Rockwell on the "Martins era"

[Dale]

Mme. Hermine will put this up in the links tomorrow, but the Sunday New York Times has an article by John Rockwell on the state of the New York City Ballet:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/arts/dan...&pagewanted=all

I think his take is interesting. Rockwell has been taken to task for his, let's put it, lack of familiarity with ballet, but I think this works to his advantage in this essay, as he can't be accused of being either a Martins basher or a Martins apologist.

So, let's surprise ourselfs and have a spirited but polite discussion about this

[richard53dog]

I think his take is interesting. Rockwell has been taken to task for his, let's put it, lack of familiarity with ballet, but I think this works to his advantage in this essay, as he can't be accused of being either a Martins basher or a Martins apologist.

So, let's surprise ourselfs and have a spirited but polite discussion about this

I think your point is valid, you can lay various criticisms at Rockwell's feet but they don't include having an axe to grind. With some diplomacy, he gives a decent very high level overview, suitable for the readers of a major Sunday paper, making points both pro and con.

Personally I am bothered by the relentless regularity of "new Martins' ballets" but let me not go any further, I may have already wandered past "polite"

Richard

[bart]

It really does seem like a fair fair-minded account, laying out the main criticisms as well as positive judgments, while reminding us that some of the things people want may just be impossible in today's world.

I'm really looking forward to reading what our NYCB fans think!

[KayDenmark]

I agree - it was a well-thought out and balanced piece.

Hadn't heard the idea of Damien Woetzel taking over, however. Hope that if he does, he will not impose his choreography on us. The pieces I've seen make Martins look like a genius.

[Farrell Fan]

The piece seems fair and balanced (and I don't mean in the Fox News sense), but ultimately it is an endorsement of the Martins regime, if not exactly a ringing one. I've respected Rockwell's opinions from the beginning of his tenure as Times dance critic. Can you imagine what Anna Kisselgoff would have made of a piece like this? I was intrigued by Rockwell's suggestion of Michael Kaiser as a possible successor to Martins. Mr. Kaiser sponsors the Suzanne Farrell Ballet at the Kennedy Center, and I wondered about the ramifications. But alas, I think Rockwell is correct that a re-emergence of the Farrell-Villella era at NYCB is no longer possible. They are both doing very well in their current positions, thank you.

[Helene]

I don't think the piece was balanced. At best it uses the standard rhetorical device of appearing to show both sides, but leaving the pro-Martins side for last, leaving the impression that his pro-Martins stance was the result of careful balancing.

I think it is indicative that he says that on the one hand "Martins' detractors dismiss his skills at charming board members (especially, they cattily imply, female board members)", and then he dismisses Anne Bass' departure as "noisy," a rather catty description in itself, and adds "[h]er resignation may speak to a deeper, more widespread disaffection among other board members or to the specifics of Ms. Bass's relationship with Mr. Martins," which is hardly a subtle reference. He pretty much trashes Gottlieb's objections as the stuff of a man licking his wounds, and characterizes his actions as the result of "rivalries and hurt feelings and destructive gossip" bucket. He implies that not only is Gottlieb's defense of Anne Bass a result of this, but his support of Villella is the result of a snit, which apart from accusing him of bribery or extorsion, is about the worst accusation one could make against a critic.

Those are his criticisms. Of Martins, he cites other people's criticism almost exclusively (his critics say this, his critics say that, his critics are undermined in the piece), except to say that perhaps he isn't a choreographic genius.

I think it is a hit piece against specific critics of Martins in the guise of a defense of him.

[cargill]

I think Helene is right--it was a pretty catty article in itself--to be snide myself, I think it looks like Rockwell hasn't actually seen many Martins' ballets, since he doesn't actually talk about what they are like. Anne Bass's resignation was not noisy, since it was kept quiet for months, and it seems if she had wanted to make a fuss, she would have been able to. Any implying that Gottlieb's support for MCB was only pique or special interest is truly nasty, and harmful to a very good company. If Rockwell has seen their Emeralds, even with the taped music, he might know that they do have something special. And I would like to know which Diamond Project could actually be considered a masterpiece!

[Michael]

The Times has a general interest in supporting the status quo at New York's major cultural institutions. In its official critical pronouncements it generally never meets with a major event -- be it Museum (MoMA or Met), Opera or Ballet -- of which it does not offer at least guarded support.

There is some chauvinism in this of the structural sort. If New York is not implicitly the cultural capital of the World, or at least the equal of any of the other Pretenders to this role, the Times itself would be the journalistic organ of a backwater. So in the end, the Times -- while it may criticize specific performances and shows -- always supports the "powers that be".

That being said -- I pretty much agree with Rockwell that we shouldn't be looking for a change at City Ballet. It's a case of "be careful what you look for, you might just get it." The very names he mentions as possible successors show this -- There's not one among them whom I wouldn't regard as dangerously worse than the present regime. You have a great institution here at City Ballet. Martins isn't going anywhere. He's only 60, where else could he go, what else could he do? In the end, the institution itself will develop its succession, from within, just like it did with Peter.

[richard53dog]

. Martins isn't going anywhere. He's only 60, where else could he go, what else could he do?

In the end, the institution itself will develop its succession, from within, just like it did with Peter.

I don't think what Martins would do and where he would go is really the issue; that's who would run the NYCB.

Why should we assume that the successor will come from within the ranks? Someone with no ties and a new vision could very well be a better solution.

Richard

[Helene]

That being said -- I pretty much agree with Rockwell that we shouldn't be looking for a change at City Ballet.

I agree, and I think it's a shame that the hatchet job on Bass and Gottlieb undermines what I think should have been the point of the article, which is that the institutional power is behind Martins: he is the choice of the board, as it is presently constituted, and the rest of the donor/foundation money. Institutions are generally interested in institutional health because that guarantees the continuance of institutional power, and as impossible successions go, this was a lot more stable and by many institutional measures successful than a lot of alternate scenarios.

Whether that would continue to be true if the Times turned on NYCB is another story, but Michael has pointed out the reasons this is unlikely. Whether that would continue to be true if the next Great Hope appeared on the scene is another, but for an existing classical choreographer gain the administrative and/or institutional experience as well as the fundraising connections overnight is impossible. Even if a brilliant potential successor appeared tomorrow, by the time that person gained the experience, Martins would be old enough to retire anyway. The appointment of Ratmansky at the Bolshoi is the exception and was rooted in institutional upheaval, while I would argue that NYCB as an institution is on more stable ground than when Balanchine was alive. Martins was weaned by an institution that existed far longer than the 35 years that NYCB existed under Balanchine.

As long as this continues to be true, the only thing I think that could undermine it under the current administration would be if the Balanchine Foundation pulled permission for NYCB to dance Balanchine ballets. I think the appearance of Balanchine's equal as a choreographer is more likely.

In a parallel universe that is not NYC-centric, the Children of Balanchine transplant Balanchine ballets and teaching and coaching across the planet, and the Balanchine Foundation seeks the next generation of repetiteurs, something sadly lacking in the Ashton and Tudor opuses.

[KayDenmark]

In a parallel universe that is not NYC-centric, the Children of Balanchine transplant Balanchine ballets and teaching and coaching across the planet, and the Balanchine Foundation seeks the next generation of repetiteurs, something sadly lacking in the Ashton and Tudor opuses.

That's a good point, Helene - at least the Balanchine canon is alive, if imperfectly preserved by some accounts.

[Helene]

Dance at the Kennedy Center is the least of Kaiser's dance credentials: he served as executive director of the Royal Opera House, American Ballet Theatre, and Alvin Ailey Dance Theatre Foundation. I think the big elephant in the room is his association with Suzanne Farrell. I can't imagine a pro-Martins board choosing a successor who would be expected to give a substantial role to Farrell.

[Leigh Witchel]

Regarding Michael Kaiser, he has no experience as an AD, only as an ED. One of the most important points of NYCB as an institution is that it has always been driven by the artistic staff, not the executive staff. I don't think it would benefit anybody for that model to change.

The people in line for succession at NYCB should be in there teaching company class, coaching dancers and restaging ballets as well as setting new ones. It's an institution; it might as well think like one.

[Helene]

Regarding Michael Kaiser, he has no experience as an AD, only as an ED. One of the most important points of NYCB as an institution is that it has always been driven by the artistic staff, not the executive staff. I don't think it would benefit anybody for that model to change.

The people in line for succession at NYCB should be in there teaching company class, coaching dancers and restaging ballets as well as setting new ones. It's an institution; it might as well think like one.

An alternate institutional model is to have separate administrative and artistic sides. Rockwell was clear that were Kaiser to join NYCB, he would run the administrative side, while an artistic director would run the artistic side. Administrative management traditionally includes fundraising, marketing, finance, IT, operations, and venue management. Since one of Martins' great strengths is fundraising, his successor as Artistic Director would not need to have this strength, but could focus on season planning, casting, coaching, and the school, (and choreography, were the successor a choreographer) while Kaiser would be responsible for the fundraising side.

[Natalia]

My point, Helene, is that Kaiser, in his present role as head of the Kennedy Center, has not done much to raise the visibility of classical ballet in this particular venue. Perhaps he has tried but other 'popular' interests prevailed - DOMINGO, for example. We barely get more ballet than we did during the darkest of Dark Ages -- the 1990s -- when Paul Taylor was included in the so-called "Ballet Series." [No disrespect to Taylor but his troupe does not dance ballet.]

Leigh, right-on regarding separation of the AD and ED functions.

[Helene]

I'm not arguing that Kaiser has improved ballet offerings at Kennedy Center -- that is Rockwell's contention -- nor that he would be the right choice. However, from the point of view of an institution, hiring an Executive Director with an excellent fundraising and administrative track record might be the best way to ensure stability, unless there is an heir apparent with excellent fundraising skills and who would not find him/herself amidst a rift with split loyalties, which would be a risk with many, if not most, of the NYCB generation from the 60's/70's. Splitting the money from the artistic side means that if there's an issue with an AD, the AD could be replaced without significant risk to the financial base, which is not the situation at NYCB now, where the two are coupled.

[Natalia]

Understood, Helene. That makes sense.

[Leigh Witchel]

The roughest part about this (for Kaiser or anyone else) is that NYCB has traditionally been an institution where the Ballet Master in Chief (an AD by any other name) has a dictatorial position. You're not really an ED at City Ballet, you're a General Manager. No matter how much any ED says that they exist only to serve the Artistic Direction; there are very few who really wish to drop in profile and power that much. For the fun of it, try and name the current person in the job at NYCB.

[richard53dog]

Understood, Helene. That makes sense.

I think so too. It may not be the right solution for NYCB but I believe it needs to be considered when the time comes, whenever that is, to hand over the reins.

Yes, this model is more complex, and has a built in possibility of art vs money conflicts, but all the money issues, not only fundraising, but advertising, audience building, etc are increasingly critical in arts institutions today ,in the US at least. But it can work with the right combination of players.

Richard

[dirac]

I think so too. It may not be the right solution for NYCB but I believe it needs to be considered when the time comes, whenever that is, to hand over the reins.

Yes, this model is more complex, and has a built in possibility of art vs money conflicts, but all the money issues, not only fundraising, but advertising, audience building, etc are increasingly critical in arts institutions today ,in the US at least. But it can work with the right combination of players.

And go very bad indeed with the wrong combination. It would create two centers of power where before there was only one, and that on the artistic side. You could argue that only one person could do successfully what Balanchine did and that Martins has taken on too much, but that would be a change of enormous significance and potentially a dangerous one.

[carbro]

That being said -- I pretty much agree with Rockwell that we shouldn't be looking for a change at City Ballet.

I agree, and I think it's a shame that the hatchet job on Bass and Gottlieb undermines what I think should have been the point of the article, which is that the institutional power is behind Martins . . .

Hatchet job on Bass and Gottlieb . . . and I suspect some of us. I felt like taking the article point by point and replying "I am a Martins critic and this is not me/is not a fair representation of me/is an outright distortion of me." I really would have liked Mr. Rockwell to cite the critics by name.

But there were a few points I can't resist commenting on:

Coincidentally, Edward Villella's Miami City Ballet, often cited as a countermodel to what Mr. Martins has done wrong, will also be here this week, playing in theaters scattered around the edges of the city. So perhaps this is as good a time as any to take a reckoning.

And I hope Mr Rockwell will make multiple visits, let the company grow on him a little. Complicated traveling logistics make it impossible for me, except for the one night when I'm committed elsewhere.

By all reports, morale at the board and volunteer level is high. Given the near-impossible task of following not one but two legends, Mr. Martins can be said to have honorably held his own.

Well, duh! These are positions that are easy to walk away from if you're not happy. What about morale where it counts most -- among the troupers who put themselves before us night after night? It looks much better than it did a few years ago, and I suppose that is the important thing, but for about three or four years (or more?), the company looked like it was going through a prolonged, collective depression.

Mr. Martins's detractors dismiss his skills at charming board members (especially, they cattily imply, female board members), but that is not an unimportant gift for a company director.

Number one, here's where I'd like names. Maybe this was comments overheard as he passed the ladies' room line? Number two, Mr. Martins' ability to turn on the charm seems a bit far from the point.

[zerbinetta]

With all due respect to Mr. B, he did have Lincoln Kirstein. Martins doesn't have that luxury.

I find the article curious - full of supposition, gossip & innuendo & no hard facts. I'm not really sure on whom it is actually a hatchet job, as no one comes off very well .. including Rockwell.

[Herman Stevens]

The article struck me as rather weird, too. I kept wondering "what is the raison d'etre of this piece, which is not really tied to any kind of event or happenstance?"

It looks fair and balanced but, as Helene said, it is really a piece defending Martins, subtly mangling Martins detractors.

The reason why Bass's departure is described as 'noisy' is because this piece is really a very very late response to the Bass piece in the New York Observer, and Gottlieb's (occasionally rather stale) criticism in the same mag.

Rockwell is saying: "don't read those guys; they're weird, old and they don't have our kind of money. Same goes for the Balanchine disciples out in... well, I don't know where, but they're not in New York, and they don't have NYCB's kind of money."

Rockwell's twist-and-turn defense of Martins' Swan Lake is very funny. It's not very good, but "some of its corps works is very striking." In other words, why care anyway?

[perky]

With all due respect to Mr. B, he did have Lincoln Kirstein. Martins doesn't have that luxury.

Balanchine also had Betty Cage. Both she and Kirstein were both very loyal to Mr. B's vision. Martins may not have that luxury, but does he inspire it?

The article seems sort of wishy washy to me. I quess I've gotten used to reading polarizing comments on this issue

[carbro]

Ooops! A point I forgot in my earlier post.

Regarding a successor to Martins, I suspect that Martins will mentor and pave the way for someone he trusts to handle all aspects of the job, as Mr. B did for him. That person will be someone who came up in post-Balanchine NYCB and has learned Balanchine through the distorted (IMO) lens of Martins' view. It is something I fear.

That is not the likely scenario of, say, MCB, which (again IMO) has kept Balanchine's works vibrant and immediate.