Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T07:51:56.119Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dancers, Workers and Bees in the Choreography of Doris Humphrey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2014

Ellen Graff
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Doris Humphrey's deep humanistic concerns, as stated in dances such as New Dance and Passacaglia, and her dedication to the group as the most essential element of choreography might have allied her with those enthusiastic and vociferous dancers in the 1930s who were dedicated to effecting social change through movement. But although her image of a perfect society would seem to echo the visions of social equality promised by the new Soviet Union, visions which deeply influenced the work of many artists on the political left, she was not readily welcomed by the leftist contingent in dance. In part this was the result of Humphrey's ambivalence about the creative role of the group and her understanding of the singular nature of the artistic process. In part it was the result of her interest in abstraction and her disinterest in more concrete depictions of reality. Humphrey's approach, while visionary, was not essentially political because it did not deal with the “real” world. Writing about New Dance she described an idealized world, “where each person has a clear and harmonious relationship to his fellow beings” (1). The community in New Dance was an imagined community, perfect because it was not real, perfect precisely because it was removed from the passions and imperfections of 1930s America. This article explores the role of the group in articulating Humphrey's social vision and places it alongside experiments in group choreography by leftist dancers during this period.

Type
Articles
Information
Dance Research Journal , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , Fall 1996 , pp. 29 - 34
Copyright
Copyright © Congress on Research in Dance 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1. Selma Jeanne, Cohen, Doris Humphrey: An Artist First (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1972), 238.Google Scholar

2. Doris Humphrey Collection (Folder C271), Dance Collection. New York Public Library for the Performing Arts, New York City, New York.

3. Maurice, Maeterlinck, The Life of the Bee. Trans. Sutro, Alfred (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1967 [1901]), 21.Google Scholar

4. Cohen, 62–63.

5. Quoted in McDonagh, Don, “A Conversation with Gertrude Shurr.” Ballet Review 4/5 (1973): 19.Google Scholar

6. Eleanor, King, Transformations: A Memoir by Eleanor King: The Humphrey-Weidman Era (Princeton: Dance Horizons, 1978), 184.Google Scholar

7. Quoted in King, 40.

8. Quoted in Cohen, 88.

9. Quoted in King, 49.

10. Oliver, Sayler, Revolt in the Arts (New York: Brentano's, 1930), 254.Google Scholar

11. See for example, Martin, John writing about Heretic (1929)Google Scholar, “the group has not yet found its individuality apart from her. Frequently the effect is of twelve less expert Martha Grahams.” (New York Times [15 April 1929]). Arnold, Joseph wrote about Graham's, Celebration (1934)Google Scholar, “In pieces like this, when the Graham technique is multiplied by eleven….” (Dance Magazine [December 1934]). Henry Gilfond in Dance Observer referred to the group as “a multiplication of the artist [Graham]” (March 1935): 30.

12. Dudley, Jane, “The Mass Dance.” New Theatre Magazine (December 1934).Google Scholar

13. Ibid.

14. Edith Segal, interview with Lesley Farlow. Dance Collection. New York Public Library for the Performing Arts.

15. In a polemic issued in the leftist periodical New Theatre Magazine a writer for the Workers Dance League stated that all art was essentially propaganda. “There is no division. Although propaganda is not necessarily art, art is propaganda.” (June 1934): 22.

16. Trend: A Quarterly of the Seven Arts (June - July 1932). Quoted in Cohen, 252.

17. Rudhyar, Dane, “Art and Propaganda.” Dance Observer (December 1936).Google Scholar

18. See Manning, Susan, Ecstasy and the Demon: Feminism and Nationalism in the Dances of Mary Wigman (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 265–81Google Scholar, for a discussion of the distinction between “humanist” and “leftist” dancers during this period.

19. Ocko, Edna, “Humphrey-Weidman.” New Theatre Magazine (February 1935).Google Scholar

20. Ocko, , “Dance: A Notable Recital.” Daily Worker (19 December 1935).Google Scholar

21. King, 184–85.

22. Quoted in King, 216.

23. Anyon, Nell, “The Tasks of the Revolutionary Dance.” New Theatre Magazine (September - October 1933).Google Scholar