New articles from Siegel and Homans

[dirac]

Two long articles by Jennifer Homans on Ashton for The New Republic and Marcia B. Siegel on Bournonville for the Hudson Review, are posted in today's Links. Both are worth looking at.

[Leigh Witchel]

Well, the Ashton article was just breathtakingly patronizing. But why should Homans ruin her near-perfect track record?

[Michael]

The amazing thing about her views on Ashton is how self-centered they are. Her article is not about Ashton, it's about her and her tastes. No effort is made to deal with Ashton as Ashton, to describe his work, to relate to it -- the approach instead is to state her response and then to wonder why he doesn't measure up. It's juvenile. This is not professional criticism.

[dirac]

Well, not quite. I'm not crazy about the article (the "worth looking at" should not be taken as a recommendation , but it's not that bad. She does put Ashton in an historical context, whatever you think of how she did it, and she does defend her positions. B.H. Haggin thought pretty much as she does about Ondine, Daphnis, et al. I do not say I agree, mind.

[bart]

The amazing thing about her views on Ashton is how self-centered they are.  Her article is not about Ashton, it's about her and her tastes.  No effort is made to deal with Ashton as Ashton, to describe his work, to relate to it  --  the approach instead is to state her response and then to wonder why he doesn't measure up.   It's juvenile.  This is not professional criticism.

A great review of the review, Michael. You've put your finger on one of the most scarey cultural developments of our time.

Incidentally, I've just looked up "solipsism" in a dictionary: "a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing."

P.S. How come I got the Homans article the first time I linked, but not when I went back to revisit it?

[dirac]

The most distressing thing about the Homans piece is that many TNR readers who don't follow ballet may think, Yes, yes, that Ashton, so quaint. Argh.

[bart]

I guess I'm having second thoughts about the Homans articles, espcially since I've been able to re-access it and read it more carefully. Although I share a defensiveness about Ashton's work, there are aspects to Homans' article that are worth thinking about. On the whole she brings a thoughtful point of view and much viewing experience to her work. Remarkably, the New Republic allows her a great deal of space (very rare today) to develop her thoughts.

First of all, Homans presents an interesting and (it seems to me) fair summary of the development of a distinctive Royal style from the early days of Valois, Fonteyn, etc., and Ashton's contributions to it. Much of this is couched in positive terms. She also discusses Ashton's work as something that developed, changed, responded to new conditions, and occasionally regressed at different points in his career.

Secondly, Homans raises provocative questions about the way that some people see positive values of tradition/elegance/subtlety while others find, in the very same dances, negative qualities that are overly-genteel/ affected/ and pallid. She takes a side in this debate. Although I don't agree with her conclusions, I respect the thought process and marshalling of evidence by which she reached them.

This bit, from her conclusion, is quite provocative. It raises issues that should not be swept under the carpet by anyone concerned about the future of classical ballet:

QUOTE:

"At its best, his work reminds us of something that Keynes and de Valois knew well and Fonteyn exemplified: that "high" classical ballet can be a "people's art." Ashton used his idiosyncratic style to get under the skin of people's lives and fasten ballet to their highest hopes and deepest regrets."

"If this legacy has been compromised at today's Royal Ballet, it has nonetheless found new life in other quarters. In the film Billy Elliot, Stephen Daldry weaves classical ballet into the story of the miners' strike of 1984, in which Thatcher nailed the coffin shut on the postwar consensus. In this unlikely setting, ballet becomes a metaphor for freedom, youthful ideals, and a more civilized world. Daldry's film is The Red Shoes of its time, and a huge public success. A stage version recently opened as a blockbuster show on the West End."

"Perhaps without meaning to, Daldry has thrown down the gauntlet. If he can tether classical ballet to some part of Britain's national life, what about the Royal Ballet? Do they have the artistic wherewithal to respond to the challenge, or will they continue blithely down the path of "heritage," moving further and further into balletic and cultural provincialism? If they choose heritage over art, London audiences may continue to be enthralled. But as Keynes would no doubt have reminded us, this is no measure of artistic merit. The Royal Ballet does need Ashton: he is their link to root and branch classicism and a distinct national idiom. And if they can find a way to use his legacy to make ballet really matter in today's Britain, they may yet have the world at their feet again."

[Leigh Witchel]

I've got to take exception.

I don't call watching a season "much viewing experience."

I don't call "What are they looking at that I can't see? They must be mired in sentimentality for a Britain long gone" a thoughtful point of view.

There are a lot of dates and facts here. All well and good. It's still a load of crap.

[adding: I want to apologize for the intemperate language and emphasize it's not directed at the posters. But this article gets me riled and if you'll look (just do a search for Homans here) this isn't an article in a vacuum, it's her standard operating procedure. Pick a dance figure or institution, chart its decline, add lots of historical research juicily and cunningly interleaved with subjective judgments. Mix together and half-bake. Voila.]

[bart]

Woops! I guess the insect is fairly squashed.