NS: My name is Natasha Simon and I’m sitting in the kitchen/dining [room], home of Mimi Garrard and James Seawright [1936-2022]. It is June 5th, 2016 and we’re here to have Mimi and James as narrators of their story, particularly concerning the Alwin Nikolais oral history project. So let me start by asking you, Mimi, how did you get to Henry Street? What was the -- where did -- where do you come from?
MG: I was a junior in college and I had a teacher who was named Lew Thomas [Emma Lew Thomas] who was a student of Mary Wigman [1886–1973] and I was taking her dance class which was a very minimal class because we didn’t have a big -- we had no dance program. However, she decided I should study with Alwin Nikolais. And so she managed to get me a scholarship to study at Connecticut College. They had some sort of a sale of clothes and they raised enough money to send me to Henry Street.
NS: To Henry Street?
MG: I’m sorry, to Connecticut College. And so I went to Connecticut College and I totally fell in love with dance, with Nikolais, with choreography, especially choreography, I just couldn’t believe -- I never thought I was creative and suddenly I was doing all of this creative work. So I was very -- I thought you had to have sandals and long hair to be creative. And so I really -- Nikolais opened my eyes (laughter) that creativity is much deeper than that.
NS: Can you tell me what year this is that --
MG: This was 1956.
NS: And I assume you’re also speaking about the Connecticut College American Dance Festival
MG: He was teaching in Connecticut. It wasn’t the dance festival --
NS: At New London. It was not that?
MG: Yeah, it was in New London right, that’s what it was.
NS: College - Where were you in college?
MG: I was at Sweet Briar College in Virginia, a small girls’ school.
NS: You say it’s very small. But you found yourself in a dance studio or taking dance. Why was that?
MG: Well, it was our physical ed. It was not really officially dance. I mean it was really physical ed. But they -- that year they had Lew Thomas teaching who was an extraordinary woman. I don’t know whether you know her, but she was brilliant. She spoke about I don’t know how many languages. She was fluent in German and she was an amazing teacher and she was in the heritage of Nikolais and she thought I should study with Nikolais. I had told her I was going to work in a factory because I thought I would like to see what it was like working in a factory. I mean I was really interested in helping people who had any kind of difficulties. And she said, “I don’t think you should work in factory. I think you should study dance.” So anyway that’s what happened.
NS: How did you end up at Sweet Briar?
MG: I ended up at Sweet Briar because I didn’t want to go to a school that had sororities -- and it was one of the few that didn’t have sororities. My mother had gone to Hollins [University] -- she said Hollins and Sweet Briar were very much alike. And I basically really just sort of stumbled into going there.
NS: To college [00:05:00] or to Sweet Briar?
MG: To Sweet Briar. I mean I really didn’t know that much about it, but I thought it was small and they didn’t have sororities, those were my criteria.
NS: What were the classes like, the phys ed class that you took with Lew Thomas?
MG: It was really a dance class and I mean it was just short. It was 45 minutes. I mean people laugh at that, but I think it was really her inspiration. She would try to get us one day to improvise and then she said what we did was really very bad, but (laughter) at the same time I think she really knew a lot more. I didn’t know there was modern dance at the time -- I thought the only kind of dance was ballet and then you really couldn’t do that unless [you] could get your legs up over your head. And also I didn’t think that it was as interesting as modern dance was because I didn’t see as much creativity in it. So anyway I think it was her exposure to another world of dance was the main thing. It wasn’t so much what she taught because I think we did some technical work every class and a tiny bit of improvisation, but it was really her person, herself, the fact that she was a professional dancer. She left that year to go dance with Mary Wigman again so I think she was very, very engaged in dancing and could see it as a creative profession rather than just a technical profession.
NS: The summer of ’56 was really important for you.
MG: It was extremely important, yes.
NS: What was your impression of Nikolais when you first walked into class?
MG: You know what was wonderful is that he liked the fact that I was so raw. I mean I was really a completely blank slate and I think he loved that because I was willing to try anything, but I don’t think they knew how little I knew. I knew nothing basically, but somehow I was very physically adept and, it seemed as though I would come up with some interesting things.
NS: When you say come up with interesting things is it because he was teaching improvisation?
MG: He was teaching everything he ever taught, which was technique, improvisation, and composition. And we had composition every single day and I got into every one of the little performances that were there which was amazing for me. I don’t know how often they would have these showings. They must have been weekly. But I was always able to get into them -- Nikolais was really instrumental in getting me totally hooked on dance and choreography and he was extremely articulate, extremely encouraging and, wanted you to find your own way --
NS: How did he promote that? How?
MG: At that time? It’s hard to say at that time how he promoted that, but I think he would give problems that would let you explore many areas about dance, especially the basic elements of dance, space, shape, time, motion, and energy, but also other problems like weight or, it could be almost anything to thinness or heaviness or lightness. And just the process of exploration was amazing. And he was always very specific. I think that was really kind of the key if you improvised he would usually give crits according to whether you were doing the problem. Like if you were [00:10:00] doing space was that really space or -- and then usually you would have a second chance and sometimes a third chance to try. So it was very, very specific. It wasn’t, it wasn’t vague and --
NS: How did that take form? I mean when I throw the word out, space, you know, that’s huge. The idea of space is a very -- I mean it can go on forever ever and ever and ever and in your mind’s eye you think of space as being a very, very big subject. How was he able to be, as you say, very specific?
MG: He would break space down. We would work with volume and we would work with plane and we’d work with distance. Also we’d work with space behind you, space over your head, space to the side, space inside your body, space outside your body. It was always very specific and how did you feel the space under your arms or how did you feel the width of the body because you were feeling the, uh, the space to the side. It wasn’t just general. It was really very specific.
NS: It also sounds like he was interested in having you explore.
MG: Exactly. It was all exploration. And I think it was really through exploration that you learned to trust what you were doing.
NS: When you say that he was encouraging or he would say do it a second time or even a third time, do you remember those times? I know it’s a long time ago so it’s hard to, to get your head there, but I guess I’m asking about when things didn’t work and he would push and prod to get it to work. Do you remember the times that it didn’t work and then did?
MG: Usually you were in a group so it wasn’t like it was just me and Nik. It was a group, but we would each go up one at a time, two at a time, three at a time. So it was really like everybody was exploring and then the second time around it looked like everybody was doing it better. He would make comments and then it wasn’t just directed at me but at the whole class. He would give comments and we would go around and do it all again and then maybe if we were lucky, get to do it a third time. I can’t remember exactly the comments he would make, but he would really be very specific and just trying to push you to go a little deeper. And, and even if he had said nothing I think the third time we would have done it better.
NS: So this was six weeks or a month?
MG: Right, it was six weeks. Every day. And so doing a composition every day is amazing. I think people should try that because it, it’s really hard to do something every single day no matter how you feel, you do it. And so I think that was his, his way is that you do it over and over. And I know Balanchine [George Balanchine, 1904-1983] said once that if you, if you do 100 ballets you probably will come up with something interesting. And I think, I think that’s true.
NS: Yes. The fact that he’s so prolific, was so prolific, meant that he came up with at least, I would say, two or three ballets, wouldn’t you say? So you were in Connecticut in 1956 and you go back to Sweet Briar and lo and behold, you’ve now got the itch?
MG: Right. But then I had no teacher. My teacher had left. So I really just finished the next two years and I didn’t know what to do with myself. So I decided I would study occupational therapy in New York, which in the back of my mind was dance. I mean I felt like, you know, dance therapy. So I came to New York and I [00:15:00] studied at Columbia [University], and it was very intensive. We worked from, 9:00 to 5:00 at this program at Columbia working with cadavers and, it was very rigorous. And every night I would go take a dance class. So I would get up at say 4:00 in the morning, do my homework, and then go to class, and then finish class, and then sometimes take two classes at night, and then come home. And so I did that for six months and then at the end of six months I said I think I’ll be a dancer. And so I quit the occupational therapy.
NS: Enough of cadavers, I want living bodies.
MG: Well, it was really just, I don’t know, I was just hooked on dance. And I felt like also it was exhausting to do both. I mean I felt like I wasn’t doing either as well as I could. And so I told them at my program that I thought that I would be a dancer and they said, “What?’ And they said, “You can’t just be a dancer” and I said, “Well, why not? I mean if I’m not good I’ll be a bad dancer, but I’m going to be a dancer. That’s what I’ve decided. That’s my career.” So then I was sort of midway between, it was like the middle of the year so I just continued to take classes in New York and then the next fall I started studying with Nikolais.
NS: When you say that you took classes in New York do you remember with whom you studied?
MG: It was at the Martha Graham studio at that time and it was quite interesting because she was teaching herself and,
NS: What was that like?
MG: Well, she was a force of nature. I know she came up to me one time and she said: “There’s more to dance than the archaic.” Now, I went home and I thought what does she mean, there’s more to dance than the archaic? And then I came up with, yes, I’m stiff. And (laughter) and so the rest of my career I began to work at trying not to be stiff. I think I had an interesting look and I’m sure it was sort of archaic and so I really, really tried very hard to get better.
NS: Unstiff?
MG: Unstiff. (laughter)
NS: But you in the end decided not to pursue dance at the Graham studio.
MG: Right. I always wanted to go back to Nikolais. I thought his program started in the fall, although I could have come in at any time, but I thought I also wanted to get a little dance under my belt before I reappeared because I had so little training and so I think when I did go back I was a little bit more ready.
NS: You went -- so the next fall -- 1959?
MG: Mm-hmm.
NS: You take the subway or the bus all the way down to Henry Street.
MG: And I enrolled in class.
NS: Can you tell us about what that was like, what the program was like there?
MG: It was really very similar to what it was in Connecticut except it was a little more expanded. You wouldn’t do choreography every day, you would do it once a week, but we would do every day technique, improvisation, and composition. And then Nikolais would encourage us to work on our own pieces apart from the composition class so -- and we were always doing student recitals, student programs. And we were also sort of actually given little parts in his, in his pieces. From the beginning I think I was doing bit parts with Nikolais almost from the very beginning. And then also began to dance with Murray. [Murray Louis, 1926-2016] I danced with Murray for several years and very technical dancing. I was in the original “Junk Dances” with Murray. And I think at one point Murray got mad at me because I was giving a concert and I couldn’t do something he wanted me to do because my concert was so close and so he [00:20:00] never asked me again.
NS: To be in the company?
MG: To be in his company. I think he, he, he felt like I had, I --
NS: Dissed him?
MG: I really felt like I had my own concert coming up and I couldn’t -- he wanted me to do a television program and I couldn’t do the television program and get prepared for my own work and so I think he felt like I had made some decision that disqualified me from his work. But I continued to like Murray and learn a lot from him.
NS: But what you’re hinting at is this sort of divided loyalty in many respects, and then you won out in terms of your own choreography.
MG: I felt like I always wanted to be a choreographer. That was my first love, even from the time I took my first composition class with Nik this is what I wanted to do. It just hit me like that from the very beginning. And so I really did put that first even if, and I don’t think that’s -- I mean that was just my choice.
NS: Do you remember what you were exploring at that point?
MG: At that time?
NS: For yourself?
MG: I think with Nik I was doing his problems, but with myself I was dealing with my background, which was growing up in Mississippi, and my themes were madness, one. I mean the world I grew up in was crazy.
NS: In what way?
MG: It was crazy in the sense that, well, there was, I guess I’d have to say that, uh, there [were] huge racial issues going on and there was so much prejudice in my little town and I felt like the whole world that I lived in had a crazy point of view. What I saw with my own eyes and what was around me were two different ways of seeing and I felt that this madness that I saw around me, oh, I didn’t know whether I was mad or whether the rest of the world was mad. I had a real conflict just of my existence, of trying to come to terms with my own integrity and so I think that played out in my early choreography. I did a piece called Family that Nikolais absolutely loved and it was really about madness and, -- it’s not easy to describe it, but there was a cart with a light that went around the stage and there wasn’t much movement, but I made -- I built a family out of polyurethane on real objects. There was a policeman and there was a waitress and a bride and I was the bride underneath the bride and, there was a cart that went around and someone intoned the stock market report as a way of just sort of the temper of the town, of the whole world, was the stock market report. And it was all lit from this cart and it was very bizarre.
NS: Lit from what?
MG: A cart. A cart moved around the stage lighting up everything. And it was very bizarre but I think that was really from my background and, --
NS: What town where --
MG: Greenwood, Mississippi. And then I did a piece called Dreamspace and that was about life is not what it seems to be and very much, everything in the piece was very formal but behind the scenes it was really chaotic and these chaotic elements became more predominant throughout the piece, but so I think --
NS: Did you think that, that growing up in Greenwood was chaotic?
MG: I don’t think of it so much as chaotic as confusing. It wasn’t that it was [00:25:00] chaotic. I think it was extremely confusing and I feel like things were not like they seemed to be. And that was sort of my theme in that piece was it seems like everything is beautiful and people would drink tea in the piece but under the surface there was all this other stuff, the darker things going on. So I think that madness and things not being what they seemed to be were sort of big influences on my choreography at that time. And they have resurfaced even in my video work now. Like when my first piece I did when I came up here was --
NS: Up here is?
MG: Otisville [New York]. -- was a dream with three brides and it was really about madness too. It was three brides, two women and a man and it was based on my anxiety about the war in Iraq and all of my images of what images that I just had. I had certain images so I just put every one of my images into the piece. The first image was brides in the snow so I had the brides in the snow. And then I had one bride on a big stilts, long dress beating himself in the snow and so it was really bizarre. And then also these fights going on and then at the end one of the brides gets burned up. And (laughter) and then the dreamer wakes up so (laughter) --
NS: And then reality sets in. What is reality? People being burned. I’m still going back to, to Greenwood because I guess the question I have is that it is this journey that you make from Greenwood, Mississippi to the Lower East Side in New York City is this huge jump. I mean it’s a very long or it’s an epic journey in many respects and yet it’s, it’s something that you seem to have gravitated to or found almost easily.
MG: It was very -- it was like becoming sane. It was really, it was really, to me it was a journey from madness to sanity. Now, maybe the madness was in my own mind, but I really felt that - a real conflict growing up, and once I came to New York it seemed like everything was straightforward and you could do what you wanted and nobody cared.
NS: I think that it would help to get to a sense of what was to what is. When you talk about that image of tea, but underneath it there’s something else or the policeman and the waitress and the -- did you see conflicts playing out in Greenwood? Or you were witness to them --
MG: No, it was everything was under cover. It would have been better if there was conflict -- everyone thought that life was fine and I feel like if you didn’t see it as life was fine you really worried about yourself or about why do I see this different than most people. So there was not conflict. I mean this was before the civil rights movement and it was really a time of peace, but just so much, I mean I feel like people, the Afro-Americans of that time in our town, had nothing. They were totally practically starving to death and had no real medical assistance or -- and so it was really incredibly disturbing to see life like that and not have people worry about it more. I mean that was the problem. I felt like people didn’t see this as the problem. We had white bathrooms, black bathrooms. It was totally segregated. You know, everything was segregated at that time and all the everything, [00:30:00] all the restaurants, stores.
NS: Was Sweet Briar segregated?
MG: Sweet Briar was I think, I mean it wasn’t segregated, no, but I think it took them a while to get it to be more multicultural, which I think it is much more now. But I think at the time I was there it was mostly, -- I think it was mostly people from other countries like Chinese and, I mean people maybe from Mexico, but not so much Afro-Americans. But I think now that’s changed.
NS: Did you notice when you went north to Connecticut were there African-Americans in class?
MG: Yeah. And then at Henry Street, but it was much more integrated then than now in a way because I think now I think people tend to segregate themselves according to, like the Alvin Ailey Company or there’s so many black companies now that are outstanding, but I mean when we were at Henry Street it was really integrated. And my company, it’s like, it was everybody was more or less the same.
NS: At Henry Street, when you went to do your concert that Murray didn’t want you to do because you -- he wanted you in [his] -- did you perform it at Henry Street?
MG: Yes. I performed -- actually Nikolais actually did my lighting and did everything for my work from the time -- well, my first full evening concert of my own work was in 1964 up until, I guess, ‘71 or something. The last one I did at Henry Street before they closed, and then I did one at, I guess 38th Street?
NS: 36th Street.
MG: 36th Street, [The Space for Innovative Development][1] but he actually would do my lighting, -- I mean it was amazing that he --
NS: Can you describe that process?
MG: Of Nikolais doing the lighting? Well, he said that he would do all white lighting which meant that he wouldn’t change gels and that was fine with me. I may be mixing this up with student concerts, but anyway he would just do it professionally like he would do his own. I mean I didn’t get too involved in the way he wanted to light things. I think he just did it the way he thought it should be and with the amount of equipment he wanted to use. But he was -- I mean if it was a very special piece like the one with the cart moving around I think, he certainly took into consideration what the piece was and, and then all of the publicity was done by the office so they sent out flyers and so basically all I had to do was get my dancers together. And if he gave you a concert people were ready to dance with you. So it was -- it was definitely a win-win situation.
And I think Nikolais was amazing. I would say, “Nikolais, this is so generous” and he would say, “Well, this is my job.” Which he thought it was his job to promote people he thought were creative at the Henry Street Playhouse. I mean it was incredibly generous, but it was in his mind his job. I think he felt like that was important. Which was amazing, isn’t it, because it doesn’t happen today. I mean there’s no such thing as something like that today. So I, I would just like to say how much I appreciate Nikolais and how much -- how I think he was such an amazing teacher.
NS: You see the seeds of it, or you’ve described the seeds of it, in Connecticut and then it carries on at Henry Street and certainly his promotion of individuals’ creativity is --
MG: Exactly.
NS: -- is a, is the root of that.
MG: Right, and I think he really did want us to find our own way. I don’t think he wanted us to be little Nikolaises at all. I think he wanted us to find our own voice and I, I think he didn’t care whether we did anything to do with props or anything theatrical. I think whatever we wanted to do, as long as it had [00:35:00] some substance to it. I think he was looking for substance.
NS: Your company members, the people that you worked with, were they also students at Henry Street as well?
MG: While I was -- while I was at Henry Street I worked just exclusively with Henry Street people.
NS: Earlier you also talked about teaching there. Can you describe that?
MG: Well, I would say that it was the best of times and the worst of times.
NS: (laughter) To coin a phrase.
MG: Yes. I mean I had -- I was very lucky that I was able to teach some of Murray Louis’s students when he quit teaching, and I taught one of his high school classes when they had started out with him when they were children. So they were really amazingly professional and we were able to do concerts for them with beautiful amazing work. I also taught one of his children’s classes when they were like six year olds that could do almost anything. They were brilliant also, but then I also would teach some, some classes where people were very -- not interested, you know -- teenagers who wanted it to look like television or certainly not interested in space, shape, time, and motion. They were much more interested in being cute or sexy or something. So I mean I think it was everything, teaching. I guess that’s what teaching is, a little bit of everything. But I eventually taught at Columbia and I taught choreography and production. But I basically, when I was at Columbia I was really teaching from my -- the choreography was taught from a Nikolais, from what I really learned and absorbed from him.
NS: Can you talk a little about the differences you feel are -- between your choreographic process and Nik’s?
MG: Well, I would like to start with similarities, if you don’t mind.
NS: OK, sure.
MG: I really feel like I have such tremendous respect for the abstraction that Nikolais stressed and I’m always working from space, shape, time, motion, and energy in some way. It may not be conscious, but it’s there. And so I think that is the way I think we were similar. And I think also almost everything Nikolais said seemed as though it wasn’t just Nikolais saying it but this was truth. It wasn’t like Nikolais says this so I have to -- it was really like he was saying things that just rang true to me like these are basic elements of dance, how can you question it? There’s just no question.
And I think how we were different. I don’t think I ever used so many props as he did or so many. I guess one thing that was different is that I would do some dances that were pure movement. I’d do some that were more theatrical, and I would do some that were more humorous. I think he always stuck to his own kind of esthetic of pulling everything together. But I really liked to just always do some pure movement just because it keeps you tuned in to movement and to being able to do something without props. So I guess I always liked to do different kinds of work and I always thought of each work as a little world of its own. And I think in a way Nikolais’ work[s] were almost like little worlds of their own too.
But I think my work was more delicate than his work. I mean his work was so bold. I think some of my work was very bold too, but I, I [00:40:00] think that this is something I think interesting about his work, I feel that -- personally feel -- that he did in a way his best work at Henry Street because he had lots of time. He wasn’t touring around and he could spend a whole year working on a production if he wanted to and he often did. And I think that his early work -- I think one thing that he was so good at is creating a program but, over the course of that whole program like a piece called Totem, there were many little pieces within it. And so rather than having to make a 15 or 30 minute piece he would make a whole evening made up of many segments. And I feel like that was sort of his forte is to do that rather than to make a long piece out of one segment. Which I think he did something like that later on where -- but I think at the beginning it would be very segmented and I think that worked very well for him.
NS: What you allude to are the pressures of maintaining a company that has to make a living.
MG: No, exactly. But I think also the dance world was into making pieces that were 15 minutes long or 30 minutes long. I mean they were rarely these segmented pieces like Nikolais made at that time. And I think it was partly the -- I don’t know. I think it’s the pressures of touring, but I think it’s also maybe the pressures of the dance world to want a certain kind of format for a work. I don’t know. I have no idea, but he tended to go from what he did at Henry Street to making longer pieces that would stand alone rather than a full evening piece. That was much more segmented. But I feel like he never had his company as good as at the beginning because he had trained them from childhood practically. So they were brilliant and, there was nothing ever as good as that.
NS: You were also in that company in the early ‘60s, in Nikolais’ company.
MG: Well, I was. I think I was officially a member. I mean I always did little bit parts but, I think he asked me -- I think -- I’m just trying to remember. It was, it was later like around ‘67 or something that he asked me to be in it. He was beginning to tour. When he was beginning to tour he asked me to be a real member of his company. He actually called me into his office and asked me if I wanted to be. And, Ruth [Grauert] said to me, no, he never called people into his office to ask them that. I said because they were already in his company forever. But I mean for me he actually called me into his office and said, “Would you like to be a member of my company? I’m trying to get a very good touring company together and I would like you to be a part of it. Would you like to do it?” And I said, “Yes, I’d like to do it.” And, and soon after that I became pregnant. (laughter) Unfortunately or fortunately.
NS: You did cartwheels all the way home and got pregnant. (laughter)
MG: So anyway I did dance with him for about a year and a half before I was pregnant and then even after I had my son, our son, Nikolais said, “Can you tour with me?” “Can you still dance with me?” and I said, “I can dance with you, but I can’t go on tour.” So that was the end of my dancing with Nikolais. But anyway I stayed and I studied with Nikolais and he continued to produce my work up until he left the Playhouse and even after that in his first new space.
NS: You had said earlier -- this was before we sat down to actually officially tape – that one of the, one of the strengths of your upbringing or of your career is that you were able to study with Nik for as long as you did.
MG: As long as I did. I really, I really do think -- Nikolais would say that we should always be beginners and I think that’s such a wonderful thing to say, [00:45:00] and I’m still a beginner. (laughter) I’m still learning. And I feel like you never quit learning. And I think I studied every day with Nikolais for, for at least 10 years. And I think that’s a long time.
NS: Well, that’s certainly a lot of wisdom to absorb.
MG: It’s a lot of wisdom to absorb and I think it’s that continuity that things get into your bones and not just sort of in your head. I think somehow you really get it in a very visceral way.
NS: I couldn’t agree with you more and that’s absolutely --
MG: And I don’t think anyone studies like that now because people go to ballet and then they go to this and that, but we studied all day with one. I mean I would sneak off and do ballet, but Nikolais didn’t mind if I did it because I -- he didn’t think it was doing me any harm, but I think some students would come in looking very stiff after they went to ballet. So he didn’t encourage ballet.
NS: Or archaic? A little archaic?
MG: But anyway it was wonderful to be at the Henry Street Playhouse for so many years. It was, I think, the best time to be there. I think I hit the right years.
NS: So when, when Nik left Henry Street, and we talked about that as being a hive or a cauldron of sorts, of experimentation, -- we were sort of all adrift at that point, on our own, or would you say that you had --
MG: Well, I was actually --
NS: Got some grounding?
MG: I was really beginning to tour at that time. You know, thanks to Nikolais really. Nikolais wrote me a wonderful letter of recommendation and, I sent it to the New York State Council on the Arts and I got a grant and then I got grants from the touring program and, so for quite a number of years I was funded well and we were touring all over the United States. So I didn’t feel adrift at that time. I felt very happy and I thought this was the beginning, but it was really more or less the end. (laughter) It was never quite as good as that again. I mean those were golden years. At that time you could get a grant for touring from the National Endowment[2] and the sponsor could get also a grant, so the sponsor would only have to pay about a third of your cost. So our performances were either half week or a week, it was never a one night stand, and we were paid well. I mean we could pay a few months’ rent afterwards and so it was really, it was a wonderful time actually. And it just didn’t last for ever.
NS: And there were a lot of companies out of -- specifically really out of New York City, I think, that ended up, you know -- well, I’m thinking of, not only National Endowment[3] but also New York State Council on the Arts was a very strong supporter of dance companies.
MG: Yeah.
NS: And so -- many of us were able to, to really, go out into the field.
MG: They were wonderful years and it was very diverse. You know, it wasn’t like one particular brand of dance was in. I think it’s much more political now, but I think then they wanted a spectrum of companies representing different points of view and,
NS: Did you go to Mississippi, did you tour in Mississippi?
MG: We did. We actually went to Jackson, Mississippi and we performed in an auditorium, 1,000 seat house for five nights, and it was very interesting. I mean we had an amazingly good review from the major critic there. I think some people thought we were nuts, but the critic thought we were amazing. And so we had a good time. We filled, we filled the house five times, [00:50:00] 5,000 people. That was really fun.
NS: What was that like for you?
MG: It was everything. It was exciting. The worst of it all is one of my dancers fell down and broke her leg right before the performance. I mean right two days -- I guess it was during rehearsals so we just got her into the hospital and then I had to teach the parts and we had to eliminate some parts, but nobody ever knew the difference and it looked great. (laughter) It was amazing. My dancers pulled through. I couldn’t believe it, but it was terrifying.
We had some other experiences: we were having some trouble with our computer and, so we had to go out and get parts in the middle of the night. Didn’t we have to wake somebody up at night and try to get some help getting everything fixed? [Garrard asking Seawright] So anyway it was -- it was everything. It was exciting, it was terrifying, it was (laughter). And we also had some, some racial issues too.
NS: What were they then?
MG: This was like ’72 say. I think it was 1972. I think people had heard that we were an integrated company and that we were going to cause trouble and, so. We had one girl who had nice sort of frizzy hair and that was about as close as we came to anything they were looking for.
NS: That was a modified afro?
MG: (inaudible) afro. But anyway for the most part it went, it went well. I think the only thing, the worst part was the dancer getting injured but she recovered.
NS: You, you alluded to, however, you said something about the dancers -- dances today are more -- it’s more political now. What do you mean by that?
MG: Well, I mean I’m so out of it in a way it’s hard to -- it’s just basically what I get from my dancers when they come in and they talk. It’s almost like every place that you get to perform they have a particular point of view that they are pushing. It’s not as diverse as it used to be but since I live where I do I don’t have a lot of knowledge so I don’t want to say too much.
NS: It sounds however that what you’re describing is success, in many ways -- do you mean diverse or more that there are so many different -- ?
MG: I think that the money tends to go to certain -- people. I mean that’s what I feel. I think that the cards are stacked a little bit. I don’t want to go into something I don’t really know anything about, but that’s just my feeling is that it’s very difficult for a choreographer starting out today where it wasn’t difficult for me starting out.
NS: Is that because the resources are so diminished now?
MG: I think that’s part of it. I think the resources are so diminished and I think that controlling those resources is more important. But I think it’s extremely difficult. There are so many talented people today and I think it’s really, uh, I feel like young choreographers need more encouragement now and more support. I think a lot of support goes to the service organizations rather than to the individuals.
NS: Which is actually what you were -- what you’re describing is almost the flip side of your experience at Henry Street with Nik who encouraged everyone, even as a service organization he was --
MG: Right.
NS: -- promoting everyone.
MG: Right, exactly. I think he was really helping all of us have a chance to [00:55:00] grow and learn and experiment and find ourselves.
NS: You had earlier talked about Nik doing the Steve Allen Show[4] and I’m curious about that. That seemed to me when I’ve talked to people that it was a remarkable moment because there’s this sense of here’s this artist who’s fooling around with some interesting and new stuff and, and he now has been given this widespread popular forum. It’s not Madison Square Garden, but it is a popular -- I mean television is certainly much more broad-based than is a theater on the Lower East Side. What was that like?
MG: Well, I wasn’t really a part of that. So you know, basically I, I just know Nik thought it was extremely important that he do this and it gave him a huge amount of publicity. He was partly asked because he was so different. It wasn’t just that they thought it was amazing, but it was so different. But I think to Nik he just needed -- I think Nik felt like he needed to broaden his horizons and I think it was after that he began to tour. I think that was an opening for him to get more chances to show what he was doing.
And I, I would just like to say that I think Nikolais should be considered an artist and not a showman. I mean I think people tend to think of Nikolais as a showman where I think he was a serious artist. He would have been an artist whether he did multimedia or didn’t do multimedia. He did do multimedia, but I think he was just an artist.
NS: What other kinds of art forms excite you now?
MG: Hmm. Video. (whispers, laughter)
NS: You have to say that a little louder.
MG: Video. (laughter) I mean I love video. I think I love film, I love video. I love photography too. I really feel like there’s something in an image. I think there’s the way in which video and photography relate together is that you can look at a photograph and just study it forever and it’s still mysterious and you can’t get to the bottom of it. And that’s what interests me in video is that you can get these images that can be very provocative and you can watch them over and over. And that’s what I’m trying to understand and be better at because I think just to find the essence of something in an image, not just a moving image but just the image itself can be really haunting and provocative.
NS: But video is about motion.
MG: It is about motion. But it really -- you know, but I really feel like even if it’s in motion if you can get something that’s provocative in motion, that is mysterious and that you can’t just -- it’s not a simple thing. It’s something that has dimensions and it has all kinds of layers and that is what interests me. It’s the motion or without -- even in a photograph it’s interesting, but I think if you could do that in motion, which is hard because when it’s in motion you tend to see the motion. You’re going to follow the motion and not just the pictorial image. But there’s something about finding something in the image that’s really potent and...
NS: Can you describe the choreographic process now for you with video? Next week [01:00:00] you said that you --
MG: I’m going to have a dancer coming.
NS: So how does that work for you now?
MG: It’s very interesting actually. It’s an interesting question because I’m working now differently than I did say four or five years ago. I’ll just go through the history of a little bit of how I’m working. When I first started video I would choreograph a sequence like I would do it for the stage, but I knew it was going to be for video. But it would be a complete segment that could be done on a stage. It would have a beginning, middle, and end and I would use it complete, but then I might turn it into a million circles and it would be totally different in the end. But it was always one long sequence.
Now I work with dancers by just making material. I work a lot more with improvisation and, I don’t have a complete sequence. I just have sequences. I work maybe a while with improvisation, I may work a while really setting something very specific, I may work with just how far away you are from the camera and how that -- you know, we might work forever just trying to get a certain distance from the camera that makes everything look unusual or just the very way in which the image gets magnified as you get closer with a wide angle lens. That’s something we could play with forever and certain places on stage.
And then I’m always trying to work so that I have things that are close, things that are far, things that are moving, things that are in place, so I’m just getting a range of stuff now. And it’s much quicker.
NS: Quicker?
MG: Now I work with a dancer for two days and I can probably make three pieces out of two days of work with a dancer because there’s so much material you can get if you’re just making material and not trying to make a finished sequence. So I think that works for me now because I do all the cooking and everything so if a dancer stayed two weeks like I used to have dancers --
NS: That’s a lot of meals.
MG: That’s a lot of meals. (laughter) So, so it’s easier for me. And also I just enjoy this in a way because I can get so much material. You could just work on that material forever if you get some good material.
NS: When you -- but it’s almost circular what you’re saying though, is that you’re gathering material in the studio with the dancer --
MG: Right.
NS: -- and then what happens to it?
MG: And then I spend months editing it. That’s the part that takes a long time. I could spend forever on the editing. I could do it quickly sometimes, but sometimes it takes forever to even get a beginning that you like.
NS: Is that something that you could describe, not necessarily piece by piece, but once the dancer has arrived and you’ve experimented with different images and,
MG: And have a lot of material.
NS: And have all of that material and now the dancer has left and so now you’re shut up in the studio. Do you rewind, do you set, do you play with it, do you push buttons?
MG: I mean sometimes as I’m shooting I know something I want to do. Sometimes I’m setting things up because I know what I want. And so if that happens I’ll just go for that. If that doesn’t happen or if I’ve done what I think, I might just look at the material. It’s really helpful just to look through all the material and just see it again. And especially if there’s a time between when the dancer left -- if the dancer leaves and then I’ve thought the next day I’m usually able to remember a lot of it and, and I know how I want to -- often I know how to get a start.
But the nice thing is that every time I work I learn something. [01:05:00] There’s a lot of experimentation, but there’s a lot of working with things I’ve experimented with before.
NS: And it’s a relatively new art form too.
MG: It’s a relatively new art form and I just feel like it’s incredibly interesting and it’s perfect [for] me at this time of my life. I don’t think I could tour around the country like I used to. I used to pack my own cases. I did so much of my own work when I was touring. I knew every little piece of equipment. I knew how many screws I needed to put this thing together and it would drive me totally crazy.
So this is easier. You could take your time editing and you can have a lot of fun with the dancers, you get to know a lot of people intimately because they live with you. I think that’s one thing that’s really nice and because I only work now with one person at a time because it’s easier to get interesting things with one person than with a group because the group is just filling up the whole screen and you can’t do much with it, but with one person you have so much more possibilities of mixing things and using wide view and a close-up and so now that I work with one dancer it’s easier to hire good, very good people. Because most good dancers, they have their off times in companies and so they’re eager for a new experience.
NS: And you have a wonderful setup which you could sort of -- since we don’t have video to show, but you could sort of describe this.
MG: Well, I’m very lucky that I live upstate New York [Middletown] and I was able to build a beautiful studio that’s just for video and it’s about 35 feet wide and 60 feet long and 16 feet high. It all is a blue screen so that wherever the blue is I can put another image in. So you can have an incredible amount of -- layering of material.
NS: Is that because it’s blue?
MG: Well, it’s chroma key blue. It’s not just any blue, but this particular blue is able to be eliminated and so wherever it’s blue I could put another image, could put an ocean or I could put the dancer in a different way. So that gives you this incredible ability to build things. And then even if you build something very complex, then you can still put another image on top of that because wherever you’ve got the blue you can get rid of the blue. So you can make something complicated and add something on top and then do something to that and add another image. It’s infinite how many times you can add another image of blue on top of one that you’ve already created. So you can create really interesting backgrounds. You can create simple backgrounds or you just have a lot of choice in layering of things.
NS: I can’t help resist telling you that I swear that Nikolais is just chortling away and saying, “Go, Mimi, go, Mimi” That there seems to be this extraordinary inheritance here.
MG: Well, I think there is. I personally feel that I was on his wavelength. I really do feel that way. I feel like whatever he said it just made total sense. And I feel that now the technology has changed and I’m able to use so much of what I learned from him. And I think he would be interested.
NS: Oh, I think so too. I think so too. One of the things that one is always struck [with] when you’re reading any sort of biography or listening to anyone talk about Nikolais is that he did his own scores or that he talked to, you know, that he was intrigued with the Moog [synthesizer] and then started his own experiments with electronic sound and, and then you could go on and on and on with scenic [01:10:00] designs and textures and costumes and things like that. But particularly with sound, how have you integrated sound into your work?
MG: Well, I have worked with some very good composers. That’s one way. I’ve worked with Glen Velez [1949- ], I work with Jonathan Pratt, [Jonathan Melville Pratt] but I’ve also composed my own sound scores. And so that’s been a -- another learning experience and I feel that I keep learning. I teach myself, every single day I teach myself, uh, harmony. (laughter)
NS: Oh.
MG: Yes, I give myself a lesson in harmony from Walter Piston.[5] [1894 – 1976]. His book is extremely -- I mean I think many composers hate his book because it’s very, hard, don’t you think? You start out having to play in every single key. You can’t get through the first page unless you can play in every key. So you have to understand all the keys to begin to study what he’s teaching and then you go through all these things like melodies and then different ways of creating harmony and just so many things that are very detailed and specific, but I just go through the book and when I get as far as I can I start over, start at the beginning. (laughter)
Since I don’t really read music that well, it takes me a long time and at first I couldn’t really read so many of the examples because they would be examples from symphonies. And to try read that on a keyboard which I’m using: an electronic organ, is very difficult. So I’m much better at that than I used to be. So every day I try to learn a little bit more. (laughter) And I think that is helpful. One thing I like to do with music is make these very modular elements, just little modules. It’s really like choreography that you make these modules and then you can manipulate the modules. It’s very interesting.
NS: Beyond interesting. I marvel at it because I see so many of the roots of what you’re dealing with. Or that what you’re experimenting with in that -- I keep using the word cauldron. That’s the word of the day, but you know, that you happened into at Henry Street.
MG: I think he really gave us permission to do anything. Don’t you think that? I don’t think most people would even think they could try to do sound when they didn’t grow up with sound. But I think Nikolais gave us permission to try things. That is one of his great amazing contributions. He gave you permission and, um --
NS: And exposure. I think the more that I conduct interviews -- I remember Gladys Bailin [1930- ] saying that she walked into the studio one day and Nikolais had all of these hoops and fabric. And she hadn’t even thought about that until he brought those in and said, “OK, now we’re going to work with hoops and fabric” or his music classes too, and teaching --
MG: Yeah, well, I think that’s true. He didn’t do a lot of that when I was there, but I think that [what] was important is that he would make his music that way at the beginning, by having students play on these instruments and then he would put it together into something.
NS: Do you get to see any performances now in dance or --
MG: I tend to see people that I’m dancing with. I’ve been going to Alvin Ailey because I worked with Sam [Samuel Lee Roberts]. I’ve been working with Sam Roberts since I moved up here or as soon as my [01:15:00] studio was -- so that was about 2006 say. So that’s a long time. They do a lot of repertory so you get to see not just Alvin Ailey but -- I would like to see more but that’s -- it really is hard getting into the city.
NS: I wanted to ask you, in one of the biographies or something on the web that I was reading I think that you had mentioned that you were living downtown around 2001 and you were there when the planes hit the Trade Center and that it had affected you to the extent that you started to look elsewhere.
MG: That’s very true. So then 2001 Jimmy and I were at home, it was early in the morning and I saw a plane -- I don’t know how I happened to be seeing this on television, but I saw a plane hit the World Trade Center. And then we went outside and then we saw the next one hit. Then we saw the actual towers fall. One at a time, wasn’t it, Jimmy? It was like -- it was almost like -- it was beautiful. I mean it was like this incredible smoky explosion and then there was nothing.
I think at that very time I had finished a concert at The Kitchen[6]and I was very happy. I had a lot of good dancers. But it was extremely expensive. I had lost money on it and, also at the same time I had gotten a very inexpensive editing system. So I was very eager to sort of begin to experiment with that. I had gotten it to edit my work, but also to really begin to make pieces for video.
So once the towers fell and New York was so chaotic after that. Dancers left. I felt like I would be starting over in a way. I just thought I would really make a change. So the first thing I did I made a little demonstration where I burned up all of my old dances, my dances, and did this sort of (laughter) exhibition of burning my old life and invited people and -- I had it set up so people could look at what they wanted and the walls were falling.
It was fairly interesting, wasn’t it, Jimmy? So it was like everything was burning. You know, I’d gotten these burning images and I put it onto my pieces and then I had walls falling and after I did that, that was called “Dance On Fire” [2002], I started making video. That was sort of my catharsis.
NS: So it changed your direction as well as the world’s?
MG: Right, it really did change my direction. I just felt like it was such a big event that you had to take it into your life in some way. It’s just not like I could just ignore what had happened. And I think the main thing was all these things came together, the fact that it was so expensive doing dance for the stage and I didn’t want to do it less well than I was doing it and I was happy with what I was doing, and then I saw another possibility.
I had already seen the seeds of it and then the towers fell and the dance world was really broken up and people left. A lot of my company members left or they joined other companies in other places or they quit dancing for a while. I mean people just were really, really, you know. It just made such a big change that I felt like to just change completely would be the best thing to do. And I -- I didn’t feel like I could do well both things: do video and then also do dance for the stage and be able to afford it.
NS: This is totally out of left field, but do you have a favorite Nikolais piece that you like?
MG: I liked, I liked a lot of the pieces from “Totem”. I like those early works, [01:20:00] “Sanctum”, I like the one with elastics.
NS: I think it’s “Tensile Involvement”.
MG: “Tensile Involvement”. I mean I think it’s like a -- it’s a favorite of everyone’s, don’t you think? I really like it because it’s not -- people would say it’s not dance in a way, don’t you think? I mean in a way it’s not dance. In a way it’s more than dance. But it’s movement and it’s exciting and you see these huge changes happening and --
NS: As a canvas.
MG: Right, exactly. I mean I think it’s really quite, quite amazing.
NS: I think the reason I’m asking that, if I can sort of intrude into the narration, but one of the more striking pieces of Nik’s, for me at least, is “Tent” and “Tower”, those two at that time. And both of those to me are, and I know Nik would say: “I’m not dealing with emotions and, it’s not the idea, it’s the dadada,” but -- but he had --
MG: It was very emotional in a way.
NS: You ended up in your gut feeling something and -- and really a sense, for me at least, that he had taken hold of what was the atomic age.
MG: Mm-hmm.
NS: The tower that blows up, then falls over. You know, that, that he had, he had looked at, at what was happening in our culture and, and, and found a way to, to realize it artistically. And that it strikes in the gut, in a gut way. And so I’d -- I tend to, to ask the question about, also about 2001 and the towers in that, in that vein that I’m always curious or interested to know the ways in which creative people and artistic people see that. As opposed to historians or journalists. What happens to the creative process if you’ve integrated that event. And it’s apparent to me that you took the bull by the horns essentially and said OK, this is --
MG: I think it’s partly the time it happened in my life. If I had been 30 I wouldn’t have made the same decision, you know? but I think at the time when I was really older and I really felt like how can I best use my time that I have left, is one thing I was thinking about. Jimmy, are you OK?
James Seawright: Yeah, (inaudible).
MG: Can you -- do you need help? [7]
JS: No, I’m all right
MG: I really do feel that it made a huge impression and for a long time like you could smell the…… I don’t know where you were at the time. Were you --
NS: Brooklyn.
MG: You were in Brooklyn so you were --
NS: Well, actually I was midtown and then I had to find my way back home.
MG: Wow. Well, just the smell and the, you could smell and the dust or whatever was in the air. It was really thick and we, we couldn’t, we, we, we decided to get some groceries and we couldn’t even get back into our apartment because the police had put up these ropes so we couldn’t get home. And so it took us awhile to be able to get back in our own house. And then everywhere you went you had to walk. So walking to class…… you couldn’t get away from the fact that this was a major event, apart from -- everything else.
But there also was this feeling of, to me, incredible anxiety because I knew we were going to start a war. I mean there was so much anger. I mean that was the scariest part to me was the -- there was this anger in the air that I felt was not going to be healthy. People weren’t really rational about it. I think it was just really so much anger [01:25:00] like people have hurt us and we’ve got to hurt somebody back and, so I think that was really the beginning of my dreams with three brides. It was really that anxiety and worrying about the -- people’s anger and where that was going to lead.
NS: And, and in some ways it’s as if you wanted to complete the circle. You can go back to your first -- the cart.
MG: Yeah.
NS: At Henry Street.
MG: Right.
NS: What disturbed you about growing up in --
MG: Mississippi.
NS: In Mississippi.
MG: Yeah, I think it’s true. Now that I’m archiving my work I see all of these patterns, the patterns between what I did for the stage and how those same things come back in video and, and it all started with Nikolais.
NS: Well, it does and it start-- I mean it starts with Nikolais, but -- but I’m also -- I’ll read into the record, I think, it was something -- I was struck by [what] somebody had written about your work which I will now quote. “Wonders of light, movement, color, and form simultaneously in motion, a kaleidoscope of abstract images with the human body unmistakably primary.” What I find remarkable about the description of your work, Mimi, is that it’s an extension then of Nikolais’ work in the sense that you own it, you know, you, you, you, you have owned the lessons that Nik provided and you’ve inhabited the space that Nik allowed because that was what he wanted from everyone, essentially. We can stop now.
MG: Thank you. You’re very good. [01:27:17]
END OF AUDIO FILE
[1] The Space for Innovative Development: Built in 1903, ‘The Space’ was originally the Presbyterian denominational Christ Church. The Samuel Rubin Foundation purchased the abandoned building on West 36th Street in New York City’s garment district in 1970. Its purpose was to support experimental theatrical groups in need of rehearsal and performing space. Alwin Nikolais and Murray Louis Dance Companies were the Space’s original tenants and were subsequently joined by the Open Theater, Free Life Communications, the Multigravitational Aerodance Group, Quog, and Space Videoarts.
[2]The Dance Touring Program operated as part of the National Endowment for the Arts from the ‘60s through the mid ‘80s.
[3] Established by Congress in 1965, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is an independent federal agency. It is the largest funder of the arts and arts education in the United States.
[4] The Steve Allen Show, NBC-TV, 1959.
[5] 1894-1976, composer, music theorist, and author of Harmony originally published by Norton & Co., 1941.
[6] Nonprofit alternative art center founded in 1971.
[7] Seawright was living with Parkinson’s disease at the time the interview took place.
