Thanks to dirac for the following link to a sad article:
Ballet Pacifica is Closing Due to Lack of Funds
. Thanks, dirac, for this Link.
The money problems seem to be only one aspect in this story. There seems to be a larger lack of support for, or interest in, going on with the struggle. One of the saddest and most chilling conclusions reached by Lewis Segal is this:
The death of any arts organization inspires regret as well as questions about the importance of the arts in our lives. But Ballet Pacifica isn't Dance Theatre of Harlem, a now-defunct company that had a vital role to play in American culture. No one is assuming that role today, while Ballet Pacifica's role is of negligible importance to those outside its immediate orbit. What's more, any deep sense of loss was already caused by the departure of Lynch and then Stiefel. So if an official notice of once-and-for-all termination arrives in a month or so, it will almost seem like d–j– vu, and any regret will be over the institution's failure of vision as much as its funding.
It is very difficult for those who love any art to see or acknowledge the possibe irrelevance of an institution we remember fondly and are accustomed to having around. This is even sadder when well-known and admired people have been enlisted for a while in the effort to keep it going -- Stiefel, McKerrow, Gardner, Cisneros, Legate.
Any thoughts on Segal's interpretation -- or the closing in general? Any lessons to be learned from this?