ABT for Sale

[dirac]

Is it tacky for Baryshnikov and Darci Kistler to be featured in ads for Movado watches and Fonteyn and Nureyev on ads for fur coats? Is it degrading because Payless is a low price chain?

Yes, it is tacky. It doesn't really matter what the artist is flogging - cheap shoes or fur coats, it's all the same. I can't blame ABT for doing what it has to do, but there is something unseemly about this sort of thing. It's why Brad Pitt does TV commercials for overseas but doesn't allow them to be shown here, and why John Gielgud and Laurence Olivier cut the same kind of deal back in the day. (Although in defense of the latter two, both men had given the vast majority of their working lives to the theatre, which doesn't pay much. Gielgud didn't achieve genuine financial security until he was an old man.)

However, in today's environment this is more acceptable than it used to be. It's off topic, but I always liked this story about Robert E. Lee. After the war, an insurance company offered him $10,000 for what we would call today an endorsement deal. Lee had been pretty much wiped out by the war and the dough would have come in handy, but he declined the offer, explaining that he could not accept money when he had done no work, and depended instead on his none-too-impressive salary as the president of what is today Washington and Lee University. Times have changed.

[Natalia]

At least ABT hasn't gone the Washington Ballet route yet -- interspersing their dances with variety-show acts, such as the woman who jumped up on a platform & performed the Mexican Hat Dance (or something similar) in between the official dances.

I am sure that Septime Webre & the Wash Ballet must be supplementing their funding with diversity grants of some sort -- so they are obligated to present non-balletic acts that pay tribute to other cultures. Nothing wrong with arts of other cultures -- just don't disguise it as "a night at the ballet" and make it part of a ballet subscription season. Call it a Variety Hour instead.

If the Payless Shoe ads can keep ABT in the black, so that they can continue to perform only ballet & not share the stage with variety acts, then more power to ABT. Perform ballet at the ballet.

p.s. Can you imagine the Mariinsky Theater presenting a balalaika quartet in between acts of Swan Lake?

[bart]

It's really useful to have this thread revived. Thanks for bringing it back to life, carbro (or was it Payless shoes?).

Things have clearly not gotten any "better" since the first post in 2003. I hope everyone will have the chance to look at the original contributions and that there will be a lot more to say now.

[Hans]

You can "own" a principal dancer at the ABT if you donate enough.

This was used to killing effect in one French review I read lambasting ABT in Paris: Each blasted dancer was identified by her/his owner.

Considering the much more scandalous history of the Paris Opéra, that seems like the pot calling the kettle black to me.

[SanderO]

I suspect that most of the funding for the big companies... ABT, NYCB and the MetOpera DOES come from wealthy patrons and not ticket sales.

Are their financial reports public? I would be curious to see their balance sheet.

What is rather sickening is the "need" of the owners of ABT dancers to have their names plastered all over the place. Isn't it enough to devote several pages in the program to a list of donors? Obviously not... they lay out big bucks to own a principal dancer and in addition to the tax write off they want some sort of "glory". For what? Giving away money they don't even need, and probably never even did a moment's labor for.

These types of donors sicken me. They have no class at all.... I mean character

But that's the American way ain't it?

[Estelle]

You can "own" a principal dancer at the ABT if you donate enough.

This was used to killing effect in one French review I read lambasting ABT in Paris: Each blasted dancer was identified by her/his owner.

Considering the much more scandalous history of the Paris Opéra, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

I think that drb was talking about a review posted in a forum by a viewer (not a critic), and while I didn't find that review especially interesting or well-written, I find your comment a bit odd: there's no way to conclude that the viewer supported all the scandalous affairs of the Paris Opera in the 19th century (wealthy old gentlemen "protecting" ballerinas, etc.)

[Hans]

Well, that is a good point Estelle.

[Haglund's]

I really don't see much wrong with dancers being involved in product endorsements so long as they are paid well for them. Do we complain about Andre Agassi's or Tiger Woods' endorsements damaging the sports of tennis or golf? Today billboards; tomorrow television commercials (with speaking lines!). I've always liked the Movado ads with Baryshnikov, Dvorovenko, Herrera and Kistler. I think they are artfully done, reflect well on the artists, and probably help to generate more interest in ballet. Payless Shoes, however, will have to work harder to make me enjoy their association with any of my favorite dancers. I buy Payless Shoes. Nothing wrong with them. It's just that they are not top of the line whereas our dancers are.

This whole business of a donor "owning" a dancer comes dangerously close to crossing that fine line between acceptably tacky and grossly tacky. I think the correct term is "sponsoring" - whatever that truly means. (At least they don't use "adopt".) I suspect the satisfaction that the donor derives from this type of arrangement is the sense that he or she is somehow actively engaged in furthering that dancer's artistic development or career. The donor has someone to root for during the performance and brag about at the cocktail party afterward. "Did you see how my (insert dancer's name) did 4 revolutions in her pirouette whereas your (insert dancer's name) fell out of 2. Meow." Those of us too poor to ever attend these functions know in our hearts that this is exactly what goes on at them.

Raising money for the arts is not always pretty. Think about it the way you think about the origins of your next hamburger. Or don't.

[vrsfanatic]

Actually ABT has donors sponsor more than principal dancers. There are quite a few corps members sponsored as well. Read through the alphabet.

http://www.abt.org/dancers/default.asp?section=corpsdeballet

Read through the corps listings, there are quite a few.

Does anyone know what it actually means? Is it a salary sponsorship perhaps? How is the dancer chosen? As long as it is nothing other than a way to interest sponsorship, what could be the issue?

[carbro]

Actually ABT has donors sponsor more than principal dancers. There are quite a few corps members sponsored as well. . . .

Read through the corps listings, there are quite a few.

Does anyone know what it actually means? Is it a salary sponsorship perhaps? How is the dancer chosen? As long as it is nothing other than a way to interest sponsorship, what could be the issue?

, too, vrs. I wonder what happens when Donor X has a bad year and can't make his/her commitment to Dancer Y, as in l'affaire Vilar. If Dancer Y is a principal with a strong following, I have no doubt ABT would find a way to keep them around, one way or another. But for a corps dancer?

Is this a level-of-donation recognition? Or does the donor actually subsidize the annual cost of a dancer, including (beyond salary) health insurance, FICA, unemployment and disability insurance and whatever else? I'd really be interested in knowing.

[4mrdncr]

I've always believed the donor is subsidising, in part, the dancer's salary (and possibly including at least partial payment of benefits, since that is such a big chunk of salaries these days.) There is also the cost of legal contracts, immigration/visas etc., in short: administration costs/overhead. So yes, having a 'well-endowed' individual contribute towards the costs necessary to retain a dancer would be of great benefit to a company and allow more dancers to join it's ranks. And speaking of endowments, what about all those 'professorships' and 'chairs' at universities? Donors by many years of precedent have had their names 'plastered' physically or not all over structures and program guides as a way to promote the process and the person(s) involved.

To see the financial picture of any non-profit corporation, look at its IRS 990 Form which all npo's must legally file each year. If you read it correctly, it will show not only where the money came in, but also where it was spent and by whom. I was a little surprised, and gladdened in a way, to see that salaries have greatly improved since those dim days when I danced. (If you do discover any personal info in the form, however, please remember to protect others' privacy, as I'm not sure the data-entry clerks are as cognizant of the legalities as they should be.)

[bart]

Sponsorship of first chair positions (rather than individual performers) also becoming common with sympthony orchestras.

Although there is a tradition of "plastering" donor names on buildings, and attaching them to the commissioning of works of art, to tours, and to performing seasons, there does seem to be a different set of cultural allusions at play when we talk about the sponsorship of individual dancers or other artists. The discomfort and the feeling that some kind of "ownership" is being implied may derive our own long history of chattel slavery here in the U.S.

I assume that, like so many new financial arrangements, good and bad, we'll become desensitized to this as time goes by.

[carbro]

And speaking of endowments, what about all those 'professorships' and 'chairs' at universities? Donors by many years of precedent have had their names 'plastered' physically or not all over structures and program guides as a way to promote the process and the person(s) involved.

Excellent point. And while getting one's name out there may be a big motivator in some cases, it isn't always. I worked for a family (not mine ) foundation that supported education. One university offered to name one of its schools for the head of the family. He insisted no. They kept asking, he kept demurring. Finally, just to stop the pleading, he consented to a chair.

Sometimes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.

[SanderO]

It's morally and ethically repugnant for a donor to "sponsor" and litereally pay the salary and so forth for a dancer in a professional dance company.

If said donor's want to support the company they should make a donation to the company... and hopefully annonymously since who give a hoot about them anyway? The public is interested in the arts.. not the aristocracy which has more money than they know what to do with and give some of it to them arts for vanity often.

The companies, universities and so forth which accept these donations and name buildings, and so forth are also to blame. This has gone way to far.

The robber barons exploited the workers and then took their ill gotten wealth and built universities, libraries, musuems and concert halls.. so they could sanitize their ribbery and have a place to see art and artists perfrom for them. Of course the workers don't have the time, energy or education to appreciate the arts. Screwed again.

The whole situation stinks.

[koshka]

Naming: Seems to me one could ask that the name chosen be the name of someone the donor respects, rather than the donor's own name.

Also, I think there might be some laudable reasons for having one's name attached to a gift (I personally avoid it, but...) Suppose that donors think that having their names out there is a way of encouraging others in their set to do the same. That is, to get others thinking, "hey, this money doesn't come from nowhere, or from people with way more money than we have--it's something people in our set (whatever that set may be...) do. Maybe we should do that."

Or maybe I am just hopelessly optimistic.

[Old Fashioned]

I'm with SanderO on this one.

There is such thing as questionable charity.

A passage from George Kent's Freedom from Want:

Efforts to help [the needy] can go wrong in many different ways. [There are] three major concerns, centered on three different parties. First, assistance can be disempowering to its recipients. Second, assistance can be provided in ways that reflect arrogance and an inadequate understanding of recipients' needs on the part of the provider. Third, assistance can relieve those who ought to be helping from fulfilling their obligations

Those who ought to be helping may be either the government or other potential donors (mainly the government). The government sees that arts organizations already receive plenty of funding from wealthy donors and decides they don't need to provide the assistance. As for turning away other potential donors, people may look at the Playbill and see that Company X already receives plenty of contributions that would outweigh their own. This may discourage them from giving in the future.

Who knew my studies on human rights could also be useful in the discussion of funding for the arts?

[bart]

It's a bit strange to find myself on the conservative side of a discussion. However, the operative word in the quotation from George Kent is "can." All of these things CAN happen, and probably they happen quite quite often. In an ideal world, the society at large -- through its public agencies, using an equitable taxing power -- probably should be the source of this kind of support, while individual contributions would remain virtuously anonymous.

Unfortunately, such a system does not exist, and has probably never existed, in the US. The brief flowering of government support for the arts in the 60s is a rare exception to our usual pattern. Government funding for the higher arts is declining in Europe as well.

In the absence of the ideal, companies are forced to scramble (and to perform a certain amount of hand-kissing and ego-stroking) to raise the funds needed to survive and produce the best work. What would be the alternative? Refusing to court this kind of support and then having to reduce budgets, fire artists, and possibly close the doors entirely?

[SanderO]

I have a great idea for funding. Ticket sales based on your means to pay. Mr. and Mrs. money bags have to pay something like $25,000 for an orchestra set and Mr. and Mrs. worker pay $25. All those folks in the orchestra are paying $100- $175 per ticket and their average net worth is $10MM probably. The same ones who fork over $750 a ticket to hob nob with the company at the Met Opera gala.

So that performance is for the la-di-dahs... no ifs ands or buts.