Dealing with this phenomenon I am eager, I confess, to stay close to the decision (restriction) I apply to The Moon Practice (and to my life, as much I can), which is: the interview is a snapshot of a moment in time. It captures a moment of intimacy shared between the interviewee and myself. Things that are said then and there are witnessed and/or recorded. Things that are not said - are not. The particular combination of revealed things, and things left unrevealed is what makes this meeting, moment or relationship specific, exciting and wonderful.

 

Now, what I have to remind myself of all the time is the fact that any specific moment is not isolated in time, but exactly the opposite -- it is reflective of all other times and all other moments. A single moment is always reflective of a context, history, location, etc. To be aware of that has taught me a lot.

 

I want to ask the reader to exercise their attention in a way that is inclusive of things that are reflected.

 

 

 

 

Bien. And now, ladies and gentlemen, without further ado: Anna Grip.

 

 

 

 

 

interview with Anna Grip at Danscentrum Stockholm on April 25, 2015

 

*

annagrip: I wanted to translate the word that I don’t know the English form of. It’s the word bildung in German. Not ausbildung, but bildung. It’s what Humboldt is talking about. Ah, anyway.

pavleheidler: That’s what gave me a sense of context within a context. So that it’s not only Ulrika as I know her, for example, but somehow a bit of an extended impression of—also, where she comes from. I get an insight into where does her present articulation come from. We ended up talking quite a bit about New York. To Manon I talked to about growing up in Christiania, the experience of being able to speak lots of languages, and her family —because her family comes from so many places. I asked her about translation, and what translation means to her. I asked about translation both in terms of language, but also in terms of physicality. To give an example of what already happened.

annagrip: Yeah.

pavleheidler: OK, so then my first question is—what’s your background? You’re Swedish?

annagrip: I’m Swedish.

pavleheidler: The only thing that I know about you really is that you’ve been the artistic director of Cullberg Ballet and that you’re at DOCH now. I don’t really know a lot about your history.

annagrip: Do you want me to start from the beginning?

pavleheidler: Yes, please.

annagrip: OK. I come from a very normativefamily. I was born in a small town. My mother was a journalist. My father is. Still. He was a football player and he still is a coach—or he’s assisting the coach. I mean, he’s old. He’ll be eighty soon. But he is the assistant coach to the Kosovo team. Coaching has been his thing for many, many, many years. So, I guess it’s been a part of my environment from a very early age. Maybe it’s also in the genes, this interest of transferring something. We moved a lot. When I started school, I wanted to have something to do and I was, by coincidence, starting with dance. It was really just to have something to do. I did a lot of sports.

pavleheidler: What kind of sports?

annagrip: Football. Handball. Basketball. And I worked in the summers from when I was twelve years old, as a swimming teacher. I did a course and I worked as a swimming teacher.

pavleheidler: In a pool or in a lake? 

annagrip: In a lake. I guess I’ve—It’s actually the teaching and the didactics that has been more of an interest than actually dance. Dance just became the means. When I was in high school, I went out to try different jobs —that’s something one does here [in Sweden] —and I tried as a school teacher. And later when they needed a substitute they called me. I was fourteen years old. I started to take courses, you know. Training coaching courses. But I don’t have an exam in pedagogy. I don’t have anything, really, because I started Balettakademien when I was fifteen. I didn’t even get a gymnasium degree. I’m an autodidact. And I do feel inferior easily. Because I don’t have any academics to back me up. I think there’s a lot of shame in me —ofthat I don’t know. That I don’t have any knowledge. I have some courses in football. As a coach. I’ve always been so intrigued by coaching. Read a lot of psychology, by myself. Training psychology. Not so much anatomy and physiology, but psychology. Leadership. Yeah. I’ve been teaching since I was fourteen. That’s forty years. When I went to Balettakademien I was teaching in the evenings. In order to support myself. After three years in Balettakademien—which was ballet, Jazz, and Graham mostly, some Cunningham; I had Cristina in my first year, as a teacher, she was twenty three then, young —I went to New York. And continued with a lot of ballet classes.

pavleheidler: Who did you take class with then?

annagrip: David Howard, Larry Rhodes, Maggie Black, Marjorie Mussman. Also Ernie Pagnano. I trained with someone called Michael Kessler, who did ballet for modern dancers or actually modern ballet, which was quite new then. This was in the end of the seventies. I got totally fascinated by this.

pavleheidler: How was ballet for modern dancers different then?

annagrip: It used the frame of ballet, but it also brought in other categories and parameters. I was fascinated by that. I got a job in Germany, in Munich. Where Cristina was. Both of us worked with this choreographer. In Munich. I didn’t have a place to stay, neither did she —so we lived in the dressing room. We lived in the dressing room and worked in the evenings, after all the evening classes were finished and everybody left.

pavleheidler: You mean —you were making work?

annagrip: Yes! Oh, she did. I taught a lot, I moved. That was a crazy time. Afterwards we found an appartment in which we lived with other people. And then we left this company and started to work together. I was also teaching out in the suburbs, you know. I was teaching ladies jazz dance.

 

 

 

[break in the recording]

 

 

 

annagrip: So, back to Stockholm. I was mediocre and I didn’t get any jobs. Not that there were many jobs to get then. The community was not this large. But I got a job in Copenhagen at an opera house, doing operettas and all these things. I got back to Stockholm eventually —assisted Cristina in her work. And then I took classes and Birgit Cullberg was there. They were planning a TV production with ABBA music and they needed a jazz dancer. She asked me to do it and I did. I was also asked then to assist, to take care of rehearsals, and teaching. Then I moved to Gothenburg to teach. At Balettakademien in Gothenburg. I stayed there for six years, simultaneously working with Cristina. In Gothenburg I taught a lot. That’s where I first started to break with the traditional techniques I had been working within.

pavleheidler: What made you want to break with traditional techniques ?

annagrip: I felt they were not sufficient. I wanted to reflect upon what I felt was important in —knowledge and skills. I felt traditional techniques were too based on choreography. They were concerned with doing choreography. Including ballet —which is also choreography. My first interest was to be functional. I went into the concept of functional ballet, of functional work. You know. Where you talk about other parameters of how you stretch your foot, for instance. Very influenced by the teachers in New York. I’ve never been fully interested in anatomy per se. I’ve tried so many times to be interested, but after a while I always black out. There’s something I don’t see when I look into anatomy. It’s really terrible. I’m still not sure how it functions. And I’ve really tried. I taught a lot and when teaching I spoke in other ways than naming this and this muscle. I taught four or five classes a day, plus trained by myself. So I really did my workout during these years. I taught children, teenagers, evening classes. A lot of evening classes and educational and professional classes.

pavleheidler: What did that do to you as a teacher, the fact that you could reach such different types of audience?

annagrip: I think I increased my interest and curiosity in others. Cristina said once: “You ‘re more interested in people, and I’m more interested in the work.”And I think that’s very true. And I can feel that when I get into CCAP, she trusts that I’m interested in people. I am. Which I think has also influenced my breaking with traditional set-ups. I lost interest in doing phrases, combinations, exercises and became more interested in coaching one on one. I feel that I maybe have less and less to propose and to offer? I can offer my attention. And I want to have the work in focus, you know. But I think, I realize more and more that dance —dance is just an alibi for me to have an interest in people. What I did during those six years in Gothenburg, by teaching tons of classes —besides being totally exhausted and having no social life —I collected experiences. Now I jump. I went to this shame council group. And did a meditation. And we got the question: what is it that your need? Like if your day comes to an end and this need was not met and you feel unfulfilled. And I was thinking I need to help somebody. Which could be a form of vampirism, and something quite awful you know. But there’s something in —in Gothenburg, I can say that I felt that I got some meaning. I wanted to —in the language I used then —help people develop. I wanted to support. And that has always taken over the interest of teaching someone to dance. I believe in the good, and not.

pavleheidler: I realized that often in order to actually teach dance I have to not teach dance first. I wonder what, do you think, is the border of dance, if I have to establish something else first? And what is that something else.

annagrip: I guess it’s like, you know, a game of squash? You start by throwing the ball, but it comes back. Maybe dance is the initiator. And it becomes an instrument. You know, I want to be this person who really has a core in art. But I don’t think —I said to AndréLepecki the other day, I said —what if dance is not an art form? And he said —what? I don’t think so. After confirming a bit to himself, he said —you know what? I’m quite relieved. But I’m not sure what he meant with that. Dance is something for me to start with. To start with, and to be allowed to be interested in people.

pavleheidler: When you enter a room as a teacher, what do you see? How do you see the people that are there? 

annagrip: It depends. I’m very often nervous and scared. I prepare and I don’t prepare, because I need to check the room and the energy, I need to do the scanning. And so, sometimes I submit to the room, but sometimes I overrule the room and do what I planned. It really is different class to class. I’ve been through so many phases in my beliefs, and I’ve had so many different religions. And then there was Rancière and the not-teaching and not-explaining. Hiding by showing. Saying there’s no right or wrong, then twenty seconds later saying —good! Questioning the opening up, and what do I mean. There’s so much with the language —I’ve changed a lot. It’s like moving a painting to another wall, so that I can see it. And you know, I’ve also taken a lot of interest in leadership. I’ve been interested in leadership, of course. Which is also maybe a strand of this interest in people. I think I developed a discourse for that more than the dance.

pavleheidler: How much do you allow psychology, or working on psychology to be in the room in which studying takes place? How much do you allow yourself to be open that that’s also at stake when you teach, even if what you teach is a plié?

annagrip: It’s primary to me. I go into it like [snaps her fingers] this.

pavleheidler: Is that something that goes unnoticed or is it noticed, that that’s also at stake?

annagrip: You mean from the audience?

pavleheidler: Yes.

annagrip: I think it’s noticed. And for some it’s wanted, and for others it’s rejected. For me, I’ve been so engaged and passionate in wanting to, you know, help. But I also question myself a lot, because of this vampirism. And I doubt a lot. I think about respect, as in respettare —you step back to look and you have a pathos, but from a distance. You don’t have to be upfront all the time. Maybe that has to do with age as well, you know. To really show some respect is to also withdraw a bit. With pathos. Stepping back shows that it’s really not about me, you know? Because it’s been a lot about me being a good teacher. The helping becomes about me. And becomes a confirmation—that I am meaningful. And maybe actually just lately I’ve come to terms with the fact that it’s not about me. I have to tolerate and I have to put up with the fact that it’s not about me. You know? It’s OK not to be noticed as a teacher. It’s OK. But it’s work for me.

pavleheidler: What about leadership?

annagrip: I’ve tried to abdicate from leadership, because I have a problem with power. Both to admit my own power and to admit another’s over me. I have a problem with authorities. I don’t obey very easily. I hit up and serve down.

pavleheidler: Oh, Robin Hood!

annagrip: I’m Robin Hood. But not because I’m a good person. It’s not because I’m noble or —not at all. It’s because of fear and because I have a problem with authority. I feel there is a lot of corruption going on, but I don’t do so much about it except being angry. But having a problem with authorities, I also have a problem with my own power over somebody. If I have employees —I have power over them. And that’s a problem for me, since I do have such a difficulty with someone having power over me. But — I go into these structures, constantly. Which might have something to do with — I’ve been thinking about this — if you have power, you also have the power to act and to change things. I wanted to change things. I don’t want to have power over somebody. I did an alternative education at Dansens Hus, in the evenings. I borrowed money and offered classes in the evenings for free and we were hosted by Dansens Hus. Everybody that wanted could come in, and they were many. And they were at many different levels, so we had two groups. We made an agreement with Dansens Hus so the students could see the performances that were presented and also observing rehearsals from the guest artists. It was kind of a reaction towards the fact that educations were becoming their own entities and had very little contact with the professional field. This education was linked to Cristina Caprioli and Kenneth Kvarnström and Per Jonsson, who all had their production office at Dansens Hus.

pavleheidler: And when was that?

annagrip: That was ’96. Twenty years ago. Long…

pavleheidler: I can’t get over the fact that the 90’s were not ten years ago.

annagrip: I know.

pavleheidler: I erase 2000 to 2010.

annagrip: Yes, exactly!

pavleheidler: But was that before Danshögskolan became…?

annagrip: Oh, totally!

pavleheidler: And after Gothenburg, I guess.

annagrip: After, yes. Gothenburg was the beginning of the ‘80s. I was very young. I was twenty, twenty one. Already then —I was interested in these issues and was changing my class. What did I do after Gothenburg? Yes, I worked with Cristina. I’ve been, you know, back and forth with her. Then I went to see a performance with a company in Norrköping and I felt I wanted to help these dancers. When the position of the ballet master opened, I applied and got the job. So I taught and rehearsed and planned. We were really trying to make a change. Four years I was their rehearsal director and for a year the artistic director. Then I left, and then the company closed. And then I worked as an assistant, and helped Cristina, Kenneth and Per. I moved back to Stockholm. When I was working with the company in Norrköping I was invited to teach Rosas when they were in Dansens Hus. That year they were only 8. It was the year before they changed to having twenty dancers.

pavleheidler: Now we’re in the ‘90s, right?

annagrip: ’91 or yeah. So I went there and I taught and they really, really enjoyed it. And, you know, I loved Anne Theresa’s work and I studied a bit what they were doing and I prepared the class for a certain…And they thought it was amazing. And after that I had a call. I got a fax! I got a fax from Lief.

pavleheidler: Lief!

annagrip: The fax was saying that they heard from the dancers who were really, really happy. And they would love for me to come teach. And Miss Keersmaeker is planning to create an educational structure —would I like to be a part of that, and also plan for that structure? And I was like —yeah! It was high risk but I thought —I’m the shit! Very clever and up to date. So I went to Bruxelles. I got there and that was the first year there were many people in the company. They had different groups. One was Cynthia and Samantha and one was the new bunch. I taught the first class with such self-confidence. I came thinking I was the queen. Well. That took one and a half hour…[laughing] It was so painful to realize —so painful to realize that, you know. That they don’t give a shit. They had new teachers —it’s like coming to Cullberg. They have new teachers every other week, you know. So? What can you give me? We’re not here for you. You’re here for us. It was really a week of shame. It was awful. Nobody talked to me ever again about PARTS. I went home thinking —welcome to the world. I had shame attacks when talking about Rosas. That was really a moment of —and that’s how close to PARTS I’ve been. I’ve never been closer since. But I saved the fax!

pavleheidler: But how —I once destroyed some important faxes at my parents’firm, because I liked putting them against lightbulbs and seeing the content disappear. Such a big thing, fax.

annagrip: I think fax was the big revolution.

pavleheidler: Because you could just —

annagrip: Yeah! It was a kvantspring. It was really. But yeah. So now we’re in the ‘90s. I did get another opportunity to teach them when they got to Dansens Hus. And I got over my, you know, shame and it was fine. I was a bit more humble.

pavleheidler: I’m really interested in how changing your mind, in time, facilitates for something —because you keep making sure you have distance, but also you’re taking up these high positions and taking risks. Because I also find comfort in making myself conscious of time passing. It’s a much needed technique at the moment. But being a person in power, how do you relate to the world, the dance environment —and all it’s changing interests, and fashions?

annagrip: You know, I want to renovate. I never go into power structures with the successful, you know. Contexts that are already successful I don’t go near. I fear them. Because these will only reveal my own non-capacity, non-capability. And that I am a fake, you know? So I’m only interested in objects I can renovate in one way or another. Unless I do my own, as I did. And unless there are people that I really would like to work with. Otherwise, I don’t really dare, I’m a coward. I like it in the shadow with less expectations . I like to work in the shadow, but with power. It’s awful. Really. The power —So, I’m really backing out a lot. Cullberg I backed into. When they first asked me, I laughed and said —are you out of your mind?

pavleheidler: Who asked you?

annagrip: The director of Riksteatern. They wanted someone who could take care of the ensemble. To start, I came in as an ensemble manager. The company manager. And so, I guess it’s a way of being confirmed and being wanted and — What I do is the sneaky way. I’m a sneaky —I read about sneaky fuckers.

pavleheidler: Sneaky fuckers? You’re a sneaky fucker!

annagrip: I’m a sneaky fucker. [laughing] I was reading about the anatomy of equality. A book. It goes through the strongest and the fittest and nature, blah, blah, blah. Its point is that it’s not the strongest who survives, because of sneaky fuckers. While the strongest and you know the most suitable are fighting for the female, the sneaky fucker —fucks her. Sneaky fuckers wouldn’t even go into the fight. They’d just fuck! I loved it! And I thought —oh, that’s me. It really is. I wouldn’t go into the fight in order to say I wanted something. I wouldn’t get in there. And that’s how it happened with Cullberg. I was there as the manager for a year, and when the position for the artistic director opened I wouldn’t apply. They couldn’t find anyone, and when I said I was leaving because my contract expired —that’s when they asked. I wouldn’t do anything unless I have the trust and the permission of the employees, not the authorities. The authorities don’t matter to me. So. I’m sneaky. And I like to renovate. And to serve.

pavleheidler: I think that if there’s anything that justifies the power, the support for the power justifies the power.

annagrip: Yeah?

pavleheidler: If the power is not supported, then it has to be power that asserts itself. And it has to be the power that is single-minded. That is served. A way of inserting not that kind of power is to implement what you describe, which is when the power is asked for, when it’s chosen.

annagrip: We’re in this society or paradigm of achievement. We’ve changed the paradigm of discipline to the paradigm of achievement. And we’re all about development. Everything’s about development. And change. And positivism —positivism is about to make us collapse. I’m thinking about collective work you spoke of, that is not moving? That’s the shit. Doesn’t go anywhere. But is, in itself. I don’t know. At the same time I can say that we are not resisting enough, we’re not changing enough, we’re not angry enough. I don’t know. What was the beginning of the thread with the collectivist work? Without power, without leader. Without leadership!

pavleheidler: Yeah.

annagrip: Did you say that —collective work that is not lead?

pavleheidler: Yes, I was thinking of collectives that refuse leadership as a concept. And of those who survive that, it’s all the other things that come into play that provide for the survival. Which is good psychology, openness to conversation, which is the ability to self-reflect, the ability to not only give feedback but to search for feedback, too. How do you say when it’s —

annagrip: Self-generating? No.

pavleheidler: Self-sustain…

annagrip: Self-sustain!

pavleheidler: It comes down to the fact that you need “healthy”people to be able to do anything. And for me this is where psychology comes in, this is where all this —you need a person that is also willing to do all the work by him or her or themselves, even if it’s not explicitly asked from them to take that kind of responsibility up. Otherwise, it’s always somebody leaning on somebody else leaning on somebody else until something cracks and then the whole thing falls apart. I’m definitely not up for production in terms of it being the thing, because I think we are producing so much and I would like everybody to slow down and take a day off.

annagrip: Yes, that’s what I mean, you know, when you said no movement —ah, great. Doesn’t go anywhere.

 

 

 

[pause]

 

 

 

annagrip: Did you say that, as a collective work there needs to be more effort in order to make it work with no leadership?

pavleheidler: I actually think there should be leadership.

annagrip: Oh, you think so.

pavleheidler: It’s all about how the leadership is implemented. And how it is nourished and maintained. I think that leadership —even if we take the leadership that you describe, leadership that is supported —it has to feedback every step of the way. Every decision has to be feedback-ed. Back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. A lot of communication is necessary. Even the communication that is not necessary, because it doesn’t have immediate repercussions —is necessary. There needs to be a lot of updates, so that the leadership doesn’t start assuming.

annagrip: What should the leadership do?

pavleheidler: Support.

annagrip: In what way? Does it have to do with decision making?

pavleheidler: Also.

annagrip: And taking responsibility?

pavleheidler: I think leadership —I saw this beautiful cartoon done in hieroglyph kind of drawing. The first image shows the rock, three men pulling the rock. There is a desk on the rock, a guy is sitting behind the desk, and is pointing forwards with his finger. The drawing says —BOSS. The second image is the same, but instead of sitting behind the desk, a man is ahead of the three, and is pulling them and the rock and is pointing forwards. This drawing says —LEADER. So, the leader is helping everyone pull —by pulling.

annagrip: There is also one image of the leader going behind the rock, not in front of the group. Because that’s support. Support is a certain kind of withdrawal. You take the responsibility by doing dirty work. You go behind. Someone once called me a container boss.

pavleheidler: A container boss?

annagrip: Yeah, like opposite of the pyramid. You contain all the garbage.

pavleheidler: Wonderful!

annagrip: It was not a compliment but actually, that’s a very comfortable place for me, I tell you. You were there with Deborah, at the lecture?

pavleheidler: Yes.

annagrip: I did all the —it was not much, but, you know —all the practical and administrative work and blah, blah, blah. And I freaked out just thinking that I was going to present her. And I think this is a reaction to many things, of course. But right now to be up front, even if for only twenty seconds to be the center of attention —there was something that I was like —I don’t want to stand there. I can do everything else, but I don’t want to represent.

pavleheidler: Because that’s a different type of work.

annagrip: It’s a different type —but one that is very often connected with leadership. Because you’re up front. So you are representing everything. You’re showing everything you’re hiding. Or not. And for me as a leader this is what I agreed on. A lot of people have said —maybe you should be a number two, Anna. Which is then the assumption that leadership should be number one, in front. And doing certain things, and being the representative.

pavleheidler: Those should be two different jobs.

annagrip: Yeah. Or? If you have alternatives to representation. Very few knew I was the artistic director, very few. Which suited me well, you know. I was not that figure. I see leadership as the last position. When you described the pictures, those still show leadership in the front. In my book, that is not support. That is pulling. When I teach I also rather push than pull. But the leadership within the institutions you actually are a representative of something that existed before you and also will exist after you. It’s too easy to fall into ownership when you go upfront. Leadership is corrupting and, you know, tricky.

pavleheidler: I’m thinking that having a leader makes it possible for me, as a dancer —if we are talking dance —makes it possible for me to be on stage and sink into my anatomy, for example. Into whatever it is that we’re doing, into the work. It’s old-fashioned division of labour. Which is why there’s so many people in there, I guess, especially in large institutions —they’re there to make the work possible. For me, there’s a certain joy in that. Which is not business like joy at all.

annagrip: In what —

pavleheidler: The support —

annagrip: Yes! That’s the thing. Yes.

pavleheidler: But often then theatre is not where joy is very often available to me. At this point.

annagrip: Theatres are stress for achievement, stress to impress, stress to prove your point and prove yourself. That’s weird, that’s for me —It’s a different medium almost from what I think artistic work is. Or where my interest in artistic work is. Theatres are business, as usual. I want to say long live mediocrity.

pavleheidler: OK. I have to go to the toilette, but i will ask the question first. I’m interested —as an educator, as a person interested in people, as a dance teacher working in all these environments, and as a person in power —what kinds of bodies do you support?

annagrip: Hooooo.

pavleheidler: This has to do with another question —you know how I described that giving attention to the calf did something with my posture? It allowed for support that made it possible for my heel to drop away from the rest of the foot and the ankle, which made me feel very grounded. It also made me feel my back. Going into the back space, including the back of the mind. I’m interested in how the inner logic relates to the outer effect —which is the link I am thinking of when I ask about what kind of body do you see, do you support.

annagrip: Yes.

pavleheidler: This is where inner work becomes, I would say, political. Because it claims posture, you could say —and posture is gendered. It carries meaning. Also in terms of leadership. How about leadership that is not in the high-held, “proud”chest?

annagrip: Exactly. And frontal. 

pavleheidler: So yeah, I would like to explore that in a minute. 

 

 

 

[goes to toilette]

[returns from toilette]

 

 

 

annagrip: I think this goes way back, even before Cristina. It goes way back to Gothenburg, actually. I was working with the woman there who was the founder of Balettakademien in general here in Sweden. She was a rebel. She founded Balettakademien, then went to Israel, started a school there, came back to Gothenburg and took over Balettakademien in Gothenburg. I was taking her ballet classes which were also experimental. She always talked about the calf and the foot. I guess that’s what made sense to me. It made sense to me to actually not go away, longing, reaching, but to plug in. And to press. And then release. I could see the difference, and maybe sense a difference. I was really nerdy about this —myself and the foot. The weight of the foot, you know? That it was not pulled in, but was displayed out in the ends of the body. And it was not something that was held from the center. Maybe I took it to a direction that was never meant. I think so. But the foot, and the back —she also spoke a lot about the back. Which has been following me. So. When I look at bodies, the bodies that I support —which was a really scary question, but I see what you mean —I have an idea and an image of connectedness which has a lot to do with ends and closed circuits. Engagement. Distributing to the ends and through that creating a center. Instead of gathering things centrally. The calf, and actually also the kind of activity in the achilles —the shortening of the achilles that helps releasing the calf so that it can engage —is then creating another posture, another availability. I feel that as soon as the lower legs are not paid attention to —it is work for me to not to fall into prejudism. I have to be careful not to judge disconnectedness before I’m sure that’s what it is.

pavleheidler: Can you describe a bit, or talk a bit about what connectedness means to you?

annagrip: I think it has to do with a kind of oscillation. Here I’m really bad at formulating. And it has to do with falling. And pressing and closing. It has to do with activating muscles. Connected. Maybe that’s the wrong word.

pavleheidler: I don’t think it’s a wrong word at all. What you’re saying reminds me of —in Cristina’s vocabulary - a passing through as a way of connecting, rather than hooking on, or blocking or locking as a way of connecting.

annagrip: Absolutely. I am thinking that even though I am saying there is no right or wrong, I am not interested in being efficient. Or doing —I don’t think so. I have no interest in doing things that are working on improving your anatomy, or working according to your anatomy. I would like to not go from within, but to actually go from the outside. And maybe do some violence —no, not violence. But I’m interested in invasiveness and invasion. And the attention that is dealing with being invaded. In all the years that I’ve been teaching, I’ve been very resistant to, you know —oh, this is difficult. Suddenly arching, going backwards is dangerous. Because ballet has done that, so you don’t do it. Suddenly to cross is also dangerous, so you work in first. That is also what I oppose to. When we started to call it ballet for modern dancers, I heard —ballet for handicapped. Because it was all about reduction. You just go here —and you don’t use the rotation. Because what am I hiding then? Why do I not go into the most difficult proposals and see how I deal with them? Instead of knowing that there’s something in there, that I cannot meet because it’s not good for me. It’s a way of withholding information and not trusting that people are capable of things. I don’t know. Maybe it doesn’t matter. But I know I’ve spent a lot of time in opposition to not doing things because they are considered dangerous. Or because they are considered unhealthy. Maybe there’s another way of doing them? Do you see what I mean? It’s about working with it, not achieving something else through it. Then there are thousands of other ways to work and train in dance. I think I’m for proposals of any kind rather than reductions.

pavleheidler: What immediately comes to mind is that this is where you ask somebody by proposing an exercise to accept the physical challenge —which is work that is loaded psychologically.

annagrip: Yes, yes.

pavleheidler: How do you react to refusal of that kind of working? Do you ask for that commitment? How do you ask for commitment?

annagrip: I’ve been scared of that, but I think that I might also be at the age when I can say —you do whatever. And then I still ask, in some subversive way. I think I’m much more honest, I say —in this class there is a way in which I see things, and this is an opportunity for you to do them. But if you feel, of course, really resistant to this, you do something else. I do that in educational classes. In professional classes if there is resistance, I step back. One thing, I think, is for a dancer to submit or commit to the task, even when they don’t understand it or they physically struggle, and another thing is to resist. That’s what I try co calibrate on. The psychology of it is very interesting. And I juggle between supporting different psychologies, leaving some alone. Sometimes insisting.

pavleheidler: Do you think that dance training only takes place in the studio?

annagrip: No. But I’m thinking of what you and Nina Fonaroff once said —that we learn only what we already know. The recognition of something needs to be there, in order for interest to be there. And if there’s resistance, but there’s recognition —I can insist much more. If there is no recognition, then I leave it. When interest is there, there is something at least to negotiate.

pavleheidler: And then there’s time! The more time there is, the more you can leave something behind, before picking it up again. And trying again. And again, in six months.

annagrip: I’m not so eager anymore for people to be interested. Through the years I’ve seen so many people being interested, then loosing interest, than being interested again. Going away and coming back. I’m calmer in that way today. I don’t have to insist. Unless somebody really wants me to. Do you think dance training only takes place in the studio?

pavleheidler: Oh, no!

annagrip: No.

pavleheidler: I really say that most of my dance training took place in the cue. At the store, for example.

annagrip: Exactly. Because you’re left alone.

pavleheidler: Talking about time, and coming back to Cullberg —an hour and fifteen minutes?

anangrip: I know. You know, there I really worked on this interest for people. And I’ve not been the authority that says —OK, we change now! The people working there were my first interest. They were my priority. It was really a pedagogical project for me. More than an artistic one. Because it was also transforming. I remember that one of the missions was that everyone should have a voice that counted. And of course, I opened a can of worms. Which I thought —good! My dilemma was —if I’m serious about everyone having a voice, then what? What does that do? Am I really sincere about that? I was eager to take up the consequences, not to pretend everybody has a voice, and then I decide as if they don’t. As you said before, feedbacking back and forth. That takes time.

pavleheidler: Yes.

annagrip: When I came, I said —we have to have the training non-compulsory. It has to be voluntary. Then the artistic director said —well, then nobody will come to class. Well, good —I said. Then there’s something wrong. Because dancers do love to be in the studio, at least the ones that I know, at least they love to practice. So, maybe then there’s time to look at the training. That’s what we should do. And then he said —if you give them the finger, they will take the hand. And I said —good. Be my guest. They can take whatever they wish. 

pavleheidler: Sure. You give the hand, they take the arm and then the whole body. And after a while —they don’t!

annagrip: Exactly. After five years they were all willing to actually discuss what kind of training should be organized. They understood there was a budget and —they suddenly had other perspectives, as well. This is why I mean it was more of a pedagogical project for me. Or whatever, maybe I don’t know how to name it. —than a pure artistic project where, you know, you do and buy good artistic work. [laughs] This was, for me, the only way in which the institution could be truly contemporary. Because institutions are made to not be contemporary, really. Contemporaneity requires a completely different set-up. What we could possibly aim at is for contemporaneity within the working structure, within organization. But of course, then there’s people. And it takes time. And still I didn’t get more than one hour and fifteen minutes, you know. I proposed different things and some didn’t work.

pavleheidler: I hate being in failure, but there’s excitement in it for me, too. If I’m not always a bit muddy, in a way, I get sad. I start feeling —Achievement is not what makes me happy at the end of the day. Which is confusing. Because I see that achievement ought make one happy. For me achievement means there’s nothing for me to work on anymore.

annagrip: Failure keeps you stimulated! Or something.

pavleheidler: Yes. Crisis, maybe —is where life is reflected for me. It’s all about survival.

annagrip: Yes. I get back to squash, and the wall. And the agenda of making things easier, in dance training and, you know. This has been the aim. To release tension has been the aim. To open has been the aim. An open person, an open body is the glorified place we should all aim at. And, I don’t —I question it. I don’t think that to make something difficult is something negative. But the opposite. To actually have faith in someone —now I relate to my childhood. I have a father who demanded a lot of things of me and I blamed him for many years for that, until I suddenly realized that —shit —there was someone really believing that I was capable. You know? That’s not to take away the difficulties, because taking away the difficulty would actually leave me less self-confident. Now I know, I’m not scared of difficulties. Which, in a way, creates bigger self-confidence. I think in dance training you should do what you think is difficult. But of course, it’s nothing to achieve. It’s just about being stimulated, in a way. It should not be associated or managed by shame. Difficulties can also very easily become managed by shame, and it’s not about that. It’s really the opposite. And of course, it’s all free will and voluntary and all that. It’s to remain with the difficulty, not to solve it. Byung Chul Han wrote in his book , The Swarm —he calls us homodigitalis, and says that we don’t handle anymore, but that we finger.

pavleheidler: That’s very interesting.

annagrip: That’s beautiful. He writes that we have problems dealing with the negative. We cannot, because we’re all about the positive and actually that the pictures and images of us, from Facebook onwards, are more beautiful than we are. We have difficulties dealing with the negative. I believe that a lot of art springs from some kind of lack and yet we strive to satisfy. Art that is satisfied, I don’t know.

pavleheidler: I like art that is trying to figure itself out. That is not yet representative of.

annagrip: Yes! And that is un-valuable, you know? 

pavleheidler: Yes.

annagrip: That we’re actually un-valuable. And also the art. The un-valuable art.

pavleheidler: Exactly. This brings me —Un-valuable art makes me think of un-valuable education. This comes from when you mentioned the Cullberg being a pedagogic project, rather than artistic. But also something that I’ve recognized in myself —that as an educator I find things that I can’t find as an art maker. But that being in the realm of education also refreshes, in a way, my being in the realm of art making? For me art is merging with pedagogy and education and learning, studying. I’ve been even considering another thing —I’m saying this, but I don’t know really —art and culture. I think I’m more of a culture worker than an artist, maybe. 

annagrip: That you have to develop.

pavleheidler: Somebody once taught me that culture is too low, it’s too concerned with everybody and too little concerned with art. And then there’s l’art pour l’art. But then I though —I’m just taking out of life, aestheticising, making a little point, and what? Then I die? 

annagrip: Is it so that art needs to be entered through a back door?

pavleheidler: Maybe culture is very much behind art. Maybe that’s the back door, for me, in how I understand.

annagrip: This is why I reacted. In Sweden, art and culture have both been called culture. I’ve been insisting on making a differentiation especially politically. Now that you say this, I think it’s time to go back to culture. Actually. Maybe to reclaim it?

pavleheidler: That’s definitely something that I think about, for myself. But I’m also careful saying this, because I understand that these words are —

annagrip: Ah, they are so loaded. So is pedagogy. I mean, for me, saying that Cullberg was a pedagogical project —that’s a confession I would even feel ashamed to confess to the pope. But because, you know, it’s really a confession. Because I am not proud of that. Because I should be involved in —or it should be an artistic project. 

pavleheidler: I would say that if Cullberg is a pedagogical project —how is that not artistic? How is that, in itself, not of artistic interest? For art itself, I mean? Do you get what I mean?

annagrip: Yes. No. But, yeah. Maybe one can say that it was a pedagogical project dealing with art. But maybe because of my own bad self-confidence I never —calling myself even close to having anything to do with art, you know? I’m just interested in people. Although I have to recognize myself in what you’re talking about. With art that constantly —what did you say? Work that deals with itself? Not to impress, and to become un-valuable. But education, it’s tricky. And not least within the University. Were you at this conference Exchange Perspectives?

pavleheidler: Yes, but I was hosting, so I didn’t see anything. Why? 

annagrip: I was curious about your thoughts.