because almost, if you open one door, you go in and you say, “oh my god there are four more doors to go in,” or ten, or one
Hodgson: what was marvellous about Wigman as a teacher?
Holm: very, well shall I say, very generous, and presenting. That is what I feel is so important, presenting the project, the problem, the dilemma, and see how a student can find its own way how to, not only solve it but get a stance, where they reckoned with it, accepted the fight or get your bearing, and she had the ability to do that, “you find out,” “show me, are you on the right track, are you on the wrong track?” And we could go and have an open- having it out very openly rather than just blindly to accept
Hodgson: and as an artist, was she always seeking new grounds-
Holm: oh yes
Hodgson: - always questioning
Holm: yes, constantly, constantly, constantly. But that’s why it was never static, the development was almost necessary because there were so many new openings which you had to take your stand to, and mostly of dramatic nature
Hodgson: can you tell us a bit about Wigman as a principal of a school, and as a person with whom you worked?
Holm: well it was the sharing which was really very powerful because there was no, “I’m here, you are there,” we all want to do the same thing, we are all interested, somewhat rather, in the same thing, now let’s find out because there were an awful lot of situations which were suggested also solved by us as students which we again could come and bring. “listen we have found that out, how does that fit in? is it useable or shall we discard it?” and with that I mean elements like the whole problem of the vibratory elements in the movement or some others. Also, sometimes some spatial problems which were not all tapped, which became then, extremely urgent in order to do them and, with her help, we advanced them, and she benefitted too. That was the nice part, there was inner growth which was not, “oh I’m the artist,” this kind of a thing. It was really modest
Hodgson: can you describe to us, the climate of that particular time, both in the Wigman school and the attitude towards dance in Germany?
Holm: well, it was the same as it may be here or elsewhere because it was- would you call it a breakthrough? There wasn’t such a thing, it was all what there was known was ballet, and ballet had declined so much that it wasn’t anything to be caught with because it filled other purposes rather than dancing. And then came a woman from America who’s called Isadora Duncan. Well she threw away the corset, she threw away the ballet slipper and she came as she was, and of course with her, almost fanaticism which she brought, she set a little bit the world on fire. And with that, again after that she never developed a dance technique of her own, she was what she was and that was it. Well then it was to the next generation to find out, and there was, in America, there was Ruth St. Denis and Ted Shawn who produced Martha Graham and Doris Humphrey, Charles Weidman, José Limón and so forth, and in Germany it was Laban and Wigman who produced, again, [inaudible 00:49:30 to 49:33]. Now comes the next generation, that’s another problem, it’s now up to us to let the generation not fall in a cliché which is already at work
Hodgson: if Isadora set the world on fire, what did Wigman do?
Holm: when she came there was another fire brand coming because we had terrible things to overcome- oh people were ready to throw little firecrackers and oh it was resentment right and left, to be a dancer was really a degrading business at that time. But if you have something you think is right, you stick up to it and you set it forth and eventually, the world comes around and accepts it, if it has values rather than personally or egotistic values. That is the criteria
Hodgson: so, then you actually undertook this new challenge to move to a totally different continent and totally different background and culture-
Holm: that’s right
Hodgson: - can you tell us a bit about that adventure?
[from 00:50:51 to the end of this tape, Holm is describing her experience in America]
Tape 96 (side two, 30 approx, sound poor)
Female voice: … was based in emotional experience, and that it had its beginnings in the effect on the individual but that when you went to America, the situation that you found was where dance was much more an intellectual business where it was analysed and she goes on to say that the dance at this time in Germany was experience subjectified, and in America it was a comment on experience. Now, is that so, is that how you found it?
Holm: partly because there were- well let’s call it- the immuting time where people [tape skips] … it really has to do, as you mentioned, the technique. The technique of Martha’s- it’s contraction and release, what Doris had was fall and recovery. What the Laban people now- they have- what is it- something- oh help
Hodgson: effort shape?
Holm: effort shape, there you are. There is another little thing which really has an understanding point as kind of a trademark. Of course, that isn’t quite right, but it is that the people go by, they want to hang on to something for dear life, that’s everything, and if I have it, I’m sanctified with it. The danger is part of that [inaudible 00:01:44]. But I think it’s beginning to rattle a bit
Male Voice: and you [inaudible 00:01:52] at that time, something people could, if you like it, take and identify-
Holm: no, no, no
Male Voice: well, would you say [inaudible 00:02:02 to 00:02:03] would you say- you mentioned Martha- Martha was going through an evolution at that stage
Holm: what?
Male Voice: that Martha was going through an evolution, of the way that she’s working
Holm: I don’t know if she does it, but her disciples do
Male Voice: would you say that when you first met her in the states, that she was having to go through what you’d already gone through within Germany-
Holm: no, I don’t think she had anything to do with us because when I came, she already had her own way, was already marked out
Male Voice: no, I don’t mean that she had anything to do with you but to get that way of moving she was having to go through the things that you’d already experienced in your own-
Holm: she already had her- let’s say her marching tune set. Of course, these things are never so narrow minded, there’s always room for more or less, and that it fluctuates, there is no question about it. But still, it is a very strange thing, the artist as such has much more freedom than the follower. It’s the follower who makes these limitations because they don’t have the freedom to vary, because then when they vary, they have this funny sensation that they destroy. Sometimes it would be good if they destroyed a bit for their own development to open again out rather than stay this way, rather than- what you call these things- blinkers
Female Voice: you mentioned that when you were in Germany, the tradition of the classical ballet-
Holm: it was first yes, everywhere as a matter of fact
Female Voice: but in the States, American modern dance companies were established long before ballet was established, it’s the other way around isn’t it
Holm: I doubt that, I really do not know
[from 00:04:17 to 00:19:38, Holm discusses her experiences in America]
Male Voice: looking back, a lot of development in Germany in the twenties and thirties in art and design, the visual field, seemed to be to do with fundamental issues and formal issues, perhaps some issues of function that- certainly not telling stories-
Holm: no, no
Male Voice: - do you have any connections with those people at all? Or-
Holm: oh yes, because they were all the people in the Bauhaus movement for instance, and there were the Dadaists, and there were the existentialists, and then others were experimentalists, they were all the ‘ists’ around there, which tried to find out- and why not- probably they also didn’t get very far, and then they change. But if you are nosy enough, you want to know, go through and do it. How can you say it’s no good if you haven’t tried it out? I’m all for- don’t believe what somebody else tells you, try it out, if you can. And then you are sensitive in order to answer the question properly because you have experienced it. Knowledge is not the thing alone; we have to experience it. That means to live it, and you can’t be a good dancer without living. Life is so intrinsic, and it is so important, couldn’t do without
Male Voice: a lot of people then who were developing new ideas, were extremely young
Holm: not necessarily, I think some people who clearly were more experienced in age have a new idea, oh yes
Hodgson: Laban for instance
Male Voice: I’m thinking of, perhaps earlier than that, at the turn of the century, the time of the Russian Revolution
Holm: yes, well, sometimes the young ones are the fire brands, who have an idea and they go with fire and sword and hit you if you don’t get it. But there are the eldest who are much more stabilised, where the value of that which they have to offer has much more consistency already, rather than a flare up, that’s what I mean. And also, the age has nothing to do with the alertness in relationship to your profession. If you are dedicated, and if you know it, your inspiration is almost overwhelming [inaudible until the end of tape]
Tape 97
Summary of Side One
Discussion of what dance is and Holm’s relationship to dance. Holm learnt about Laban from Wigman. Holm advises young people to have Dalcroze training. Dalcroze taught the student how to feel rhythm internally. They discuss differences between young dancers then and young dancers now. Describes Wigman’s teaching methods and the exercises she used. Youth is often considered to be an important part of a dancer’s identity. Movement is not just about the physical technique but needs the correct emotion and motivation behind it.
Summary of Side Two
There is a difference between people now and people in the war years. They discuss the concepts of ideals and values. They talk about Holm’s work Trend and the inspiration behind it. She explains the structure of the piece and how she went about creating it. Holm talks about being a teacher. Content, shape, form, and structure are discussed.
The Interview
Holm: they ask for that which is obvious, and the obvious is that what you see, and that is again the satisfaction of the ego, and going for so-called mask success, for a mister average. That’s fine, my people like it, we’re good friends and what not, but that is really the final measurement is really a little limping because there is sometimes not honestly connecting with it either, and sometimes an ill will but they say fine because if it would be better they would not like it. Could be in that way too, they are all shades and degrees- you help yourself my dear
Hodgson: would you expect people to be able to answer the question directly, “why do you want to dance?”
Holm: no, they can’t, they don’t, they are quiet, I have to go around about and far away
Hodgson: most of them, I suppose, do take the first answer, “I want technique”
Holm: no, they don’t. They are to do it because it’s obvious. They know I have another thought behind, so they don’t want to-
Hodgson: presumably they have another thought behind it
Holm: they get suspicious of theirs; another thing and they don’t want to put themselves out, whatever it is. But sometimes I get it out because there is a question, which they say, “well, I have to ask a dumb question,” and I say, “ask it nevertheless.” And then something comes out, “yes, but if I do that, and the body doesn’t do it,” and I say, “well, then you go and put light in your body because it’s dark there, and it is not that you couldn’t do it, you can do it but maybe not as much as you would like, maybe you can do a tenth of it but if you do that tenth of it with conviction, and with meaning you have something. But if you take ten times as much empty and hollow, then it’s not worth a penny.” Well then, they begin to get a little bit stumped. They don’t- they still don’t understand what the thing means. Well then, I finally get to- I get them at least thinking about it and accepting that there is another level, and the level is the criteria. It’s not equal, it’s a level which is beyond and also not fathomable with words because I tell them also, whatever we say and name this, put it that way, you have to translate it into your own awareness, not knowledge first of all, become aware of. And that goes, first of all, through the nervous system, which is kind of dulled down and not agitated. I say, what dancing is, it’s not just doing acrobatics, or something which you drill, there is something which is beyond all the physical manipulations, it’s changing that physical, not in the sheer translation as one is one and two is two, maybe it’s x, maybe it’s s or maybe it’s something- the root of something. You might as well talk in numbers or talk in hieroglyphics, it’s just about as good. If that hits the point where it has a little more than just sheer facts of physical fitness. Well, I’m not teaching you health education, you’ll have to go elsewhere
[from this point to 00:06:07, Holm continues this topic]
Hodgson: could you have answered those questions at that age?
Holm: in which way you mean?
Hodgson: could you have told anybody why you wanted to dance?
Holm: at that time?
Hodgson: yes
Holm: no, no, but I wanted, I couldn’t have given you proof and detail that I could, but it was a desire and was almost a- what shall I say- something propelled, it was a drive
Hodgson: but did you want technique, or did you want something more?
Holm: no, I wanted to do what I would like to do so technique was necessary to do it. But technique was means to an end not an ending itself
Hodgson: and you knew that?
Holm: I learned it, I didn’t know it, I learned it. But, the trouble – or let’s say the [inaudible 00:07:04]- but when we started with Wigman in these early years, and Laban was in the background- he was not in the foreground, not active but he was alive there, there was some spirit there. And, well, one became a little bit more- and that is a matter, I think it’s a matter of personality- if you have a feeling of responsibility, and that is something that has nothing to do with a country, it has nothing to do with a profession, it has nothing to do with nothing, that is a thing. You have responsibility even if you wash dishes, you have a responsibility to get them clean. But that is one thing which I think I didn’t have to learn but I think I brought that. I didn’t know where it was getting me- people would ask me, “what are you wanting to do,” and I said, “I don’t know, I go as far as I can,”
Hodgson: so, where did you get your desire to dance from, where did you get your interest from? [inaudible 00:08:25 to 00:08:28]
Holm: no, I think it was a necessity because I started as a musician, as a pianist, and I studied Dalcroze- you know what that is- which is really the analysation and the whole principle of time and space, not mentioned but it is. But time in this moment was the more important and then we were taught what a pulse is
[from 00:09:03 to 00:10:32 Holm again discusses her experience with Dalcroze, which is very similar a previous tape]
Hodgson: so, did you know that Wigman had gone the same way?
Holm: that I don’t know, I would imagine in her own way because I went my own way
Hodgson: you hadn’t heard of her then?
Holm: no, but-
Hodgson: so, what led you to her?
Holm: what we had that was interesting, there wasn’t such a thing as a theory of technique, that came much later
Hodgson: thank goodness
Holm: thank goodness. So, but I must say, there was a lot of bewilderment, and also my fellow dancers [inaudible 00:11:14 to 00:11:17] … can’t help about it, properly it does do it by itself, it wants to know. And when it knows, I think I must have been a worm sometimes, which is boring. You know, when it has eaten so far, it would like to see what is beyond. But that is a thing which I wouldn’t know, and I wouldn’t care to analyse. It’s there, I want to know
Hodgson: so, did you- when you got to Wigman make- you were in Dalcroze- what led you to go to Wigman?
Holm: well, with Wigman- well, because I saw her dance and I thought, “here is something which is releasing that which is desirable,”
Hodgson: did you then know she came from Dalcroze?
Holm: no
Hodgson: [inaudible 00:12:08]
Holm: no, I didn’t. I didn’t know anything about Laban, I didn’t- well, I went very soon- the very first exchange was, “where do you come from [inaudible 00:12:22], I came too now.” But that meant nothing as such because Dalcroze is the same thing, Dalcroze was [inaudible 00:12:32 to 00:12:35] as far as the organisation of thinking concerns, to do what is asked to do. If you are asked to step out the pulse, that means you have to know how to walk
Hodgson: he must have had a lot though because so many people involved- so many top people involved in dance- came via him
Holm: yes, well, I would advise today when young people ask, “where should I send my child,” I said, “let her have Dalcroze training,” let her play with it, and sing the songs, step to it, an analysation of rhythmic pattern. By [inaudible 00:13:21] and by alertness and awareness and stimulate the senses, rather than the mechanics
Hodgson: is it still available?
Holm: one Dalcroze school is here, there is one in London I think, and there is of course Geneva and there’s wherever. There are lots of Dalcroze people, you have to find them. I don’t know how good they are, some of them have turned mechanical just like anything else. We had to learn to handle the piano and to improvise because we were given all the musical pieces of harmony, of relationship, of tonal followings, according to the old principal we had to learn- if you know what it’s called [inaudible 00:14:15] I mean the bass, it was only the bass written with a number on the name, and the number which meant the chord
Hodgson: I see
Holm: which is built on that bass, that is either in reverse one or a straight one or a whatever- inverted one or the what. But that was all written down with numbers so therefore you had to be very fast if you read that you had to feel where the inner voices went and the outer voice went, and that was a helpful training because that meant, logic, it was a logic system, so it was not a happening, it was- you knew when you made a mistake, was a mistake
Hodgson: but it was training your body to feel rather than to count
Holm: well, also that. We were taught, for instance, that when you have a 4/4, you have four pulses, right? Which make a certain time space, which is divided that same time space only three times divided makes another interval in time- to feel that rather than to take the measuring stick and do that, or press a button, no, you had to sense it. That gave you that feeling that time was almost [inaudible 00:15:50 to 00:51:53] a one, two, three or a one, two, three, four or a subdivision, an eighth, or a sixteenth or a whatever the subdivision was. So, you had to press it within a pulse, that means you have to step up your energy in order to get it in. If you have a slow energy from a half division, and had to divide it four times, that wouldn’t work by number. That only works by energy. That was the value, and that is, I wish in this day, dancers would have more. Because for them it’s only stepping out numbers, and they do funny counting. One, two, three [inaudible 00:16:43 to 00:16:46] one two, one two, one two, one two, whatever. When the continuity is not there, a lot of respect for the time element isn’t there. That’s why now, after all these years, what comes very clear to me is that time is a continuum rather than a measurement. And if that continuum is not there then the measurement won’t fit because what you measure is, and subdivide is, the continuum. If it doesn’t go on- but you may hesitate it, alright you might uneven- you don’t have to be even, but the frame is that much not more. If you- whatever you have to do within, how you bring it in with agitation or a prolonging, that’s your problem
Hodgson: now, so, how much of this was Wigman already-
Holm: none of that, no
Hodgson: what did you get from her? What was your whole-
Holm: the dynamics, the really- drive, the desire, the must, you have to do it, and also the logic that if you want to do something, know why you want to do it, make it clear, don’t be wishful thinking. Go to the values, when you really can get the bull by the horn, rather than just play hooky. Well, that’s often done, the movement is more a decoration than a kind of a statement. You have the same in drama too
Hodgson: oh, yes
Holm: naturally, here is another thing where we always get in trouble, and that’s the word because the word is a category too. Now, it’s the way, how you say that word, right? It’s the way how you do that particular movement, it’s not the movement as such, the way how you do it. Either agitated or elongated or nervous or languid or whatever, there is something in between which gives it the meaning of its entirety within the frame of a situation. And yet, also the meaning, for instance, when I would say what we say in German- [inaudible 00:19:40]- Laban probably used quite often, Wigman used quite often- so, in the [inaudible 00:19:51 to 00:19:52] let’s say, measurement, five minutes. In [inaudible 00:19:57 to 00:20:00] in the time- here you say time space, not quite the same. Because if [inaudible 00:20:08] that means the meaning of time and space, is one but here it’s ‘and’ in English, or French, I don’t know how it is in French. I don’t know what space is in French- temps is time but what is space-
Hodgson: so, come back to this hypothetical young dancer, wanting to dance and not knowing why, do you think that dancers today have less awareness than earlier?
Holm: I think the general inspiration from that is glory, admiration, exhibitionism, personal evaluation or-
Hodgson: it seems, particularly today to be prone to narcissism
Holm: ja, very much so
Hodgson: which didn’t seem to be quite the same- again in Europe, in the earlier days
[from 00:21:37 to 00:28:16, the interview isn’t relevant]
Holm: … when you see a dancer, and the dance is really technically as good as you can expect it, but there is nobody home. That means there is a shell moving, and there is no thing where you can hold on- then I am not interested
Hodgson: that’s true of acting and all art
Holm: I bet you
Hodgson: all performing art anyway
Holm: and then I go usually back and try to explain them to you and say, “what are you made of?”, “who is you?”
Hodgson: now, did Dalcroze talk in terms of somebody being home in terms of the piano- no? okay. Wigman?
Holm: no, but she may have said something but not that way
Hodgson: but she was home, she was at home?
Holm: she was at home, she had to because that was why what she was. And I think she didn’t make it clear
Hodgson: what was she teaching you then, what did she give?
Holm: well, we had sequences, we had routines, we learned the knee bends like, a little bit based on the old ballet, five positions, and I made six out of it because, again through the influence of Laban, where you have directions and where you have progression, that for instance, at first- which gets you nowhere but it’s a stand- and when you spread it you are sideward orientated, so you are wide. If you want to continue, either you go this way and do that or if you want to continue you have to go over it, over it, over it. That means there is a forward, backward, but you have to deny that forward backward in order to get the continuation. That is hard for them to say because they go technically and they seesaw forward and back, and I say, “see here, you should go that way,” continue. Well, anyway, eventually they understand that better. And then you have forward. Now when you go forward -parallel forward- that was the hardest thing because they go, and the theory of that is when you are parallel, it’s like the railroad track. These two things don’t go together, only visionary over distance they come together but not literally, right? Now, in order to get them together and to go on a single line, while you have a double track, you have to get what you call in geometry the tangent, which is this. This and this and this and this and the sum total of this what is the end here, is right in the middle, and that’s why we turn out. But we don’t set the turn out, the turn out, the turn out, the turn out. What we set it in front. And the actual transfer goes on that third line. Now, therefore you have to study a little bit of geometry. But it’s logic, but a turn out’s not the foot, that is in the hip because the pelvis and the torso stay centre, and that turn out has to be independent, otherwise it jostles you. Now then, there comes a technique that is demanded- it demands it- that you get independent with these legs so that the rest of the body can fulfil what it sets out to do. Technique becomes logic to the idea rather than technique in itself, that’s the whole thing
Hodgson: now then, how far did Wigman go with that? She presumably was teaching you technique, as you said, a modified classical ballet technique
Holm: yes, but I mean she was not explaining it scientifically or anything, she was only saying that has to be done
Hodgson: which is actually probably behind every training
Holm: yes
Hodgson: I mean how often do you find that’s why, sort of that’s it
Holm: well, you don’t. Because unless you are interested in finding it- as I said I’m a worm, I like to know, I wouldn’t like to do anything- that upset me, the imitation and the following blindly of imitating. I would like to know why because then I don’t have to worry, then I know when I’m wrong, I don’t need her to tell me, I know then why that doesn’t go. How much more complicated it gets when that body turns in space, that’s what the kids don’t understand. That the body really- one circle is one revolution of the person, only one, and that goes all over that space and during that space you’ll have done one revolution of the body. But you are on the periphery of that spatial thing and you have to have a centre. That is what they cannot fathom
Hodgson: what led to Wigman to ask you to stay as a teacher then for her?
Holm: you mean, at her school?
Hodgson: yes
Holm: for this very reason because I could get it out of the students-
Hodgson: did she talk to you about that did you talk to each other about it?
Holm: no, we took it for granted. There was an awful lot of, “you do, and if you do it, I accept it.” No there was no theory or any kind of a hard core there
Hodgson: which is odd when she’d come from so much associated with Laban
Holm: that is why whatever these Laban people are teaching, it’s not quite- goes in my- not. Because, they are repeating whatever Laban has or done, I’m very sure. If I ever had a chance I never talked to Laban, I never met him. If would have, then we would have had discussions-
Hodgson: oh absolutely
Holm: - and discussions where we could see eye to eye. I’m very sure because that man was stuck, that he did not have another practical translation- again, it’s a translation. The word as such doesn’t mean anything unless you translate into your medium. And a word translated, and a bodily medium is quite a different story [inaudible 00:35:46 to 00:35:53]
Hodgson: … and how and why- see, I don’t know I may have said this to you before but I’m amazed at the number of women who seem to have come from Germany, with a kind of strength that you don’t see even today with women’s’ liberation. They seem to be actually more women of consequence, when they were not shouting about it, they were doing it, and nobody said you can’t work with Wigman or Hanya Holm, they said yes [inaudible 00:36:21]
Holm: yes, but isn’t it, to go through the fire, isn’t that you have to go through a fire?
Hodgson: pretty sure. That’s why these kids this afternoon were making interesting performers because they had gone, even at twelve, through a heck of a fire
Holm: but you see also, sometimes I begin I’m thinking rather a little bit risky of thinking, that these youngsters there- alright they came in a dilemma, that means a climax happened, that something was breaking the straw’s neck there- or the whatever you may say, that something was kaput. That maybe, you would say, they had such a bad- we only go to that which is but maybe it wasn’t bad enough. You would say they were deprived of this; they were deprived of that-
Hodgson: they were deprived of a home first of all, it wasn’t something rich in financial terms, it was rich in human terms they lacked
Holm: yeah but you can- but really must not be expressed in dollars and cents
Hodgson: no, but if it’s not- if it doesn’t happen- dollars and cents can’t ever make up for it
Holm: no
[from 00:37:59 to 00:42:57, they discuss teaching habits in dance classes]
Hodgson: take present day youngsters and compare them with the youngsters of Wigman’s classes. Do you think they are poorer in spirit? There must have been a lot of people who went through Wigman’s classes who never made it
Holm: no because unless you drive it home, John, sometimes we have classes where we don’t lift a finger, and we get stuck in the discussions of such principles which we are turning over right here
Hodgson: that’s exciting
Holm: and yes, it’s exciting but at the same time they have a feeling of feeling they didn’t do a thing because the tongue didn’t hang out, and they didn’t get sweaty. And when I then, again, say no talking today right away on the foot and see what you have understood, no delivery, as you wouldn’t have said anything. Then, I think again, maybe it’s not so good to talk it and put the attention to, and set their spirits in motion, that they are a little bit alert and not constantly asleep. So that there is somebody home eventually. At least we should try to attempt it. Well, then again but- it takes time and then comes again a class where they stop and want to and ask questions. I say, “you always can ask, don’t hesitate,” and then they get the courage and I say, “yay, we’re thinking.” Is that, if, when? I say, “fine, let’s go look into it.” Well, it happens. That already is a step farther because they are disturbed already now, from the humdrum and from the blind obedience
Hodgson: that’s quite a breakthrough and an achievement isn’t it
Holm: in a way it is but of course it is a little bit- you’re playing a game in a way because you don’t know how long it takes
Hodgson: that’s true
Holm: it may take a lifetime- took me a lifetime
Hodgson: but that’s- what is amazing about the thing is it could take us all a lifetime but if we can learn from somebody else’s experience and understanding then we can do- it’s still a lifetime but it’s a richer lifetime
Holm: yeah but there is something else which is the general consensus of dancing is youth, don’t forget that. The younger, the better
Hodgson: which is again what didn’t in Laban’s day, I think one of Laban’s contributions was, he didn’t put such an emphasis upon that?
Holm: on what?
Hodgson: youth
Holm: we all didn’t
Hodgson: isn’t the emphasis on youth because of technique?
Holm: no, that’s American I think because immediately when I came to America I had to learn that unless you are eighteen, you are old, and when you are old, you are old, doesn’t matter how much more you learn, you are old
Hodgson: yes, but what is strange is, they must have learnt by now that dancing doesn’t stop when you’re 21
Holm: well, my dear, I think they learnt but still they go by looks and by well, what would you say, innocence? Whatever that is
Hodgson: naivety probably
Holm: naivety, and also playing on the edges where mister something-or-other sits there and wiggles the hands and sees whatever he can touch there. There’s an awful lot of the game going to be played
Hodgson: oh yes, but it is an interesting difference I think with the classical ballet people, who really are anxious to- and seem to me to be so concerned with their technique that they have to have the muscles
Holm: well, I tell you what John, there is something which really is not quite put enough importance on it, youth is your spirit not your physical age. And that is usually- well it’s a general thing to do. Once you are beyond, let’s say 30 years or so, my god, you belong in the old iron. You are beyond, the bloom is gone, true it is
Hodgson: but the richness is there-
Holm: no, but youth is elsewhere but that’s where the people don’t look for
Hodgson: there’s some very old people at 18, old for the wrong reasons, not old in wisdom or understanding but old-
Holm: but not childish
Hodgson: no
Holm: but that means looking ahead rather than looking back and regretting…
[from 00:48:56 to 00:53:19, Holm again discusses her experience with students]
Hodgson: are the Graham people teaching that way?
Holm: I don’t know what they teach, they teach contractions and release
Hodgson: but it’s physical that is
Holm: yes, it was, and I think they have gone beyond it now, I hope so. Because experience sometimes teaches but there’s still a lack of understanding of- would I say empathy?
Now, for instance, these young people who take Miss Graham’s roles, they are inadequate, they do the movement better, better, the movement as such. But there is something not there. It’s the same thing with Wigman, there was that girl Annabelle Gamson, who also did some dances of Isadora Duncan [inaudible 00:54:11] and what not. Yeah, well, it’s the shape and the form what they were taught or were transmitted in one way or the other when pictures or the rights or whatever, descriptions, but the motivation is wrong. The actual source where it comes from is wrong. For instance, the girl was doing a dance- what was the title, forgot it- anyway there was one gesture where Mary goes up and she does that, and the girl did this. I said, “listen my dear, this is emotion which came from here, not the arm with the drooping hand, that’s an entirely”- well, that was what was read from the movie which she saw
Hodgson: and of course, you see the difficulty is, if you 18 you can’t have an emotion- rich emotional thing- or you don’t usually have one, you need to be older to be able to have the fire
Holm: well, first of all, it’s the observation which was wrong. What she saw in the imagery, in the movie, which was for her this, and it wasn’t it was this. So, the whole thing from here, it wasn’t the arm with the droop, it was this which left this behind, and this did it. Now, you see what I mean, you have to be trained but there is such a thing as a difference. There are two kinds of movement. When she makes a movement like that, like dance into death, when she is with her back to the audience, with a deep head backwards and the arms absolutely horizontal, they can’t be this way, can’t be. They have to be horizontal, and that is not on the horizontal because there is- the whole world rests upon these arms, or they whole responsibility rests on these arms, that’s a different story that has nothing to do with this
Hodgson: if the world rests on those arms, it has nothing to do with physical agility, it’s to do with whole expressive responses to it
Holm: well, motifing, the motif is entirely different. What do you express?
Hodgson: well, it’s back to the Laban basic, man moves in order to satisfy a need. If you haven’t thought about your needs, then there’s no point in moving
Holm: but if you have no needs anymore, and it’s just the mechanics there, there’s nobody home
Hodgson: so, what’s the way around, is it just that people are young and will grow into it?
Holm: I don’t think they ever were confronted as such a thing. When I say, “why do you want to dance?” they don’t know. I say, “is it that you when you move that crazy way, that you throw your legs and you throw yourself into space? Are you going to the subway like that, everybody would think you’re nuts, and it’s ridiculous isn’t it? Now, why are you doing it here, unless there is a need of the body,” that is the only way the body can vent or get something out which takes that form and that shape, that has a meaning. And the meaning is not explanatory through words, that already the words are fallen down, you can’t say them. I always bring them this wonderful example which I experienced very early, that was in Berlin, when the Habima came to Berlin, that was 1921/22. You know who the Habima is?
Hodgson: no, never heard of them
Holm: well, there was a small acting company which came out of Poland, and they were, most of them, Jewish. And they played Dybbuk. Now, there was a very beautiful- I don’t think it was on purpose, but it was a necessity from within, just like the [inaudible 00:58:48] where there is a necessity, where it has to be. So, when he gives that schoolmaster the once over and beat him down, I stood up and shouted I couldn’t help it, it was satisfactory. Never mind it was realistic, but it was just right, couldn’t be done otherwise, couldn’t just indicate it. Well, anyway, they were- when the students- the everyday was Hebrew language, regular Hebrew. When they got in the synagogue, and the young students were talking about some- no, it was Yiddish- when they talked about the principle of religion, they talked Hebrew, and when it became more and more into the spiritual situation, they chanted. And when it became ecstatic, they were silent and danced. Because the words didn’t do, the tone didn’t do it, only the silent language- and that was a very subdued dancing, that was not letting the physical do, it was really almost practically so that is was…
Hodgson: that’s marvellous because dance has all that range, it can be the time when words are inadequate and you have to break out, and it can be a marvellous moment of calm
Holm: exactly, well it’s the vibrations. Then I give them another example, I say, “this room here is full of noise, full of sound but we don’t hear it thank god, or we would turn nuts, but it’s there. Now how do we find it because…”
Side Two
Holm: when, by turning, the people got hold of themselves, but they allowed that to happen, by the security of their producing what they did, that it worked. The face will never have any idea how these faces are changing. The face is not pinched, the face is not frightened, and the face gives you immediately the image because the nerves are so fine, and they are so quickly and the shoulders shrug and whatever. There was a carefree thing, but a security and it was illuminated. And then when you ask something out it was marvellous, it was strange, but I mean it was wonderful. I said, “Don’t forget it, try to get it again soon, quick.” Then they lose it again so you have to- sometimes I try to get the situation, build it up again as it was in order to pave the way if I possibly can, sometimes it doesn’t work because they are not willing to follow. But if it is, there is really quite a thankful revelation. And that I think, it’s the ABC of everything, if it’s acting or the dancing or anything what is a bodily externalisation of whatever, silence or with words, whatever, it is incidental
Hodgson: do you find it- in your experience, is there a noticeable difference between people now and say, people between the wars, in terms of attitude
Holm: oh yes, oh yes
Hodgson: what is it?
Holm: people are much more secure in that mechanisation. People are not on the way of, “where is it? May I sense it?” no, they know, it is so, you press the button and there it is
Hodgson: but they’re insecure in other ways, aren’t they? Much more insecure in other ways
Holm: yes, they are, but they depend on the button. And the button doesn’t let them down
Hodgson: well, sometimes it does
Holm: no, because they made the mistake. They press the wrong button or with the wrong energy. The button wouldn’t, I think. Unless somebody made the mistake basically in the button
Hodgson: that’s right, yes
Holm: which is a human being again
Hodgson: so, did the people earlier have learnt to rely on other things I suppose?
Holm: yeah and are sensitive too. Their senses get killed
Hodgson: was there more sensitivity then, than now?
Holm: well, I think- it’s not so much that this was more sensitivity but more alertness to something. We never now- and I don’t know how far you went through the wars, these guys were flying around, and you never knew where it hits, and when it hits, and you may be the next one, you may be lucky
Hodgson: seems to me, again I’d like your denial or confirmation of this, as far as I can see there is more concern that such a holocaust wouldn’t happen again- not that it won’t
Holm: oh, I’m sure because it would be worse, yes it would be worse
Hodgson: but there seems to be more determination that it won’t happen
Holm: it will happen- I hope it doesn’t but if it does happen, it will be much worse
Hodgson: it will be worse in a bigger sense; I mean that was pretty terrible
Holm: it will be total
Hodgson: yes, no one will be able to escape from it
Holm: when you want a little bit, and I got very much interested in these elements there of- what you call atom and what you split it and what you- the neutrinos and what you call this and what you call that. These mysterious things, where we don’t know, because they are not matter, what are they? Who knows? They are elements, what is an element? That has no body, it goes through everything. So, there’s limitlessness and if you deal with this then all of a sudden you try to harness it, this is a power that is just unbelievable
Hodgson: oh yes. And that’s the kind of energy they’re dealing with it seems to me-
Holm: well, they play around with it
Hodgson: yes. With all the big forces, our forces for good or bad and its really up to us to-
Holm: there comes that horrible thing of revenge, of “I’m bigger than you,” or all this immodesty of possession and- I don’t know- ideals don’t exist anymore, isn’t it?
Hodgson: I think ideals do exist, more than ever
Holm: oh, they do but not enough
Hodgson: I don’t know-
Holm: they are rare
Hodgson: I find that they do exist- I think that in a sense the horrifying size of the holocaust to come makes people have, and cling onto, ideals more
Holm: well, I hope they don’t mistake an ideal for, really, a sacrifice
[from 00:06:31 to 00:15:33, they continue this discussion about ideals and values]
Hodgson: … this central idea you had for Trend, you started that- do you think that this is dance?
Holm: no, well, I think dancing so therefore I don’t have to, you know that’s the media, as you probably would go in drama immediately so there would be words necessary, wouldn’t it?
Hodgson: yes, yes, it is
Holm: action, yes, too. But, specific, would it not? And specific in relationship. [inaudible 00:16:13 to 00:16:15] less than that, literal. Very, very- just acceptable but not more
Hodgson: so, how’s it go from that first idea? How did it go from that first idea?
Holm: well, it goes into a sensation of, an awareness of and then it becomes worming, and it says, “why?” and then you find an explanation, [inaudible 00:16:41], yes that’s your personal thinking but that is not the solution because the solution is more complicated because that is too simple. And then, the complications become details, and the details carry you away, you get lost again
Hodgson: so how did you- you got this idea for Trend, which was what?
Holm: which was the unequality of our- where our society swims to- whichever was a division of, either you are spiritual minded, or you’re physical minded or whatever, the one is materialistic and the other is spiritual, whatever. And they are the sins thereof, I can tell you the two layers, I have as a general statement, the mechanisation of man- that means they tried to despiritualising of the thinking of the masses and place them into the frame of the material, acceptable, measurable, prescribed- you know- I mean the easy, digestible thing which everybody maybe has to, partly educational, partly convenience- because once you can blame yourself that you are right to the letter x, y, z, and then you think you are right which doesn’t make it at all but at- still nevertheless there’s a whole level of people who live on that principle and they are the others who deny all the necessity and live on the waves, and float over and pitter patter, and never explore the depths. Well, these two, the bottom and the- the top does not mean the nobility, but it means the level of. Well then, I have to find- there were two general statements as they started with. So, two big group movements. Now then, was a section which was in detail. The first was a solo and was called the [inaudible 00:19:19] that means the vital energy misused, and then the next- I don’t know I may mix them up in succession because I had five different details. The [inaudible 00:19:36], lucre lunacy, the almighty, whatever. Without any- just for the thing of having it like Ralph Nickleby for instance, that’s a typical- you know who I mean with him. The brother of, or the uncle of Nicholas. Well, there is- they go over corpses, and they go through never mind because there is only one thing in the mind, there is no wavering too, and that is brutal. That is one. And then was- there is a fault, alright we have to have, we all have to live of course but it’s not necessary that it’s going to that extreme where it’s not productive, it is self-destructive in a way. And all these various idioms, they were in their own wrong balance, self-destructive, and then from Heaven Limited, was another section, mainly done- carried by a soloist plus a small unit. And the Heaven Limited was the- you know who the Moonies is- well that type. I don’t know who you have in England–
Hodgson: we have the Moonies too
Holm: you have the Moonies too or equally- equals one where everyone [inaudible 00:21:17] or the whatever it is. Or going to all these so-called preachers- and they have masses of people given nothing, only just a mouthful of words and generalities and don’t give them really that thing which would mean that they could use their vitality for putting themselves above the water, no, they are hanging on, and weak and wobbly. Well, that was done, and they were slightly sarcastic and cartoonic in the treatment. So, there was quite some humour in it but not the haha humour either. That was it. And another one- lest we remember- that was at the time where there was nothing but either the alcohol or the dope. Self-destructive escapism. And then there was another one which was typical American- which is all over the world, but it was in America in particular- and that was [inaudible 00:22:35] the great. And that was the adoration of Al Capone and all these guys who kill and- they were made and lifted in a hero. That means that word hero doesn’t exist- not today either. If you have one of these guys who just do train robberies and the what not, they aspire to be and admire- it’s a whole admiration thing around there. Now, just take these main things, there are lots of details but in these mains that reached out a little bit to preachers, now that landed in a big group dance that is called the Cataclysm. So, that means whatever, there is a vital things. There is nothing wrong with the healthy, human being in the way of spiritual, or of material or whatever it is- there’s nothing wrong but don’t let it go and be detrimental. Because detrimental is usually convenience, lack of discipline, a lack of understanding, convenience for- because it’s easier and, “I like it,” one of those things. Well, but that I couldn’t say in the detail, but I could get a lot in the overstatement or the understatement, if I did not lose the main theme, otherwise it lost the proportion. And, after that there was another group number which follows after they all went to hell, one was left. And that one was more or less not a person, but it was an idea, and that idea verified itself by just being, and tried to be right, not hitting no nothing. And, it turned out to be a big lament, and that lament was done also with solo and a smaller group of six or seven but I had a group of about 48 which were- during that whole number they were just closing the stage in, and it became kind of a wall, and it was called, ‘the gates are desolate.’ And it was really a lament- nothing crying, nothing of a kind- it was a distorted lament. But its distortions- not of making [inaudible 00:25:44] but it was tortured. It was suffering and out of that- well, I had to make jumps, I couldn’t go like you go and follow the thread and let it slip over. No, it had to be a slight- no interruptions but it had to come sharp after each other like an image changes. And the next one after the lament- cataclysm, lament, and the next one was- what was this? Oh, the- I used the ionisation music from Varèse that was a new energy with just energy, period. Nothing meaning this, that, or the other. Just a healthy energy, necessary in order to rebuild. Where to? God knows. And then another driving up of the energy- two or more of an assertion. Also, that state in, I would say, abstract movements rather than in literal movements but it mostly was based in energy, and the energy within form, shape and clarity rather than vaguery. So, it was not so much what we did but how we did it, and that was the general outline
Hodgson: so, how did you then take it from there? Did you get the outline before you started any work at all?
Holm: oh, pretty well yeah. I know what I want to do basically
Hodgson: and you like to get the music then?
Holm: at that time, I was lucky enough, there were musicians around, composers around, who made it with me at the same time while I did. They had parallel ideas which went rhythmically, meagrely or richly. And, one section I did myself only with a percussion orchestra. I had students playing the orchestra, so everything was- I used music from Wallingford Riegger, who composed it. Then, I used the music that was composed from Edgar Varèse which was the ionisation and the- oh, what was the other one? I used another one which already was done, well that was the affirmation. So, between- they all knew each other, Varèse was a good friend to Riegger, and then the one who translated it for a small orchestra I had, and that was Varèse little symphony. And they- it was all a unit so there was no, “I have to go to this factory, or that factory.” We could see eye to eye, understood each other. And so, it grew out of their own element into a parallelity
Hodgson: that’s interesting. And then when you got that and you got the music, did you- how much does it change when you’re working with the dancers?
Holm: not none because I almost had the dances before I got the music, at least the rhythmic structure. Then, of course, he also- you have to understand the motif and translate it into his sound feeling rather than making notes and noises. It had to be equivalent, not melody making but it had to be really a little bit more- you would say- on a cosmic basis. And it was melodic, but it was so that it wasn’t so kind of like everyday business, it had another range to it, and this was naturally then the ionisation which I took hook, line and sinker because Varèse is a composer who felt cosmic. He was- you ever met him?
Hodgson: no, I haven’t no
Holm: well, he’s dead but he was a giant of a temperament, he was powerful
Hodgson: so, in [inaudible 00:30:48 to 00:30:53]
Holm: …or if, for instance, well, unfortunately now you have to use so many so-called dancers who are trained under different principles [from 00:31:07 to 00:34:00 Holm talks about being a teacher]
Hodgson: so, in thinking about your new dance, what do you do, do you wait for an idea to arrive or do you think very hard about?
Holm: well, yes I do and then nothing comes and then I let it go, and all of a sudden- I don’t know what- maybe a silly thing like it snows out there, or the wind howls, or somebody rings the bell at the wrong moment or whatever, I don’t know what does it, and all of a sudden, “oh!” and there it should go to, or out of that box should come. Because, the necessities now where you do something that can be quite trivial because if you go- because everything moves so whatever happens we are involved, right? Now the, there’s nothing new and there’s nothing different to be said because they are of a different calibre where they only can be settled [inaudible 00:35:05] you would say not otherwise. Well, then that is not our medium. Well, again then I live to search where it is, where the medium fits. Where it fits the medium, the medium fits it. So, I don’t know yet quite what it will be but what I’m looking for in music is pulses. As long- but not- I can’t use, I have stacks of these so-called drummers who are the professional drummers- course, they should have pulse and rhythm, and yet there is that mechanisation, I can’t use it. It just makes me nervous. But it’s there, the continuation. And then, comes a very primitive guy who is dead- I think about 20 years now I found an old, old record which is out of print and everything- nothing but these kinds of heartbeats and they do, good enough. That’s all one really needs, that it is also musically felt in the same way because rhythm isn’t just rhythm it depends who does it and out of what. Because then, it’s already petrified if you know what I mean, it already has gone into a sterilisation but once it has all the unevenesses and the uncleanliness to it, whatever you may it call it that way, it isn’t so polished, it isn’t so devoid of a little bit amoeba hanging around
Hodgson: all those early rehearsals, then, are you exploring each of the sections or do you do it one at a time?
Holm: I usually, if I possibly can do one after the other because if I feel where it should go because to me something has to have a beginning, a middle, and an end. So, therefore I cannot only go in sections, put the sections together. But the sect- if it has to be treated sectional, then they have to have continuity, even if I separate them
Hodgson: so, you like to get the whole thing rough through in some way?
Holm: I do. At least in my mind I now where I want to begin, I know where I want to end. And that keeps me busy right now because I don’t know. Well, that might be in a very unexpected moment take place, I don’t know but I have to give it a chance. Unless, something happens, boom and it’s there, can happen but I can’t depend on it
Hodgson: that’s very interesting, oh no
Holm: can’t do that. Then comes, well you may call it, reminiscences, which are not backfiring in a way but they only- they sit there and all of a sudden, a little whiff comes. And that little whiff sets the sails in a different direction. Well, so therefore, I do feel one particularly in these young dancers, I try to stimulate their imagination, try to stimulate their almost relaxedness in their relationship to subject matters, whatever they are- danceable or not danceable. Just not go with a harness on it, or with an armour of defence or whatever. Let it hit you and then I think you can defend yourself against it, or make peace, or get in harness yourself
[from 00:39:44 to 00:47:59 holm explains concepts like form, shape, content and structure]
Holm: but you see, the human being is bound to one force, one enormous force, and that’s gravity. So, we can’t fly, we are sure we can’t, but we can fly if we overcome that gravitation by counter-force, that means the force then, we don’t call force anymore but we call the undoing of the- but we also can make it heavier by succumbing to, right? But that means we are not able to really- we are not built that way that we could get our wings which we have but we can’t do anything. So, therefore- but we can do it spiritually, we can make ourselves light, can be done. But we can’t fly but we can be over the earth or we can go slightly, springing the earth but we can come down like a ton of bricks, right? And then that light, feather lightness is destroyed. That is, by creating illusion, by using the total body, rather than the ankle. It’s somewhere rather mostly in the gravitational centre of your body where the change from gravity to lightness lies
Hodgson: so, relate that to form and structure then
Holm: well, that is- that makes- if the purpose is this, don’t use the wrong approach. If something should be on the lightness- the body has to achieve the feat of that which holds us down on earth and has to do the impossible possible
Hodgson: what is the form of a dance? What is the structure of a dance? Are they different?
Holm: now it depends what you mean. A motif like in music, you have a melody and that is the basic thing from where the whole thing spreads out. Fractions thereof will be used, that is the mechanical layout-
Hodgson: and that’s the form is it?
Holm: no, the form is whatever comes out, the beginning to the end, the whole
Hodgson: I see. And what about the structure of it?
Holm: well, there comes that one element that people misuse so much, the feeling of space, the using of space because we are producing in space, through space and with space. We are not just going through the framework but that unfortunately is not understood. Mister average. The average dancer uses the word space constantly and doesn’t know what it means
Hodgson: yes. Why’s that, do you think, is it something to do with our society or-
Holm: because it was never brought to them, and they take for granted. Would you think when you go from here to there that is an action in space? Why should you? But when it’s an element, then- and if you deal with visual things of making statement with that behaviour, you better think a little bit more because otherwise, you are talking- what you call this word? Platitude or something and you want to say something thoughtful, and it comes out in the wrong communication and you say it wrong. So, therefore you shall be misunderstood, right? It’s that sensitive
Hodgson: so, the content of a dance is the idea, would you say?
Holm: why, why you dance
Hodgson: yes, and the shape is the dancer-
Holm: is the form it takes, or shape- it could be form or shape, or form and shape but the form is really the finality, the shape many times, the shape is used or employed if there is the form- thoughts can be this way or they can be that way, can’t they? So, you have to have the playing around in these values in order to get into the corners. Otherwise, you only have this ziggety zaggety
Hodgson: and would the structure of the dance be to do with the overall shaping- the shape is shapes in terms of the dancer making them, and those shapes overall would be the structure?
Holm: I wouldn’t make a separation between shape, form and structure. I think the structure is the whole thing and the structure has form and shape. So, you build. I feel always, to make a dance is a little bit like an architect would do but an architect puts it on paper, it would be the mason who follows the plan, he doesn’t play around. But look at your fences in the country, where the people take the stones as they find them in the field, and put them, and make these wonderful, enclosure, “that’s my piece of land, that’s your piece of land,” and they select them as they fit, and they look for them and find them. And if they don’t fit, they make them fit by not mechanising them like brick, they are uneven, but they make fences. And these fences live, they are not mechanised fences. You know the difference? That is really more or less as our structure goes that it is from- what’s the word? Natural doesn’t fit either. It’s living material which builds- it shouldn’t be mechanised. Now, when it is mechanised, then there is something left out because these stones as you find them, particularly where I saw them in Yorkshire, probably all over England, but there it was predominantly, and really beautiful when you come on a high and you see all of these wonderful constructed things of thoughtful, purposeful order. But not, mechanised order but order from- I would say it goes almost to aesthetics, if you want to be clear. These fences are aesthetic fences, they are not [banging noises] “don’t you come here near,” they say, “please stay away,” you understand what I mean with this? There is a difference, there is- it’s not so much what you’re doing but how you do it. And yet, you defend yourself for loss of ground which you can use and should be serviceable, whatever you use it for, and it’s your right to do that, [inaudible 00:56:41] in order to just make use of it, then he should try to earn his own piece of land, which is fair enough isn’t it? If he doesn’t want to earn it, he cannot just go and dwell on the others
Hodgson: that’s true. You spoke a bit about your training in music as a background, where do you get your visual training from, because you obviously not only think- perhaps you think more visually than all of-
Holm: well, I tell you, the visual comes [inaudible 00:57:22 to 00:57:28] you see pictures, you go to museums, you go to exhibitions-
Hodgson: but isn’t that true also of sound, aren’t you trained to listen or not to listen?
Holm: well, yes but you have to search, it doesn’t just fall in place and if you [inaudible 00:57:45] of course that will be ingrained but if you are really so-
Tape 98
Summary of Side One
It is important for dancers to understand the principles of gravity and momentum. Young students do not understand space. Holm does not like imitators and people making ‘isms’. She learnt the Laban swings from Wigman and worked with Laban’s daughter Juana. Holm explores ideas of composition and space in performance. They discuss the importance of colour and Holm’s experience with My Fair Lady.
Summary of Side Two
Holm describes her experience teaching at Juilliard. They talk about Cunningham and Cage and the relationship between music, dance, and mathematics. Somebody “needs to be home”. Holm describes what she believes is the ideal training for dancers and how she taught her students.
The Interview
Side One (63’ 25”)
Hodgson: for me, it’s a kind of ground realisation, basic-
Holm: and there’s the other word, what is basic?
Hodgson: basic-
Holm: here comes the worm again
Hodgson: yes, it’s fundamental, it’s underlying
Holm: fundamental- now you may say [inaudible 00:00:23 to 00:00:24]
Hodgson: I may even say it’s universal
Holm: it’s right
Hodgson: no, it’s not right, I wouldn’t say that but
Holm: it is right if you are [inaudible 00:00:47]-minded enough. Not right in the general sense of understanding- it can’t be otherwise because it has its own laws and that is, I think, the big neglect that people don’t understand that principles have laws, but we didn’t make them-
Hodgson: it’s like your gravity
Holm: precisely. And also, we try to understand why in God’s earth is that such a little acorn makes such an enormous tree. Look at that power in less than a nutshell. That’s really atomic, isn’t it? You don’t think about it, but it is so. Then also, the human being puts so much bigger, well of course it has- well, it has proven the thinking that thinking can produce so much that we are going to the other planets, that we do [inaudible 00:01:58], the earth, that we go in the water and go and try to conquer the elements which are not our elements [inaudible 00:02:07]… otherwise we would be able to walk with our feet on the ceilings, why not? Like the guys who go out there without gravity, they have trouble to stay down. But there is a law, and there is a law which really turns into a fundamental consideration. Here are the kids, then, “alright I want to leap,” go ahead, leap. Well, if you are up, you come down, right? Now, learn how to come down and then you are alright. But if- you might have enough excitement and drive in order to get up and get that body up in the air but then from then on you let the sack fall and you don’t think- that thing has to come down, and not be hurt. Because when it crashes down, it might break
Hodgson: yes, so, looking at your principles, how many principles do you actually-
Holm: never counted them. I mean, the one principle is to understand gravity, that’s one thing because we have to deal with it. Another one is momentum, where we have to deal with it, right? That released energy which accumulates by- because momentum takes over once it’s active. You run and you run very fast and all of a sudden you stop, and of course you go over again because you have to out- you control that momentum which is forceful of that release of energy. Now, that is a thing we have to cope with and yet, we can cope with by not underdoing the energy but by controlling the roll off of the energy in relationship to the form total. It’s all relative. And then, all these things like for instance, elevation- elevation- there are various principles- vertical, spacious, and when you go spacious you arc because you come, you rise, and you fall, so you go over. Now, that is a principle. That is a fundamental thing to realise, and the mechanism is your body which has to cope with that. If it takes for granted, “I’m up, hooray!” boom- what happened? Accident. Or at least awkward if it isn’t properly continued. People use, in general, the dancers, they use ideals which originally by somebody who did it, for instance, I never saw Nijinsky, but he should have had wonderful elevation [inaudible 00:05:41] who has a good elevation. When he takes his elevation, he’s up there, he [inaudible 00:05:46] after he’s already in the air because he masters- and it’s not fear to come down so he can extend it but as he comes, he comes down like a cat. He carries it out in space or wherever it is in buoyancy, feathering the body. But that has to be felt, you can’t think it too late, goes too fast, goes too quick, and too complicated
Hodgson: and what else would you put besides momentum then?
Holm: well, I think the basic principle- I’ve never thought about how many there are but definitely gravity, momentum, what else could be?
Hodgson: this thing you were talking about- space
Holm: space is- that is a thing that is not understood because you can’t put it in matter
Hodgson: you can’t put gravity or momentum in matter in a sense
Holm: no. time not either. That’s why it is so hard to take but what we are doing, we make our own organisations. We divide time, you see a second, which has a certain agreement. Or we make five seconds, ten seconds, quarter of an hour, and as an hour in subdivisions. We try to measure it
Hodgson: that’s exciting in a way because dance, then, is really existing in all the intangibles
Holm: yes, therefore it’s very important in order to go to the actual- the power of the inner motor. That energy is very important, and I see it in students sometimes, they use movements which are only possible and explanatory if they are forced, motivated. But they use the things without force, without giving. So therefore, the movement as such is not protecting it, if it doesn’t have the fulfilment that- because speed depends on it, impact depends on it, maybe suddenness or prolonged- it’s not only slow, it’s not only tearing things like so long, no, it’s suspense, it’s an entirely different understanding
Hodgson: why do you think then, young people today don’t really understand space?
Holm: because they never made it clear what it means [inaudible 00:08:57 to 00:09:00] it’s a different level where that whole understanding is, it is a different box you take it from. They only understand physical. That goes so far but then the physical is nothing else but the externalisation of something more. See, it would be equal when you say something, you say it always in the same tone, it makes no difference- it’s hard to do but they do it, they dance that way. There is sometimes not the slightest variation of intensity, of growing of energies in a more condensed form or a more released form because they don’t know what that time element is. I tried to make them very clear, I say time is nothing but endurance, it is a continuum, it is a- there is another word and I cannot think of it- everness. Think about it and that’s very difficult. You have to go in another level to understand that, you can’t understand it with muscle power
Hodgson: yes, but also how society avoids space, we’re afraid of it aren’t we?
Holm: no, but you can’t avoid it because you are in it
Hodgson: yes, but we do tend to want to cling to the sides of rooms rather than take centre, if there’s a large space we will tend to avoid the middle of it- is that human or-
Holm: no, we do, we do almost involuntary, that you avoid certain things, why, I do not know. If you have, let’s say if you have your stage here, the stage is a rectangle, somebody is here, that’s a hot spot because you are equal- not equal there, there or there. The length is different but there is limitation. And that limitation makes you riveted, and then when you go, to get out of here needs to- energy. I- very rarely that I start something dead centre, unless for a certain reason. That means there is the energy necessary in order to get out. Or I rather start this way, that way, or wherever-
Hodgson: off-centre?
Holm: off-centre. If from the off-centre point, it has to be chosen. Now, if my object lies here, I will not go here, I will go longer here, if I need that longer time in order to do what I have to do to state. So therefore, the selection of this point- also I am shorter here, there. Now, I may even lengthen that which gives me more of tension in that because space to me is also tension
Hodgson: tension between the former-
Holm: between the imaginary and the reality. The reality is here, I am. Here’s nothing, there’s a frame- we made it, that’s the picture frame, that’s the thing I want to see within that frame. Now, I have to compose it in there. That’s eye consciousness because the eyes see something and focuses to and also has perspective and has evaluation. There is a difference of that amount of space in relationship to that amount of space, and that amount of space is measurable by the framework I give it. That’s manmade. If I can be so that I disregard that, I project from here to New Jersey. If I disregard it but I do have to disregard it, then I can’t be handicapped by that, that’s another frame of mind, of emotions, or what is it?
Hodgson: it’s your kind of frame of reference in a way
Holm: yeah but that has to do with space. It’s going through the walls. I can look way out here to Central Park, it’s not there, I can’t see it but I know where it is-
Hodgson: you can link with it
Holm: yes, I can
Hodgson: and that’s very important for the dancer, or any performing artist
Holm: for instance, I can walk in Colorado Springs, in the main street right now, and the mountain is quite there, I could touch. That is the matter of disregarding the one and transposing like by wavelength. That’s the only thing I can say that there is such a thing
Hodgson: but young people have an even more fundamental problem of feeling confident within the space-
Holm: oh yes. I try also to make it clear, when you have to have a balance point in dancing, let’s say you are on the tippy of your toe and you have a small surface to stand on, and that whole weight of your body, let it be 125, 130 pounds, they have to be taken care of on that tiny, little space there, it’s not even the foot length, it’s just the little bit, and there’s enough power to do it if you know how to lift your body that you don’t have dead weight on it, otherwise the pressure on this knuckle is painful. Now, you can lift so that there is natural pressure but acceptable pressure. Now then, if that is so, and you can do this kind of holding position in that exposed arrangement in the body on a frame, that can be done because the surrounding and the reference gives you limitations, do on top of Pikes Peak and you have a problem. Or somewhere rather in the open, you have great trouble, you shouldn’t. There is again another explanation possible of achieving this thing of- there is a trust because the balance lies in your body not in the reference. And yet, if I put myself in that square, the reference is important because the onlooker takes the whole thing within a frame, or limited exposed area, like for instance, the Nickleby’s they don’t have a frame, the whole theatre is-
Hodgson: outside the frame yes. But yet, there is a shape to it
Holm: there is a concentration point to it. The main action takes place here, and then it reaches out in very- well, maybe unimportant actions, seemingly. Like they go up and they run around the balcony and come around out there and sit on the side, and there is a bit of scaffold here and there. But that is very ingeniously used because it’s there, not making a point out of it, not seeing how you can do that, it is a necessity that what doesn’t go to that moment there, that happens outside but it happens. And then, it’s only transient, it’s not permanent, it only goes- it’s fleeting but you remember it. And it is part of the whole which is the wonderful thing that they do, that they don’t say, “I stick my tongue out, look at it,” no, it came out so fast that you see it was there, if you missed it that’s your-
Hodgson: yes, and I think that business of using the theatre as a means of bringing attention back to it and actually drawing everybody into it rather than dispersing it
Holm: and yet it makes you feel like you are part of it, but I hate to see the imitators come now, coming up
Hodgson: you think there will be?
Holm: oh, you can be sure. Oh, I would guarantee you, guarantee you
Hodgson: [inaudible 00:19:24 to 00:19:26]
Holm: the imitator is the grave digger of every good idea because an idea as such has a motivation [inaudible 00:19:43 to 00:19:46] there’s always a purpose and the purpose is in balance, it’s not the fact that they go around when they go, how they go, why they go, all that. There was one in pursuit of the other, and here was the mezzanine and here were the people sitting, there were maybe not more than from that desk to here, where there was a little place but [inaudible 00:20:15 to 00:20:16] and the guy came forward, turns around and kicks the other one, and the other one falls back but holds on to the railing, didn’t fall in the spectators but still it was done so fast, he recovered so fast and off he went again but that whole thing was focused on the stage- enough! And of course, the people down sitting in the orchestra didn’t see it, tough, but it doesn’t matter, there were things happening down in the orchestra we wouldn’t see sitting in the mezzanine. But all these things, these so-called supplementary- then they make an ism out of it and they become the imitators and it becomes a thing and then it’s all distracting and stiff, awkward, and then it becomes purpose, all that
Hodgson: so, when you were training as a musician, were you actually looking as keenly as you now do?
Holm: no, oh no
Hodgson: when did you start?
Holm: when I was forced to clear it up because after a while, I started with Wigman and all of us in the company, we were told what to do, and the principles were taught the swings of the Laban- swings this way, you go here and that swing is here and that one is here and that one is there- well, these were places but there was no reason, and I had to figure it out and I said, “I wonder,” and then- who gave me that, these things and put it together- Laban, his daughter, Juana. Juana had it and she built it up and I had my studio on the corner of 11th Street here
Hodgson: did you work with Juana?
Holm: yes, and she gave me that thing, she lent it to me, we made that-
Hodgson: oh yes
Holm: and I put the people in the icosahedron, say from there to there but then I began thinking, “what is that icosahedron?” I studied geometry, I learnt a lot of things, and I learnt that these whole things which is the icosahedron is really dimensional justified, rather than point wise. So, it could be squared, could be peripheral, depends how I go from point to point, but you have to figure that out yourself. There are certain things the body as such cannot do it according to because the body is located in front and back, your back is not your front
Hodgson: these are things that probably Juana didn’t comprehend or-
Holm: no, none of this, also not the people now so, that’s why I stay away, I don’t want to be involved, they ask, “wouldn’t you,” I say, “no, I don’t,” I don’t want to open a kettle of fish because that is too much, it would- and I’m sure Laban had it inate, but in order to explain it to them, and these people they are so kind now, following a certain pattern without understanding, that is the trouble why it doesn’t go any farther
Hodgson: and Laban was possibly saying think about it, relate it, make it mean something to you, he didn’t want it stuck into a-
Holm: no, he didn’t want to do that, but he wanted more or less to be the inspiration of something to think about and find it out, but you have to find it out and then you make your own translations. The one thing I try to make the people very clear, I say this dance period or whatever it is, is a language, and if you don’t understand it that’s just too bad but make your own translation. The word is not dancing, dancing is something else, understand that and then you can translate to your personality, to your habits, or to your acquired doings, whatever, and you might say that you would find out that your habits are in the way, change them, shed them, open up, don’t follow convenience. There the word looks different and I think also, the opportunity becomes so many that you have trouble now in order to get your way around it, that maze, there is a maze
Hodgson: if the- again Laban I think was keen on principles and that’s where people get lost because principles are things that are so basic and fundamental, and you can take them-
Holm: did he ever classify the principles? Did he name them?
Hodgson: no, he was, I think anxious to discover them and as he was discovering them, he would maintain that you use them as they are appropriate- that’s what a principle was for him, it was something you- was a basic idea
Holm: [inaudible 00:26:16]
Hodgson: yes
Holm: but that’s where the misunderstanding comes in
Hodgson: I think the principles he was exploring were the interrelationship between space, time, and quality
Holm: yes, space as such but he should have also come to the point that space is something we don’t see, we don’t- it’s not matter. I always say space is not a thing, but it is not nothing
Hodgson: it’s like time, quality is like time
Holm: exactly the same thing
Hodgson: it’s very fascinating now though really
Holm: it’s really- you come nearer when you label them under one- in German you say [inaudible 00:27:14] and that is continuum. It has no beginning, it has no end, but it is
Hodgson: you know you said you looked at geometry was one of the things you looked at in terms of your visual- did you look at composition, when did you start thinking about composition?
Holm: it’s very funny, it comes before the [inaudible 00:27:40]
Hodgson: you talk now in such graphic metaphors and similes, and I wondered where, if it’s just grown out of your need or-
Holm: for me, a diagonal has significance and I use it only when it fulfils that need, what I need it for within the framework of the visual space I have. Or I use circular motion, that means peripheral motion in relationship to a centre somewhere or other. Or I use an elevation that needs a platform, either steps, which is another thing than a ramp. It has to do with space, it has to do with urgency, it has to do with energy. For instance, I get a much smoother procedure to go up a ramp than I have to go upstairs because that is doing this, unless you really pull your body so together that you can take that rise that is smooth, can be done but that requires a particular control. Now, there lies an awful lot of consideration because there lies almost the crux of the texture of that what you do, it’s not what you do but how you do it. And immediately you get involved in time, and energy without any doubt
Hodgson: what about when you’re thinking about composing shapes, do you see those before you start to dance, or do you see them while you are there?
Holm: I feel them while it goes along. If I have one, for instance, the group tightening together, I feel that like- what you say you have a surface has a little oil, and you put water and it all of a sudden the water runs to one- or quicksilver, have you ever-
Hodgson: yes
Holm: and it goes in tiny little things all over then it comes, is one again, that I sometimes feel very urgent that this happens in relationship of motion and space in forms and shapes. Because then these shapes are really, not so much bound to the individual dancer but bound to motion. I don’t say movement, motion
Hodgson: and motion for you is sort of a-
Holm: it’s the general thing of almost- like for instance when you stand on the ocean, when you see a wave, there is movement coming on but when there isn’t, there is motion. Motion is almost again a continuum. When movement already has an aim, or it has a purpose, or it has a device. Well, it’s really very- it’s so positive and negative, you don’t know where to hang on sometimes because you can contradict yourself in no time flat, when you will say, “well, I said the opposite and now it turns out to be that it isn’t so,” yet, it’s relative
Hodgson: because, I think that’s the other important principle that of paradox, for everything there is an equal and opposite, truthful opposite. So, you’re not actually contradicting yourself, you’re actually-
Holm: but you mustn’t stand on two sides. You have to know how to balance
Hodgson: no, but an awareness of the other side is important
Holm: that is, sometimes you have to make a decision, that is hard because that is also another thing I find in the youngsters, decision making is not their forte. They go by that which is already, well let’s say tried and proven in some form by somebody under some circumstances. They take it hook, line and sinker, and say that is what I mean, that is what it should be, but it is not theirs
Hodgson: but isn’t that why they dance because they don’t want to make decisions?
Holm: that’s a fact. Because they don’t feel it, it doesn’t go beyond the skin because there is more to it, there is an experience to it and it doesn’t become an experience, it becomes only externalised knowledge. They know it, they know too much and they feel and sense nothing
Hodgson: which is the opposite of being a dancer really isn’t it?
Holm: anything, any artist, makes no difference if you deal in colours, frame or if you are a sculptor, or if you are an actor, makes no difference, it’s all the same basically, principally, only the subject matter changes. Well, to a certain degree, a choreographer and a dancer is a painter too, if you consider paint not red, blue, green, white and black or whatever, then colour is another medium of intensity, of tension, of decision, of- I give the kids an assignment over the holidays to make me just about, maybe 30 second long statement on a colour. What is red for you? Show me in motion. Don’t describe it, I know it, and I don’t know Mr Average’s importance decision. Do not copy, what is your red? It’s different for everybody, maybe it’s only pink. So, let’s try to find out, I don’t know if they can do it but they are willing to do it so let’s see
Hodgson: so, where does your feeling for colour come from then?
Holm: colour? Well, I feel colours in [inaudible 00:35:15 to 00:35:20] … it’s an extra to it, I feel them, I don’t see them, I feel them, or hear them
Hodgson: so, when you’re discussing with a designer about costume-
Holm: well, I say it would go within the shade of, it would be in that palette. Now, pick your own degrees if you wish but I don’t feel it belongs in the red palette. That is in general, I give advice if I can
Hodgson: when you were talking about My Fair Lady [from 00:35:59 to 00:40:18, Holm talks about My Fair Lady]
Hodgson: what’s interesting is, there’s you working from what seems like a nice contrast to the previous way you- before you were talking about working from what is essentially an abstract response to society around you, and building that in your dance, and here you’re talking about working from very concrete things in society around you, and both ways are important for the artist I suppose
Holm: oh, very much so, particularly if you are story-wise bound to somewhere, you have to
Hodgson: yes. It doesn’t limit you in a way- it does limit you but it’s an interesting kind of limitation I suppose
Holm: no, it’s a limitation but you mustn’t be literal. There is always something, in any society, the sum total of what comes out to us is- what comes to us is really characteristic, and yet, what is characteristic? It’s important. If you strike not what the one or the other in particular, which is a personal thing, then you get lost, but you have to try and peel out what is the characteristic of this rather than this only. Then it becomes personal, then it becomes obnoxious because you take sides. But when it is characteristic- and that is quite a different trait- then you really hit much more to the understanding of Mr look this way and Mr look this way because they all find something. Like for instance, in Trend, when I had the lament, they were not crying but it really gave everybody the willies-
Hodgson: they felt they were- it was something abstract, promised, something related to it
Holm: you have to see what’s [inaudible 00:42:30]. It’s not literal, it’s the impossible things. Sometimes I have to do something that is opposed to that which Mr normal [inaudible 00:42:50 to 00:42:54]. And all of a sudden it hits. That is-
Hodgson: so, in Lady you were drawing very much from a different form of inspiration
Holm: I went before I did Lady, I went to London, I lived in a tiny hotel- what was it called? A beautiful, miniature hotel right in the back of the palace- there was neither a dining room or anything, you could get bed and breakfast and that was it, then I was out all day long, walking in London. So, that’s how I discovered the buskers, because they were prohibited, they couldn’t, they were not allowed to, so I was going up- I was walking on Piccadilly
[ from 00:43:56 to 00:48:46, Holm discusses how places like London inspired My Fair Lady]
Hodgson: how does that relate to Trend then, because Trend seemed to be working from the opposite viewpoint, you’re not actually worried about costume or-
Holm: well, in Trend no, the costumes were neglectful, they were just unbleached muslin. It’s all that we used and that was cheap as it could be
Hodgson: so, you were actually working without limitations there in a sense? Except the limitations of the artist
Holm: where, Trend?
Hodgson: yes
Holm: well, the limitation was purely with the dancers, of their identification. I pick the principals for these five extra little vignettes in there out of my own company which were trained really thoroughly. They were very capable, but I had them six days a week from morning to-
[from 00:49:51 to 01:00:20, Holm talks about her new work as well as her work with John Latouche on the Ballet Ballads]
Holm:… my own stuff, ’37 I did Trend, every year did another- there was, not competition but there was a curiosity that every year Graham did something, Humphrey did something, I did something, and the world was waiting, what is she doing this year? And it was nice, because it was- well, not quite friendly- but it was a thing of stimulation in order to go and do something in your own, what you want to contribute to, or what you had to do, if it fit on what is accepted or not, and you have- the people took sides, and the people did preferences. So, that was no concern but then it became- oh, then I got an invitation to work with Marc Blitzstein. There was a show which was out of town, it went to Boston, to shake down [inaudible 01:01:33], and it was called Reuben Reuben, and the story as such was really a personal development of psychology, or heavily psychologically involved with insane asylum, jumping from the bridge- well, it was really quite- or going down to the Italian festival, [inaudible 01:02:12] with processions and God knows what. And, it was so crazy that, at the end of the one act, Eddie Alpert, who played the main part, had to jump in a fireman’s net and he jumped 30 feet down, and I’ll tell you he did but it had to be practised. He had to practise, we had the fireman coming to tell us how to hold the net, not so easy because you can break your arm. And that has to be learnt, he had the courage to jump 30 feet down from the rafters
Hodgson: a net held by human beings
Side Two (50’)
[from start to 00:01:30, Holm talks about teaching at Juilliard]
Hodgson: are big feet good for dancers because generally-
Holm: no, not big but expressive
Hodgson: I see. And Cunningham had those?
Holm: he had; he hasn’t got them anymore but still good, technical feet-
Hodgson: and that’s not expressive?
Holm: no, the detail doesn’t come out. It should be, a dancer’s foot is just like a pair of hands, if it’s properly treated. That’s why we have-
Hodgson: that seems very important to me, but people don’t make enough of that do they?
Holm: no, they are- that means body total. They use feet because, well, they have to carry on nevertheless otherwise they couldn’t go from here to there but they are doing different things- they caress a floor, they stomp a floor, they’re furious on the floor, they scratch the floor, they breeze over it- never considered that there is such a thing, feet as a means of necessity, rather than a means of expression and a kind of luxury
Hodgson: who in history were particularly expressive?
Holm: [inaudible 00:02:58]. He had bad- he had very capable feet, that was natural to him, very beautiful but they are not as outstanding [inaudible 00:03:12]
Hodgson: no, so, when he came to you and you worked with him a bit, what happened?
Holm: well then, he came also to Graham- well, they are what we call young people who are dance shoppers. I warned them too, and I take them and speak it out, I say, “listen, you are here, you might not like [inaudible 00:03:33], you might be disappointed because you wanted sequences and you don’t get this, but I warned you if you want that go elsewhere, and do it soon, don’t waste your time, don’t waste your money, go there wherever. If so, have patience because I require time,” and it takes time because you have to think, rethink, and rethink, and you have to wait. Sometimes it comes, sometimes it doesn’t come, and sometimes you can further it, and sometimes you can’t- it’s up to you. So, therefore you need time in order to get over the hurdles. Well, we talk, straight out and I say that if you can’t take it, get going elsewhere [inaudible 00:04:27], you’re free to go, nobody holds you and nobody claims to have the stone of the sage, nobody says that it’s set in stone and you can find everything, who would be that stupid? But that is a principle, and the principle is a principle, what you do with it, that’s your business. If you can’t hold it, [inaudible 00:04:54] but that doesn’t mean that the principle is wrong. So, I must say it, they all pretty well stink because they get too nosy
Hodgson: yes. How did you find him then?
Holm: pardon? Who him? Cunningham?
Hodgson: yes
Holm: well, he was side-tracked, there were- I think some personal things came in, Cage is a strange guy, I worked with him long time ago. Cage has become-
Hodgson: I interviewed him
Holm: what did you think about him?
Hodgson: very strange and-
Holm: well, that’s beside the point. He’s strange but explainable, how do you explain him?
Hodgson: I didn’t find that he was easy to explain because he seemed a kind of [inaudible 00:05:56 to 00:06:02] … see him playing a kind of game
Holm: I know what you mean, he plays games, that’s what I criticise, that for him it’s all a game, it’s all a chance, that’s what Cunningham was doing
Hodgson: hit and miss yes. And most of the time they seemed to be miss
[inaudible 00:06:29 to 00:06:37]
Holm: … but that is the misunderstanding of improvisation. They think improvisation is hither and miss it isn’t so. I tell them the most outstanding or the most highest was Commedia dell’Arte because there was nothing written, understand and the word was chosen according to an idea, a character and inspiration. But the inspiration wasn’t hither and miss, inspiration was provoked, guided, selected. Also, you had your character Pantalone, you had your various characters who were- that was all selected, that was not hither and miss. You had to have wit, you had to have presence of mind, you had to be with it
Hodgson: and you had to be well rehearsed
Holm: well, capable. They were not rehearsing this way so much as they were rehearsing to be able to hold on the pulse, whatever happens because you don’t know what the other guy tells you. They might have a whip, and really gives you the willies, find yourself out and your character, marvellous, and be better
Hodgson: and so, what did you make of Cage then?
Holm: well, also, he misunderstood the word improvisation. For him it’s chance. They became friends- he and Merce- you know what I mean friends, more than. Cunningham was willing to, and Cage was the dominating factor, he ruled the roost and Cunningham followed and took it over. I don’t know if they’re still friends, probably they’re meeting and working together but I don’t think they are that close anymore
Hodgson: I think that may account for something- I think they’re not friends and they’ve chosen now to work on the same pieces, but they’ve chosen to work separately. And [inaudible 00:10:08] seems to me to be ludicrous but you get this kind of situation whereby Cage does a piece and Cunningham and they put them together- or they don’t put them together they put them side by side, nothing happens
Holm: can’t work
Hodgson: almost seems like a pointless experiment because what’s the value of it? They might actually interact, but they might not. You can do that with anything, it doesn’t have to be specially written
Holm: [inaudible 00:10:50 to 00:10:53] … I call it misunderstood improvisation, and that is licence, that’s not freedom
Hodgson: because freedom requires [inaudible 00:11:10] added to it rather than a free for all. So, did you find it that your response to both of them were similar?
Holm: well, they’re still doing the same thing. Also, now, the fruit of their doing- that means the other generation- teach on that line and it’s less and less. I guess you go and hold on to principles, the fringes become so kind of detached
Hodgson: yes, I think this is one of the problems that they most- I suppose they probably had to sit down and yet they seemed to remain quite influential which is disturbing
Holm: they’re so cocksure in their principles, what they have made up, but they have no respect that principles in this way can only be principles if they adhere to something bigger than their personality or the ego. It’s becoming ego trips. Of course, you know that an ego is necessary, without an ego there’s nothing but when an ego becomes predominant, it takes the overhead and kills everything else like a fungus
[inaudible from 00:13:35 to 00:13:53]
Holm: … in the Laban system is that [inaudible 00:13:56] is shape and-
Hodgson: effort
Holm: effort
Hodgson: people like that kind of-
Holm: they need shingles to hang out
Hodgson: but I think that it’s quite useful, but I think the terrible thing is that becomes a limitation. I think it’s quite nice having some shape and some comprehension and pattern, but I think when that becomes a dominant thing, I think we lose-
Holm: I tell you, it becomes an ism
Hodgson: and now, the sad thing is that even pursuing this idea of composition separate from the sound element as an ism, that’s something that takes place and is worth pursuing, it doesn’t seem to me to have the most to follow through
Holm: that’s the trouble, if you join, or if you see other arts as an extension or as a complimentary thing, you have to have the respect
Hodgson: that’s why I can’t understand Cage and Cunningham, who seem to be people in their own areas who- Cage seemed to be a much more accomplished musician and Cunningham is a dancer, I don’t know maybe-
Holm: Cunningham is a talented guy, no question about it but I should say misled. I always liked him, independent from all these crazy things but I don’t know what to do
Hodgson: have you seen anything recently of his work?
Holm: no, I don’t want to
[inaudible 00:16:39 to 00:16:52]
Hodgson: … and also, it’s got very clear notation
Holm: yes, and also it has history and development that- what you call modern dance is strange word that doesn’t fit, it’s a miserable description because if you call it dance, period, you don’t know what time. Ballet in itself is understood
Hodgson: but music does seem to be more- the number of mathematicians that take to music whereas it’s the painters and the sculptors and the other people who-
Holm: that’s the same thing, what you say, the painters and the sculptors, well, they have to do again with geometry, so is with dance
Hodgson: yes, but the music has to do with arithmetic rather than geometry
Holm: that’s right but you can stretch it. You also can feel that music is round, or music is square, not quite equivalent to but in illusion, whatever you say
Hodgson: but it is fascinating the way it tends to draw people who are more mathematically inclined, I think that’s why you and Wigman didn’t stay within music because there was a spirituality that couldn’t be expressed
Holm: yes, [inaudible 00:19:04]. I’d rather work with absolutely beginners, really absolute, than these half-trained people who know a little bit, think they know it all
Hodgson: when you say that music has a history but so has dance but you don’t mean it the same way do you? Why does dance not have a history?
Holm: because that development of what we call modern dance is young
Hodgson: but is it not odd that dance doesn’t have a history- music has a history but dance is longer and a more ancient-
Holm: oh yes, it is
Hodgson: a charted history
Holm: yes, dance is almost the oldest
Hodgson: it is, I would say the oldest but it’s strange how music has much more of a respectable, charted-
Holm: but it isn’t anymore what it was, that it is the exultation of the matter, now it becomes matter and it loses its character
Hodgson: it’s also that music is safer for society
Holm: miserable
Hodgson: yes, dance is a bit subversive, one doesn’t find that music would be expressive- that is what we were talking about this morning with Trend for instance because it’s so very abstract whereas once you get the human being involved with it, it gets to be worrying and challenging to society
Holm: well, dance has been used for other purposes more than music
Hodgson: yes, but it can be- music- I suppose it’s only Wagner, who’s in opera so he’s in the realms of danger, we thought of him being used in terms of stating a political theory whereas the other areas are more worrying because they can be used in those ways
Holm: so is theatre, drama
Hodgson: oh, drama’s even more dangerous, it’s more explicit
[inaudible 00:21:56 to 00:21:59]
[from 00:21:59 to 00:29:04, they discuss ideas about race and about the past]
Hodgson: … that seems to be something that comes through with your choreography, that you get it from the dancers rather than push it on them
Holm: yes, that’s what I expect. When I don’t get it, I have to push
Hodgson: I think that’s something which is-
Holm: then John, I get it- the delivery of a performance maybe once or twice because then the push wears out. Nothing for permanence. It’s only then that I try but then I have to push hard, I have to push them beyond the limitations, but they don’t know they do it but don’t ask for more than, the most, two performances, won’t last more. Then they fall back and bend your arm for losing
Hodgson: but that is something that I think comes from Laban, it’s a very unusual thing, it’s very unusual for choreographers particularly to ever think of themselves as catalysts, they tend to think of themselves as the artist who puts on a series of [inaudible 00:30:17], puts it on and creates my image rather than-
Holm: no, no. They have to let them deliver, and if they don’t deliver, I’m zonked
Hodgson: that’s what it should be but it’s that combination of-
Holm: but that makes an actor, an actor and the dancer, the dancer, otherwise they are not actors and they are not dancers because they don’t take over. Nobody home. Not as simple as it looks but really- once you understand, it’s obvious
Hodgson: that’s a big principle of Laban
[inaudible 00:31:05 to 00:31:08]
Holm: … think about fall and recovery and I say it’s another selling point
Hodgson: [inaudible 00:31:13]
Holm: now show me a movement which you can do without contracting, and release your contraction, it’s a basic principle of motion. How can you get a swing without adhering to gravity, momentum and recovery and reoccurring? That constant dynamic of energy and time, how can you do it? But it’s compact in these two words, that isn’t it, and also shape and effort, and think how can you be dynamic without shape and without the effort, without the energy? You can’t. By making a shingle out of it and say [inaudible 00:32:02 to 00:32:05] something or other, I say you are crazy. I only judge you that somebody is home, or that you are an empty shell so, answer me that question. [inaudible 00:32:17] They haven’t forgotten it yet; I still get responses to [inaudible 00:32:22 to 00:32:24]. Don’t take word for a word, think about it and do something about it. It’s your business
[inaudible 00:32:33 to 00:32:36]
Holm: … which again is a thing which gives them an experience, some other kind of an absorption, then just repeat what you have said but say it in your own words. Alright that might be a little bit different, if it is acceptable, put it in but then these little people come there and say, “well I choreographed it,” that’s what his observation is which I think is a very right one, that’s what’s happening
Hodgson: yes, so do you always find that- first of all, do you always-
Holm: not always because it depends on the people who participate. Some people, they are so strong-minded that they think it was their work, they’re only part and parcel of the work which was developed for them in order to fit in, do their part and their share
Hodgson: do you always use improvisation for involvement?
Holm: I sometimes do, yes. At least for- not direct blank, already influenced, and that improvising which is- well, I test understanding, if there is a participation possible or if there is immediately cliché coming out of some form which doesn’t fit in. And he says, also quite rightly, the observation, that the people he uses are also in other people’s work. That’s my trouble in Juilliard, that’s why I couldn’t do the [inaudible 00:34:24] repeat here because these people are too influenced- I could do it in Colorado Springs this summer because I had them two weeks steady, at least I could, little superimpose- what can you do in two weeks? That’s nothing
Hodgson: so, would you recommend dancers training then was not given this wide range of-
Holm: no, unless- I wouldn’t mind if I would have a group of people who come out of the same principle. Other people’s approaches are personal evaluation, that’s fine but completely devoid of any principle rather than just that which is the common variety of just motion, commotion, or whatever
Hodgson: it’s interesting though isn’t it because I suppose the idea would be initially to get one style or one approach-
Holm: when it turns into style, then it already has spoken, then it doesn’t vary anymore because the style is the dominant utterance. I don’t know if- well, there might be yes, there might be also a little bit more of an influence of a personality if the personality comes through and the-
Hodgson: so, what’s the ideal training for a dancer?
Holm: basically, in the principles. First of all, there is a body and the body is to move. Now, make it alive. A body as such, is a body, and it moves anyway by the power of survival. Watch the animals, what’s the first thing when a little, a turtle is born they are little- immediately the first walk is to the water, and they do. They don’t have to be carried; they walk themselves. There is an instinct, there is something which belongs to a living principle of their own category and kind. It wouldn’t do it- with alligators, these young alligators, they begin to bite already and are nasty when you come near them, they are not kids anymore
Hodgson: so, how do you train the dancer?
Holm: well, to make them aware of what the obligation of a dancer is, a complete, total human being with all the faculties available, alert and participant in that physical, visible exhibition. As he saw the pattern last night, they’re all physicals. I haven’t found one where I thought there is something where- you see it on the faces, to me a face is very important and I took that over from Mary, she always said, “I don’t look at the movement, I look at the eyes.” And when you see the eye, is the eye- that means there is a window- and if it is weathered, if it’s different then when there is nothing alive, because then that eye is looking but it’s dead. Now, I don’t know, it can be overloaded by one-sidedness I suppose but when it is really so that the things belong together as they do, rather than to be just external
Hodgson: so, a dancer’s training shouldn’t just be physical?
Holm: no, that’s why they have no feet, because they never get there. It stays all with thinking, memory and there is a memory of movement. Well then, the memory of movement is really bridled together with a count 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5, 6, 7, 8, 169, 70 whatever. It depends on that crutch which helps the time element because for them, time is not an endurance, time is a number. If that is trained that way, then there is really the blood left out
Hodgson: when you were running your school, how did you organise the day of full-time students?
Holm: when I started it, when I had my first company where they were there before I performed anything, I worked with them for five years. That means every day, every morning the clock strikes nine, they were there, and we worked from nine to one like clockwork at least
Hodgson: and what sort of things did you work on?
Holm: first we worked on the physical awareness, first of all the physical possibilities, how far can we go? What can we do? How does that feel? Close your eyes and see how it feels, don’t look at it. And then, what could it do? What does it mean to you- if an inner voice said what does it mean to you if a knee is straight? Can you free that leg to do a circular motion? Why can’t it go? Where does it hold it back? Let’s find out. There is a tension here, why is there tension? Because I’m afraid. Now then, can you become familiar that you don’t have to be afraid of because it doesn’t catch you unaware. You are the master of your doing and in order to bring that kind of a bodily awareness at the same time as you get the bodily technique going, then it has immediately another purpose. Then you don’t do it and exclude then- immediately you become critical to yourself. I can only tell the people what I see but if they are critical, they will feel why it doesn’t go, then they will do something about it
Hodgson: then what did you do in the afternoons?
Holm: oh, the afternoons were their own. Unless we had classes in the afternoon which were supplementary like percussion music, pulses, Dalcroze fashion, or they were taught Laban notation which was an additional, or we had assignments and the first [inaudible 00:41:57] of composing and putting it together in relationship with space and evaluation of visual, sometimes even pictorial. They are all approaches, there is so much, and if they had assignments, well, they had to have some time to practise, usually they didn’t have any rooms except hallways and what not which were good enough. You can do a lot in a small space. At least you can bring it to a nucleus where you can spread out if the spaces are there. And this evaluation, your space is created in your body not in the big, open space. That big, open space is the extension of-
Hodgson: so, how long would you keep your focus on bodily awareness?
Holm: immediately it goes into the emotion equality by assigning to a problem. Solve it, make a dance on this, make a dance. What would you do if that is the condition you should have: a dance which brings out happiness, brings out sadness, or brings out ceremonial, or which brings out this, and then you go and study musical forms- aba or ab, ac, ad, the rondo form- or you bring out more than one with a [inaudible 00:43:40] ostinato, and a development roundabout which immediately goes from the musical in the spatial as well as in the continuum
Hodgson: that seems rather crucial that to give them dances which ask them to express something rather than say, “do it on this line or with this technical” –
Holm: but that is the thing that they should find what is the value because otherwise they get nothing but movement. Every movement in a way should be enjoyed for what it’s worth
Hodgson: did you give your dancers tap and these other things or did you leave that? Tap and ballet
Holm: I didn’t have, they brought that. They all had it in colleges. Well, they had a little bit of ballet, also we sometimes refer to ballet as a style rather than a continuation of sequences of motion. But a style which is more valuable than the actual- everybody knows what a rond de jambe is, everybody knows a pas de basque, pas de bourrée, pas de chat is because they are almost patented. That is a thing- you use words which are also patented. I thought this morning when I thought about the postman, I say here you have the word mail but that can make- if you just say mail, could make lots of things. Mail can be the post, can be a man, chainmail- there is a lot of difference, it sounds the same, is written differently. We don’t say for the postman ‘my-ill’. There is a point where you can make an example. So, this is with a gesture. It doesn’t depend only that I decide from here to here. How do I go there? What is the implication, which again is motivated by temperament, by desire, by urgency, by carelessness? When some kind of a shade where either the emotions get involved or where the animal drive is behind, if there is one, or if it isn’t already in the grave
Hodgson: so, that kind of training would continue for five years?
Holm: with these people, more than that. Then comes things like the whole theory like what is a circle, what is a straight line? I would say, last night, many times these people go from here to there with flat, turned in feet of no linear fulfilment, they don’t do that and go on a line, no, they go clock clock. That clock clock as such, one shouldn’t be small-minded about it alright, go so, but it has effects in the behaviour of the rest of the body. These bottoms are sometimes so unintelligent that it was a pity, where you can- pardon the word- have an intelligent bottom. Its belonging to the whole in this way, we don’t make a distinction, that is a worthwhile part of the body, that is not a worthwhile part- that falls short. Here it goes, the continuation, what does the whole thing do. If you see a flower, you like to see a leaf, belongs to it, and it gives the flower another support, gives it more total
Hodgson: that’s right, also gives it a bit of colour, contrast
Holm: gives it contrast, and also gives it focus
Hodgson: when you- what’s the matter with present day training then, is it too fragmented?
Holm: [inaudible 00:48:08] the word which this boy used is really applicable: cloning. And what these people teach, is teach themselves, their specialty, or their ability, or whatever is a little bit of a showmanship’s thing, that they can do like that girl, the backbend, she could almost make a hairpin out of her body because she has that bendable a spine. Okay, but who cares?
Hodgson: it’s not what the essence of it is about
Holm: no, these people do things when they went over this table there, and these men who should be nobody as he said, well, to dance a negative- that means dancing is a positive, visual thing, alright it can be done but it is difficult. At least it has to turn out that it is negative, but these guys were not negative they were boring
Hodgson: I think the problem with that, as well as last night, was that to arrange all these people at the back, you’ve got to have something very powerful at the front-
Holm: in reference. This girl did something that had nothing to do with what was in the back, has even nothing to do with themselves, or in reference to the other three girls because they were sitting there, okay-
Hodgson: doing their own thing
Holm: that’s right, but should they be negative, then they have to express that they are negative, if not be negative because that is not the idea of presentation
Hodgson: I also think there was some bad mistakes of the presentation to put those people in bright blue on the white thing and then to bring a girl in black dancing on black, and expecting her to be more important than they
Holm: they’re external things again, that’s obvious. I would go to the opposite rather than- I fight when we are discussing a colour, I say, “don’t be black and white,” make a decision because these two so-called colours do not exist. It’s either the darkest of any colour, or the lightest of any colour, which we called white or black. If you go in the department store and you have here a sample of a piece of black material, and you want to match it, you have trouble. Either it’s the darkest blue, or the darkest red, or the darkest brown, or the darkest green, there is always a reference. You can’t do and just say black. So, it is with any other colour, I go and want to buy a dark brown, my god that might be greenish-brown, that might be reddish-brown, that might be whatever, greyish-brown. They are all sorts, and may be dark too but still-
Tape 99
Summary of Side One
The senses are an important part of dance training. Holm talks about her family. They discuss the consequences of starting dance training at a young age, especially ballet. The role of the choreographer. In Trend, she used a mixture of well-trained and amateur dancers. She talks about Broadway musicals such as Kiss Me Kate and My Fair Lady. What is a prophet and who are the prophets of dance?
Summary of Side Two
They discuss differences in Wigman and Graham’s personalities and training approaches. The human body is complex and has to be adaptable. They talk about ballet and its use of pantomime, and how only a few ballet dancers have ‘somebody home’. Classical ballet can be seen as restrictive and formulaic. References to the New York performance of Nicholas Nickleby and its use of movement and gesture. Holm describes Wigman’s performance in Berlin for the first time and how it was not received very well. Isadora Duncan allowed artists after her to break away from the structure of ballet. Holm started her training with Dalcroze at a young age. The Bauhaus movement encompassed many styles across different mediums.
Interview Side One (61’)
Holm: … be aware of, that you have feet, and that the feet are capable and able in order to pin that whatever they are on, that means you should feel- Bauhaus had a little of that already of the relationship of, for instance, they make you close your eyes, touch, what is it? Is it a rock, is it flat, is it hairy, is it buoyant, is it repulsive, what is it? Sense it, definitely the senses should be trained, that’s one thing. Then, also the physical which is connected with, and the physical has to become intelligent in relationship to the senses which live within the physical, it’s not extra, then it needs the controlling factor of knowledge
Hodgson: so, skills can only be seen in terms of awareness you say?
Holm: it makes a lot of difference but that’s what the people cannot do
Hodgson: so already, I suppose, emotion is entering into that because if you, if you like, if you don’t like, it’s a-
Holm: yes, but we don’t name it that way. The moment I use that word, emotion, I am sunk
Hodgson: so, at what point do you start tasks and improvisational explorations?
Holm: well, I have to be very careful because people don’t know what improvising is, and they don’t dare because they have never been exposed, they feel naked then, and you know how the resistance goes, particularly you see people who- America has these so- called purists, I think you have them in England too- you’re not allowed to do this, you’re not allowed to do that, of course don’t show yourself naked in front of somebody else, heaven’s sake, so what? So, this is the man’s house, this is the woman’s house, the puritans as they call them here. That puritanism is quite alive. It isn’t exercised anymore because it’s broken away somewhere or other but in certain sections it’s still very pseudo- they don’t believe it but they do it because it’s- what you call, there’s a word, tradition- and that means for some people not more than just a word, it doesn’t mean condition, it is tradition, one does it, one must do it because grandfather did it and he says- even if he’s in the grave he comes out, and he tells you not to do or do
Hodgson: it’s interesting that Germans are always supposed to be the heavy, serious ones and yet-
Holm: it’s a different point, they are not purists, they were just heavy-footed [inaudible 00:03:36 to 00:03:38]
Hodgson: they were certainly more liberal in many ways when you think that- the freedom which came through the dance and so on, came out of that area
Holm: I’m fortunate, I come from a family- we are north Bavarians- means nothing but what is in the family is there a few Huguenots, goes back to that. And then, that, whatever [inaudible 00:04:27 to 00:04:29] for God’s sake, there was an awful lot of this, that, or I don’t know, I couldn’t say but anyway my nearest family were- I also didn’t meet them because they were already dead and that were grandfather and the brothers of the grandfather, I know he had three or four brothers. But he was man- at that time you called him a free thinker, I don’t know what that meant. Anyway, but their one grandfather- one of these brothers he always said, “you will see the fly in the air as they go right with the post from town to town,” where they deliver the people- the coach. So, then they called them the astronaut at that time and he loved it and thought, ‘you will see, it will happen,” doesn’t mean a prediction of anything but he was of that way, that he didn’t call the impossible, impossible. And they were all that way and so was my grandfather, I have pictures of him you will see he looks quite different than people of his time, he didn’t wear a tie but he wore an ascot thing which he- with a loop here and the hair was a little bit wild and shaved, no beard. So, at that time he was already doing what he wanted not what they wanted him to do. My grandmother was the kind who does a little this way, she didn’t look it but she was subordinate so there are elements of hesitancy and element of daring, so you find out eventually, something comes in where- I was quite hesitant, very timid in order to start breaking through so that I can expect now, I would say, the impossible is possible. And I can understand it, it doesn’t frighten. But that’s nothing much but I think it might be helpful not in order to pass on the limitations of things rather than the possibility, what you can get out of- which really is unlimited, but we limit ourselves in order to be communicative. That’s where I get trouble with the word
Hodgson: I think we also limit ourselves because we don’t want to get hurt
Holm: we have to get hurt because what hurts? There you have to make also a little bit of an analysis. What gets hurt is the ego because- there we have to go above it. It’s easier said than done
Hodgson: very hard to do
Holm: oh, it’s very hard to do but I think if one tries it once and see that there is a gain to be gotten from it, one likes to do it again. May not work but you have to take this chance
Hodgson: it’s a hard training but it has to be-
Holm: well, I tell the kids and I say, “listen, if you don’t become human beings, then it isn’t worth living,” there are so many beauties you are just throwing out of the window, into the trash can, and you haven’t even tried it, you haven’t got any courage, little courage, fall flat on their face that’s fine. Get up again, have the strength to do, don’t go around the bush, don’t go around the mountain, go through, or over it, get on the other side but don’t stay there and shiver. It’s crucial but I think it is rough but what can you do, pussy foot them?
Hodgson: no, not at all, that doesn’t help anybody
Holm: it certainly doesn’t, also it doesn’t prepare them because life is rougher than you think it is. I have one boy; he was last summer and the summer before he was in Colorado and he’s up at Juilliard. He is a very tight, straight family, that poor thing has trouble in order to get himself on his own feet. I don’t know he goes again home to the family which lives in I think Connecticut somewhere or other, when he comes back I don’t know if he has been pushed back again where he tries to but he struggles manfully I must say he does, and cannot get out of the shackles
Hodgson: it’s those things that happen to us early on, are the hardest things to get rid of
Holm: well, he’s not the youngest anymore, he’s 22 or 3 even
Hodgson: what age would you want to start training for dance if you- does it not matter?
Holm: start with the training, really starting, they all have started somewhere, something- they started in sports, and they start here, there or elsewhere- well, that’s alright but when it is- if they already have habits, or idiosyncrasies of security in some form without going on the wings in order to learn to fly. To get people of a limb and use their wings, they don’t know they have any. They don’t trust
Hodgson: so really, all forms of training can help or can hinder, and so-
Holm: it depends how your birth is, how your condition is, that there is enough nourishment in your own soil that you can make another thought gain roots. Or, if it is already with- the chemical is so spread that it destroys any root forming tendency, then you are really defeated
Hodgson: but is the body ready to respond to dance?
Holm: usually it is, it is willing. If it is willing, it responds and it has to- again, I come back that the three faculties have together; body, mind and spirit. You need your head, but your head should not be your ruler. You need your head to check, to order, to whatever the head’s job is but it cannot take the whole responsibility. You need the power of your senses, and so I avoid the word emotion. You need your senses, well that says [inaudible 00:13:03] because your feeling, your awareness, I use these words, I let the word emotion out if I possibly can because, it’s immediately wrong translated. And I said you have a sense in your foot, you have awareness in your foot, if I say emotion in your foot immediately it goes into a curlicue. If there are these elemental things that a foot can tread, a foot can caress, a foot can be thin and elegant, a foot can be brutal but that is not the picture, replica, that is something that is elemental. There is a bridge to cross
Hodgson: are the ballet people wrong then in wanting to get people very early so that they can pull muscles and stretch tendons and-
Holm: I make a big difference in the ballet people of- well, that is the learners, the [inaudible 00:14:19], the ones who follow the regimentation, they have to be true to, to bear what they are asked to do, otherwise the formula won’t work. If they are through and they want to extend, if they can that’s very difficult once they have pressed their body in the shape and in a form, it’s very hard to give that form a breathing. Usually these forms then become kind of static. That is almost impossible
Hodgson: when?
Holm: to enlarge on this- once they have settled
Hodgson: and when does that happen?
Holm: that happens when it becomes habit and when it becomes limited in itself, but it is, it’s the end. They don’t think because they can’t. This has to do again with a feeling of the body, once the muscle tendons have learnt these tensions, there is no variety of more or less. It doesn’t play then the [inaudible 00:15:38], it only plays the facts. And when there is a tension it’s this, there is nothing in between
Hodgson: so, in fact it may be doing more harm to start a child early
Holm: if it is taught right then it wouldn’t hurt but it takes then a really quite open-thinking ballet teacher who means that he or she understands ballet, what it is really, the form from somewhere, it’s not a form you lack but it’s a form standing for something. Then, I think the child may understand really then why that it means- that it has been brought to the young person in order to understand early enough before it freezes down and crusts down into tenseness. Then it’s a little too late because then the mechanics are taking over
Hodgson: yes, so that can really be a hindrance if a child has been trained in that way
Holm: definitely and some people have a natural which one can recognise, or it can be killed. But, if it’s kept alive, which is rarely happening but that again depends on the good teacher; that a good teacher knows where to drive and where to guide and how to label it, then it can be saved
Hodgson: what’s the difference between a good teacher and a good choreographer?
Holm: I think a choreographer is more than a teacher in the way of a different nature because to choreograph, that means to make up dances, to drive it to something which has the ultimate statement, not just the instrument to make it worth but then what you do with that the instrument makes more than just what the instrument makes with- that means to reach beyond the statement of- that would be the same thing as you learn a musician, who learns to play the violin. Alright, he can master the instrument but that does not mean a symphony. So, again, when it comes to a choreography, it means the obedience to the why and what for in a much more enlarged sense because then a movement technically done well will not do because then there is a whole string of them and there is a whole gamut of it with the elements of, first of all, projection, second of spatial awareness, then of fulfilment of the human right to do and to use the elements in relationship to the achieved, or achievable, or the wishful finished product. That means it goes beyond a single event, there is a string of events which happen, which again is a thing which has to be understood, has to be realised and fulfilled. That’s where, for instance, generally students usually, they teach- they call them, give me a sequence- well, you can make up sequences following some various movements, you can use. The balletic thing can describe them- pas de basque, pas de bourrée, entrechat, whatever, so they do one step after the other. Could be done but you can be also, “now do that a little bit more agitated, do it a little bit more languid” - they try the texture to take down the different colour and shape. But still, it is not satisfactory because then the actual composition and choreography is not arising, it just means an arrangement done to a certain point without a general scope. That’s where the trouble comes in
Hodgson: then how far does the choreographer have to be somebody who draws out from people, and how far does the choreographer have to be somebody who is relating ideas to-
Holm: if you have well-trained people, if you are capable people who are well-equipped, then it’s a pleasure to draw out. If they are not delivering, can’t draw out anything, you have to superimpose, then you have to tell them what to do, minute, and practically be a teacher all over again just to get that little thing technically fulfilled- that’s not fulfilled from within- then you get the [inaudible 00:21:26]
Hodgson: if the choreographer has got well-trained people, creative people to work with-
Holm: that’s a pleasure
Hodgson: and how far can they- the dance ideas you go with- be modified by creative dancers? Do you want that to happen?
Holm: modified, in what way do you mean?
Hodgson: you go with ideas, take for instance any of the dances you’ve actually choreographed and you go with certain ideas, you’ve worked it out with the music and so on, and you find a dancer has got something different from what you’ve had in mind-
Holm: either, if I’m able, or if that is possible, I might make a change in the idea in order to see what I get. If it is, then change the idea to something entirely different, I have to give up the other idea and do something else
Hodgson: but that might be quite exciting, it might be quite creative and productive
Holm: it might be but that’s up to you if you have-
Hodgson: has that happened to you? Have you found you have dancers who are so creative you’ve wanted to give up ideas and change them?
Holm: no, adjustments I have made, yes, but only as far as the principle idea allows it. When I go before, I have neither fish nor fowl
Hodgson: what would you say was your most creative work in the sense that, you a choreographer worked with creative dancers?
Holm: that was almost Trend, the big thing I did, the dance drama. I had beginners, I didn’t have- I had about six really well-trained dancers, the others they were amateur dancers, but I used them in a way that there was no detail stress on them, it was only masses. Then you can do that because you get the enthusiasm and when you have enthusiasm, you might not have the technical equivalent but you are getting the inspiration, so that at least the simplest thing what they do has a vibration because the dedication is there. They will not have the feeling that they are soloists, they know that there is- the ideal is that not one does it but ten do it and they realise that they are ten helping to that one idea, that has to be brought to them, otherwise that would be fatal
[from 00:24:45 to 00:47:58, they discuss Kiss Me Kate and My Fair Lady, and working on Broadway musicals]
Hodgson: … you were asking a few personal questions
Holm: I want to ask one question, what is a prophet?
Hodgson: a prophet for me, is someone who is looked up to, and who people feel have something special to offer
Holm: well, let’s compare what is [inaudible 00:48:36 to 00:48:41] who were the old prophets?
Hodgson: they were Elijah, and Elisha and Zechariah and all these people who were, I think the hopes of the future, people put their hopes and trust in them
Holm: there is something of a promise, is it?
Hodgson: yes, but I think there are false prophets as well as-
Holm: there is again the thing which plays a role, that’s the ego, notoriety. That’s not a good prophet is it? But a prophet is only a prophet if he has somebody who listens, otherwise- what would you call somebody who is in that way gifted, to see a little bit more than Mr. Average
Hodgson: he’s a prophet
Holm: but if nobody listens, what is he then?
Hodgson: he is still a prophet, crying in the wilderness. That’s true of the old prophets isn’t it?
Holm: would that mean once a prophet, always a prophet? Not quite
Hodgson: no, but I’m wondering, who are the prophets of dance? Who are the false prophets?
Holm: could you call them prophets?
Hodgson: I think the people who I’m calling prophets are the people in whom we might place-
Holm: pioneers? That means pioneering, or doing that means you are breakthrough
Hodgson: or people in whom we are putting our hope for the future of dance
Holm: that means you have no hope at the moment, if you hope for the future
Hodgson: you may say there’s not enough in the present, but you’re hoping for more in the future. Or you’re feeling that there is something in the present but you’re hoping that the future is rosier or more hopeful
Holm: the one word that troubles me- the word that is ‘promise’
[inaudible 00:51:01 to 00:51:05]
Holm: … you have the urge to kindle, or you have the urge to bring something to life which has lost life, for what reason? For the reason of being emasculated, for the reason of being abused, or the reason of being undernourished, or the reason of-
Hodgson: becoming cliched and habited-
Holm: the energy has gone out, it really has died, it has no living sources anymore, it has become undernourished because you have to feed in order to live, otherwise it’s dried up, starved, whatever starved of
Hodgson: but let’s just look round the pleasant, American, hopeful and see if we can find a prophet
Holm: way back there was Ruth St Denis, Isadora Duncan naturally, and then the next is- from America- Ruth St Denis, Ted Shawn. Then the disciples, Martha Graham, Doris Humphrey, Charles Weidman, and then there comes the Bennington years, where I belonged to that. So, that was us few people
Hodgson: so, how many of those people have got something permanent to offer, do you reckon?
Holm: all of them, they are all disciples. Then Doris Humphrey died, Charles Weidman is dead, Martha Graham and I, we still battle but-
Hodgson: but has Martha Graham got something permanent to offer?
Holm: oh yes. Whatever is left over from her and her principles- whatever they were, contraction and release, which of course is not right either because who can do that? That’s silly but it was her own doing that it was down to that, which I don’t know, I’m not a judge. But America wants to have something to take home with them, in the pocket, “I paid for it, so I take it home,” so it takes home contraction and release [inaudible 00:53:57 to 00:53:59]. But it’s born in Europe
Hodgson: she’s made more success of it
Holm: you could buy for 500 dollars- get the right to teach it. I’m not going to sell anything. Refuse to, I won’t
Hodgson: But why do you think she’s made more impact than people like Cunningham or Paul Taylor or-
Holm: just because she’s older. Paul Taylor, Cunningham, they were her group members-
Hodgson: what does that mean?
Holm: - so, therefore that’s another generation
Hodgson: by group member you mean coming out of the Graham-
Holm: company, they both danced in her company. That’s next generation
Hodgson: is there anybody who hasn’t come out of the Graham company who is in the present generation of hopefuls?
Holm: what about Glen Tetley? Came out really ask Tetley where he comes from, he also worked- he was not in a company but he shopped all over so he also started [inaudible 00:55:15] but he will tell you where comes from
Hodgson: where does he come from?
Holm: to me. He started with me when – he will tell you himself. Try to get him if you can reach him, try to get an interview and ask. I met him last year, a year ago in November when we were invited down to the White House and here he was, and he said, “do you know that everything I have came from your time,” and I said alright. He really knows what he’s got naturally and when he’s [inaudible 00:56:05]. Valerie Bettis is another one, she goes her own way. Nikolai goes his own way, Barry Lewis goes his own way. It should be that way
Hodgson: I think it’s interesting, Nikolai is somebody who has gone his own way but he’s taken something with him I think
Holm: oh yes, he did but-
Hodgson: and I think he has something more special to offer than some of the others
Holm: that is true, but he has negated a lot what he should have, for the reason of making an impact, breakthrough something else that goes into theatricality, and I think he’s on the end. Well, he finds [inaudible 00:56:53] and he- you don’t light from here, you light from here now, do you like this way, do you like that way? That’s nothing different, that’s only variety but I think he has to go now, go back
Hodgson: maybe he could rediscover his basics, that would be interesting
Holm: he might, I’m not sure. If stubborn, he won’t
Hodgson: he doesn’t seem to have travelled as an artist, he’s travelled as a technician more
Holm: he can’t because it’s a limited subject. You can only go so far in this otherwise now you have to fly his people. Logic
Hodgson: has he always been a man of ideas, Nikolai
Holm: yes. You know what’s interesting, have you ever asked him his past?
Hodgson: yes
Holm: started as a puppeteer, piano player in the movies- very musical man but born that way, it’s not only learnt it’s intuitive
Hodgson: it was therefore odd that he should want to come to you
Holm: there was the only which were to the sacred, wishfuls enlargement. And he came there because I was Wigman’s representative here, which in a way was almost Wigman’s extension because I easily could cut myself loose from the name of Wigman’s school, not because I wanted, I had to because I was pursued from the left-wingers and Wigman stayed in Germany which means Nazi affiliation which she wasn’t but which was credited to her and held against her. But still, they throw the stones in the window, I was ostracised, all of the Jews pulled out, I had not a single Jew in the classes anymore, of course the classes were empty because there are so many Jewish people here, all happened. Then I wrote Wigman saying, “listen, I have trouble here, can I drop your name?” she says, “by all means do so because I have nothing to do with that what you do and so it’s justified.” So, I said it would help because then I might break up that whole Nazi association which it did. But oh god yes there was an awful lot of hardship
[inaudible 00:59:53 to 00:59:55]
Hodgson: … did you think that Graham- when Graham isn’t in the company any longer that the same spirit will be there. She seems to be the only person who is practising this somebody at home feeling or philosophy, she does that -
Side Two (61’)
Holm: it is fragmented in so far as the manyness of offerings, of- well, if you take all the various egos away, there are kernels of, this is true, that is true- that is also so enwrapped in ego that when these kids get that ego of, somebody makes an ism out of that again because it’s selling quality, and everybody wants to be somebody. We are all nobodies, unless we are knowing maybe, or willing to go a little more where it’s so big that we are becoming so little when we compare ourselves. Therefore, it’s all a matter of relationship again, and all a matter of- you can make out of a mouse an elephant
Hodgson: one of the pities is though, it seems to me there’s no single person at a place like Juilliard to coordinate the training-
Holm: yes, there is a single person, that is Martha Hill who is responsible for-
Hodgson: and does she understand how these various things come together?
Holm: no. she says she does, but she doesn’t. Because there is, I think, so much- call it politics- connected in it that, and there are people on top of her, she is not the top. And she is just invited, it’s really a music school
Hodgson: but does she have a chance to see everybody teaching and see how the students are relating to-
Holm: oh yes, she does that. She herself is also a Martha Graham disciple, so there is that predominance of I would say loyalty, which is alright, it’s perfectly alright but I think we are all human beings and there is development necessary, and like for instance, Jane Dudley who also has the Wigman camp and went for the Graham thing hook, line and sinker. Alright, now she comes and what does she do? She goes right back. Now, of course what has happened in between in being planted by, and fully adapted by something, that is a little bit of a problem there but that’s her business. That she has to- but it’s coming up like for instance, the food you ate yesterday and all of a sudden it comes up again and you think, “oh my god what was that,” that was yesterday’s steak. So, it can happen that these things come up because all of a sudden there is a need for more, which the other one doesn’t give, so one goes and lets the subconscious rise, could be I don’t know what the process is
Hodgson: what’s the basic difference then between Graham and Wigman camp?
Holm: Graham is first of all, such an ego-ridden person, and also, her aim is not the dance and she is not a servant, she is an ego. That means she wants to use the dance for her person. Wigman herself was important because she had to do it but never out shown the actual servant, who was serving the dance. It’s a big difference. And also, Wigman was a demon, she was a demonic-ridden person which had to- and that was not the ego but that was the dance. There lies a lot of difference which Mr. general audience does not forget. Therefore, Wigman is already legend, while Miss Graham is still on the pedestal, particularly in America, I don’t know how it is in Europe. She planted herself and it became commercial, and you’ve seen she likes the life in society, and it has to be Mr. Halston who makes the costumes and all that external thing. And it comes from that- she had to engage Mr. Nureyev to be undressed which that [inaudible 00:04:49], to expose himself without anything much on, which is again an ego going, doing things. The right people in the right thing mix sometimes very nicely
Hodgson: how does the training basically differ?
Holm: she did a little cloning there, which is a thing which is repeated, and I don’t know what Graham’s principles were, I think her principle was do that she probably was to begin- that’s an assumption, I don’t know that, I have no proof of it. That she was a very limber physical element in her body, and in order- people who are so limber they have trouble with the energy, so therefore she built her own thing on contraction, so in order to get these muscles to go, rather than to stretch them out, pull them in. From this pulling them in and releasing it, she built that kind of a- it was used, contraction and release, period, that’s Graham. Then of course, Miss Humphrey who also had to do, she had to find something else, so she made fall and recovery which is swing, and that all goes way back to Wigman and Laban. Listen, movement is movement, and movement is fall and recovery, movement is continuum swing, movement is contraction and release, can you do?
Hodgson: That’s what I was saying, if you take Laban you really have got all the systems there because they’re all contained if you understand the movement principles
Holm: well, can you move otherwise? Show me. That’s where the whole- I wonder if we really would study and would know more about the development, how the human body has developed, some people say it comes from the fish, and then it becomes- out of the fin came the legs and the arms, I don’t know, it’s a keen conclusion, maybe, maybe not, I don’t know. Maybe we were once amphibians, I don’t know but anyway, there it is, and we became upright and of course the next one is the ape, and then from the ape- that is a development thing- why has it developed? Because there was a necessity. There was a necessity by what? Not by willpower because there was no sample, there was an urgency by elements. Call them Adam, call them photons, nitrones, call them whatever you want to, but they are infinitesimal demands which grow into that- we were not so complicated to begin with, that has happened with the mode and form of living as there was a requirement. Maybe there are people on other planets, who are quite different, maybe they have five legs, maybe they have one leg only, maybe they have a head which is like an arm, which can extend like a- you bring it out and in, they have these little things they open up and they shoot out, catapult of some kind, maybe. Maybe we could stretch our head and all of a sudden turtle out our spine and shrivel it in, maybe, so far it doesn’t go, we only can bend it and we can turn it, but also we can stay upright by rising within so that the joints in your spine are not pushing down but they are suspended, could be done. And is done, and is helpful in- it is a whole, almost a premise, you have to if you want to be light. Just take the proof, sit kind of and hang and see how heavy, sit kind of straight up in these dreadful chairs and you are getting lighter, but it strains you because your muscles might not like to do that because they aren’t used to undo. That’s all explainable, isn’t it?
Hodgson: I’ve always felt that really, it’s crazy to have all these systems that just emphasise one aspect of it, when really what we should be doing is getting the whole range of things, so then your body can do anything
Holm: the basic thing- and if you come around to it, finally, it is the same thing that if it is basically right, then you find your mode in order to get to it. But if you take somebody else’s basic thing, and transfer it as an ism, you find that you have trouble
Hodgson: and that’s what really lends to the wars between this camp and that camp really, instead of getting to realise there’s only one thing and that’s movement and the human body-
Holm: and what you do with it. It’s the same thing in the acting as it is in any of the performing arts where the human body is involved. See, even in painting also, you use mostly your [inaudible 00:11:06], when a painter goes and there is something, there is a- we call it German, a spanning- there is a tension there, but not a tension in the contractive way, it’s a suspense there, which is also a tension. But otherwise here tension means pulling it in, now I know but this is also tension, it’s like a rubber but it needs two outside forces to do it. Just use a little common sense- plain, dull common sense
Hodgson: or plain, exciting common sense
Holm: it will be exciting because common sense, if it’s used right, is always exciting because it’s minus the acrobatics of thinking, or construction of thinking, that’s the trouble. So, there lies that business and then there are- another thing which is dangerous are habits. I would say, it’s only- it’s not the word as such, habit is also a good thing, you can have a very good habit but then that habit, which is in a way profitable, is not a static habit, or an unfulfilled habit, it is just a brainless, senseless habit. A mechanical habit
Hodgson: it’s a habit where somebody’s always home
Holm: where nobody is home?
Hodgson: if it’s bad, yes. If it’s a good habit, it’s a habit where somebody is home
Holm: is home
Hodgson: yes, I think that’s important to realise
Holm: it doesn’t matter what you do, if you’re an inventor, or if you are an astronaut, you have to be home, you better, within the frame of the reference to your action because they have to deal physically with something which we don’t, and that is weightlessness, which in a way should affect all their breathing because our breathing again is in reference to the pressure of gravity. When I go to Colorado Springs in the summer, 6000 feet up, it’s a different way of breathing. I’m alright, if I take it easy, I don’t have to puff but if somebody comes and [huffing noises] and they do that, I’d have to be careful with the students and not get them too excited in the first two days and three days, and keep it kind of adjusting, and then the physical is adjusting. It’s very interesting
Hodgson: yes, it’s what they call adaptation, you’ve got to keep-
Holm: yes, it does because a chemistry has to adjust, even a car when you drive out there, you have to go to the station and get your carburettor adjusted because otherwise your car stalls. It’s a simple- and the mechanical even ripples, now how much more would the human? But we are so kind of superior and think we can just do everything as we want to, well, we should be a little bit more careful. And then, it’s alright because the system adjusts, if you let it, if you don’t overrule it and be dictatorial, too stupid. It’s again the good common sense, maybe there’s a better word, I don’t know. Lots of people get shocked by common sense
Hodgson: well, I think that that’s really what Laban’s contribution was, to analyse- like any great man, like Newton watches the apple and discovers gravity, it’s very common sense but it takes somebody with perception to see it
Holm: right, that’s what it is but why don’t people do it more? Because they don’t allow it, because they say they have to put- they follow footsteps, they are cloning all the time. Insecurity. I thought about something else, with Wigman always used, and never used again, she talked about the ‘absolutitans’, did that come across here?
Hodgson: what does that mean? What’s the translation of it?
Holm: they didn’t come across here?
Hodgson: no
Holm: did Laban use it? I think he must have
Hodgson: what does it mean translated?
Holm: absolute, you know what that means. That means the dance per se, rather influenced by drama or anything, that means the- it’s almost the ceremonial dance in a way, if you meant it that way. But it has a higher thing than just a physical exhibition
Hodgson: I never heard it mentioned, certainly it’s the kind of thing that Laban would certainly have talked about-
Holm: I’m very sure because in my beginning of studying within this sphere, the ‘absolutitans’ or applied dance in conjunction to- folk dance is applied to a-
Hodgson: pure dance
Holm: - heavy happening. Either there is a wedding, or there is a funeral. That is applied to- what absolute means-
Hodgson: oh pure, pure and applied yes
Holm: that’s very hard to understand, people cannot understand in the first place. I think that’s why I cut it out and never use it. Because it takes too much to explain and too- it’s too complicated to understand. There were- something we had; it was called the dance drama- scenes out of a dance drama. The one section was called the ‘Wánderung’, the wandering, walking. So, it was based on walking only. It’s very beautiful but very slow, very contained, very strong but you had to be absolute, you must not go into a cliché of any explanatory movement, it was just per se. Then, the other was called ‘the triangle’- that was a form thing because we were 10 people, four, three, two, one-solid. And then in dissolved in solid again. Kind of a geometrical space relationship. Also, there were no movements descriptive, it was just being, just move the space, move in space, through space and shape it. Now, that is not done, wouldn’t be understood here. Then, there was ‘the chaos’, you see pictures of that where there are all the people clustered together and she is in the middle where she sinks and the whole heap buries her. And how it happened, a chaotic, that was really- things getting swallowed up with the masses. So therefore, it was not a dancer could show off its own ego because he was only part of a system or of an idea
Hodgson: so, it was kind of an abstract dance as well?
Holm: you call it abstract? I think that is the equivalence of absolute. It wasn’t abstract, what is abstract?
Hodgson: where there is- the idea is abstracted into a, or refined to a symbolic proportion
Holm: essentials and symbolic proportions- that is understandable but yet there isn’t anything which then is nothing, it is a thing. Same thing when I say space is not nothing, it’s not a thing but it’s not nothing. Which is an abstraction of, yet it isn’t because it’s positive, not a thing is possible, positive. That means it’s the relationship of our comprehension that something has to be dimensional, has to be a body, has to be whatever it is, a thing if you call it, just a thing. But it is not a thing, that arithmetic doesn’t follow clear, it is something else, but what is it? Good question isn’t it
Hodgson: it’s very intriguing to find- I was just thinking, dance certainly is with the intangible, that’s what to some extent drama does as well because those are the things they have in common-
Holm: yes, very much so, that’s why you see the difference between ballet and modern dance. That the modern dance is much more going to the intangible than in the physical execution per se, which the ballet really pursued to the extent, again, originally the lightness which is again the overcoming of gravity, rather than to go, as a trickery on the toes- the toes were invented in order to support the idea, rather than to be a stunt
Hodgson: and ballet also seemed to deal, seems still to deal with, the escapist of-
Holm: it’s the externalisation, that’s where the modern dance is headed for and killed. I see very black in this what’s going to happen. What was a brilliant idea, which really would go- and I think maybe the ones where it’s left over is the drama because what I saw in that Nickleby, how the people move, how they disregard the limitation of a body in relationship to an idea is really very satisfying. You wouldn’t call it dance but it’s a form of it. Also, it’s bridled with another matter there, that means the words, the logic, the whatnot
Hodgson: the difference in the way in which Nickleby tells a story and the way in which the ballet tells a story though is quite significant I think
Holm: there is something the ballet uses is pantomime as if, which is fake. When I see the- the little girl, the famous, what they always use in the ballet, the old ballets- well, the first act is pantomime, the Sylphides, or whatever it is and then it goes in abstractions. That pantomime is so, I would say, so blunt realistic, and badly done as if, without the essence so therefore it’s lacking the deeper study, it’s too easy. They describe rather than they are. And if one or the other happened to break through and are, then it’s a remarkable feat. It happens that one or the other can, I imagine, I don’t know if Pavlova could because I never saw her
Hodgson: seems as if she was an example, I was just going to quote her and say she seems to have done that, she seems to have broken through
Holm: if she did that- I saw her, it was called Autumn Leaves, maybe that doesn’t exist anymore. It was a ballet but that was so half and half. She was really strong, she touched between the lines, rather than-
Hodgson: I was going to say, from accounts and from Laban’s account of Pavlova doing the dying swan, it seemed that she had somebody home, she was really a different swan-
Holm: that’s the difference. Also, Nijinsky, I’m sure that there was somebody home, I never saw him. But maybe that was involuntary
Hodgson: yes, I’m sure it was
Holm: that was not that they planned it that way, but they were god-gifted that it happened. I heard somebody like Chaliapin- did you ever happen to hear him?
Hodgson: no
Holm: that big Russian bass. I only heard him singing [inaudible 00:25:51], unbelievable. You forgot to- you didn’t even want to look at him, you wanted to listen and what came out of that tone was more- there was never emoting or anything of a kind, but it had power, it had tenderness, it had all the register but always just to the point, not an ounce more or less
Hodgson: that’s another important thing isn’t it, that economy, knowing how much to invest the thing
Holm: unless you use there your measurements which is- it’s not the stick, but which is the dynamic amount or mass or- if you go really in abstract forms, what is mass? That is the- sometimes I only can think in German- [inaudible 00:26:51], you know what that is? That means something which is amassing, which becomes more and then which breathes, it’s not in an exhale, it breathes, in itself it expands and contracts, that means you can burn it down or boil it down to technical descriptions but they don’t mean the same thing. When the ocean waves come you say they heave, well they don’t heave, they are masses, which are explaining themselves in their own must, there is no question, nobody stands behind and pushes. That is accumulation
Hodgson: when you get these, the classical ballet, you seem to get artifice rather than art to me
Holm: in general, not necessary, it is not, and I’m to the time of Pavlova and Nijinsky or some others, I think [inaudible 00:28:05] was also quite an exceptional man who came here. They were people who were climaxes within the average of that which has developed, that it is almost everybody’s right to be a ballerina, or a ballet dancer. That it isn’t so because they accept the formula, and all that’s left is a formula. Well, that isn’t so. It shouldn’t be because they should study and find out where the formula comes from
Hodgson: it’s very difficult though, when you’ve got such a restrictive vocabulary like ballet seems to have
Holm: it has a larger vocabulary and I think these original people used a much larger vocabulary, and I think the vocabulary has shrunk within the secure haven of a formula. It’s so much easier if you stick to the- that’s where content and form don’t coincide anymore because the content has lost its urgency to become a form. The content has been removed, and the form has been cut. That’s why nobody’s home. [inaudible 00:29:42], mechanisation, that’s another word for it
Hodgson: but if you have, as the ballet has today, such a tight vocabulary anyway, which is taught in ballet schools- so many positions for the feet- it does seem to be incredibly restrictive
Holm: it is really that cloning principle, to accept something. That people originally went in an attitude- you know that one-legged stand with the arms extended high- in all directions it is really an icosahedron, planal, bases- you can put in the icosahedron and find the points, if they fit, it’s right. But they don’t fit if it’s not done right to begin with, that you feel your spatial extensions. That means the space is awareness, rather than knowledge. It’s the quality of the space which gives you that almost, I would say, four-dimensional behaviour, because what is the fourth dimension? It’s time and space, that’s a dimension. Three-dimensional layers from which, basically, you arrive at all the points there in between. But- that is perfectly alright- but that is basic, and I think where the universe is based on too. You don’t know it but I’m sure it is. It’s so immense that it’s much too much for our little brains. Who can imagine the immensity of eternity which is existing? It is really outside the window. It is, and we don’t know it, don’t realise that there is- and we have it in us to, if we don’t kill it for convenience and crawl in that little mousehole of protection
Hodgson: it can only be realised by indirect means really, can’t it? By a sense of it rather than a competent-
Holm: but who has the senses trained to sense it? Nobody home, so the senses have been dullened or, as you use a knife and you use it, it gets dull, you have to sharpen it. Unless you sharpen your wits, they dullen up just like any knife will do. It’s used up and it’s getting ineffective. Now, don’t throw it away, it’s much too good, sharpen it
Hodgson: and that’s another thing of course, that any artist has got to be constantly taking new resources
Holm: exactly, it’s life. If he lives, life presents it. Don’t shun it. I always tell the kids, if you have a dilemma, and you are absolutely in this moment- let’s go in a personal way, you have a friend and the friend lets you sit, and you are thinking that the world falls down, it won’t
Hodgson: but it’s amazing the way ballet resists going out of its fairy tale, romantic world
Holm: it has been done often enough, and repeated often enough, and we all like a little romantic stuff, don’t we?
Hodgson: I find it, when it gets to be sentimental rather than sentiment-
Holm: well, now wait a minute, when it’s sentimental, it’s already kaput. What happened then, the balance tipped. Now, it shouldn’t be sentimental. That’s why I liked for instance, reading Nickleby, when I go through all this, I read it rather slow. He has that relationship, what is her name, Bray? I miss that scene, was that in, did they have that? Well, I missed it, there was too much going on for one- that’s why I wanted to see it again, but I couldn’t get a ticket. So, when that boy, it was his ideal- he was for the first time in his life, he was inspired. Inspired to really do foolish which he would regret thereafter if he did them. Fate helped him and he met the girl, and when he met her, how these flaming flutters becomes all of a sudden solidified, that’s very interesting and Dickens is a master to describe it. In a way, really as it is, people should read that man more because there’s a lot, particularly psychologists should read it
[from 00:35:08 to 00:36:19, they continue discussing Dickens]
Hodgson: is there any hope for the classical ballet to get out of its-
Holm: sincerity. It’s the only thing what happens-
Hodgson: can you be sincere about say, kings and queens?
Holm: yes, but it has to dig
Hodgson: it’s a very limited canvas though isn’t it?
Holm: you can enlarge that canvas, they do it already
Hodgson: even as it stands, can you take the Nutcracker and make something of it?
Holm: yes, but they do already but what do they do? They take the same canvas, and they put it backward forward, or inward out. Well, that won’t do. The canvas has to change a bit, the weaving has to change a bit. It can be done in principle because if you distract, or extract, from ballet the so-called romantic showmanship, which goes to a certain level of acceptance, then I think there is a lot of meat there
Hodgson: in Nutcracker?
Holm: no, in the treatment of the various- the Nutcracker won’t really give you more, but it’s done on the edges. It’s done- “how do I please Mrs So and so with all her children who want to dance in the Nutcracker?” There might be but it has to be done differently. It cannot be done with the ballet forms as they have arrived after hundreds of years of development. It’s ridiculous, isn’t it? That’s where the whole thing, that you want to do something- well, let us call it modernise- what is in itself an arrived form of centuries, it wasn’t done overnight. That means a lot of spirits have worked on it, even kings have worked on it like Louis XIV and so forth, serving their mode of existing with these courtly rules and things to that plus the French characteristic of formality and whatnot. That you have then to distract a little bit, go down to the basic, where’s ballet coming from? Folk dancing
Hodgson: but a long way from it
Holm: it has- you call it developed- but it has changed, it has been so-called refined, and has been whatever you think that is. It has been lifted to another level of society, which is again something you may have to think about. If it’s upper level, or if it’s just a level
Hodgson: what staggers me is that it can be so solidified, so-
Holm: it’s repeated, it’s sunk in because it was used in every expectation, within the opera, within the- they repeat because it was a sure thing of formality, where you could pawn yourself, it is accepted so we do it because we know Mr Average takes it
Hodgson: and we could know what was expected of us and-
Holm: exactly, and everybody feels intelligent because they know they understand, of course. That’s where we had trouble when Wigman came, and I never forget our first excursions in order to dance outside of our own [inaudible 00:40:34] limit
Hodgson: tell me
Holm: it was- we went to Berlin, that was 1923, for the first time, where we went- we had no theatre, period. That wasn’t - this kind of dancing was looked on, spat at, so we had to go in the concert hall - where were we? Beethovensaal, or some kind of a concert hall, with a podium and with lamps, which are the arc lamps. So, we had two arcs, that was all, one from here and one from here and we were in so, what can you do? There’s only light and shadow, there’s nothing which is round about you, no back lighting, no overhead lighting, no nothing. So, with that in order to create something three-dimensional was a little difficult because we all look as if we’re pasted against the background. But also, we couldn’t see, there was a shock on the eyes that outside when they light- they were black, the black spots in front of the eyes. But anyway, we made it but then came Wigman reused some of her solos where we sat out there and played drums, no music, nothing for the romanticism, it was sheer, unadulterated pulse. That was hard for the people and they thought that was minus romantic and they refused to accept it because it did not fulfil what they are missing in their life, they want to see the romantic because they haven’t gotten it. It’s a balance and all of a sudden there is a harsh rhythm treading out which really is almost inexcusable in its approach, it has no- it doesn’t make any allowances for escapism, it’s there, take it as it is because you have it to only you don’t use it. This was the courageous thing to do there, and her first solo, when she gave solo performances, her first success was in Hamburg. The Hamburgers were the first ones who were society open to that. In Berlin, we were once engaged, and we had nine more engagements after that. So, that’s how it began. I tell you what happened, we went- as in the company- we went to- you know where Graz is? That’s on the border of Yugoslavia there. It’s south of Vienna and at that time we were about nine or ten in the company, all girls, there were no men, period. Men didn’t dance, that was sissy stuff, oh god. You couldn’t get a man near it, otherwise they would have crept in a mousehole. Well, it wasn’t done anyway, so here we are. And we were what you call in German [inaudible 00:44:23], that means society took us- I take one girl, I take two girls, I can take three girls, depends if they have a big house, a small house, or maybe limited. We slept on couches, we slept on floors, we slept in beds, we slept wherever. I was [inaudible 00:44:44] with the ambassador in Graz. I came, I was shown my room, it was what you call a visitor’s quarters, everything there and the door was shut immediately. They had servants of course, it was a status question, and the servant came, and you wish lunch, and you wish dinner and you wish whatever. We didn’t have much time because we were there not for vacation, we were there in order to go to the rehearsal and go home and sleep because it was strenuous. I didn’t see the family, I didn’t see the Mrs of the house, I didn’t see the man of the house, I didn’t see the children, I heard them, but I was delivered to the servants. Well, we gave the performance and Mr Ambassador and Mrs Ambassador were in the performance. The next morning, I was invited to come down to lunch, I was invited to come for luncheon, breakfast, luncheon, I was invited, and I could meet the children. So, the dancer had a very bad reputation in Europe and that was due to really, the degeneration of ballet
Hodgson: presumably you’d impressed them by that
Holm: well they saw there was no ‘she-she’ there was nothing which was of that- where is our backdoor johnny, and all this stuff. We had quite some strange experiences
Hodgson: had Isadora paved the way at all for this?
Holm: she was what she was, and she had her own error, she very much favoured by the leading poets and the leading writers, leading [inaudible 00:47:04]. She belonged to the extreme, to the echelon of the artist’s world, or education, or people who were interested in things which were really showing there is something coming up which was dead and didn’t live anymore because she first of all threw the corset out, what the ballet people wore, she took the shoes off, went barefooted, and she had floating costumes not tutus, no exposure, no nothing. That was [inaudible 00:47:44 to 00:47:47] she had friends all over the place. I never saw her; I know that she had a big school in Darmstadt which was not very far away, but I was grown up. But I never saw her, I wish I would
Hodgson: did she make it easier for people like Wigman and you to go and-
Holm: not much easier but more that there was such a thing already done, that kind of a blind following was broken already by something which dared to go and step in another direction because she was going to do that with the foot, like the ballet came pussyfooted. It was a breakthrough, no question
Hodgson: and then the subject matter really was also something which was quite alarming
Holm: oh, definitely. What did she dance? She danced these big bill and concerts, and she didn’t use [sings], where she went there were orchestras going on and having really big problems with life feelings. And she stepped in it, and took it in stride, and she- I wish I would have seen if her gestures were really emotionally too much, or they were just in the right way, I can’t say so, I haven’t seen it and couldn’t judge. But she must have impressed, otherwise she wouldn’t have pushed through, impossible otherwise. Then what she did that she created schools, or somebody created a school for her. Not so much a school in technique but in spirit, and what did she do? She started with children, and some of her children are still in New York, the so-called ‘adorables’, or ‘isadorables’. So that was a drama in itself. She was invited to Russia, she was invited in all the European countries which were really advancing, going out of the French dominated, a little bit more perfumed, treatment of the arts
Hodgson: did you ever hear anything about her training, what was offered in these schools?
Holm: she trained the people emotionally, more than technically. And, since she started with children, which was very clever, there was nobody who brought anything in contrast to that what she asked for. And then, of course that was the same time when Jaques-Dalcroze began to develop. So, there was a little bit of a tie there. I don’t know how much in reality because I didn’t follow it, but it was in the air, you would say, because Dalcroze started with children too. I started when I was that old. The first thing that I did, not study, but I took place in his demonstrations he gave everywhere, and he had little songs and stories connected with it, and we had to carry it out
Hodgson: and how did that- did you mime it or rhythmically-
Holm: it was rhythmically, phrase-wise and the whole law of the musical structure in relationship to the story too. It was picking flowers, throw the flowers, something of that kind too. So, they were all sort of motions which had to do with something which was in children’s realm in order to give their own little imagery to that what they were doing. There were really quite some things started and then rhythmitise that which was giving a time-space feeling, without telling it, at that time nobody talked about time and space but it was there
Hodgson: he certainly sort of hit something, even to get people to realise that music was within you and you had to move it to get it out rather than being-
Holm: exactly, well, you couldn’t because children are not, at least in my own experience, you couldn’t- you could say that two plus two is four because you were taught that way but no logic for that. This was really, we ought to watch out because that’s already when it begins to go into channels. Now, I will be able to say two plus two is five, it’s not right but it’s right, depends how you look. That’s why the mathematicians have invented also the letters, H2O, something
Hodgson: tell me a little bit about the growth into the abstract- we started talking about it last night, the Bauhaus- what do you know about the Bauhaus?
Holm: well, very little in a way because I wasn’t active, but it was there. The Bauhaus was considered a citadel of a confusion of styles, which I think sometimes it would be good again, particularly, it was mainly architecture where it starts, and forms and shapes. Painters, architects, sculptors were really the basic thing. Dance really came very much later, never took on more than, again, geometrical forms. I have seen, and run it too for the students here, a film on the early Bauhaus experimentations, well the go on lines, they change because the line breaks so they go on this line, forward, or they go sideways, they try to but not in the way of creative freestyle, as Laban has really broken it through. And then, there was again a system in that Bauhaus which was - I would say it goes back to the early geometric, grandfathers
Hodgson: was Schlemmer trained as a dancer?
Holm: no, I think he was a painter as far as I remember
Hodgson: and he just got interested-
Holm: got interested. And he would because-
Hodgson: and also light as well, experiment with light
Holm: if you deal with shapes and forms and space, you are almost inevitably come in motion because you go through space, so you have motion immediately. Whatever you do. And then there is another step from motion to movement. If that is so, then there is another step where you would say, movement why? Then you really go step by step- it’s a kind of a different logic, which really climbs the ladder
Hodgson: did they have a group who actually performed touring?
Holm: no, but they tried to experiment with people- there is a film, I think you should also get that in London, if you get a Bauhaus film, there is one which really brings out- to me, it’s a little, I would like to apologise for it because it’s a little mechanical, without what really we- through the Laban’s next step of thinking, that there isn’t such a thing of mechanical, it must be motivated by decisions and by, “I want to,” and “why?” and “why do I chose this or that? Why don’t I do it this way?” That’s what I criticised last night on when these people go straight, you chose it, so have the technique to do it. They disregard it and go just as good as they can. So therefore, there is no face, there is no character, there is only stumble. Of course, they get them from here to here but why? There is no dynamics, period. And, also, I would say, goes so far as no life. It’s just commotion. But from an art form, you expect something else. Otherwise I go and go up, let’s say number one 5th avenue and go up to the 20th floor and look down at what’s going on, on 5th avenue. I see also order because they cannot go other ways, the vehicles, they all have to go one way, the pedestrians can go contrary. So, I see motion, ordered because the automobiles cannot go on the sidewalk, they should not and if they do, we have an accident. There is ordered motion to a certain degree. But you see a bastard who comes through and cuts the other one, if the other one wasn’t careful he would have bumped them, you can see that too. And that’s again silly behaviour of some individuals who think they can run the way as they want rather than follow the law of a multitude
Hodgson: so, really it never came to anything because it was purely experimentational-
Holm: in a way, no, nothing developed out of it, not that I know of
Tape 100
Summary of Side One
Jerome Robbins and his work in West Side Story. Spirituality and dreams. Holm describes teaching and living in Germany during the time of inflation. What are the differences between prophets, pioneers, and innovators? The energy needs to be in proportion to the movement. They talk about puppets. Principles versus theories. Dancers should know about anatomy, especially the mechanics of breathing and muscles. The importance of warming up the body.
Summary of Side Two
An understanding of pulse and rhythm is very important. Dalcroze training helps students feel timing rather than just counting it. Movement needs motivation and animation behind it. Folk, court, and world dances. Dance and music through history. A girl went into a trance in one of Holm’s sessions on the feeling of swinging. What is the function of a dance artist in society?
Interview Side one (61’ 50”)
Hodgson: … yes. It still has an incredible following. In this city is it more of a force than the so-called contemporary dance?
Holm: no but contemporary dance is in grave trouble now because the state doesn’t support it anymore, as much. Everybody’s reduced
[inaudible 00:00:29 to 00:00:32]
Hodgson: what happened to Robbins? Why did he- I mean made it look
Holm: I think he’s a little bit retired, I’m retired, I teach. I don’t know what Robbins is-
Hodgson: but you’re not retired in a mental sense
Holm: no, I don’t want to
Hodgson: I think it’s the worst thing that can happen to anybody, but I think-
Holm: that’s going to sleep, might as well-
Hodgson: give up, yes. He’s seemed to have given up but you-
Holm: no
Hodgson: given up in a mental sense, and ongoing in a searching sense
Holm: I’m not so sure if he has given up, I haven’t talked to him for a long time but occasionally he does something again. And then, I think, what he, I’m not so sure
[from 00:01:27 to 00:02:52, they talk about Robbin’s work in West Side Story]
Hodgson: but, as a person he just seemed to be such a disappointment, in having wet his feet in something like West Side Story, having pushed his vocabulary- let’s face it beyond what’s he’s done since I would say- why would he withdraw?
Holm: maybe he’s tired
Hodgson: made his money and got out
Holm: [inaudible 00:03:19], because he made a lot
Hodgson: oh yes. But an artist can’t really do that, can he?
Holm: shouldn’t
Hodgson: if your artistry can be bought out, it’s seems to me, that says something about your artistry
Holm: there is either a compulsion or a drive, and the must, and the do in spite, that is there, you will do otherwise you are getting a little bit [inaudible 00:03:59]. Maybe he has nothing to offer anymore but he did- I never saw it, dancers were gathering, and they say the ballet loved it. But maybe he has no push
Hodgson: do you talk dance to him? Do you talk easily about his art?
Holm: never heard him again, I haven’t seen him for years. He’s living almost like another planet. So, as Graham, I’ve never seen her again for years, she lived within the society, and the [inaudible 00:04:43], and her little ego, and little things-
Hodgson: what about Balanchine?
Holm: never see him also. But I had discussions with Balanchine, there was a time where the was a very open frankness between modern and ballet-
Hodgson: when was that?
Holm: 20 years ago
Hodgson: in the 60s?
Holm: yes
Hodgson: and why’s it gone?
Holm: because, I think, no personal reason, it’s a reason as life goes, I don’t know. Because everybody in this case, they see to it that their, either occupation or what they are devoted to- there was that terrible struggle of existence. Maybe that is one reason, the struggle for just sheer existence is enough in order to exclude yourself from communication, as an easier way rather than a must way. I don’t know that, but I’ve thought about it. Just accept it because if you’re busy, you don’t miss
Hodgson: it just seems very interesting to me that those two have remained in the ballet world where all around them, especially in this city, things are happening for good or bad but they’re happening on a different dance
Holm: there is again that one thing of repetition. These works are used over and over again. Sold in Europe, echoes come from over there to back again, over there come back again. So, there is that- keeps the thing
[inaudible 00:06:55 to 00:06:58]
Hodgson: … you said that [inaudible 00:06:59], I went back and thought about that, I thought, in a sense it is, it almost does take place of religion, and I think it [inaudible 00:07:06 to 00:07:09] of the 21st Century-
Holm: that is again the respect of the trinity- what you are- body, soul- or whatever you call that, spirit- all these faculties, they are making the human being, and you are keeping some of these dormant, or dumb, or suppressed because they are saying things you do not like to hear, or do not want to cope with, it’s too much, or it’s too complicated- we have to have a little more courage but we shouldn’t be mistaken and say, “I like to hurt and suffer,” just to make a thing out of it, forget it. Get rid of it
Hodgson: I think that if society is going to have artists, and if it’s going to have dancers, as artists-
Holm: we want to, and yet we don’t do anything to get them. We have to feed them
Hodgson: we have got to make it just a little bit worth the struggle, and leave the struggle there, not to deny them-
Holm: people leave too much to God, take care of it- and he’s a good man- he! Who is he? Why a he? Why not an it? We always say, “he’s the boss,” well, already it’s a human- the equivalent is to be thinking, but the spirit could be who? There is a god, and you are part of it. But don’t make a pedestal out of it and put it on a human being with their nicely put- it works, and it works uncomfortably because it’s telling you things, which are not comfortable. What does it mean ‘comfortable’? There is again a take for granted that comfort is again a human, acquired state of being. It means the effort is reduced. We can’t do that, at least we have to keep the effort to keep ourselves above water. If we don’t do that, we sink. Comfortable is nice and warm there but then- cosy, don’t have to struggle. I had once a dream, it was an interesting thing, two dreams
[from 00:10:24 to 00:17:11, Holm describes her dreams]
Holm: … I entered- Klaus was born 1920. ’21 I entered Wigman’s school. I taught the first summer course in ’23, great inflation. I started the course, 60,000 marks, 30,000 for the whole summer course. In the middle, I had to stop and say, “children, you have to pay 31 because I won’t even get a loaf of bread,” and Wigman was in Switzerland and I had to feed the old Marie, which was her old maid, and I took over and lived in Mary’s house, and gave the classes. So, the kids, nobody was upset about it because everybody [inaudible 00:18:08] and I had to mainly- I had a few American students, I had some Norwegians, I had some Swedish- and they had to pay in their own valuta because tomorrow, the whole thing was either double its value or half as much, or because the German marc was going like that quick, from hour to hour. In the morning we asked how much a loaf of bread was, and I said, “Marie, I just have enough, go and get it,” she ran and got us a loaf of bread because an hour later was double as expensive. We went out and my best friend, she was a Norwegian, and we were both in the company of Wigman
[inaudible 00:18:58 to 00:19:02]
Holm: … it’s not what one [inaudible 00:19:04] but what one does. Therefore, it is more a pioneer of a title than-
Hodgson: yes, I see. Pioneers of the dance would seem better
Holm: is better than a prophet. With a prophet, you always have the feeling that there is [inaudible 00:19:23] no? that there is a premonition, or whatever, it has another connotation
Hodgson: it could have, I suppose [inaudible 00:19:36 to 00:19:41]
Holm: … justified, with more explantion given from-
Hodgson: yes, I think that’s quite true. Pioneers is probably much more accurate
Holm: it’s better. Pioneering means to break ground of unbroken ground or something. Or to- discover what’s going on, to find out, to dare, or- you have to take a risk, you have to take- you go almost a little bit in the unknown, not like a prophet- but a prophet has a vision, a prophet has-
Hodgson: a prophet has a message for the future
Holm: has a message. And there is more than a message necessary in this way, which is really just hard, outright, sharp living
Hodgson: yes. I suppose that- I was thinking a pioneer however-
Holm: maybe there is a better word yet
Hodgson: yes, I think so. A pioneer is somebody who for me [inaudible 00:21:09 to 00:21:11] … not innovators are they? Innovators of the dance?
Holm: no, [inaudible 00:21:18 to 00:21:19]
Hodgson: but an innovator doesn’t mean it’s new-
Holm: no, but it means re-evaluations. There is such a thing of re-evaluation, or going back to the utter- like, for instance, what the ballet is doing, it’s getting superficial because it lost its ultimate reason for-
Hodgson: they are leaders though, leaders of the dance, the kind of people who are in the forefront of it. They’re the people-
Holm: set an example
Hodgson: yes, which people follow. They give a lead-
Holm: in order to show the other which was the door was locked. Maybe they open doors, we can’t call them door openers
Hodgson: but they do give a kind of lead to it
Holm: lead might be-
Hodgson: leaders?
Holm: leaders I [inaudible 00:22:29]
Hodgson: … he did seem to be wanting- his theory still is that, that he wants to get away from the emotional
Holm: I know but he can’t- well, that means because they are cumbersome. To control them, is really a job, and how can you think that a full human being, 100 per cent can go without at least a pinch of. I think it all depends how much
Hodgson: I think if you take away all human feeling-
Holm: well, then you are getting barren. I compare that- sometimes the kids will understand, when I give them a recipe, and I say you have a pound of butter, you have a pound of flour, you have a pound of sugar, you have a pound of salt, you have a pound of whatever you want to do. Now, put it together and you eat it, I don’t. But I think you have to see in proportion, to make that product is a pinch of salt, not a pound. But you are giving your energy to a light movement, it should be airy, you give the energy for heaving a ton of bricks. Now, how can that fit?
Hodgson: so, you’ve got to have proportion in the right kind of-
Holm: but you are not satisfied with a little bit of energy to let it flow because you only feel it when it’s monstrous
Hodgson: but how does he maintain that the dance is a human art if he leaves out emotion?
Holm: it’s only in so far that the motor is built in the puppet, must be, because there is a motor motion, and there is a learning, and there is an ego which doesn’t want to be blamed, which wants to be positive so therefore, they do according to the letter, they do what their duty is
Hodgson: do you feel that Nikolais and Lewis have got two sides of the dance there, and that they got still keep the proportion if Nik does the technical theatre and maybe [Murray] Lewis does the feeling dance. Is that how you see it?
Holm: it’s not quite as sharp a separation because, it’s what you say, these subject matters he uses are really precluding that there is some feeling involved, and yet he doesn’t allow it to come through because he finds it within the pattern of again puppetry. But you would say- it so happened last night I turned on the television, there was a puppet show, I almost called you, I didn’t know you were home, I should have- and that was- it wasn’t complete, it was one of those Washington things they do in the Kennedy Centre just to give Washington a little boost, so it’s not quite sufficient. But there were various puppeteers, from Europe, English ones, German ones, Italian ones, and the creation of the puppet- the muppets, which are of course American, and some other American puppets, I think Disney was mentioned in a moment- Jerry Lewis, who has a puppet by the name Lamb Chop, it’s a hand puppet. She is a ventriloquist. So, she can do that, and she sang the- very fast, I don’t know how, it’s a technique she really has developed- the Chopin waltz, the Minute Waltz, she used that whole melody and sang it with a puppet, and the puppet answered. She did it all, even high notes, and very fast, she spoke tremendously quick. It’s the waltz song, and the waltz tempo, a fast one, and the words came out like curves. It was really a thing and the little puppet, she had it as a hand puppet, and the mouth moves, it’s kind of a stocking face, so it’s flexible. It was very skilled, very interesting, I haven’t seen a- she comes from a puppet family, her father was doing things, and the father was using things we as children used.
[from 00:28:15 to 00:45:15, they continue to talk about puppets, Pinocchio, and The Vagabond King]
Holm: … theory really can be so terribly misunderstood, something as a pattern to go by or as an accredited- like theory in acting, how much do you have in acting, I use it as a parallel
Hodgson: I think in acting, I would like people to know that there are views like Stanislavski, I’d like them to know there’s a view of acting from Brecht, I’d like them to know something about [inaudible 00:45:49]-
Holm: but these were particular advices, connected by these various leaders, or pioneers, or prophets. In order to put a focus and a nest so that there is something but that cannot be so that it is ten commandments, can it? Or is it-
Hodgson: no, I don’t think theory should be ten commandments, no but-
Holm: let’s call it principles, and I think it’s so much better because then it has the variety of the birth right of itself, of these energies because we are dealing with energies, we are dealing with forces because our subject is not the word which is again logos, [inaudible 00:46:57] but we don’t- it is not our ultimate exchange, the exchange again is the motor mechanic, so therefore, there is of course principle ideas- a flexible body, an obedient body, to get it whatever your medium is to get it that way is almost accepted unless that you have a conviction, this is the only way to do it, well then you persist a little bit more on this and the other, of the principle because you have the best taking up the glove, rather than just passing it through. That’s where theory becomes a dangerous thing because most of the things happen that the theory becomes an end in itself, rather than a means to an end
Hodgson: would you want a dancer to know about the physical structure of the human body?
Holm: I personally have taken anatomy for the very reason that I know what I can ask my body to do, and also know, or at least become aware that there is a thing of an awareness within a mechanically accepted function
Hodgson: would you want all dancers to take anatomy?
Holm: I more or less teach them a little bit, we don’t have to learn the technical name of that muscle and that muscle- some universities do that- but you have to know there is one where I do that with, which lifts, that is the power, or this is when I stretch it out, what is that thing? The function more or less, the means of experience rather than an accumulation of knowledges of-
Hodgson: I would want an actor to know a fair amount about the voice for example, how it operates so they-
Holm: but also, you have to do it by experience because you can control your voice
Hodgson: I think you have to know, if you’re going to control it, what it is that you are controlling, you’ve got to know where the lungs are, how they function. Does the same apply to a dancer, should a dancer know about the structure of the foot?
Holm: exactly, you have to go, even in that area, many of the dancers don’t know how to breathe. When the tension sets in, stiffness arises because it gets contractions and then some people hold their breath. Now then, that is the end because you can’t. Now, you have to see that you can separate, that the breathing is a thing independent of all the physical things, not identical but it has- the pump has to go whatever energy is. I think you have a little bit the same problem too because I’m sure that your actors get tense because- and then of course the breath gets hard, and the breath gets caught, and the pump is not delivering properly, it can be agitated. Of course, if you go fast a lot, you need more air consumption in order to get these pumps going, while if you are calm, it flows more, that’s alright. But what I train them then, I form a circle and do it by stopwatch, and let them run, then you run in that circle and probably play them a little bit of a constant pulse, and all of a sudden, “I can’t anymore,” and I say to keep going, “I can’t anymore,” keep breathing, keep going, and after about 10 minutes or so, all of a sudden, no complaints anymore, all of a sudden the mechanics of running has taken over without the fear or the involvement of some emotional reaction where a little tiredness of overusing the muscle, not being quick enough to release when it should, holding too long so it uses it up, and you get too much of this stuff in your muscle system which happens. So, that we have to do. The pump has to go, and the muscles have to function without being only moved by inhale and exhale
Hodgson: would you want them to know the main muscle groups?
Holm: I tell them your sits muscles and your calf muscles and your ankle muscles, and there are little bones and they break very easily but you can contract the foot sole, you can stretch out the foot sole. I make them even pick up pencils occasionally, or an object with the feet, and say, “use them,” they can do it, they are meant to be that way. Originally, when we were monkeys, we climbed the trees and held on a branch, but you can’t do it anymore because the shoes have eliminated the necessity. That’s the one thing, you have to teach hence that they are not just gripper, slapper, or a pusher, or a killer- that they are also in themselves, enjoyable, capable of degrees of activity, it’s not only see how much I can hold. That’s the trouble, it’s the scale
Hodgson: and do you give them any kind of theory of warming the body-
Holm: oh yes, a cold-muscled body is not obedient, it’s just like an over-tense body. It’s up to injuries, it is a tenseness, only it’s caused by lack of circulation
Hodgson: I’m worried about this present tendency to have leg warmers and so on
Holm: oh, it’s ugly but that is from the ballet
Hodgson: but it seems to be a false thing because that just keeps the heat, it doesn’t make the circulation work, the circulation should be the thing providing the warmth
Holm: when I have a lot of talk, I don’t mind but when we are going to, I make them strip. I say, “listen, how can you feel a leg to be elegant when it’s in such a kind of”-
Hodgson: my point is that they don’t actually warm them up-
Holm: yes, they do. There is some theory, and I got these from the Bavarians, they go over the [inaudible 00:54:29]- they have these shorts on, these leather pants, the mountaineers where it’s ice cold. The knees are empty but they have calf things, the ankle again is free, they have socks on, and in these [inaudible 00:54:44] shoes, in these comfortable shoes but around the ankle there is moveabillity and these things which are on the calf, they go just to the ankle, and go just under the knee, and it’s very funny, they have proven it, and they climb the ice and snow, and it keeps them warm-
Hodgson: it keeps them warm but for a dancer, you don’t just want to be kept warm, you want to be warm, and I think this is the thing, if you’re going to- you want the circulation to be doing the work, that’s why I always say it. More often than not, I don’t wear gloves because I think if you wear gloves, all you do is prevent the circulation from doing the work
Holm: yes, but you are giving a warmth which is from the outside, not from the inside
Hodgson: and I think that if a dancer’s going to be ready to dance, you have to have the warmth from the inside
Holm: yes, I learnt my lesson and that was when I was with Wigman, we didn’t warm up properly, we were expected that we were warm in order to do- I jumped, and while I jumped, I tried to kick the bottom with the heel, that means a very sharp bend. I broke something ever since. I have trouble, and I developed arthritis in both knees. So therefore, sometimes I wear a knee brace now because it should be operated but I only wear it in order to hold it where it is, it’s only the right knee but that’s how you hurt yourself, but that was stupid
Hodgson: but you can warm up in different ways other than just having warm clothes on, you can warm the body-
Holm: no, you should warm up even in the cold. We had, in the beginning, Germany is cold, I don’t know if England gets that cold as Germany gets cold, really cold. Particularly around there where- it’s the Elbe in Saxony, and it’s the Rhine in the southern part where all these big rivers flow, there is moisture evaporating, which makes it moist cold, which is worse than a dry cold, I don’t mind a dry cold but that blanket, that is really terrible. When we weren’t rehearsing with Wigman, as we had one hour of class every day, only one hour, and for the rest, we had to practise which these people here don’t do. They consider the lesson is already the learning- the learning comes in your own little surrounding. So, we rented a beer hall because there was enough space, we could do runs, jumps, we could do circle, we could do what we wanted to do, there was room enough but we had to remove the chairs and the tables to get a little bit of room, and it was ice cold and draughty. That’s even colder. And so, we couldn’t put our bare feet on these icy floors, we had socks on. Then we couldn’t grip but we worked ourselves into a sweat within the hot and then we shed. Then, it goes for another 15 mins but then that cools off again. [inaudible 00:58:31] a different kind of a- that they don’t have that trouble. Even then, we heated ourselves up by just repeating and doing, and make the circulation go. That is the main point, but they are not thinking, they go again by the mechanics of technique, rather than the-
Hodgson: also, part of this legwarmer thing is a kind of fashion-
Holm: well, it’s fashion because it’s taken from the ballet because all the ballet people wear legwarmers. It always was, it’s taken over, very simple. I’m not against wearing tights because tights have something much better than stockings because there is another texture to it but they are tight, so therefore, you feel your leg is it
Hodgson: and it doesn’t destroy the shape of the leg
Holm: doesn’t destroy it but the other one is really bumpy, buckly and ugly. You can’t get the feel of a leg. They have to strip it
Hodgson: would you give your dancers any other information then apart from, as you- I’ve gathered from what you’re saying that you give them what anatomical knowledge they need as they go along, you kind of don’t give them a theory about it, you integrate it with your practical work
Holm: first of all, we go with the physical to get the circulation going, make them pliable so that they can go, can ask the body to do this, that or something else. And then, we go within the theory, which brings in the principle of locomotion, of transfer, of direction, and line- straight, forward, backwards, sideward, diagonally- the whole rows of the compass there. Then also, the circular line because it’s also a line but we go in the circle only where we step on is a line, but the line is not from point to point, the line is around one point. So that is one point, there are thousands out there, and these thousands are in constant co-action with that power-
Side Two (63’)
Hodgson: you don’t find it too artificial to have your feet-
Holm: no, it’s not the feet, the turnout is in the hip, of course the feet have to go with it but it’s mostly, emphasis lies on the feet, with an in turned hip and a turned out foot is dangerous because then the way it goes on the instep, then you have all these cracked ankles and fallen arches. Oh, that’s terribly dangerous
Hodgson: so, they want to know that kind of theory?
Holm: and I have to make them aware of that but in order for this to carry out the awareness, almost as a habit, that will not happen because they are not taking it into their system, they are only having it in their- they know about it but their system doesn’t know about it. That’s where it gets short-sighted there, and then they happily- what you say yesterday where they go with the feet wherever they go, they go down without maintaining the proper behaviour in respect to a curve path or a straight path
Hodgson: do you want them to have any geometrical-
Holm: I do. I don’t do it as a science, I only do it- again, they all did geometry in school, they all know what a line is, the straight line, the shortest way between two points which is a thing, and a triangle, and why is it a square, there are four sides, three sides, pentagon, five sides. All these things- or a circle, you could make as many breaks in that straight line- I say one, I said compare it to that, take a straw, which is soft, take your nail, make little dents, then you can make a circle out of a straw which otherwise is straight but you have to break it, break it, break it, and the finer you make the dents, the more round it gets, and larger the parts before you make a break, the more little corners it will get because the in between doesn’t break unless you- it doesn’t curve unless you break it. Sometimes they understand but they understand it paper-wise, but they don’t put it in action
Hodgson: is any other- what about knowledge of art, or, music or so on?
Holm: then we come to the problem of time, and we start with the very smallest, and simplest, the time of the pulse, and I give them a small movement, like for instance, a little bend which does nothing but this, and make them aware that the down is equal to the up and that the down produces the up. So, it is not down, down, down- there is no emphasis- down, up, up, up- as every animal would feel it when a horse goes, they don’t go plonk, plonk, they go, up, up, up. A conductor, watch him, when a good conductor, when he conducts the orchestra, it’s always, up not down, it’s called the downbeat but it’s an up- the downbeat is not- well, we have two things, we call an upbeat, that means ‘and one’, the upbeat is the ‘and’ and the ‘one’ is the downbeat. But it shouldn’t be, ‘and one, two, three, four’ there’s a difference. Watch, a good conductor will always have the beat, which is a lift than a gravitational one
Hodgson: so, do you want them to know bits of that? Do you give them elements of Dalcroze?
Holm: oh, yes, I do. Measurement which now here is absolutely controllable, a unit of a pulse, and that pulse also can be slowed down with longer intervals which is equal again if I make my notches to get it. Or, I make it faster, you see that it has very tiny, little differences or distances between the repeat, and feel it as a continuum. And then, also, you take a pulse, or two pulses together- boom, boom, boom, boom- or you take four pulses together, you execute only one of every four. Now, that what is in between, don’t count it anymore, just feel it. That’s difficult
Hodgson: I always maintain that they shouldn’t count the music, they have to feel it
Holm: that’s difficult, I think they have to start with the counting because through the speaking of, ‘one, two,’ already it’s a rhythmical statement. So, they at least have one point from which they can feel the explosion of the delivery, why then the body can be in any other way independent from it- you have to train it that way, otherwise it can’t. They don’t know what the right arm does, and the left arm, they have to get these- also train it independent, that for instance, this arm- what’s Dalcroze training- has this, while this has this. Within a time element, feel it, and then feel that. But that is complicated-
Hodgson: but it’s the kind of compliment as dancer ought to be able to achieve
Holm: ought to achieve but usually they don’t because the whole system goes now in jiggles because the premises of that time element is calmness. That is nervousness
Hodgson: did he do a lot of that count upon-
Holm: yes, we had to do the pulses only, we had to do five with the feet, two with the head, three with the right hand, four with the left hand at the same time. It’s not easy unless you are doing so, and you can’t do it by number, you have to feel it, and it’s a very strange dynamic coming out then
Hodgson: that’s the kind of training of the body which gets the rhythm into the body rather than-
Holm: independency. It’s very valuable but not only that the one now it’s stiff and it does [inaudible 00:08:11], no it has its own flow. Also, that wants to jiggle too but don’t let it. It’s training, and then you have to get your head to it, if you have your pulse- you have to have a pulse, you have to first find that, what it is
Hodgson: would he do it to music, or would he do it without music?
Holm: only to beat because otherwise they have melody, and phrasing to it which is another problem
Hodgson: something like a metronome would be-
Holm: I also teach them phrasing, I say, “don’t count eight fours, you do that eight times of a 4/4, feel,” that’s why I have an accompanist listen to it, count not, one, two, three, four, two, two, three four, and so forth- hear it because when it comes to the eight, the phrase should close. He listened to it. I have to get the right pianist. I train my pianists, it takes me a long time and then they leave, start all over again
Hodgson: so, the dancer should have these things. Is there anything else you think that a dancer should have besides the music and the body?
Holm: I think the alertness and imagination of creation, what for, that means the- also, the empathy in relationship to a desire in order to recognise it. Also, being able, a little bit, to be critical by analysing where is the end, how much, how little, what does it take in order to get the sum total, and I try to explain to them also, what is the difference between slapping something, or to be obvious, shouting at somebody, or creating waves of communication, that you are not just driving your dances home, and saying to the audience, “you idiots.” They are not idiots, you are the idiot because you are trying to be taken for granted with your, almost constipation as you have in your movement, you don’t let it wave. Not this way, you don’t see it, it’s there isn’t it? It’s a kind of a magnetism, and it’s a kind of electricity, which is released. Now then, that makes a little trouble because I can’t see it. But if you hold everything back, what shall that poor person who is willing to go with you, you don’t give anything. Yes, I give enough and then they become emotional, and I say that I don’t want that, that’s your privacy, you can do that at home, satisfy yourself, but that’s not for anybody who is going to look at- that is a criteria. That’s the same in all the arts, self-consciousness and all this- I have to ram it down- I couldn’t do it more, well you did do it already too much
Hodgson: that’s the thing that everybody needs, all artists need, is how to control it rather than just putting it out-
Holm: but how can you judge unless you really have had, honestly, experience of that it reaches, that it works, that you are able to release the waves. You have to test yourself because the willpower will not do it, there is much more connected with it
Hodgson: yes, in any dancer’s training, I suppose there’s a lot of independence, what they bring to it anyway, from their own-
Holm: it’s really that inner enjoyment, and that is not perfect, almost, I would say, brutal satisfaction. No, it’s enjoyment of doing. It’s the enjoyment of releasing and it’s very hard- the words don’t say it again, I don’t know which words to choose what it is. You feel it is doing it
Hodgson: because there’s so much of it which is inexpressible in words
Holm: I say always, not what you do but how you do what you do. They do, they understand it in their head, but they don’t understand it how it is when it really happens because it may never have happened and may never happen because they don’t let it. There’s always that fear, I’m a fool or I don’t want to be misunderstood so it’s too much
Hodgson: let’s come on to another thing you started talking about yesterday, which was the fact that folk dance really was the dance that got taken to the court and became the ballet, it’s to me the function of dance in society is-
Holm: it is really the motivation. Why do the people dance? Why did they dance? Because they were elated, first of all. It’s the bodily elation, it would be funny, I describe them, they think it is very ridiculous, and I say that if you go to subway because you went there and you go with like a flying dutchman, everybody would say, “what’s the matter with her?” and I think you are not doing it, but you’re doing it here in the studio. Now then, what’s the difference? If you are in the mood as you go to the subway and do me the flying movement there, then it isn’t inspired, that movement is dead to begin with because you go to the subway at the moment. I think you have to be so elated that the movement is natural, it’s like a champagne is so when the cork is freed of its pressure, it pops. What pops it? The power which is inside and wants to get out. Now, if there’s nothing inside you which wants to get out, don’t give me these movements of explosion. That’s graphic in a way but still it’s- they can’t motivate, and I said that you should be able, that you are not feeling like you have to make yourself that you do feel like because it’s necessary. Now, where do you draw that from? Where do you get it from? Don’t make it artificial. You have to really be dedicated to it, that this is familiarity rather than unfamiliar with where you should be frightened. It’s in your control, and you can do it, and you can go and explore as much as you want because you know how to take care of it. You are not hurting yourself; you are not breaking a leg because you have done it from the beginning to the end of the movement. Don’t have a beginning and then forget to come down, you remember when you go in the air, you have to come down, there’s no choice, if you want to or not
Hodgson: a lot of dance is very- the originality of dance was to express this feeling of exhilaration, celebration-
Holm: yes, you have to be animated
Hodgson: what about a sad dance, expressing sorrow and pain?
Holm: it’s the same thing, you are animated, but you have to be- you are not naturalistic. Even when you are joyful you are not naturalistic; you are using your language in bodily symbols almost because a word is really a symbol of a thought isn’t it? So therefore, the movement is a symbol of your condition
Hodgson: but it has a different expressive quality
Holm: oh, it has degrees because you can say it with an evenness, or you can say it with a little bit more of an emphasis, or you can say it very fast, or you can say it very slow. Now, that means time is again involved, calmness, or agitation of a higher calibre. You have to reach with that but not only as such but within the frame of your language, makes sense
Hodgson: and, I’m just trying to see the development from- folk dance I suppose is always celebratory-
Holm: they always had a reason, at least-
Hodgson: do we have dances of death and so on?
Holm: funeral dances? Oh yes
Hodgson: but they’re not necessarily sad dances
Holm: no, it depends how you consider death to be. When you get emotional and you are pining over a loss, then you better go home and lock yourself up and do it, whatever you want to do, hit your head on the pillow, cry yourself green in the face, whatever is necessary as your nervous system is loaded, sometimes too uncontrollable- what you call the hysteria. Now, that is not productive, hysteria is not a productive thing, that isn’t over. Then it begins to get inflamed and it gets sick, then it is really- well, it’s not controllable any more to that, and it becomes embarrassing because then it’s uncontrolled because that is again the point, and here we go again, we have form which will help us. If we don’t formularise the form- well, the form is the necessary appearance of the content
[from 00:20:29 to 00:27:27, they talk about different folk and court dances]
Holm: … I heard La Argentina, you never saw it, she was before your time. Well, that was a noble dancer if I ever saw one. She came to Dresden and I have a picture where Wigman and La Argentina are photographed together. So, these were exciting times but there was cheating, and she used really- she was ballet trained also- but she used the straight folk dances as the thing and the playing of- there are records existing of her playing the castanets, such a music, and something else with the feet. These castanets they could really drive you crazy with their- whatever was the rhythm was- a whole orchestra was going on there
Hodgson: how did you fit the lyrical dances in it-
Holm: that’s a matter of degree. Either it’s lyrical, or it’s majestic, or it is symbolic, you must make the decision, what is your motivation? If you are joyous, you have another kind of a dance, your dance movements are chosen differently, your language is different, as you take a dance of dance into death, the Wigman dance, or the monotony of turning, with the utter destruction afterward. There are dramatic impacts behind it, or she had a Russian suite and a Spanish suite, and there was Albanese, or some other country’s composers. And, it’s not imitation of the Spaniards but it was an empathy with the urgency of that what is underneath, which immediately does something to the body, if your body is sensitive. And it’s very funny, we have [inaudible 00:30:21] who teach Spanish dancing up in Juilliard, and he complains too that when they do the things and they get the heel clicks, but there is not that thing which the Spaniard has, bright, and the bright is in the body, there is a lift in the body, it doesn’t do that anymore-
[from 00:30:44 to 00:33:52, they talk more about various world dances]
Holm: … and you achieve that ecstasy by repeat, this monotony, you can. As a matter of fact, it’s a self-hypnosis with the continuum of that activity. I have had it because sometimes- that happened in Germany, happened to me when I taught, and happened to me here. I had one girl here, she couldn’t stop. We were sitting, we were just getting that feeling of swinging, which is quite a sensation in the body, and I speak very little and have a tiny bit of noise with it so that there is not silence, and then I stopped it, and she didn’t, kept going. I got scared. Then I called her name very softly, “Fanny,” kept going, was gone. I had to repeat it, I don’t know how many times until she all of a sudden stopped. The eyes opened, didn’t get the shock, she very carefully came back, she was gone
Hodgson: is that element there- it obviously is there within the dance-
Holm: that element is there, but the element never goes to the hysteria
Hodgson: but it is the body affecting the mind I suppose, the interrelationship
Holm: it affects the mind in so far that certain kinds of involuntary resistances fall down because that word fear is such a ruler that whenever anything happens, the body doesn’t trust itself because it is going away from- like for instance, you would say, all of a sudden, you fly. That sensation is really frightening for a moment, “oh my god, I fly,” already it’s kaput, accept it and don’t fight it, accept it and see what you can make from it. It would be nice; you could fly over the ground without leaving the ground. There is where the thing becomes profitable, while it otherwise becomes almost destructive because then it turns into a hysteria which of course is self-defeating
[from 00:36:42 to 00:41:53, they talk about various dance and music through history]
Hodgson: … I suppose it’s another way of man trying to cope and relate to his environment, or to-
Holm: to pulses
Hodgson: yes, to overcome elements-
Holm: overcome or accept them. Most of the time we are so afraid that we deny, and there we are getting in trouble because of what we are afraid of, we don’t want to happen, to have it happen so we are defensive but then we do because we want to but we are doing two things and the same time, we do it and are defensive. Now, of course it can’t happen. If we lose the fear, and let that moment happen where it really flows, like that girl who couldn’t stop anymore and feel heavenly. It’s that experience which is in a way on the expense of wiping out something, which is your disco
Hodgson: did the girl, who went into a trance in your session, did she ever describe her experience?
Holm: she said it was heavenly, there was no limitation, there was not too much either, there was no danger, she felt sure, secure, and well taken care of. But she really allowed the body to do, she wasn’t idle, she was doing it. But what was- that’s what I, when I let the kids do, I haven’t done it for a long time because people are now all running and whatnot so they have their exercises but at the time when that wasn’t so, I did about, with the stop watch, sometimes I did half an hour, but I tell you, they flew after that, they didn’t run anymore, they couldn’t keep their feet on the floor, the want to get up because there was so much energy stored by holding it back and trying to get the mechanics of the action accepted, rather than that every motion is adding up to a little more tired. They were not aware of it, they were not because truly, movement which is self-renewal is a vibration, it’s neither that, or is that, it’s self, it’s the in between of doing two things with the same amount and the same amount between but that gravity is the lift, that that lift is ready enough to accept gravity, that’s the whole principle. If you manufacture it, it won’t happen
Hodgson: you say movement is a self-renewal?
Holm: in this vibratory condition it is. Also, it is otherwise in the swing too. Also, the swing which really is so easy, and it needs so little energy because you have gravity. You borrow gravity but you have to take care of it because that weight brings you over the dead point. Now, here you have to have the lift but if you stop here, boy do you have to do a lift, you’re right on the tail of that comet but you shape it, you don’t do a little thing, you shape it as much as you wish, or you make it smaller and then you hold it closer to the centre, while here you send it out as far as you wish
Hodgson: I think this is something, again this is again another purpose of the dance, it is in fact a self-renewal, spiritual but also a physical one. The other thing is, kids could dance in a disco and they don’t feel worn out
Holm: that’s right. There you are, that’s your answer
Hodgson: because it is in fact- and I think the other thing you were mentioning which is quite interesting is this business of getting through the barrier of tiredness, you can be tired-
Holm: there is one reason, limitation of technique. Then that comes- that has to happen, that has to happen, that has to happen- then all of a sudden, it falls in detail, and therefore, gets stuck, while otherwise everything does this in the disco. They do the same thing, only they are not breaking everything down in small, little events. It’s just so that when they go down, they are right away up, they are never down, they are never up, they are always in between. If they want to go up, well, there is a little explosion when they come down, they fall right away again in the creation of the continuum. It’s a psychological thing which is a very good example
Hodgson: it’s fascinating the way the body can be used like that and not get tired, it can be a renewal
Holm: it shouldn’t, it is a renewal. If it isn’t that- in comparison, Wigman gave a whole performance, that is about at least an hour and a half, it had to be, and that’s long enough, and all solo dances, one after the other, and there is not 10 minutes in between, just enough to change the costume, comb your hair, and put a little powder on, go out again, and do something entirely different. But the actual technique of the doing was not moving this way, there was the acceptance, whatever the dance required, you accepted within the frame of the demand. And you were ready, that’s what happened in between when you changed your costumes, you changed also roles because the dances had to be different otherwise a whole evening of solos was unbearable monotony. So, there were quite a variety of presentations which say, “look at that,” and you sat a little farther forward, rather than, “oh, again?” that kind of a thing. Then, to do that you need, what you call, economy of spending to last for an hour and a half without let down, you can’t, you have to be with it all the way along, but you change. This one is based on formality, this one is based on cosmic principles, this one is based on more a dramatic subject, this one is based on carefree, or whatever but you can’t do it with one and the same palette, you have to change the palette. So therefore, you have to have another kind- it’s not, “it’s me who is there,” no, it’s you as another one, and that would mean that you can’t be monotonous, you simply can’t be it
Hodgson: and you can’t be for the sake of carrying yourself through the evening as well as carrying your audience through the evening
Holm: yes, and do justice to that what you want to the people to take with them, you can’t
Hodgson: in planning out programmes, did she very clearly think about that sort of situation?
Holm: oh, heavens yes. Also, you have to think a little programmatic because you can’t do, “I like only doing this,” or that get repeats of, not steps but gets a repeat of subject matter, which is, in a way, worn out. Maybe sometimes the subject matter was either sad dance with different levels but then you have to hold this apart, you can’t let them slip on one level. That takes training, and that takes expertise, in being master of your awareness, of your emotions, of your logic
Hodgson: there is something also, isn’t it in the nature of dance that you have to have release to be able to get more in, you can’t- like a battery, you can’t just keep topping it up, you have to charge it
Holm: you have to spend it to refill, and that is what the people are afraid of because they don’t know from what to refill
Hodgson: but then the spending is a kind of re-fulfilment in itself
Holm: it is, and then you come again, it’s not what you do, but how you do it
Hodgson: but that seems to be a fundamental element of the dance, again it’s values and functions. What do you see as its function in a society like New York where it’s- you don’t find many, a lot people doing disco dancing, but you don’t find many people taking part in the dancing, they go to watch the dance? What is the value of dance observed, rather than dance done?
Holm: when they get a satisfaction by exposing themselves to atmosphere which is created when you have a floor full of these wild creature, they let go, and the one who sits and cannot participate gets a satisfaction by being with it, whatever is wishful thinking but being kind of, I would say, a little bit anaesthetised, and like taking dope
Hodgson: has a dance artist got a function, do you think in society today?
Holm: oh yes
Hodgson: what do you think it is?
Holm: really, what particularly the modern dance is, that subject matters are taken from society, as it makes- in the difference, compared to a society 1840 or 45. Like we have a Bach or we have the music as a leftover from- it was composed in the time. Today Bach would probably write different, I don’t know, maybe the same. And yet it was right out of the time where the conditions were, the circumstances, the air- there is so much which goes to, and goes with it, what makes society. Today, everything is nervous, who, where is a calm society, you know one? The English certainly are not calm, they are just about as nervous as cats [inaudible 00:55:00]
Hodgson: but the dance seems to serve, say in New York society, as an escape from its whirlwind, is what I think, essentially, is what the classical ballet does anyway. I don’t see many dances being done which say much about our time except that we’ve got to get away from it
Holm: then, it’s badly done. It’s done with these, what you call, postmoderns. They will come again, if I be kind I say, surrealistic, and that is a little bit too much, and sometimes inacceptable for no reason, just look at an advertisement I got here from a young- that’s a young dancer. She was also a Juilliard girl, one of these two. Along the way as they photograph that duel, I don’t know what to make out of it- I think the pants are splitting any minute, and I think it’s on purpose that they took a picture of that kind, why? I don’t know what it does. The whole thing is not- it may fit, maybe it’s just as is, maybe it should be so, I don’t know. I have no use for it but-
Hodgson: it all seems to be saying something. It should be saying something about the times, and what the artist is feeling, otherwise the dancer as a feeling artist isn’t-
Holm: yes, but then say it so that it isn’t only suggestive, say it
Hodgson: and there’s an opportunity to at least give insight into art society through it-
Holm: possibly, but then it’s ugly, and it should be ugly. Whatever it is, if you have to say something, or bring out something which is ugly, it can’t be beautified, or hidden, or with a tongue in cheek, then it has to be spoken out as it is
Hodgson: except it can be-
Holm: sublimated?
Hodgson: yes, and with the kind of thing we’re talking about, you can sort of go through the tragedy of the times
Holm: right, that can be but then it’s not ugly. Even then, the ugliness of the time, there is a certain beauty
[from 00:58:16 to the end of the tape, they carry on this discussion, which doesn’t seem relevant]
Tape 101
Summary of Side One
Holm did not want to be outspoken about political issues or sell out just for money. Laban was punished by Hitler. German dance. Discussion of German legends and Catholicism.
Interview Side One (45’)
Hodgson: … how far was he responsible?
Holm: only to the goodness of his resistance or his behaviour
Hodgson: why should you sell out the dance for the sake of what you think, or what you don’t want to know is happening?
Holm: I didn’t because the Communists tried to sell me out, and I didn’t. Also, the others, the Nazis left me alone, there was nobody because they knew I wouldn’t, whatever, and there were some [inaudible 00:00:36 to 00:00:37], quite a number of them. But they didn’t come near
Hodgson: no, but you’d already shown your colours in that direction because you’d actually taken a stand elsewhere
Holm: I explained, and said I’m not a politician, and I don’t want anything to do- I have Communists in this school, I have other people in this school, I’m teaching dancing, and this is my commitment. Whatever is otherwise is their business, not mine. Don’t blame me for things which-
Hodgson: this is what I wanted to get you on about because this is the really tricky thing. I think, of course, I am not a politician but what you are saying also is, either I cannot afford to turn, or put my dark glasses where politics are concerned. Now, talk about that because that’s really quite-
Holm: I did not criticise openly [inaudible 00:01:39 to 00:01:40]. I didn’t say either [inaudible 00:01:46 to 00:01:54] … that is a breaking point there. I refuse and I said it to all these people from the FBI. They came and we had many, many discussions about it and I said, “listen, I am not a politician, neither this side or that side, I am not willing to commit myself because this is not my premise,” because then I have to act differently, I have to refuse people. These people want to learn how to dance and that’s an entirely different subject
Hodgson: isn’t that what Laban and Wigman are doing in Germany, saying, “these people want to dance, you asked me to be”- what did the FBI say to you? “Hanya, we want you to have this salary, and we want to give you this studio,”-
Holm: they didn’t
Hodgson: no, but what if they had done? What would your response be?
Holm: I wouldn’t have taken it
Hodgson: I think that’s where you’re different from them. I think that they did- well, they felt that, “I’m not a politician,” they said the same thing-
Holm: I wouldn’t have taken it
Hodgson: but they said the same thing as you’re saying, “I’m not a politician.” Laban and Wigman, neither of them are, and they believed honestly and sincerely, and I don’t doubt their sincerity
Holm: but they took. Well, that you cannot do. Even if you get broke, even if you get in the dumps
Hodgson: so, how do you draw the line? When do you draw the line? You say it’s not your job to discriminate who comes to learn dancing-
Holm: I said, “alright, go, do what you have to do.” So, they boycotted me, all the Jews. And I said, “that’s your business, if you want to, I can’t hold you back, go ahead and do. I still am not going on your side because you want to force me. I won’t.” You have to be decided, you can’t say no and take it
Hodgson: the other thing though is true; the odd thing is that you had already shown- I can’t believe that people could take this view in regard to you- because you had already shown your standard
Holm: I had shown what I could do, and that what I do, and I said, “if you want it, it’s open, you can get it,” but I am not bowing down
[inaudible 00:04:39 to 000:04:59]
Hodgson: this is exactly, I think it’s heckishly difficult-
Holm: the school was so empty, I tell you, because they were about, at least, 80 per cent Jews there, laymen and professionals. I said that I don’t care, that’s your business, if you are that dumb, that’s your business, not mine, I’m giving you something which is not on that ticket, what we are doing is something entirely different. If you don’t understand it, I’m not colouring it pink or brown. If you don’t believe me, I take the blame, whatever you blame me for because this is what it is, take the consequences
[inaudible 00:05:59 to 00:06:04]
Holm: … so, you have to stand for your, what you say
Hodgson: but, just tell me, where does the line occur?
Holm: the line occurs, it’s your decision that you have to think over what are the consequences? The consequences are money, that means the money is income, existence I have to pay the rent, I have to pay my people who I have engaged, I have to pay a secretary, I have to pay a pianist, I have to pay the assistant- that stays right put. I have to focus it. Then, I went around, and I took up money in order to do it, but I had to earn it back, that’s why I did shows. I only took on the Broadway shows because I was so full of debt. I had to pay 10,000 dollars, which is a lot, for doing Trend, only for the set. That was ’37 and that was a debt which was there. And plus, the other debts which accumulated so I said, “well, how can I do it?” and then the show was offered and I said, “I have no choice,” I have to take it because that gave a certain amount of money where I could get rid of that debt, I could get rid of that debt. So, I said I’d do it. And I told the people, I said I had never done it, if you want to take the risk, I’m willing if you are willing. “Okay, we are willing,” and I said, “alright, but I warned you, I might not be able to do it.” I’d never tried it, so I don’t know capacity, but I will try and do my best, I’m not going to slop it, I do it so I can hold my head up and I can say it is work that I can sign for, otherwise I would rather not even start it. “Please help us out,” and I said, “if you feel that way, you are taking the risk, not I.” Well, they want to, and it worked out, thank God
Hodgson: but you wouldn’t have done it if you felt that it had been tainted in any way
Holm: no, I wouldn’t-
Hodgson: even to pay your debt off
Holm: that is such a limitation
Hodgson: even to clear your debts off?
Holm: even to clear them. There is something else coming up, I’ll go scrub floors or something
Hodgson: I have a feeling; I may be wrong-
Holm: I am not willing to sell for something when I get in debt again, and the debt might be more devastating than money. Money can be somewhere rather- not found but produced one way or the other but anything which is going against your principle, you can’t replace. And that will stay with you forever, you cannot do that. That I was unwilling to do because I had too much from past experiences in the European situation, where you got into a pitfall, where you got into something where you couldn’t get out, and that was worse than anything that could be made up with money because money is [inaudible 00:09:51] this way but other things they are going deep down, and that’s why my mind is clear. I don’t have to thank somebody, I’m not in debt to anybody, I can think as I wish
Hodgson: would that occur also, if you felt that, for some reason or another, the dance could be enhanced? You wouldn’t sell out either for the dance?
Holm: no, because that throws back, because this is what is right now, and that is that thing down in Washington. If you are in, you are getting privileges. If you are not in, well, the hell with it. If you don’t take for value what has been done, proof has been given, if that means nothing then I’m sorry, I’m not buying myself in. I’m not bowing down to you, and I know of a certain person in mind who certainly has no right to be so haughty that she wormed herself into a position where she has a voice in that whole decision of, well, state support for the arts, for the liberal arts. I know very well who she is, I had it out with her once, only in a meeting where she said, “what are you doing here?” and I said, “the same what you do here,” I was invited. Well, she was in capacity of something represented. Anyway, I can kick too
Hodgson: and you can kick with greater strength if you’ve got your integrity, I think you’re right
Holm: I tell you; I don’t like to kick; I don’t hurt but I neglect. That’s one thing, this person doesn’t exist for me anymore. I know who she is, she’s the wife of Mr. Moss Hart, Kitty. And, I know Kitty, and she knows I know too well of her and too much. So, I won’t say a word, just grin and bear it
Hodgson: but [inaudible 00:12:24 to 00:12:26], I’m sure you’re right, you’ve got something there which nobody can destroy because it is your-
Holm: I keep my mind clear, if I give in, one or the other, to these shenanigans, I’m in, I have to play the game and then one shenanigan come out- I don’t want to. I have other things to do which are much more exciting, much more interesting and much more worth your while. I hold all possible which are in anyway signs- magazines, I live in it, it’s marvellous, it’s wonderful. I get a great satisfaction knowing a little bit that nothing is not nothing. That’s something. What it is I couldn’t tell you, maybe I’ll find out my own way, that it takes on a shape, I don’t know but I have to wait a little bit, it hasn’t come yet. And, it doesn’t really matter if our early guys didn’t know it. If Copernicus didn’t know it, why should I know it? They were asking for it too. It’s so human- human beings are sometimes so small and so they make a thunderbolt out of a pipsqueak
Hodgson: but when it comes to- your situation here is somewhat perhaps, well, is very different from what we left Laban and Wigman with, and theirs is perhaps a bigger, and therefore harder-
Holm: also, there is something that Laban or Wigman, they would not be able to accept it. But I accepted and let it be, but it doesn’t change it
Hodgson: oh, you’re right and I can give you verification of that. Laban was put in disgrace by Hitler. He was put into house arrest or close- but wrote a paper which I found in this thing- it’s fascinating, again, I could let you read it- but he’s really putting in a plea for German dance and I can see, it seems to me, even in the point of disgrace, he’s still trying to get back into favour. It’s a-
Holm: that is terrible, that is wrong because, why, depending on such a louse like Hitler in order to ask permission to exist, which is much stronger than Hitler himself, or anyone of his-
Hodgson he was, in fairness, asking for permission for dance, German dance. The plea is, German dance could be the dance given the right kind of circumstance-
Holm: that is the wrong premise anyway, what is the German dance? That has a little bit here, already, a mistake
Hodgson: no, that’s already playing to Hitler. It’s not a mistake, it’s a political move
Holm: well, yes, but now wait a minute, there is something more to it because he called it, before Hitler, the German dance
Hodgson: I see, and he was Czechoslovakian- Hungarian I mean
Holm: doesn’t matter but he had his resonance in Germany, the others did not do that. So therefore, he put the nationality in respect to it- I think there is something wrong
Hodgson: I’m sure you’re right, and I think that Wigman was party to it
Holm: because she was very Germanic in that way. She was Wagnerian entirely. She was a Valkyrie, and she was a- have you ever read the [inaudible 00:17:00 to 00:17:04]? I don’t know if they have translated but it is the fairy tales of the Rhine, the river, and that is interesting. It’s writing about a miller who- it’s really [inaudible 00:17:23]- and going through all the [inaudible 00:17:26], going through all these things, it is the mouse tower in- where is it? Somewhere- as the mice got upset and they came with the archbishop of Mainz, and they attacked- it’s a very interesting fairy tale but it’s wonderfully belonging to the history, or belonging to the legend of the area and you feel how- the Rhine maidens, you find it in the Wagnerian thing, and also the Rhinegold, it’s very interesting. It’s existing in German, I don’t know if you can read it in German, I don’t know if you get it here.
[from 00:18:24 to 00:32:25, they continue discussing legends, particularly ones Hanya heard as a child, and her Catholic faith]
Hodgson: … what I’m saying is, the artist, anyway it seems to me, has got to make some adjustments in- and I think this is what is interesting about the whole thing is- he has to make adjustments to religion and to politics because the artist isn’t going to go with either areas, the real artist in my view, he’s going to have to be a person who is facing, almost by definition, facing society and the times in which he lives in terms of objective, subjective awareness and response and is going to remain critical, is going to remain-
Holm: that’s the main thing, don’t lose your critical faculties. I tell you an example, I have a good friend in Colorado Springs. She is German, from that kind of a German, she doesn’t know it, but she is. Alright, but she has a good heart. I sometimes I get kind of- I bristle and I have to hold, and I said, “alright, sit straight, relax, let her talk.” I say, “you do anyway what you want to do but if that is what you want, don’t say it, keep your mouth shut.” If that is what it is, listen. Then I said, “oh, is that it?” and I find out more what makes me bristle. And I said that I see the importance lies, how do I fit in society, in society of a particular calibre, is the measurement of
[inaudible 00:34:22 to 00:34:30]
Holm: … still, I like her, her son-in-law was a three-star general
[inaudible 00:34:41 to 00:34:43]
Holm: … he went to Berchtesgaden, and took, from Hitler’s nephew, the pistols away. Conquered Berchtesgaden, that was what his contribution was to the war. Alright, he came back again to Germany, he was stationed all over the place, in the East, in the West, in the South, he was in Vietnam, he was all over. He is originally German of birth, he tried to find, when he came back again, was stationed later on in Germany, he tried to find this man again, whom he took the pistols from, he found him and gave them back to him. So, this man gave him back a wonderful etching from the Rhine Valley, it’s a big picture, it’s a beautiful etching, as a kind of a counter. We have such people too, here, who are thinking but that woman here is really originally a kind of a German of that type, which bristles me sometimes
Hodgson: I think you’re a bit like me, I’m always delighted to be an Englishman but delighted when people tell me they don’t see me as an Englishman. I have that kind of ambivalence
Holm: you know who makes me bristle? That is your friend, Vivienne
[from 00:36:48 to 00:38:23, they complain about Vivienne]
Holm: … maybe in ten years from now
Hodgson: but to trust your art because it’s dependable-
Holm: but they haven’t gotten the art yet, they haven’t gotten close to it yet, they’re still struggling on the outskirts, on the evidences of, they are not coming to the kernel. I know it because the actual showmanship is the evidence
Hodgson: yes, I think people go for peripherals and superficials and so on. If you’ve got the right art, that’s the crucial thing
Holm: if I have a little inkling, I will be satisfied, at least that there is a kernel. But if there is miles away then I think, “oh god, wait,” maybe time will do, hopefully, that somebody will help. I don’t know, I can’t do it, I can’t live their life
[from 00:39:30 to the end of the tape, the conversation is not relevant]
Tape 102
Summary of Side One
Holm explains Laban’s icosahedron and its use in dance. Formulae are limiting. Laban is misunderstood. Dancers need to be able to handle momentum. Dance is a combination of many elements in the correct proportions.
Summary of Side Two
Theory needs to be put into action. Talents and gifts. What is space? The role of emotions. The physical, mental, and emotional levels. What is freedom and what is discipline? Laban formulated but those after him have made it a formula. There is a difference between form and shape.
Interview Side One (30’)
Holm: … it is a denial of what you make
Hodgson: go on about the icosahedron, because that’s fascinating. I think what you say is so appropriate in Holm, Hanya. The icosahedron is sure the great problem to translate geometric form into dances. Now, as far as I can see, all the icosahedron can do is to give us some understanding of the human body in terms of its range of extensions
Holm: no, you have to really go in another way, at least I’ve found that the icosahedron, to me, is really the formula which is arriving from dimensions. Height, low, depth, width, and then the points, height and width mean this, and this connected is this. Height and depth- height and width is this, and this, and this, and this which means this- sideward. Cartwheel, walk over, somersaults. And then, depth, width and continuum make this, for example, it means turning, rotation, it means this way, this way and this way. Here are the points, five of these points come together and that’s one here, one here, one here, here, one here, one here, one here, one here, one here, one back here. They are all there and they make the icosahedron. That was only- what should I say- translated from [inaudible 00:02:47]
Hodgson: so, it’s only useful as a means to an end?
Holm: it is a means to an end but not the end in itself-
Hodgson: and you have to decide your own ends
Holm: and then Laban put the people inside and they orientated the twelve swings. Swing (x12), you have twelve but that is alright, that is a thing- you could motivate it by formula but there is no formula, now you have to translate it again, now they forgot to translate, and they take reality
Hodgson: I’m sure that’s the problem with Laban all over. Instead of being a formulation, it is formula
Holm: I have trouble to learn the twelve swings, well, it starts way back here, and that is this, these four points, flat. And then it’s these four points, they’re all diagonals again, or it is this, again these diagonals, this diagonal or that diagonal. Well, that is very difficult for the young people to translate, that that goes into space and not only into the continuum, which is not very [inaudible 00:04:47] by the formula, no formula. Yet, it creates a form justified by its content. Well then, how do you get that clear?
Hodgson: it’s the form and the formulation which are important. The formula is the restriction and the limitation
Holm: it’s a limitation that means it becomes mechanised. The formula becomes not justified anymore by its inner life, it becomes only as the effect of that what it takes the shape [inaudible 00:05:33] it takes, not the form it has. The shape it takes. The vaguery. But the form as such has to have an inner point in order to justify its outcome. Form is always the result of the content
Hodgson: and I think this is what hasn’t yet been clarified with regards to Labanotation
Holm: no, but they don’t want to because then they have to change, that’s a very difficult thing because you have to step on the thing which requires some, either some imagination, awareness of sensing things, it’s sensing, it’s not knowing it, it’s being aware of, and that is difficult because they can’t- they only know that they don’t know, period. Their senses are not alert, they’re not alive, they’re not stimulated. The senses are denied, period, because they are uncomfortable
Hodgson: and I think this is where Laban is already, throughout his own time and our time, he has been terribly misunderstood
Holm: [inaudible 00:07:09] unless I don’t go, if Laban understood proper, that there was that necessary evaluation to be focused [inaudible 00:07:25 to 00:07:26] rather than the matter of fact because geometry is really involved
Hodgson: but again, only so far as a means to an end rather than an end in itself
Holm: the other capital three basic dimensions, but there are many more but these we take out on the diagonals. There is almost- when you take circular there are all these dimensions there which are uncountable, you can have as many as you wish
Hodgson: I think one of the problems is that very few of his, including Jooss, I don’t think many of his followers really understood what he was about
Holm: they don’t want to because that’s uncomfortable
Hodgson: and everyone would prefer to have a formula rather than a formulation because you can’t-
Holm: I cannot use, in any kind of a teaching, the multiplication of the possibilities because people will never understand it. I have to return to this which is this, or this, this- to the basic geometric or whatever they learned in school. I have to return to that, I can’t go to the continuum, I can’t because they wouldn’t know what I’m talking about, they don’t. Then they can’t find any equilibrium of understanding there. That belongs in another box, that belongs in a book. And the book is such you can forget, let’s take it in to life
Hodgson: because, I think, the book just limits you in that sense
Holm: the book is only a crutch
Hodgson: the book becomes n, o, the letters, and its life that makes it ‘no’
Holm: it’s true, what you make out of it
Hodgson: and to make an example out of it, it’s nice that that’s what Laban himself did, and I think that’s a very good-
Holm: he was a mime, he was a very good mime
Hodgson: and he was the worst person in the world to want to stay static, he was essentially always feeling the ideas are no good in themselves unless they’re moving and if they once become static-
Holm: it became a bit static because people go by the geometric statements of the line on paper, two-dimensionally. They forget to translate it three-dimension, and many dimensionally
Hodgson: that’s right. Even when you’ve got the dimensions, you’ve got to have the movement which links the dimensions
Holm: but if you don’t know the basic, you can’t be part but then they don’t want to go to the basic, and if they take the basic, they get stuck. The basic is only the perpetual. The basic gives you the hope to be able to be part. If you haven’t gotten the basic, you shouldn’t be part
Hodgson: but a lot of people, having gotten the basic, don’t want to be part, that’s even worse because they say, “well, that’s it,”
Holm: they want to be safe; they want to- whatever they please. They don’t want to risk, they also will never know what momentum or movement is because momentum is a risk, oh boy, do you have to let go that it can happen, and you learn it more than anywhere if you stand on a surfboard, which I did in Hawaii. You don’t do that; you are right in the water up to here
Hodgson: it’s a good metaphor that, a good analogy because a surfboard is-
Holm: anywhere, or going skiing, the moment you get momentum, know how to handle it then you are alright. If you get lost, it can get [inaudible 00:12:32]. The simplest thing that every dancer wants, they want to leap, they want to go in the air. When somebody is in the air, I see in the face the fear of coming down. They have to accept the inevitable, they have to go down, there’s no choice. So, they should like it to come down but master it, rather than be mastered by the exuberance which they cannot fulfil because then the exuberance is not convincing either. If you exaggerate, you see the fear written on their faces, everywhere
Hodgson: it’s lovely that these are all movement images-
Holm: well, it’s simple, everything is awfully simple
Hodgson: but awfully complicated in the same way
Holm: because we make it
Hodgson: it is quite complicated though because just in- I think the momentum is simple but the use of momentum is complex, if not complicated
Holm: complex is right but not complicated. The complication we are making because the complexity is confusing us. Look at children, what do they do? They don’t know. Then the idiot, who is not wise, is doing things which you would say you have to be an idiot to do. Alright, so you are an idiot, well, don’t call these people an idiot, they were just understanding what they were doing
Hodgson: but that’s when the genius emerges when you begin to understand what you’re doing
Holm: the genius emerges if the impossibility is not the fear, it’s the fulfilment of the possible. That’s all there is to it. And the acceptance- there is one thing, and believe very strongly, acceptance of the continuum of the passing on, it doesn’t stop, the constant. Acceptance of the constant, that is one of our main problems that we are not able- who understands what is eternity?
Hodgson: no one
Holm: yes, but accept it that continuum is there, let it be. And if you accept it, it takes the fear away because the fear is the unknowing of the danger, it’s the protectiveness against something which is destructive. Well, if you accept it, then it isn’t destructive. If you stand on that water, the wave goes under you and picks you up on your surfboard, you say, “between the heaven and me, and the water, there’s nothing else.” Balance, try to, don’t be pre-set, you can’t, you don’t know what’s coming because it comes, and you don’t know what it is. It doesn’t know it either because it’s a force which comes. Now, to what dilemma that hope is, the force doesn’t know and doesn’t care. It doesn’t want to scare you; no, it doesn’t have that intention [inaudible 00:17:11]. Now, you have to adjust [inaudible 00:17:14 to 00:17:17] you must not defend yourself, accept it. That is quite something which is not easy to do, not to be limp, and to be giving up, you are not giving up, you are facing the challenge, period. You must face the challenge
Hodgson: and it is that unique combination of tension and relaxation
Holm: exactly, precisely. And you said it but don’t forget the word ‘combination’ it’s neither the one nor the other, it’s a combination. And to what degree the combination goes is up to the challenge, who knows? And why? Why not? That is really, truly speaking, the essence of life
Hodgson: it’s certainly nice, the definition- I was just thinking, the essence of dance, it is that nice combination of relaxation and tension, responding to chance
Holm: right, but responding and being responsible, and that includes form, shape, time, space and all the elements, they are all in one, all in one snowball. And you can’t take them apart because they are only in degrees
Hodgson: but they will also melt away too, there is-
Holm: that’s what I mean, it’s all- it’s not permanent. Nothing is permanent. I always tell the kids, if I get- I want to make a cake, I don’t take a pound of salt, a pound of sugar, a pound of flour, a pound of butter, and make a cake out of it- you eat it, I don’t. You have to know proportions, which makes a new unit. That cake is not flour, it’s not sugar, it is the combination of everything, the sugar releases its sweetness, the salt releases a little bit of that spice, the flour binds it. Each one is another element, and it has to be according to its own power, you can’t just make it to your own organisation there, that is has to go- it won’t, it refuses, thank god
Hodgson: and, fascinatingly enough, if we each take the same recipe even, and the same amount of flour, it will become a different cake
Holm: yes, because if you use your own, so-called, fingertip taste, you’re different. It should be but it will never be that it’s uneatable. It only tastes better or less good
Hodgson: providing you’ve got the proportions right, yes
Holm: well, that is why you have a recipe. That means you have a pattern, some would rather, which has been proven, it has been done, it’s not on paper only by matter of confusion, it has been translated in reality, hasn’t it? It’s all- in a way, it’s logic but logic as such is not always the guarantee of security, sometimes you have to be so illogical in order to be right
Hodgson: sometimes you have to be prepared to be insecure. I think that’s why your skiing, or surfboarding analogy- because that’s a very insecure image
Holm: because you don’t know the forces which attack you, and they do if you challenge them
Hodgson: you just have to know how to actually work with them
Holm: yes, but if you don’t attack the forces, you are a weakling. If I attack the forces, I have to measure myself to. If I don’t attack the forces, I go around the- I am a [inaudible 00:22:49 to 00:22:50]
Hodgson: attacking has to be done with such awareness
Holm: open-minded, I would say, to the force, not neglecting the force or disregarding the force. Taking the force in consideration, as you challenge it. I took, made a new dance for [inaudible 00:23:17] where I felt I was tired to use anything which is emotionally orientated. I used time, timing, rhythm, and I used- it came out from a military rhythm. I used and checked through hundreds and hundreds of all these primitive rhythms like African rhythms, southern rhythms, and I finally came down to a American Negro who really based on the true military demands, which was not emotionally- and from this, the variation was very interesting and I used this and made a dance out of it. It really took the people by surprise, they had never forgotten it yet because it was metered and almost Russian, military rhythm. For one moment, then of course the departures come in [inaudible 00:24:36] but it was not emotional rhythms, they were all dynamic rhythm of some form and some variations
Hodgson: explain that difference to me because I only understand any rhythm as having an emotional content
Holm: not every but there are a thousand different emotional reasons, and hits you in different places, either it hits you in detail here, or it hits you in there, or it hits you in the middle, or it hits you only in the feet. They are very, very different areas, it hits your body in different ways
Hodgson: wouldn’t they all have some kind of emotional impact though?
Holm: and resultant because if it goes through your nervous system, it has immediately the understanding of, or can sense it. It’s very interesting
[inaudible 00:25:46 to 00:25:50]
Holm: … over the line backwards, sideward, whatever. Carry it out, don’t know it only on paper, do it. So far, the people haven’t forgotten that little nonsense there
[inaudible 00:26:18 to 00:26:22]
Holm: … these costumes with the [inaudible 00:26:24]
Hodgson: really?
Holm: oh hell, because they were-
Hodgson: they were designed by Schlemmer?
Holm: [inaudible 00:26:30]. They were very exciting, very interesting but movement-wise limited. They had to be, but the design was-
Hodgson: to go over the human
Holm: exactly. Now they go and they bring this back, the architecture of paper or the dominance on design rather than on the inner-
Hodgson: and although you don’t have to have a screwdriver to get in the Nick’s costume, nevertheless he still limits the human-
Holm: wilfully, on his own [inaudible 00:27:19]. It is not now, handicapping or straitjackets or whatever, not at all. Now, it is so that the actual 100 per cent flexibility of the human spirit is handicapped in relationship to the dominance of the shaping, the mechanisation of the action. That is- it’s just reduced. It’s a very interesting thing. Now, for instance, it can be quite easily mistaken, if I want to be circular, I have to give up something, I don’t want to go once, I have to. That means I have to deny the one to achieve the other, that doesn’t mean the other does not exist, or the other one is not good. It’s good for something else but I deny it if I want to do this, or I want to do this. This I do, I want to deny this. Not that I cannot do it, I can if I want to, but I don’t want at that moment because I want to do this, right? Now, that the people do not realise, and make again a finality out of it but they don’t say, I use it only for the purpose I want, that doesn’t mean it’s good for something else. Though they throw the child out-
Interview side two (45’)
Holm: … and start fresh from- not from that point already you have established but something which is required. Now, that might be quite new to you and quite uncomfortable to you but that should be so. Now, you have to live up to it and that is the challenge, you have to get and that is healthy
Hodgson: yes, I’m sure that it is all too easy. Why has he got stuck?
Holm: I don’t know, maybe he’s caught in his own web
Hodgson: will he take comments from you?
Holm: I haven’t discussed it with him. I don’t know if he did and I don’t know if I can make it clear because these things, they are in between. You can’t hit the nail on the head, sometimes you do, but it is not guaranteed that you do because people’s fantasy- you reach somewhere or other and might get into a direction where it has its own doom because everything has only that much stretchabilty as it can have and then it begins to revolt. And when it revolts you ought to be alert enough in order to find it out. Last summer, it was very interesting, I felt I worked very much with [00:01:52] company because it’s not so much the company as such but it’s Don because he understands and he is a really quite- I would say a very hopeful, capable person in order to do something which is different, not to be different, but which is going branches which have not been discovered yet, or where nobody really dares to tread yet. Alright, do that and it might be a theory, it might be all wrong, okay. Take it in strides. If you don’t try, you don’t know. Theory on paper won’t work. It’s action, and action is a thing which is almost as fleeting, it is so that the moment you put your finger on it, it has changed already and has become something else, and you take the finger of and then it becomes something else again. Now then, now take your pick and make your choice, and make your decisions and make your schedule, or make your plan however your battleaxe, you go at it. And that might lead you somewhere rather more south than you thought, that the action was more north. So, well then, form a new course if you can, that has to be practised. You can’t do it unless somebody is that flexible that wherever you go, your balance is ready, that means you are not settled, you are- that is again a dangerous thing that you get so kind of nobody, and that is another problem-
Hodgson: do you think that acceptance by the public can affect your settlement?
Holm: no. It’s a very funny thing because the acceptance by the public, unless you trust your public, otherwise you have well-wishers, you have friends, you have brother thinkers, you have all hopeful achievers, you have- it’s a wishful business, it’s sometimes a very, very troublesome thing because unless there is somebody who is just about the same fold than you are, and knows the difficulties of the decision because the decision, somewhere or other to people is fine though, it isn’t. The decision is temporary and that may be good today but no good tomorrow because situations have changed and fortunately, they can change, and we must allow them to do. So therefore, you have to stay alert, period
[from 00:05:40 to 00:12:14, they talk about talents and gifts]
Holm: … what is that ‘it’? what do you we know? I try to get, now, a little bit more philosophical to my students when they ask me about space, and I say, “what do you know? Explain it to me?” “oh, that’s the distance from here to there,” and I say it isn’t. What is it really? Can you try to get a formula of what you think space is, not your space, not somebody else’s space as such. You have trouble. Now, ask them what do you think time is? They don’t know either. Five minutes, ten minutes, half a minute, and I say, “no sir,”
Holm: it’s the same thing, you are animated, but you have to be- you are not naturalistic. Even when you are joyful you are not naturalistic; you are using your language in bodily symbols almost because a word is really a symbol of a thought isn’t it? So therefore, the movement is a symbol of your condition
Hodgson: but it has a different expressive quality
Holm: oh, it has degrees because you can say it with an evenness, or you can say it with a little bit more of an emphasis, or you can say it very fast, or you can say it very slow. Now, that means time is again involved, calmness, or agitation of a higher calibre. You have to reach with that but not only as such but within the frame of your language, makes sense
Hodgson: and, I’m just trying to see the development from- folk dance I suppose is always celebratory-
Holm: they always had a reason, at least-
Hodgson: do we have dances of death and so on?
Holm: funeral dances? Oh yes
Hodgson: but they’re not necessarily sad dances
Holm: no, it depends how you consider death to be. When you get emotional and you are pining over a loss, then you better go home and lock yourself up and do it, whatever you want to do, hit your head on the pillow, cry yourself green in the face, whatever is necessary as your nervous system is loaded, sometimes too uncontrollable- what you call the hysteria. Now, that is not productive, hysteria is not a productive thing, that isn’t over. Then it begins to get inflamed and it gets sick, then it is really- well, it’s not controllable any more to that, and it becomes embarrassing because then it’s uncontrolled because that is again the point, and here we go again, we have form which will help us. If we don’t formularise the form- well, the form is the necessary appearance of the content
[from 00:20:29 to 00:27:27, they talk about different folk and court dances]
Holm: … I heard La Argentina, you never saw it, she was before your time. Well, that was a noble dancer if I ever saw one. She came to Dresden and I have a picture where Wigman and La Argentina are photographed together. So, these were exciting times but there was cheating, and she used really- she was ballet trained also- but she used the straight folk dances as the thing and the playing of- there are records existing of her playing the castanets, such a music, and something else with the feet. These castanets they could really drive you crazy with their- whatever was the rhythm was- a whole orchestra was going on there
Hodgson: how did you fit the lyrical dances in it-
Holm: that’s a matter of degree. Either it’s lyrical, or it’s majestic, or it is symbolic, you must make the decision, what is your motivation? If you are joyous, you have another kind of a dance, your dance movements are chosen differently, your language is different, as you take a dance of dance into death, the Wigman dance, or the monotony of turning, with the utter destruction afterward. There are dramatic impacts behind it, or she had a Russian suite and a Spanish suite, and there was Albanese, or some other country’s composers. And, it’s not imitation of the Spaniards but it was an empathy with the urgency of that what is underneath, which immediately does something to the body, if your body is sensitive. And it’s very funny, we have [inaudible 00:30:21] who teach Spanish dancing up in Juilliard, and he complains too that when they do the things and they get the heel clicks, but there is not that thing which the Spaniard has, bright, and the bright is in the body, there is a lift in the body, it doesn’t do that anymore-
[from 00:30:44 to 00:33:52, they talk more about various world dances]
Holm: … and you achieve that ecstasy by repeat, this monotony, you can. As a matter of fact, it’s a self-hypnosis with the continuum of that activity. I have had it because sometimes- that happened in Germany, happened to me when I taught, and happened to me here. I had one girl here, she couldn’t stop. We were sitting, we were just getting that feeling of swinging, which is quite a sensation in the body, and I speak very little and have a tiny bit of noise with it so that there is not silence, and then I stopped it, and she didn’t, kept going. I got scared. Then I called her name very softly, “Fanny,” kept going, was gone. I had to repeat it, I don’t know how many times until she all of a sudden stopped. The eyes opened, didn’t get the shock, she very carefully came back, she was gone
Hodgson: is that element there- it obviously is there within the dance-
Holm: that element is there, but the element never goes to the hysteria
Hodgson: but it is the body affecting the mind I suppose, the interrelationship
Holm: it affects the mind in so far that certain kinds of involuntary resistances fall down because that word fear is such a ruler that whenever anything happens, the body doesn’t trust itself because it is going away from- like for instance, you would say, all of a sudden, you fly. That sensation is really frightening for a moment, “oh my god, I fly,” already it’s kaput, accept it and don’t fight it, accept it and see what you can make from it. It would be nice; you could fly over the ground without leaving the ground. There is where the thing becomes profitable, while it otherwise becomes almost destructive because then it turns into a hysteria which of course is self-defeating
[from 00:36:42 to 00:41:53, they talk about various dance and music through history]
Hodgson: … I suppose it’s another way of man trying to cope and relate to his environment, or to-
Holm: to pulses
Hodgson: yes, to overcome elements-
Holm: overcome or accept them. Most of the time we are so afraid that we deny, and there we are getting in trouble because of what we are afraid of, we don’t want to happen, to have it happen so we are defensive but then we do because we want to but we are doing two things and the same time, we do it and are defensive. Now, of course it can’t happen. If we lose the fear, and let that moment happen where it really flows, like that girl who couldn’t stop anymore and feel heavenly. It’s that experience which is in a way on the expense of wiping out something, which is your disco
Hodgson: did the girl, who went into a trance in your session, did she ever describe her experience?
Holm: she said it was heavenly, there was no limitation, there was not too much either, there was no danger, she felt sure, secure, and well taken care of. But she really allowed the body to do, she wasn’t idle, she was doing it. But what was- that’s what I, when I let the kids do, I haven’t done it for a long time because people are now all running and whatnot so they have their exercises but at the time when that wasn’t so, I did about, with the stop watch, sometimes I did half an hour, but I tell you, they flew after that, they didn’t run anymore, they couldn’t keep their feet on the floor, the want to get up because there was so much energy stored by holding it back and trying to get the mechanics of the action accepted, rather than that every motion is adding up to a little more tired. They were not aware of it, they were not because truly, movement which is self-renewal is a vibration, it’s neither that, or is that, it’s self, it’s the in between of doing two things with the same amount and the same amount between but that gravity is the lift, that that lift is ready enough to accept gravity, that’s the whole principle. If you manufacture it, it won’t happen
Hodgson: you say movement is a self-renewal?
Holm: in this vibratory condition it is. Also, it is otherwise in the swing too. Also, the swing which really is so easy, and it needs so little energy because you have gravity. You borrow gravity but you have to take care of it because that weight brings you over the dead point. Now, here you have to have the lift but if you stop here, boy do you have to do a lift, you’re right on the tail of that comet but you shape it, you don’t do a little thing, you shape it as much as you wish, or you make it smaller and then you hold it closer to the centre, while here you send it out as far as you wish
Hodgson: I think this is something, again this is again another purpose of the dance, it is in fact a self-renewal, spiritual but also a physical one. The other thing is, kids could dance in a disco and they don’t feel worn out
Holm: that’s right. There you are, that’s your answer
Hodgson: because it is in fact- and I think the other thing you were mentioning which is quite interesting is this business of getting through the barrier of tiredness, you can be tired-
Holm: there is one reason, limitation of technique. Then that comes- that has to happen, that has to happen, that has to happen- then all of a sudden, it falls in detail, and therefore, gets stuck, while otherwise everything does this in the disco. They do the same thing, only they are not breaking everything down in small, little events. It’s just so that when they go down, they are right away up, they are never down, they are never up, they are always in between. If they want to go up, well, there is a little explosion when they come down, they fall right away again in the creation of the continuum. It’s a psychological thing which is a very good example
Hodgson: it’s fascinating the way the body can be used like that and not get tired, it can be a renewal
Holm: it shouldn’t, it is a renewal. If it isn’t that- in comparison, Wigman gave a whole performance, that is about at least an hour and a half, it had to be, and that’s long enough, and all solo dances, one after the other, and there is not 10 minutes in between, just enough to change the costume, comb your hair, and put a little powder on, go out again, and do something entirely different. But the actual technique of the doing was not moving this way, there was the acceptance, whatever the dance required, you accepted within the frame of the demand. And you were ready, that’s what happened in between when you changed your costumes, you changed also roles because the dances had to be different otherwise a whole evening of solos was unbearable monotony. So, there were quite a variety of presentations which say, “look at that,” and you sat a little farther forward, rather than, “oh, again?” that kind of a thing. Then, to do that you need, what you call, economy of spending to last for an hour and a half without let down, you can’t, you have to be with it all the way along, but you change. This one is based on formality, this one is based on cosmic principles, this one is based on more a dramatic subject, this one is based on carefree, or whatever but you can’t do it with one and the same palette, you have to change the palette. So therefore, you have to have another kind- it’s not, “it’s me who is there,” no, it’s you as another one, and that would mean that you can’t be monotonous, you simply can’t be it
Hodgson: and you can’t be for the sake of carrying yourself through the evening as well as carrying your audience through the evening
Holm: yes, and do justice to that what you want to the people to take with them, you can’t
Hodgson: in planning out programmes, did she very clearly think about that sort of situation?
Holm: oh, heavens yes. Also, you have to think a little programmatic because you can’t do, “I like only doing this,” or that get repeats of, not steps but gets a repeat of subject matter, which is, in a way, worn out. Maybe sometimes the subject matter was either sad dance with different levels but then you have to hold this apart, you can’t let them slip on one level. That takes training, and that takes expertise, in being master of your awareness, of your emotions, of your logic
Hodgson: there is something also, isn’t it in the nature of dance that you have to have release to be able to get more in, you can’t- like a battery, you can’t just keep topping it up, you have to charge it
Holm: you have to spend it to refill, and that is what the people are afraid of because they don’t know from what to refill
Hodgson: but then the spending is a kind of re-fulfilment in itself
Holm: it is, and then you come again, it’s not what you do, but how you do it
Hodgson: but that seems to be a fundamental element of the dance, again it’s values and functions. What do you see as its function in a society like New York where it’s- you don’t find many, a lot people doing disco dancing, but you don’t find many people taking part in the dancing, they go to watch the dance? What is the value of dance observed, rather than dance done?
Holm: when they get a satisfaction by exposing themselves to atmosphere which is created when you have a floor full of these wild creature, they let go, and the one who sits and cannot participate gets a satisfaction by being with it, whatever is wishful thinking but being kind of, I would say, a little bit anaesthetised, and like taking dope
Hodgson: has a dance artist got a function, do you think in society today?
Holm: oh yes
Hodgson: what do you think it is?
Holm: really, what particularly the modern dance is, that subject matters are taken from society, as it makes- in the difference, compared to a society 1840 or 45. Like we have a Bach or we have the music as a leftover from- it was composed in the time. Today Bach would probably write different, I don’t know, maybe the same. And yet it was right out of the time where the conditions were, the circumstances, the air- there is so much which goes to, and goes with it, what makes society. Today, everything is nervous, who, where is a calm society, you know one? The English certainly are not calm, they are just about as nervous as cats [inaudible 00:55:00]
Hodgson: but the dance seems to serve, say in New York society, as an escape from its whirlwind, is what I think, essentially, is what the classical ballet does anyway. I don’t see many dances being done which say much about our time except that we’ve got to get away from it
Holm: then, it’s badly done. It’s done with these, what you call, postmoderns. They will come again, if I be kind I say, surrealistic, and that is a little bit too much, and sometimes inacceptable for no reason, just look at an advertisement I got here from a young- that’s a young dancer. She was also a Juilliard girl, one of these two. Along the way as they photograph that duel, I don’t know what to make out of it- I think the pants are splitting any minute, and I think it’s on purpose that they took a picture of that kind, why? I don’t know what it does. The whole thing is not- it may fit, maybe it’s just as is, maybe it should be so, I don’t know. I have no use for it but-
Hodgson: it all seems to be saying something. It should be saying something about the times, and what the artist is feeling, otherwise the dancer as a feeling artist isn’t-
Holm: yes, but then say it so that it isn’t only suggestive, say it
Hodgson: and there’s an opportunity to at least give insight into art society through it-
Holm: possibly, but then it’s ugly, and it should be ugly. Whatever it is, if you have to say something, or bring out something which is ugly, it can’t be beautified, or hidden, or with a tongue in cheek, then it has to be spoken out as it is
Hodgson: except it can be-
Holm: sublimated?
Hodgson: yes, and with the kind of thing we’re talking about, you can sort of go through the tragedy of the times
Holm: right, that can be but then it’s not ugly. Even then, the ugliness of the time, there is a certain beauty
[from 00:58:16 to the end of the tape, they carry on this discussion, which doesn’t seem relevant]
Tape 101
Summary of Side One
Holm did not want to be outspoken about political issues or sell out just for money. Laban was punished by Hitler. German dance. Discussion of German legends and Catholicism.
Interview Side One (45’)
Hodgson: … how far was he responsible?
Holm: only to the goodness of his resistance or his behaviour
Hodgson: why should you sell out the dance for the sake of what you think, or what you don’t want to know is happening?
Holm: I didn’t because the Communists tried to sell me out, and I didn’t. Also, the others, the Nazis left me alone, there was nobody because they knew I wouldn’t, whatever, and there were some [inaudible 00:00:36 to 00:00:37], quite a number of them. But they didn’t come near
Hodgson: no, but you’d already shown your colours in that direction because you’d actually taken a stand elsewhere
Holm: I explained, and said I’m not a politician, and I don’t want anything to do- I have Communists in this school, I have other people in this school, I’m teaching dancing, and this is my commitment. Whatever is otherwise is their business, not mine. Don’t blame me for things which-
Hodgson: this is what I wanted to get you on about because this is the really tricky thing. I think, of course, I am not a politician but what you are saying also is, either I cannot afford to turn, or put my dark glasses where politics are concerned. Now, talk about that because that’s really quite-
Holm: I did not criticise openly [inaudible 00:01:39 to 00:01:40]. I didn’t say either [inaudible 00:01:46 to 00:01:54] … that is a breaking point there. I refuse and I said it to all these people from the FBI. They came and we had many, many discussions about it and I said, “listen, I am not a politician, neither this side or that side, I am not willing to commit myself because this is not my premise,” because then I have to act differently, I have to refuse people. These people want to learn how to dance and that’s an entirely different subject
Hodgson: isn’t that what Laban and Wigman are doing in Germany, saying, “these people want to dance, you asked me to be”- what did the FBI say to you? “Hanya, we want you to have this salary, and we want to give you this studio,”-
Holm: they didn’t
Hodgson: no, but what if they had done? What would your response be?
Holm: I wouldn’t have taken it
Hodgson: I think that’s where you’re different from them. I think that they did- well, they felt that, “I’m not a politician,” they said the same thing-
Holm: I wouldn’t have taken it
Hodgson: but they said the same thing as you’re saying, “I’m not a politician.” Laban and Wigman, neither of them are, and they believed honestly and sincerely, and I don’t doubt their sincerity
Holm: but they took. Well, that you cannot do. Even if you get broke, even if you get in the dumps
Hodgson: so, how do you draw the line? When do you draw the line? You say it’s not your job to discriminate who comes to learn dancing-
Holm: I said, “alright, go, do what you have to do.” So, they boycotted me, all the Jews. And I said, “that’s your business, if you want to, I can’t hold you back, go ahead and do. I still am not going on your side because you want to force me. I won’t.” You have to be decided, you can’t say no and take it
Hodgson: the other thing though is true; the odd thing is that you had already shown- I can’t believe that people could take this view in regard to you- because you had already shown your standard
Holm: I had shown what I could do, and that what I do, and I said, “if you want it, it’s open, you can get it,” but I am not bowing down
[inaudible 00:04:39 to 000:04:59]
Hodgson: this is exactly, I think it’s heckishly difficult-
Holm: the school was so empty, I tell you, because they were about, at least, 80 per cent Jews there, laymen and professionals. I said that I don’t care, that’s your business, if you are that dumb, that’s your business, not mine, I’m giving you something which is not on that ticket, what we are doing is something entirely different. If you don’t understand it, I’m not colouring it pink or brown. If you don’t believe me, I take the blame, whatever you blame me for because this is what it is, take the consequences
[inaudible 00:05:59 to 00:06:04]
Holm: … so, you have to stand for your, what you say
Hodgson: but, just tell me, where does the line occur?
Holm: the line occurs, it’s your decision that you have to think over what are the consequences? The consequences are money, that means the money is income, existence I have to pay the rent, I have to pay my people who I have engaged, I have to pay a secretary, I have to pay a pianist, I have to pay the assistant- that stays right put. I have to focus it. Then, I went around, and I took up money in order to do it, but I had to earn it back, that’s why I did shows. I only took on the Broadway shows because I was so full of debt. I had to pay 10,000 dollars, which is a lot, for doing Trend, only for the set. That was ’37 and that was a debt which was there. And plus, the other debts which accumulated so I said, “well, how can I do it?” and then the show was offered and I said, “I have no choice,” I have to take it because that gave a certain amount of money where I could get rid of that debt, I could get rid of that debt. So, I said I’d do it. And I told the people, I said I had never done it, if you want to take the risk, I’m willing if you are willing. “Okay, we are willing,” and I said, “alright, but I warned you, I might not be able to do it.” I’d never tried it, so I don’t know capacity, but I will try and do my best, I’m not going to slop it, I do it so I can hold my head up and I can say it is work that I can sign for, otherwise I would rather not even start it. “Please help us out,” and I said, “if you feel that way, you are taking the risk, not I.” Well, they want to, and it worked out, thank God
Hodgson: but you wouldn’t have done it if you felt that it had been tainted in any way
Holm: no, I wouldn’t-
Hodgson: even to pay your debt off
Holm: that is such a limitation
Hodgson: even to clear your debts off?
Holm: even to clear them. There is something else coming up, I’ll go scrub floors or something
Hodgson: I have a feeling; I may be wrong-
Holm: I am not willing to sell for something when I get in debt again, and the debt might be more devastating than money. Money can be somewhere rather- not found but produced one way or the other but anything which is going against your principle, you can’t replace. And that will stay with you forever, you cannot do that. That I was unwilling to do because I had too much from past experiences in the European situation, where you got into a pitfall, where you got into something where you couldn’t get out, and that was worse than anything that could be made up with money because money is [inaudible 00:09:51] this way but other things they are going deep down, and that’s why my mind is clear. I don’t have to thank somebody, I’m not in debt to anybody, I can think as I wish
Hodgson: would that occur also, if you felt that, for some reason or another, the dance could be enhanced? You wouldn’t sell out either for the dance?
Holm: no, because that throws back, because this is what is right now, and that is that thing down in Washington. If you are in, you are getting privileges. If you are not in, well, the hell with it. If you don’t take for value what has been done, proof has been given, if that means nothing then I’m sorry, I’m not buying myself in. I’m not bowing down to you, and I know of a certain person in mind who certainly has no right to be so haughty that she wormed herself into a position where she has a voice in that whole decision of, well, state support for the arts, for the liberal arts. I know very well who she is, I had it out with her once, only in a meeting where she said, “what are you doing here?” and I said, “the same what you do here,” I was invited. Well, she was in capacity of something represented. Anyway, I can kick too
Hodgson: and you can kick with greater strength if you’ve got your integrity, I think you’re right
Holm: I tell you; I don’t like to kick; I don’t hurt but I neglect. That’s one thing, this person doesn’t exist for me anymore. I know who she is, she’s the wife of Mr. Moss Hart, Kitty. And, I know Kitty, and she knows I know too well of her and too much. So, I won’t say a word, just grin and bear it
Hodgson: but [inaudible 00:12:24 to 00:12:26], I’m sure you’re right, you’ve got something there which nobody can destroy because it is your-
Holm: I keep my mind clear, if I give in, one or the other, to these shenanigans, I’m in, I have to play the game and then one shenanigan come out- I don’t want to. I have other things to do which are much more exciting, much more interesting and much more worth your while. I hold all possible which are in anyway signs- magazines, I live in it, it’s marvellous, it’s wonderful. I get a great satisfaction knowing a little bit that nothing is not nothing. That’s something. What it is I couldn’t tell you, maybe I’ll find out my own way, that it takes on a shape, I don’t know but I have to wait a little bit, it hasn’t come yet. And, it doesn’t really matter if our early guys didn’t know it. If Copernicus didn’t know it, why should I know it? They were asking for it too. It’s so human- human beings are sometimes so small and so they make a thunderbolt out of a pipsqueak
Hodgson: but when it comes to- your situation here is somewhat perhaps, well, is very different from what we left Laban and Wigman with, and theirs is perhaps a bigger, and therefore harder-
Holm: also, there is something that Laban or Wigman, they would not be able to accept it. But I accepted and let it be, but it doesn’t change it
Hodgson: oh, you’re right and I can give you verification of that. Laban was put in disgrace by Hitler. He was put into house arrest or close- but wrote a paper which I found in this thing- it’s fascinating, again, I could let you read it- but he’s really putting in a plea for German dance and I can see, it seems to me, even in the point of disgrace, he’s still trying to get back into favour. It’s a-
Holm: that is terrible, that is wrong because, why, depending on such a louse like Hitler in order to ask permission to exist, which is much stronger than Hitler himself, or anyone of his-
Hodgson he was, in fairness, asking for permission for dance, German dance. The plea is, German dance could be the dance given the right kind of circumstance-
Holm: that is the wrong premise anyway, what is the German dance? That has a little bit here, already, a mistake
Hodgson: no, that’s already playing to Hitler. It’s not a mistake, it’s a political move
Holm: well, yes, but now wait a minute, there is something more to it because he called it, before Hitler, the German dance
Hodgson: I see, and he was Czechoslovakian- Hungarian I mean
Holm: doesn’t matter but he had his resonance in Germany, the others did not do that. So therefore, he put the nationality in respect to it- I think there is something wrong
Hodgson: I’m sure you’re right, and I think that Wigman was party to it
Holm: because she was very Germanic in that way. She was Wagnerian entirely. She was a Valkyrie, and she was a- have you ever read the [inaudible 00:17:00 to 00:17:04]? I don’t know if they have translated but it is the fairy tales of the Rhine, the river, and that is interesting. It’s writing about a miller who- it’s really [inaudible 00:17:23]- and going through all the [inaudible 00:17:26], going through all these things, it is the mouse tower in- where is it? Somewhere- as the mice got upset and they came with the archbishop of Mainz, and they attacked- it’s a very interesting fairy tale but it’s wonderfully belonging to the history, or belonging to the legend of the area and you feel how- the Rhine maidens, you find it in the Wagnerian thing, and also the Rhinegold, it’s very interesting. It’s existing in German, I don’t know if you can read it in German, I don’t know if you get it here.
[from 00:18:24 to 00:32:25, they continue discussing legends, particularly ones Hanya heard as a child, and her Catholic faith]
Hodgson: … what I’m saying is, the artist, anyway it seems to me, has got to make some adjustments in- and I think this is what is interesting about the whole thing is- he has to make adjustments to religion and to politics because the artist isn’t going to go with either areas, the real artist in my view, he’s going to have to be a person who is facing, almost by definition, facing society and the times in which he lives in terms of objective, subjective awareness and response and is going to remain critical, is going to remain-
Holm: that’s the main thing, don’t lose your critical faculties. I tell you an example, I have a good friend in Colorado Springs. She is German, from that kind of a German, she doesn’t know it, but she is. Alright, but she has a good heart. I sometimes I get kind of- I bristle and I have to hold, and I said, “alright, sit straight, relax, let her talk.” I say, “you do anyway what you want to do but if that is what you want, don’t say it, keep your mouth shut.” If that is what it is, listen. Then I said, “oh, is that it?” and I find out more what makes me bristle. And I said that I see the importance lies, how do I fit in society, in society of a particular calibre, is the measurement of
[inaudible 00:34:22 to 00:34:30]
Holm: … still, I like her, her son-in-law was a three-star general
[inaudible 00:34:41 to 00:34:43]
Holm: … he went to Berchtesgaden, and took, from Hitler’s nephew, the pistols away. Conquered Berchtesgaden, that was what his contribution was to the war. Alright, he came back again to Germany, he was stationed all over the place, in the East, in the West, in the South, he was in Vietnam, he was all over. He is originally German of birth, he tried to find, when he came back again, was stationed later on in Germany, he tried to find this man again, whom he took the pistols from, he found him and gave them back to him. So, this man gave him back a wonderful etching from the Rhine Valley, it’s a big picture, it’s a beautiful etching, as a kind of a counter. We have such people too, here, who are thinking but that woman here is really originally a kind of a German of that type, which bristles me sometimes
Hodgson: I think you’re a bit like me, I’m always delighted to be an Englishman but delighted when people tell me they don’t see me as an Englishman. I have that kind of ambivalence
Holm: you know who makes me bristle? That is your friend, Vivienne
[from 00:36:48 to 00:38:23, they complain about Vivienne]
Holm: … maybe in ten years from now
Hodgson: but to trust your art because it’s dependable-
Holm: but they haven’t gotten the art yet, they haven’t gotten close to it yet, they’re still struggling on the outskirts, on the evidences of, they are not coming to the kernel. I know it because the actual showmanship is the evidence
Hodgson: yes, I think people go for peripherals and superficials and so on. If you’ve got the right art, that’s the crucial thing
Holm: if I have a little inkling, I will be satisfied, at least that there is a kernel. But if there is miles away then I think, “oh god, wait,” maybe time will do, hopefully, that somebody will help. I don’t know, I can’t do it, I can’t live their life
[from 00:39:30 to the end of the tape, the conversation is not relevant]
Tape 102
Summary of Side One
Holm explains Laban’s icosahedron and its use in dance. Formulae are limiting. Laban is misunderstood. Dancers need to be able to handle momentum. Dance is a combination of many elements in the correct proportions.
Summary of Side Two
Theory needs to be put into action. Talents and gifts. What is space? The role of emotions. The physical, mental, and emotional levels. What is freedom and what is discipline? Laban formulated but those after him have made it a formula. There is a difference between form and shape.
Interview Side One (30’)
Holm: … it is a denial of what you make
Hodgson: go on about the icosahedron, because that’s fascinating. I think what you say is so appropriate in Holm, Hanya. The icosahedron is sure the great problem to translate geometric form into dances. Now, as far as I can see, all the icosahedron can do is to give us some understanding of the human body in terms of its range of extensions
Holm: no, you have to really go in another way, at least I’ve found that the icosahedron, to me, is really the formula which is arriving from dimensions. Height, low, depth, width, and then the points, height and width mean this, and this connected is this. Height and depth- height and width is this, and this, and this, and this which means this- sideward. Cartwheel, walk over, somersaults. And then, depth, width and continuum make this, for example, it means turning, rotation, it means this way, this way and this way. Here are the points, five of these points come together and that’s one here, one here, one here, here, one here, one here, one here, one here, one here, one back here. They are all there and they make the icosahedron. That was only- what should I say- translated from [inaudible 00:02:47]
Hodgson: so, it’s only useful as a means to an end?
Holm: it is a means to an end but not the end in itself-
Hodgson: and you have to decide your own ends
Holm: and then Laban put the people inside and they orientated the twelve swings. Swing (x12), you have twelve but that is alright, that is a thing- you could motivate it by formula but there is no formula, now you have to translate it again, now they forgot to translate, and they take reality
Hodgson: I’m sure that’s the problem with Laban all over. Instead of being a formulation, it is formula
Holm: I have trouble to learn the twelve swings, well, it starts way back here, and that is this, these four points, flat. And then it’s these four points, they’re all diagonals again, or it is this, again these diagonals, this diagonal or that diagonal. Well, that is very difficult for the young people to translate, that that goes into space and not only into the continuum, which is not very [inaudible 00:04:47] by the formula, no formula. Yet, it creates a form justified by its content. Well then, how do you get that clear?
Hodgson: it’s the form and the formulation which are important. The formula is the restriction and the limitation
Holm: it’s a limitation that means it becomes mechanised. The formula becomes not justified anymore by its inner life, it becomes only as the effect of that what it takes the shape [inaudible 00:05:33] it takes, not the form it has. The shape it takes. The vaguery. But the form as such has to have an inner point in order to justify its outcome. Form is always the result of the content
Hodgson: and I think this is what hasn’t yet been clarified with regards to Labanotation
Holm: no, but they don’t want to because then they have to change, that’s a very difficult thing because you have to step on the thing which requires some, either some imagination, awareness of sensing things, it’s sensing, it’s not knowing it, it’s being aware of, and that is difficult because they can’t- they only know that they don’t know, period. Their senses are not alert, they’re not alive, they’re not stimulated. The senses are denied, period, because they are uncomfortable
Hodgson: and I think this is where Laban is already, throughout his own time and our time, he has been terribly misunderstood
Holm: [inaudible 00:07:09] unless I don’t go, if Laban understood proper, that there was that necessary evaluation to be focused [inaudible 00:07:25 to 00:07:26] rather than the matter of fact because geometry is really involved
Hodgson: but again, only so far as a means to an end rather than an end in itself
Holm: the other capital three basic dimensions, but there are many more but these we take out on the diagonals. There is almost- when you take circular there are all these dimensions there which are uncountable, you can have as many as you wish
Hodgson: I think one of the problems is that very few of his, including Jooss, I don’t think many of his followers really understood what he was about
Holm: they don’t want to because that’s uncomfortable
Hodgson: and everyone would prefer to have a formula rather than a formulation because you can’t-
Holm: I cannot use, in any kind of a teaching, the multiplication of the possibilities because people will never understand it. I have to return to this which is this, or this, this- to the basic geometric or whatever they learned in school. I have to return to that, I can’t go to the continuum, I can’t because they wouldn’t know what I’m talking about, they don’t. Then they can’t find any equilibrium of understanding there. That belongs in another box, that belongs in a book. And the book is such you can forget, let’s take it in to life
Hodgson: because, I think, the book just limits you in that sense
Holm: the book is only a crutch
Hodgson: the book becomes n, o, the letters, and its life that makes it ‘no’
Holm: it’s true, what you make out of it
Hodgson: and to make an example out of it, it’s nice that that’s what Laban himself did, and I think that’s a very good-
Holm: he was a mime, he was a very good mime
Hodgson: and he was the worst person in the world to want to stay static, he was essentially always feeling the ideas are no good in themselves unless they’re moving and if they once become static-
Holm: it became a bit static because people go by the geometric statements of the line on paper, two-dimensionally. They forget to translate it three-dimension, and many dimensionally
Hodgson: that’s right. Even when you’ve got the dimensions, you’ve got to have the movement which links the dimensions
Holm: but if you don’t know the basic, you can’t be part but then they don’t want to go to the basic, and if they take the basic, they get stuck. The basic is only the perpetual. The basic gives you the hope to be able to be part. If you haven’t gotten the basic, you shouldn’t be part
Hodgson: but a lot of people, having gotten the basic, don’t want to be part, that’s even worse because they say, “well, that’s it,”
Holm: they want to be safe; they want to- whatever they please. They don’t want to risk, they also will never know what momentum or movement is because momentum is a risk, oh boy, do you have to let go that it can happen, and you learn it more than anywhere if you stand on a surfboard, which I did in Hawaii. You don’t do that; you are right in the water up to here
Hodgson: it’s a good metaphor that, a good analogy because a surfboard is-
Holm: anywhere, or going skiing, the moment you get momentum, know how to handle it then you are alright. If you get lost, it can get [inaudible 00:12:32]. The simplest thing that every dancer wants, they want to leap, they want to go in the air. When somebody is in the air, I see in the face the fear of coming down. They have to accept the inevitable, they have to go down, there’s no choice. So, they should like it to come down but master it, rather than be mastered by the exuberance which they cannot fulfil because then the exuberance is not convincing either. If you exaggerate, you see the fear written on their faces, everywhere
Hodgson: it’s lovely that these are all movement images-
Holm: well, it’s simple, everything is awfully simple
Hodgson: but awfully complicated in the same way
Holm: because we make it
Hodgson: it is quite complicated though because just in- I think the momentum is simple but the use of momentum is complex, if not complicated
Holm: complex is right but not complicated. The complication we are making because the complexity is confusing us. Look at children, what do they do? They don’t know. Then the idiot, who is not wise, is doing things which you would say you have to be an idiot to do. Alright, so you are an idiot, well, don’t call these people an idiot, they were just understanding what they were doing
Hodgson: but that’s when the genius emerges when you begin to understand what you’re doing
Holm: the genius emerges if the impossibility is not the fear, it’s the fulfilment of the possible. That’s all there is to it. And the acceptance- there is one thing, and believe very strongly, acceptance of the continuum of the passing on, it doesn’t stop, the constant. Acceptance of the constant, that is one of our main problems that we are not able- who understands what is eternity?
Hodgson: no one
Holm: yes, but accept it that continuum is there, let it be. And if you accept it, it takes the fear away because the fear is the unknowing of the danger, it’s the protectiveness against something which is destructive. Well, if you accept it, then it isn’t destructive. If you stand on that water, the wave goes under you and picks you up on your surfboard, you say, “between the heaven and me, and the water, there’s nothing else.” Balance, try to, don’t be pre-set, you can’t, you don’t know what’s coming because it comes, and you don’t know what it is. It doesn’t know it either because it’s a force which comes. Now, to what dilemma that hope is, the force doesn’t know and doesn’t care. It doesn’t want to scare you; no, it doesn’t have that intention [inaudible 00:17:11]. Now, you have to adjust [inaudible 00:17:14 to 00:17:17] you must not defend yourself, accept it. That is quite something which is not easy to do, not to be limp, and to be giving up, you are not giving up, you are facing the challenge, period. You must face the challenge
Hodgson: and it is that unique combination of tension and relaxation
Holm: exactly, precisely. And you said it but don’t forget the word ‘combination’ it’s neither the one nor the other, it’s a combination. And to what degree the combination goes is up to the challenge, who knows? And why? Why not? That is really, truly speaking, the essence of life
Hodgson: it’s certainly nice, the definition- I was just thinking, the essence of dance, it is that nice combination of relaxation and tension, responding to chance
Holm: right, but responding and being responsible, and that includes form, shape, time, space and all the elements, they are all in one, all in one snowball. And you can’t take them apart because they are only in degrees
Hodgson: but they will also melt away too, there is-
Holm: that’s what I mean, it’s all- it’s not permanent. Nothing is permanent. I always tell the kids, if I get- I want to make a cake, I don’t take a pound of salt, a pound of sugar, a pound of flour, a pound of butter, and make a cake out of it- you eat it, I don’t. You have to know proportions, which makes a new unit. That cake is not flour, it’s not sugar, it is the combination of everything, the sugar releases its sweetness, the salt releases a little bit of that spice, the flour binds it. Each one is another element, and it has to be according to its own power, you can’t just make it to your own organisation there, that is has to go- it won’t, it refuses, thank god
Hodgson: and, fascinatingly enough, if we each take the same recipe even, and the same amount of flour, it will become a different cake
Holm: yes, because if you use your own, so-called, fingertip taste, you’re different. It should be but it will never be that it’s uneatable. It only tastes better or less good
Hodgson: providing you’ve got the proportions right, yes
Holm: well, that is why you have a recipe. That means you have a pattern, some would rather, which has been proven, it has been done, it’s not on paper only by matter of confusion, it has been translated in reality, hasn’t it? It’s all- in a way, it’s logic but logic as such is not always the guarantee of security, sometimes you have to be so illogical in order to be right
Hodgson: sometimes you have to be prepared to be insecure. I think that’s why your skiing, or surfboarding analogy- because that’s a very insecure image
Holm: because you don’t know the forces which attack you, and they do if you challenge them
Hodgson: you just have to know how to actually work with them
Holm: yes, but if you don’t attack the forces, you are a weakling. If I attack the forces, I have to measure myself to. If I don’t attack the forces, I go around the- I am a [inaudible 00:22:49 to 00:22:50]
Hodgson: attacking has to be done with such awareness
Holm: open-minded, I would say, to the force, not neglecting the force or disregarding the force. Taking the force in consideration, as you challenge it. I took, made a new dance for [inaudible 00:23:17] where I felt I was tired to use anything which is emotionally orientated. I used time, timing, rhythm, and I used- it came out from a military rhythm. I used and checked through hundreds and hundreds of all these primitive rhythms like African rhythms, southern rhythms, and I finally came down to a American Negro who really based on the true military demands, which was not emotionally- and from this, the variation was very interesting and I used this and made a dance out of it. It really took the people by surprise, they had never forgotten it yet because it was metered and almost Russian, military rhythm. For one moment, then of course the departures come in [inaudible 00:24:36] but it was not emotional rhythms, they were all dynamic rhythm of some form and some variations
Hodgson: explain that difference to me because I only understand any rhythm as having an emotional content
Holm: not every but there are a thousand different emotional reasons, and hits you in different places, either it hits you in detail here, or it hits you in there, or it hits you in the middle, or it hits you only in the feet. They are very, very different areas, it hits your body in different ways
Hodgson: wouldn’t they all have some kind of emotional impact though?
Holm: and resultant because if it goes through your nervous system, it has immediately the understanding of, or can sense it. It’s very interesting
[inaudible 00:25:46 to 00:25:50]
Holm: … over the line backwards, sideward, whatever. Carry it out, don’t know it only on paper, do it. So far, the people haven’t forgotten that little nonsense there
[inaudible 00:26:18 to 00:26:22]
Holm: … these costumes with the [inaudible 00:26:24]
Hodgson: really?
Holm: oh hell, because they were-
Hodgson: they were designed by Schlemmer?
Holm: [inaudible 00:26:30]. They were very exciting, very interesting but movement-wise limited. They had to be, but the design was-
Hodgson: to go over the human
Holm: exactly. Now they go and they bring this back, the architecture of paper or the dominance on design rather than on the inner-
Hodgson: and although you don’t have to have a screwdriver to get in the Nick’s costume, nevertheless he still limits the human-
Holm: wilfully, on his own [inaudible 00:27:19]. It is not now, handicapping or straitjackets or whatever, not at all. Now, it is so that the actual 100 per cent flexibility of the human spirit is handicapped in relationship to the dominance of the shaping, the mechanisation of the action. That is- it’s just reduced. It’s a very interesting thing. Now, for instance, it can be quite easily mistaken, if I want to be circular, I have to give up something, I don’t want to go once, I have to. That means I have to deny the one to achieve the other, that doesn’t mean the other does not exist, or the other one is not good. It’s good for something else but I deny it if I want to do this, or I want to do this. This I do, I want to deny this. Not that I cannot do it, I can if I want to, but I don’t want at that moment because I want to do this, right? Now, that the people do not realise, and make again a finality out of it but they don’t say, I use it only for the purpose I want, that doesn’t mean it’s good for something else. Though they throw the child out-
Interview side two (45’)
Holm: … and start fresh from- not from that point already you have established but something which is required. Now, that might be quite new to you and quite uncomfortable to you but that should be so. Now, you have to live up to it and that is the challenge, you have to get and that is healthy
Hodgson: yes, I’m sure that it is all too easy. Why has he got stuck?
Holm: I don’t know, maybe he’s caught in his own web
Hodgson: will he take comments from you?
Holm: I haven’t discussed it with him. I don’t know if he did and I don’t know if I can make it clear because these things, they are in between. You can’t hit the nail on the head, sometimes you do, but it is not guaranteed that you do because people’s fantasy- you reach somewhere or other and might get into a direction where it has its own doom because everything has only that much stretchabilty as it can have and then it begins to revolt. And when it revolts you ought to be alert enough in order to find it out. Last summer, it was very interesting, I felt I worked very much with [00:01:52] company because it’s not so much the company as such but it’s Don because he understands and he is a really quite- I would say a very hopeful, capable person in order to do something which is different, not to be different, but which is going branches which have not been discovered yet, or where nobody really dares to tread yet. Alright, do that and it might be a theory, it might be all wrong, okay. Take it in strides. If you don’t try, you don’t know. Theory on paper won’t work. It’s action, and action is a thing which is almost as fleeting, it is so that the moment you put your finger on it, it has changed already and has become something else, and you take the finger of and then it becomes something else again. Now then, now take your pick and make your choice, and make your decisions and make your schedule, or make your plan however your battleaxe, you go at it. And that might lead you somewhere rather more south than you thought, that the action was more north. So, well then, form a new course if you can, that has to be practised. You can’t do it unless somebody is that flexible that wherever you go, your balance is ready, that means you are not settled, you are- that is again a dangerous thing that you get so kind of nobody, and that is another problem-
Hodgson: do you think that acceptance by the public can affect your settlement?
Holm: no. It’s a very funny thing because the acceptance by the public, unless you trust your public, otherwise you have well-wishers, you have friends, you have brother thinkers, you have all hopeful achievers, you have- it’s a wishful business, it’s sometimes a very, very troublesome thing because unless there is somebody who is just about the same fold than you are, and knows the difficulties of the decision because the decision, somewhere or other to people is fine though, it isn’t. The decision is temporary and that may be good today but no good tomorrow because situations have changed and fortunately, they can change, and we must allow them to do. So therefore, you have to stay alert, period
[from 00:05:40 to 00:12:14, they talk about talents and gifts]
Holm: … what is that ‘it’? what do you we know? I try to get, now, a little bit more philosophical to my students when they ask me about space, and I say, “what do you know? Explain it to me?” “oh, that’s the distance from here to there,” and I say it isn’t. What is it really? Can you try to get a formula of what you think space is, not your space, not somebody else’s space as such. You have trouble. Now, ask them what do you think time is? They don’t know either. Five minutes, ten minutes, half a minute, and I say, “no sir,”
Hodgson: I suppose both time and space have so many sub-contexts
Holm: what are they then? They are constants
Hodgson: they are a kind of constant-
Holm: they are constant, period. They were here yesterday, they are tomorrow, and they are thousands of years from, they may be a million years past, they were already, and they endure. Now, that we make it, and measure it in five minutes, ten minutes, half a second, and whatnot, or the days or years- our business but this thing as such is a constant, it is an ever and ever, eternal, was and is. Do we understand what eternal is? We want to put it in our system of beginning and end. Isn’t that true? Now then, here for instance, I translated when the dancers are dancing, you count one, two, three, four, they count, one, two, three, four, and I say, “what’s in between here?” you have to think a little bit, cut it out, keep going, it’s constant, it’s going always, be ready to do it. Don’t stop to get ready. You are taking the whole spittle out. Anyway, maybe sometimes it hits home. And then order, you have to know, if the moon would jiggle and would say, “oh my god I made a mistake,” the earth said, and turns around and goes the other way, you would not have the dependable business of day and night but we have, we would not. We would get all mixed up and take it just simply for granted. But there is a force behind we don’t know but it is, so therefore, we might as well accept it. It’s the understanding-
Hodgson: we tend to understand it by subdividing it, saying that there is kinds of time, there is kinds of space
Holm: yes. Our values should be really almost much more in bigger proportions rather than in itsy bitsy things. But we are small human beings, we are not more than a sand corn on the big ocean. So, who do we think we are?
[inaudible 00:16:16 to 00:16:22]
Holm: … it’s called pond. Very good idea, all the dancers they sit on little stools, not stools, disks, with wheels underneath [inaudible 00:16:35 to 00:16:37]. Good ideas. I saw it when he was rehearsing it and I thought, “coming up with something.” I saw it on stage, and I said-
Hodgson: why?
Holm: overdid - lighting, glitter, unbelievably stupid, it shouldn’t do it and yet I think he can’t help it because that is where his theatricality goes
Hodgson: it runs away with him
Holm: it runs away with him. That is the danger. I wanted to do- [inaudible 00:17:27] also we are dealing with emotions, we do all that. Well, these young people are incapable to feel emotions, or to project emotions and they become sentimental and unbearable, and unacceptable, not translated into the language of that which is spitting to be out there rather than to stay personal, and therefore, stay there, don’t go over, it bounces right back, the vibrates- the waves go right back. Well, how to make clear, very difficult to clear that to people. They are externally minded, they are minded to have success, to be accepted, to be physically adored, or put onto a pedestal, all that for what reason? For a little bit of acrobatics, [inaudible 00:18:44] then I go in the circus and see more and also have the respect that these people in the circus risk their life. If they go and fly around in that thin air not knowing there is the hand open, there, which I have to hear, and I reach, and I reach a little bit of air and go down in and break my neck. Well, these people are more, almost, in a way, more honest to that what they do as these people who just do as if- alright if they do make a backward somersault or a [inaudible 00:19:31] forward or make a double turn or a triple turn, so what? As such, it’s just they were lucky that they didn’t break anything. Lucky. But they don’t depend on it, they can’t master it, they don’t master the elements of momentum, of wars against force. Momentum is my force, the driving force of adhering, of [inaudible 00:20:09 to 00:20:23]. There is power that you have to maintain, you can’t change it at will, you have to take the accumulation as it develops, and have to go and stay with it rather than fight it because then it fights you and breaks you, no question about it. You pay for it because then it is destroying the nature of nature
Hodgson: come back to this business of expressing emotion. Nick always said that he wanted to get away from emotion-
Holm: you shouldn’t
Hodgson: well, I think it’s a terrible mistake, that’s the very thing that makes us human beings
Holm: that is my little problem within that. The emotions ought to be- that’s the easy way out- it isn’t. It is, and it must be, but it must be mastered. If there is no emotion, we are cutting out the most important, momentous, almost inevitable drive. There is no drive. What drives your emotions? What stimulates your emotions?
Hodgson: visual and oral-
Holm: would it?
Hodgson: yes
Holm: would it? Now, wait a minute, now then, alright, if there is a visual thing, like for instance, when I saw what they did, I didn’t only see it, I experienced it, that’s the difference. What is experience?
Hodgson: how’s it different from seeing? I suppose, experience is translating the visual into an experience
Holm: now, what is experience? I had trouble to explain that idea
Hodgson: I think the experience must be responding to it on a physical, emotional level
Holm: and mental level. All three levels. First of all, the people don’t realise that there are levels. There’s the physical level, there’s an emotional level, and there is a mental level. There is a brain, there is a nervous system, and there is a matter. Matter, electricity, call it that way if you wish, and then there is the computer, translated in this, and then your technical names
Hodgson: and presumably, the sentimental response is that you don’t get the feeling side of you with sufficient depth of response, it’s only a-
Holm: yes, if it runs away with it doesn’t it? And it is- when it runs away, it is up to over [inaudible 00:23:51]. Now there you are-
Hodgson: but it stays at one, surface level
Holm: that’s also due to no-one understanding, again, because if you have, let’s say, a drama that somebody gets killed and you have the dilemma of being left behind, or something cut off, all is involved in that. Well, that has to be translated, it can’t be taken literally. What is a translation now? That’s the problem
Hodgson: a translation is, I suppose literally, a crossing from one experience to another
Holm: wouldn’t it be so immediately that it’s handicapping? It would unfree you, you are not free, you are already- something is creeping in which holds you into a little bit of a straitjacket
Hodgson: why would it do that?
Holm: because you are not yourself now anymore, that you expect that you are free, you are beginning to get unfree now
Hodgson: but freedom is a-
Holm: freedom is a very hard thing to understand. Freedom to me is the highest form of discipline
Hodgson: I was going to say, that’s the other interesting paradox, isn’t it?
Holm: yes, but now do people understand what freedom is? Do people understand what discipline is? People think discipline is regimentation, that’s not, that’s the Prussian influence. Alright, that means [inaudible 00:26:03 to 00:26:05] very interesting thing, and that is that immediately; that’s why we have so many of these youngsters which are so tense, so tight, which becomes so musclebound because that is their way combating or expressing their freedom. Now, that is wrong, isn’t it? Freedom is just the opposite
Hodgson: it is, muscle binding is in fact- that’s not freedom
Holm: when do they know they are musclebound? They think they are tense, they are strong, powerful
Hodgson: it’s terribly true, dance does that too-
Holm: dancers, actors, everyone
Hodgson: worry about developing muscles instead of freedom and using-
Holm: I’m a little bit on the- well, not quite the same explanation but the people say about what Laban had to offer- I don’t know what your result is, because you went really through Laban’s backyard. Do you, as a result of all this work, and all these so-called [inaudible 00:27:43], what is your impression that Laban was, or could have been, or should have been, what is what his contribution was? Is there any kind of what makes him to that-?
Hodgson: yes, what I think he was, and therefore- if that makes sense- remains, for me, is a clarifier of, by analysis, of aspects of human moving patterns, a codifier
Holm: right, but it has to go farther because patterns are general, expected formula, or formulations, or whatever it is again which are convenient. And that convenience because you can put something in that formula, and you expect that that formula gives you the resultant
Hodgson: I think it’s important to distinguish, as you’ve just done, between formulation and formula. I hope, I think Laban formulated but subsequent generations have tried to make it a formula
Holm: you are right, and that’s what I can’t accept because- not that I defend Laban, it has nothing to do with him personally because I never met him, I have no idea what was in his mind, I don’t know but-
Hodgson: well, I think you have a lot of ideas of what was in his mind
Holm: well, yes, I make it my business to understand what he had in mind, which is again, something wonderful, marvellous but misunderstood. Now, what are they doing here in America, now they go, and they propagandise the business of the Schwitters, Schlemmer, and that is the Bauhaus. Now then, also these Bauhaus people had ideas, now what is left over is the residue of the formulisation, formularising of things but it is not the actual- people don’t know what form is, they don’t analyse form. What is the difference between form and shape? There is a difference. They call that a shape. No, that is a form and a shape is something quite- and I explain, and I say if you go in the winter time, or in the summer time, you know your landscape, there are three pine trees standing there and they are going up the hill, here one, here one, here one. When you look down, you see the pine. In the winter, they are covered with snow, you don’t see that’s a pine tree, you see three shapes. You may say there are three nuns coming up there, why not? Couldn’t it? So, there are no nuns in there, really but the shape gives the impression of your imagination, [inaudible 00:31:40 to 00:31:41] it is the outline which suggests the content, which is not true to the logical fact of your nomination of that call it three nuns. No, they are not nuns, they are pine trees
Hodgson: and then how does the shape come in?
Holm: this way, that you have it from here, and then you have your cold cloak on usually, that’s where the shape comes in. I have it very clearly because I was raised in a convent, I know how the nuns look
Hodgson: so, you distinguish between form and shape how?
Holm: oh yes definitely, that the one is- form is definite, relationship to content and form. The content justifies the form. The shape is imaginary. Now, for instance, if clouds go by, all of a sudden, I see a ship going there. That’s not a ship
Hodgson: that’s the shape
Holm: the cloud has a shape of a ship. I saw clouds in Colorado like a face, frightening face, or a lovely face. Look at that face up there. There is no face. A minute later that lovely face was into a kind of distorted thing, which is something entirely different but up to elements which lowered around or which this order is according to that what it was before. It’s accidental, it is imaginary. That this is a face is- I superimposed my knowledge of reality into that which is vaguery
[inaudible 00:33:46 to 33:50]
Hodgson: … students have a concept of space and time
Holm: it’s a commercial understanding, what it is, and it’s a Mr. Average understanding what space and time is, to them means distance, space, limitations or unlimited, no walls or the walls, rectangular or circular, whatever that comes second, they don’t even think that first that that time and space limitation would be formed and shaped either in reality or in imagination, that is again something which is a very vague realisation because they can’t imagine, unless there is real. There is a problem
Hodgson: and how do you get them to understand the body’s use of space?
Holm: I have to go to [inaudible 00:35:09] again and to- first of all, I hope to get them backwards, [inaudible 00:35:17 to 00:35:28] then they came as the school thing, what they have learnt in-
Hodgson: distance between two points
Holm: that’s fine, that’s very fine but in a way that’s the explanation of the thing as such, not what’s it’s about to you. Now, here becomes a realisation of that because it needs a doing, and an acting [inaudible 00:35:37] and a behaviourism too. If you go there and you walk this way, you are certainly not on a straight line. I have to make it clear what it’s not in order to put them aware- the awareness that there is a discipline necessary in order to maintain a straight line. Not imagine a string, maintain it. It’s the doing, it’s the actual doing, carry it out not suggesting, no, take the consequences to the end. And also, then I go [inaudible 00:36:49], it is necessary that there is a certain body behaviour necessary in order to do so, the body cannot be mushy because then the actual straight line will be curvy. So therefore, it’s a danger that the body holds together to the straight and becomes musclebound. Now, where is the [inaudible 00:37:28]? The evaluation of our body behaviour in relationship to a required result, where is it? Can we achieve it, what do we have to do? Not only to follow a thought, it means a reality where the muscles have to be involved, they have to do the equivalent to the demand, they cannot do what they want, they have to do what they ought to do. Now, where is that? That is a control, that is an awareness, that is, “I want, I don’t do it just, I want,” where’s the want? That means there is the will, there is the-
Hodgson: the motivation
Holm: the motivation first of all, and the clarity that the motivation requires also. A follow through. It is not only the motivation as such, it’s not enough unless I carry it out and put it into that we are [inaudible 00:38:55], the flesh and bones are carrying out, that’s a certain tension, certain intensity, a certain quality, characteristic of. It is not just a heap of flesh, but the flesh is then translated, or transported into something which carries through-
[inaudible 00:39:42 to 00:39:44]
Holm: … we were getting mixed up with reality as such, as reality but reality and relationship to something else, rather reality to reality
[inaudible 00:40:02 to 00:40:04]
Hodgson: … do the students get a concept of time in dance through the experience plus the understanding? Or does understanding come out of experience?
Holm: I can’t, I don’t have enough time in order to do, I have once a week and what happens during the other
[inaudible 00:40:40 to 00:40:52]
Holm: … I opened my studio there on the corner [inaudible 00:40:55] and about ten years taught the notation and I have the pictures and photographs and I have which one of the Laban gave me once, gave me the signet-
Hodgson: oh yes, the symbols
Holm: the symbols worked out in very thin wood, so we could place it on the floor and step it out. And I gave that whole set, I gave it to [inaudible 00:41:38] the Laban, who was out on the west coast and she then lent me her icosahedron. So, I had that built up and put there in my studio, that a human being could stand inside. It was all clear, all understand it, but it had to be translated and that was where I had purpose. So, I folded that up again, turned it to her, and I said, “listen, this is alright I have to go at it a different way rather than go to the matter of fact,” because people, they come out with geometry but not dancing. There is geometry in dancing too and I compare the actual choreography to architecture, it is forming, shaping and building to the principle of that what the content requires. So therefore, I don’t build a church if I want to have a factory but the factory may look like a church but that might be, that might have been insinuation, but it cannot be practically the thing because it wouldn’t serve the proper purpose. And one should pay attention, why do you do? What for? What is your ultimate? What do you want to achieve? Rather than to go and go because you want to go. Alright, go if you have to go, run around the block.