Media - Interview for Roomfor portal, March 27, 2015 (see: K. Ganyushina).

http://roomfor.ru/alexey-fomkin-interview/

By Katya Ganyushina

AGRIPPINA LAB. Interview with Aleksey Fomkin.

Aleksey Viktorovich Fomkin, Artistic Director of the TanzHaus (Dance House) at the Moskvich Cultural Centre, who recently left his position as Vice-Rector of the Vaganova Academy of Russian Ballet. One of his greatest accomplishments in his previous job was the creation of a master’s programme in contemporary dance choreography, known for its radical nature. We had an interesting conversation with Aleksey about how and why it was possible to develop such a programme at the Academy of Russian Ballet and what new things he wants to do at his current place of work.

Katya Ganyushina (KG): It is quite clear that there are very limited opportunities for professional training in contemporary dance in Russia. The only existing programme that offers this kind of training is the Master’s programme in Contemporary Choreography at the Vaganova Academy of Russian Ballet. But what will happen to it (now that the Academy’s administration has changed) is hard to say. The fact that ballet in Russia is considered “our everything” is undoubtedly a handicap here. Even those people who are open to contemporary dance usually see it as contemporary ballet at best. Very few people recognise contemporary dance as a discipline in its own right, one that has accumulated a great deal of knowledge over more than a century of history and has a wealth of expertise that can be interesting and useful to virtually anyone.

To me, you are one of those people who understand this kind of thing. What’s especially important is that you have a classical background. Yet, not only do you see the value of contemporary dance, but you have also created a master’s programme in this discipline, and not just anywhere, but at the Academy of Russian Ballet. How was it created?

Aleksey Fomkin (AF): For starters, it wasn’t just me. Among those involved were Tanya Gordeeva, Sasha Lyubashin and manager Denis Venidiktov. I have to admit that when I think about that time in my career, on the one hand, I feel somewhat disappointed, but on the other hand, I am glad that I left that educational institution and finally broke away from the very rigid system (my childhood system) with all the issues of a closed society.

I was part of it from the time I was ten years old. After graduating from the Academy, I was a ballet dancer at the Mariinsky Theatre for thirteen years. And then, at some point, I realised that I couldn’t go on like that – that life would destroy me, because I couldn’t just bury myself in ballet and theatre problems. Fortunately, by then the Academy had become a higher education institution and a department of ballet science had been set up with the most favourable academic environment. I was one of its first students and we, as performers of the Mariinsky Theatre, were given every opportunity to study and get a higher education.

Ballet science is a peculiar discipline, with elements of isolationism and authoritarianism. It is also full of “theatre-related glamour» stories associated with people’s interest in the personal lives of performers and the adulation of spectators. In my opinion, we live in a time when the boundaries (both personal and social) are completely blurred, which brings people who used to watch ballet from the audience into the professional milieu. The paradox is that the normally closed ballet community suddenly began to readily embrace balletomanes (since ballet lovers are always so loyal and adoring), avoiding any self-reflection. By the way, the obsessively proclaimed aesthetic identity of the Moscow and St. Petersburg ballet schools, which never existed, has the same roots.

But back to my story… In 1999, I started working for the Academy – first as an educationist, then as the head of the museum, dean, and finally as vice-rector. Back then, the situation was quite peculiar: people who had no background in ballet, but a lot of experience in other scientific fields, got involved in ballet matters. One of them was Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Isakov, Vice-Rector for Science. I found his expertise very helpful in setting up a higher education system at the Academy. I can’t say that the ballet community (both inside and outside the Academy) welcomed what was happening. There was a lot of resistance. But, in my opinion, the most important thing we did was to literally “drag” psychology, anatomy, physiology, biodynamics, sociology, contemporary dance and its theory into the educational process. For the first time in an educational setting such as the Academy, it became possible to conduct extensive scientific research.

In the wake of these changes, I realised that I had to look for some kind of alternative to the way choreographers were being trained at the Academy. An alternative to the traditional way of training choreographers that is used at the Russian Institute of Theatre Arts (GITIS) or ballet academies. Tanya Gordeeva happened to be around (she was studying for her bachelor’s degree at the Academy) and so did Sasha Lyubashin (he was a contemporary dance instructor at the Academy’s performing arts department). Besides, Tanya Gordeeva used to be a ballerina herself, a student of Ekaterina Maximova, so she was no stranger to our system. And so, the four of us made it happen. The result was the “Scientific and Creative Laboratory for the Composition of Contemporary Forms of Dance”.

I can’t say that at the time I had a clear idea of what the programme would be like. Then, after I worked hard on it, I got a lot of feedback, including some negative comments (why did you do it, have you lost your mind, you’re crazy). Now, I understand why… What Tanya and Sasha are doing is a very peculiar form of contemporary dance – it’s more about thought-intellect-movement than about dance as such, and certainly not about ballet at all. This programme is about the boundaries: of one’s own movement, of one’s own experience. It requires self-reflection skills.

KG: The programme is indeed fundamentally different. From what I understand, it explores a lot of 20th century critical theory, and that, in my experience, is pretty tough stuff to take in. When somatic practices appear in such a closed organisation, it is already a great change, but when such a programme is created, it is a revolution. This programme changes the way you think. It’s not about becoming a contemporary dance choreographer… How did you manage to make this revolution?

AF: You’re absolutely right, it is about clearing your mind, not about becoming a great choreographer. We pulled it off because, for one thing, the rector, Vera Dorofeeva, backed us up. She let us do a lot of things and didn’t hold us back. Secondly, as a vice-rector, I was involved in the Educational and Methodological Association (EMA) at the time and actually developed the standards for choreographic education in Russia. One of my tasks in creating the new generation of standards was to find such a form of standard that would include contemporary choreography. So that contemporary dance would be included in secondary education, as well as in bachelor’s and master’s programmes. So here we are: contemporary dance can now be taught at all levels of education. And the laboratory programme at the Academy was made possible because the master’s standard was set. Today, however, contemporary dance is once again out of style. Although universities, colleges and even schools have educational standards for training contemporary dance performers and choreographers, the government provides no public funding for places in these programmes and offers very little support for the industry… so to speak. Even if someone graduates, where will they find a job? There is no demand, no audience is being created whatsoever. It’s not so easy to understand contemporary art, people should be prepared for it…

KG: What’s next for the programme? If the programme is closed, is it possible to take it elsewhere, outside of the Academy?

AF: The latest information suggests that it will not be closed, only renamed. The word “laboratory” is probably too off-putting for the sensitive ballet ear… Starting in a new place would be problematic. This programme was made for the Academy because there were government-funded places for students, and the free tuition allowed us to make a quality selection. If we were to relocate, all costs would be paid by the students. It would be a fee-based programme. And tuition would not be cheap.

KG: How much do you think it would cost?

AF: We would have to make some calculations, of course, but no less than 60,000 per semester. To keep the programme going, the Academy would need a lot of flexibility. Because, even in terms of the internal atmosphere, the students in this programme stand out a lot. And it often, subconsciously, rubs people the wrong way.

KG: And what is going on here at the Moskvich Cultural Centre? What interesting things can you do here?

AF: It’s just another “Academy of Russian Ballet”, in a sense, of its own kind. Here, as in other cultural centres, there is a very strong amateur tradition, a tradition of folk groups, which often get stressed when some changes begin to take place. I don’t know why they feel threatened, though; it’s just another opportunity for development.

In general, the situation here is like this. When Sergey Borisovich Shcherbakov, director of the centre, was on a trip to Germany, he visited the TantzHaus NRW in Düsseldorf, which was founded 30 years ago by the psychotherapist and producer Bertram Müller. Fascinated by the concept of the Tanzhaus, Sergey decided to create something similar here, and made some arrangements with Bertram Müller. We’ve been getting a lot of help and support from the famous producer Margarita Moyzhes. We started by bringing in teachers of different dance styles, held a scientific conference (so far online). In April, we’re hosting the Dance Connection, a festival of workshops led by Martin Puttke (methods of classical dance), Petra Krohn (laboratory for choreographers), Raymon Zacharey and Baba Takao (hip-hop), and Sven Niemeyer and Stefanie Erb (contemporary and jazz dance). I think the workshop with Martin Puttke, the former director of the Berlin Ballet School, will be particularly interesting. He applies neurocognitive, psychobiological principles to the methods of classical dance and will share his insights with the teachers at the festival. As for Petra Krohn, she will hold a laboratory. Three choreographers will be selected for her to work with. Petra will train them for a week, six hours a day, with the participation of a playwright and a composer. They will show their results here in the Moskvich, on the Big Stage.

KG: So, at the moment the TanzHouse Moskvich only offers training?

AF: So it seems. Right now, it’s an educational project. In April, when Bertram arrives, we will continue to discuss and develop the concept and structure of the Moscow TanzHouse. I think we’ll make it work. But, of course, it may take a while to get there.

Aleksey Fomkin is a well-known expert in choreographic education in Russia, a candidate of pedagogical sciences, a graduate of the Vaganova Academy of Russian Ballet, a ballet dancer of the Mariinsky Theatre, a former member of the jury of the Golden Mask Theatre Award and Vice-Rector of the Vaganova Academy of Russian Ballet. He is currently Deputy Director of the Moskvich Cultural Centre and Artistic Director of the TanzHaus.