This is an interview I did with Wayne McGregor for Ballet.co's Ballet in the the Twenty First Century supplement some years ago. McGregor was out of the country, so we did the interview as a Q+A by email. I broke my own rule about 'featurising' interviews and wrote this up simply as a Q+A, principally because of the circs of the piece.

For me, his work has an anomic - and troubling - aspect. I don't find it a problem that the Royal Ballet has appointed someone not from the ballet world to be its company choreographer. But I am intrigued by the 'whys'. Which I will explore in print.....



Your own company is successful at creating new work, where other companies struggle. What makes you different?

The very nature of Random as an organisation explicitly demands new work. I founded the company as a ‘research’ vehicle, if you like, for the development of new approaches to choreography; a test bed for the experimentation of fresh ideas in a framework, which would facilitate risk. I wanted to work with a group of dancers and artistic collaborators over a sustained period of time and evolve an intimate dialogue with them over several processes.

At the same time, I have a real need to generate new work. I never feel completely satisfied with my decisions in any piece of choreography I have made and believe that my work is very much always in development. It is a constant process, where Random presents work more as a marker in time rather than a FINAL artistic statement. I am happiest in the studio creating, trying to challenge myself and the dancers to make different decisions.

I understand that this position is a real luxury. The demands of Random are very different from most other companies, where the balance of many choreographers’ work and a dance heritage has to be resourced and delivered in their artistic programme. However, I firmly believe that new work does not have to be a struggle or a burden for larger scale companies – but it has to be a choice that is genuinely supported by that organisation; a choice that clearly and truthfully is followed through in all areas of that organisation’s infrastructure and support mechanisms. The creation of new work demands a different mindset for an organisation committed to exploring – it has to be prepared to be fluid, responsive and nurturing with a deep understanding that success cannot be determined exclusively by product.

Do you think ballet is still relevant?

For as long as the body is relevant in our society - ballet, dance, non verbal forms of communication have a unique role in the communication of ideas. Ballet is relevant because it still has the capacities to move, challenge, excite, inspire, provoke, our human sensibilities in ways no other art form can. Even the classical rep provides an unparalleled opportunity for us to experience something ‘other’ - something special that is absent in all of our alternative life experiences.

Many think it is 'stuck' as an art form and that it has a very small repertoire. Is that fair comment?

For as long as artists are creating, no art form is ‘stuck’ The development of art is a complex and sophisticated process. Visible development may not always be paramount in the experience of the form at any one time but that does not mean that innovation and growth is not taking place. It merely means that it is not yet visible. All of our learning builds to create fresh channels of exploration, which in turn ultimately takes the form to unexpected places.



Wayne McGregor's Nemesis

Is the repertoire small? The selection of repertoire is small but that’s not quite the same thing. Braver decisions, more research, harder work in cultivating a dynamic and explosive repertoire is clearly possible you just need to find the directors with the will and the imagination. Vision needs to be rewarded, laziness in decision making severely challenged.

You use ballet technique in your own work - what is its appeal to you?

The extremity of line, the conformity, the detail, the precision, the difficulty of clean technique all amazing places from which to excavate, push, contradict, relearn. Ballet vocabulary to me is a mine of potential, a breathtaking idea bank!

There sometimes seems a big divide between ballet and contemporary dance, with people on both sides distrustful of each other's ways of working. How can this be bridged?

I personally have never experienced the divide. However, I know that it exists. I think that culturally this has been reinforced by funding bodies, in particular in the distribution of funds to ballet companies regardless (it would seem) of their artistic vision, quality of work or working conditions. Still we are in a position where ballet companies have a huge slice of the public funding cake and the ‘others’ fight for the remainder. But to be clear, I feel ballet is under-funded and should be supported more strategically in line with other world-class companies. BUT I feel other sectors of the dance community are drastically under-funded and this does need to be urgently addressed. I am not an advocate of taking cash from the ballet companies to share elsewhere – dance in general needs a much larger funding stream in order to support the quality range of work that exists in both ballet and other sectors. The divide is reducing as more mobility exists between sectors, professionals and audiences alike are learning that dance exists outside their previously narrow definitions – and this interests and excites them.

Do you have much of a hierarchy in your own company? If not, does this make for a more creative working atmosphere?

There is always a hierarchy in companies (managerial/employees), if someone is making decisions and someone is paying the bills. How you choose to reinforce it or not reinforce the hierarchy depends on what you want to achieve in your working environment. At Random we try to cultivate a horizontal structure where really there is a lot of fluidity of roles across the whole organisation. This creative approach is necessary at both the studio and office level. It’s a symbiotic relationship where ideas have to be passed through a range of resources and experiences in order for them to come to fruition. I know that Random has been so successful not only because of the choreography but because of the nature of the working pattern across the whole organisation that is immensely resourceful and imaginative at all levels.

In the studio specifically, it’s always a collaborative relationship. I work with individuals and my interest is to generate from their own particularities. Choreography is obviously my responsibility but this is filtered through the engagement of all of us working with the parameters of an idea.

Is it a problem for you to be both artistic director and choreographer? What are the tensions, if any?

It’s a difficult balance. My passion is in the creating of new work so every opportunity I have to be in the studio I take – it is here that I feel most alive. However, I am fortunate in that my direction of Random is clearly associated with the work that I want to make, so there is often a synergy between the two roles. Increasingly, I have wanted to broaden the vision for the company outside my own work and this year for the first time we will have a repertoire of new work created for us by other choreographers. A new triple bill with Rui Horta, Shobana Jeyasingh and myself.

What are your thoughts on training of artistic directors and also of dancers?

This is a very difficult question. I believe that the more freedom an individual has to explore their own creativity in terms of the direction their life choices take them in are fundamental in the shaping of good dancers and artistic directors. The more diverse the experiences the more dynamic the vision, intelligence, sensibility, imagination those individuals have. It is here that vitality and individuality lives – diversity makes for excellent motivators and inspirers.