Experimental dance NEVER sells -- which is why Kourlas is suggesting that a production like Balanchine's "Don Quixote" should be done at a festival of experimental work, not at an opera house with an audience that thinks it's going to see the "real" "Don Quixote," no matter how many articles explaining the production there are in the papers.
Kourlas isn't comparing classical ballet to experimental work, but what she considers to be pseudo-experimental work (crossover dance) to work that is truly experimental.
I think there's a lot in the article to discuss. I know we've had a lot of conversations over the years about pop ballet, crossover dance, etc., but we haven't in awhile. I have two quarrels with crossover -- the first, and one of the points for founding this site, is that it's not ballet. If they want to call it contemporary dance, fine! That's a different issue. But all the c**p that it's "firmly rooted in the classical tradition" and "taking ballet to where it's never gone before," which I've been reading for the past 30 years now, I find maddening
The second, which is what Kourlas's article deals with, is the nature of the work itself, no matter what you call it, and she finds if superficial and banal (among other things -- it's worth a read). But I gather from Bart's post that he disagrees -- and I'm sure there are others. What do you think?