Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
The 20th century represents the most radical transformation in Western dance history, and understanding why these choreographers broke from tradition is central to exam success. You're being tested on more than names and dates—you need to grasp the underlying principles: rejection of classical constraints, the relationship between movement and meaning, cultural representation, and the integration of dance with other art forms. Each choreographer on this list represents a distinct philosophical approach to what dance can be and do.
These artists didn't work in isolation; they responded to each other, borrowed techniques, and sometimes directly opposed one another's visions. When you study them, look for the threads connecting rebellion against ballet formalism, the embrace of personal expression, and the democratization of dance as an art form. Don't just memorize who created what—know what conceptual shift each choreographer represents and how their innovations built upon or challenged what came before.
These choreographers rejected the rigid vocabulary of classical ballet, arguing that dance should emerge from natural human movement and emotional truth. Their fundamental innovation was prioritizing internal experience over external form.
Compare: Duncan vs. Graham—both rejected ballet, but Duncan sought freedom through flowing, improvisational movement while Graham created an equally rigorous alternative technique with codified vocabulary. If asked about the evolution of modern dance, Duncan represents the initial break; Graham represents its institutionalization.
Rather than abandoning ballet entirely, these choreographers transformed it from within, stripping away 19th-century theatrical conventions or integrating radical new ideas about structure and meaning.
Compare: Balanchine vs. Nijinsky—both transformed ballet, but Nijinsky's angular primitivism shocked audiences by making ballet ugly, while Balanchine's sleek neoclassicism made it abstract. Nijinsky broke ballet's visual rules; Balanchine broke its narrative ones.
These choreographers questioned the fundamental assumptions about how dance should be created, structured, and experienced—often through radical collaboration with other art forms.
Compare: Graham vs. Cunningham—both shaped modern dance, but Graham believed movement must express emotion and meaning, while Cunningham argued movement is meaning, requiring no external reference. This is a fundamental philosophical divide in 20th-century dance theory.
These choreographers used dance explicitly as a vehicle for representing specific communities, addressing social issues, and centering marginalized experiences.
Compare: Ailey vs. Bausch—both used dance for social commentary, but Ailey celebrated communal identity and spiritual resilience, while Bausch exposed individual isolation and societal dysfunction. Both expanded what subjects dance could address.
These choreographers bridged concert dance and commercial entertainment, bringing sophisticated movement vocabulary to mass audiences while elevating the artistic status of musical theater.
Compare: Robbins vs. Fosse—both revolutionized Broadway choreography, but Robbins integrated ballet's verticality and narrative clarity, while Fosse developed a low-centered, angular vocabulary emphasizing irony and sexuality. Robbins told stories; Fosse created atmospheres.
This choreographer exemplifies late-20th-century eclecticism, refusing to choose between traditions and instead synthesizing multiple vocabularies into something new.
Compare: Tharp vs. Cunningham—both challenged traditional choreographic methods, but Cunningham used chance to remove personal expression, while Tharp used improvisation to heighten individual dancer personality. Both questioned authorship differently.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Rejection of classical ballet | Duncan, Graham, Cunningham |
| Transformation of ballet from within | Balanchine, Nijinsky |
| Codified alternative technique | Graham (contraction/release), Fosse (isolations) |
| Chance and conceptual approaches | Cunningham |
| Cultural identity and representation | Ailey, Bausch |
| Integration of dance and theater | Bausch (Tanztheater), Robbins (narrative ballet) |
| Broadway/commercial innovation | Robbins, Fosse, Tharp |
| Genre fusion and postmodernism | Tharp |
Which two choreographers both rejected classical ballet but developed opposing philosophies about whether dance requires codified technique? What distinguished their approaches?
Identify the choreographers most associated with pure movement divorced from narrative or emotional expression. How did their methods for achieving this differ?
Compare and contrast how Ailey and Bausch used dance as social commentary. What communities or issues did each address, and what was their emotional tone?
If an FRQ asked you to trace the evolution of American ballet in the 20th century, which choreographers would you discuss and in what order? What was each one's key contribution?
Which choreographers successfully bridged "high art" concert dance and popular entertainment? What techniques or philosophies allowed them to work across these worlds?