Absolutely! I put those two sentences there because they articulate quite effectively a position with which Acosta does NOT personally agree. In this interview, at least, he's in the opposite camp. But like a good debater, he sets up the opposing side in simple terms in order to knock it down.
("The work is the star. The dancers are instruments," as Acosta puts it.
I think the key line, however, is the one innopac quoted that follows: 'It should be the other way around.'
For me Acosta is a most likeable dancer who had the benefit of that most important feature of modern day theatrical(and cinematic) fame, the right publicity to place himself in the media eye. I say media eye and not public eye as he is not really that famous in Britain. Less Famous than Darcey Bussell who herself was not as famous and the media would have you belive. That is to say there are most probably more people who have not heard of Darcey Bussell in the Uk than those who have.
For me the work is always the reason to go to a performance although in my younger days I never missed a Beriosova performance and few Fonteyn/Nureyev performances or Maximova/Vasiliev or indeed a host of Kirov dancers.
But as I am not a fan(short for fanatic) of the ballet, but an admirer of an art form and I am always expecting to see an outstanding performance of ballets I know well, or not at all.
There ae very few dancers I go to see to day because they are dancing unless they are essaying a new role.
I think the emphasis on star performers is often necessary to generate audience attendance, I do however not want dancers to dominate performances because of who they are, but instead what they are able to achieve as artists.