Wolcott vs. Gottlieb

[Dale]

James Wolcott takes on Robert Gottlieb in his Vanity Fair blog:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/blogs/w...ig-news-of.html

Very interesting. Too bad Veronika Part is caught in the crossfire.

[canbelto]

After Part has been in a ballet it can be difficult to see others come in. It isn't a question of interpretation, rather of dimension. Part has a way of opening the physical parameters of a role, not through conventional virtuosity, such as adding extra turns on a pirouette (her doubles are calla lilies; don't ask for triples), but by enlarging the measure of give within a phrase: deepening the plies; hitting the high note of a developpe with singingly perfect placement; bringing a blossom, a volumetric expansion, to a seemingly thin linearity. Part is a tautology: If you can't see what makes her great you're not really fit to judge her.

I'm getting a bit tired of Jacobs' increasingly elaborate "reviews" about Part. She acts like Part is the only ballerina worth watching, and "If you can't see what makes her great you're not really fit to judge her" sounds like a real catch-22 doesn't it?

[bart]

I am also astonished by Jacobs' piece. Leaving Ms. Part out of it, let's just consider the following sentence in the abstract:

"X is a tautology: If you can't see what makes X great you're not really fit to judge X."

To translate: "If you don't agree with me, you are not qualified to have an opinion." A logician, I believe, would call this an example of "fallacy of circular proof" -- assuming what has to be proved.

We hear all too much of this kind of combative pseudo-logic in contemporary political discourse. And now we find it in the arts pages? This is insulting to everyone who engages in the debate, whether or not they admire X.

I'm sorry, but I find it shocking and unforgiveable to find such statements coming from the pen or computer of anyone, let alone someone who claims to be a serious observer and critic of the arts.

P.S. The above is an "opinion." Feel free to disagree.

[Haglund's]

If you can't see what makes her great you're not really fit to judge her.

Well, yes. The key word here is 'judge'. Gottlieb tends to judge instead of offering criticism of Part's dance. And, of course, he likes to voice an opinion that goes against the grain - loudly. He is kind of the Rosie O'Donnell of dance critcism, which I won't elaborate on without tremendous coaxing. Part is uniquely talented, and blessed with lyrical and musical abilities that most of us would struggle our whole lives to acquire and would miserably fail. What is frustrating is that some of her shortcomings are seemingly simple ones that many of us have overcome and know can be conquered with determination, focus, self reliance and above all suspending the fear of failing while one is putting together what works. Nobody can go out on stage and do Veronika's pirouettes for her. The answer is inside Veronika, not her coaches, teachers, a special shoe, the critics, or us. Everyone knows how unbelievably spectacular she will be when she pulls it all together. In the meantime, we should just be grateful that we have the opportunity to see her do what she does so beautifully. By the way, she will be the Sugar Plum Fairy to Hallberg's Prince in Washington, DC on December 19th.

[canbelto]

Here are some more gems from Jacob's "review."

Her fans revere her for what she is (deep and vulnerable); her detractors insult her for what she isn't (fast and invulnerable).

Part has a tendency of fluffing first tries then coming back on high beam, and on opening night she came back and triumphed. Not with an imitation Aurora--bouncy and overbright--and not with theatrical finessing, flash thrown onto the end of ho-hum phrases.

I must say she's doing her idol no favors. People who read her reviews are bound to be disappointed by Part. After all, Part is human.

[kfw]

I am also astonished by Jacobs' piece. Leaving Ms. Part out of it, let's just consider the following sentence in the abstract:

"X is a tautology: If you can't see what makes X great you're not really fit to judge X."

To translate: "If you don't agree with me, you are not qualified to have an opinion." A logician, I believe, would call this an example of "fallacy of circular proof" -- assuming what has to be proved.

Absolutely, Bart, although in this case, she has just argued her case, so that could be read as a challenge: "rebut me." I also appreciate her defense of a dancer whose subtler virtues some in the audience might miss in an age when the Kirov is pushing Somova (obviously Gottlieb and McCauley and whoever else Wolcott feels like feuding with are not in that number).

In any case, I love how Jacobs notes parallels between the Vision Scene and Wedding Pas. "Part's arch sinks back into dream, revisiting the spell and giving us a glimpse of the curve, stress, and bevel that held her in that hundred-year sleep" -- that's the sort of writing I treasure. "This is Part's power: radiant, radical imagining," she writes. Much as I love Part, my guess is that this feat of imagination belongs to Jacobs.

Too bad she's married to an self-aggrandizing, look-ma-I'm-clever show off of a writer who feels the need to attack distinguished critics a kinder and smarter soul would count as friends.

[carbro]

What is frustrating is that some of her shortcomings are seemingly simple ones that many of us have overcome and know can be conquered with determination, focus, self reliance and above all suspending the fear of failing while one is putting together what works.

Well, I'd take issue with that, but Part herself is not the subject of this talk.

It's possible to frame Jacobs' "if you can't see . . . " differently. I think it applies to any artist in any medium who generates a lot of buzz, but some of us just can't quite . . . you know. The tautology is not Part's. It's potentially anyone's.

After I posted, I saw this, by kfw:

In any case, I love how Jacobs notes parallels between the Vision Scene and Wedding Pas. "Part's arch sinks back into dream, revisiting the spell and giving us a glimpse of the curve, stress, and bevel that held her in that hundred-year sleep" -- that's the sort of writing I treasure. "This is Part's power: radiant, radical imagining," she writes. Much as I love Part, my guess is that this feat of imagination belongs to Jacobs.

Oh, I don't know. Sometimes I see a familiar moment in a familiar ballet in a whole new way, and I wonder whether it was something about the way that dancer did it on that night, or whether it arose unbidden by anything special from the dancer. I tend to believe, given that we tend to anticipate what we're going to see and how it's likely to affect us, that it is something the dancer put out rather than something the viewer conjured.

How? Well, I don't know exactly. While this may seem to veer off the point, let me use this illustration.

Yesterday, I saw this guy on C-SPAN addressing an audience at the Miami Bookfair. He gave the audience three pairs of words and asked them to remember. Then he asked them to count backwards from 100 to 97. Finally he asked them to name a car manufacturer and a laundry detergent. The overwhelming response to laundry detergent was "Tide." Why? Because he had primed them, by pairing moon and ocean half a minute earlier, to subconsciously be ready to think of Tide.

That's verbal. A dancer who understands the power of the non-verbal on a very deep level might just be capable of doing something similar with her movements.

Edited November 13, 2007 by carbro

[Jack Reed]

sounds like a real catch-22 doesn't it?

Oh, well done, canbelto! Keeping in mind that it was Robert Gottlieb who suggested Joseph Heller change the title of his book from Catch 17 to Catch 22, right? Yes, I'm very, very OT, but I couldn't resist.

I'll just add that I usually find Gottlieb supporting his judgements, although not elaborately, and so I find reading him good exercise which enlivens my experience in the theatre (not necessarily watching the cast or even the rep he wrote about), but that's not everyone's definition of a good critic, I suppose.

Now I'll go read the blog entry (thanks, Dale), and see if something more substantial comes to me. (I'm not a great fan of Jacobs*, either, so I don't think I'll be one of her hubby, but you never know.)

*Changed my mind about this last, see Post #19 below.

Edited December 7, 2007 by Jack Reed

[dirac]

self-aggrandizing, look-ma-I'm-clever show off of a writer who feels the need to attack distinguished critics

Yes, when he should be logrolling. He's got nerve.

That said, if Wolcott keeps this sort of thing up he’s going to jump the shark into crankdom if he doesn’t watch out.

Very grateful for his occasional links to our little site, too.

[bart]

Reminder: there's a long thread on "divided opinions" about Veronika Part HERE

I don't read Wolcott's blog or Jacob's magazine essays unless they ae linked on BT. However, there does seem to me to be a difference between self-publishing (a blog) and something published by a newspaper or magazine. I take the former with a grain of salt. Bloggers type fast and press "Send" button even faster. The blog form seems to have its own rules, and very lax they are.

I expect more from those who write for the traditional print media and who, presumably, have editors. Perhaps this is naive.

[dirac]

carbro writes:

Oh, I don't know. Sometimes I see a familiar moment in a familiar ballet in a whole new way, and I wonder whether it was something about the way that dancer did it on that night, or whether it arose unbidden by anything special from the dancer. I tend to believe, given that we tend to anticipate what we're going to see and how it's likely to affect us, that it is something the dancer put out rather than something the viewer conjured.

How? Well, I don't know exactly. While this may seem to veer off the point, let me use this illustration.

Yesterday, I saw this guy on C-SPAN addressing an audience at the Miami Bookfair. He gave the audience three pairs of words and asked them to remember. Then he asked them to count backwards from 100 to 97. Finally he asked them to name a car manufacturer and a laundry detergent. The overwhelming response to laundry detergent was "Tide." Why? Because he had primed them, by pairing moon and ocean half a minute earlier, to subconsciously be ready to think of Tide.

That's verbal. A dancer who understands the power of the non-verbal on a very deep level might just be capable of doing something similar with her movements.

Well said.

[perky]

James Wolcott on Robert Gottlieb,

"Although, he's been attending ballet since the invention of the chandelier"

"His aesthetic is little more than pet likes and pet hates which he peddles as if campaigning to have his favorites crowned prom king and queen during intermission."

So......, according to Wolcott, Gottlieb is ancient, out of touch and possibly senile. His taste's also lack maturity, focus and impartiality. MEOW!!!

When Wolcott can critique a critic without resorting to bitchiness and personal attacks then I'll take what he has to say seriously.

[Petra]

I don't read Wolcott's blog or Jacob's magazine essays unless they ae linked on BT. However, there does seem to me to be a difference between self-publishing (a blog) and something published by a newspaper or magazine. I take the former with a grain of salt. Bloggers type fast and press "Send" button even faster. The blog form seems to have its own rules, and very lax they are.

I expect more from those who write for the traditional print media and who, presumably, have editors. Perhaps this is naive.

Wolcott is the kind of writer that gives blogging a bad name. He is not self-publishing - his blog is part of the Vanity Fair website, and yet his writing style is that of a pretentious knowitall teenager on myspace. There is no nuance - Whoever agrees with him is wonderful and whoever disagrees with him is despicable. I've got to be suspicious of a grown man who regards Holden Caulfield as his idol.

Especially annoying is the way Wolcott discloses his connection to Jacobs. It isn't petty for a reader to want to know whether writers who quote each other are married.

[Helene]

I'm waiting for the, "I bumped into Bob Gottlieb at a party, and we shook hands and didn't scratch each other's eyes out or raise our voices, much to the chagrin of the petty onlookers" entry. (meow)

[bart]

He is not self-publishing - his blog is part of the Vanity Fair website, [ ... ]

Thanks for that clarification, GWTW.

[carbro]

I'm waiting for the, "I bumped into Bob Gottlieb at a party, and we shook hands and didn't scratch each other's eyes out or raise our voices, much to the chagrin of the petty onlookers" entry. (meow)

(woof-woof)

[ViolinConcerto]

sounds like a real catch-22 doesn't it?

Oh, well done, canbelto! Keeping in mind that it was Robert Gottlieb who suggested Joseph Heller change the title of his book from Catch 17 to Catch 22, right? Yes, I'm very, very OT, but I couldn't resist.

I haven't read these articles, but the main reason that Gottlieb made the suggestions, I think I remember hearing, was that "Stalag 17" had recently appeared on Broadway and in the movies (1953): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalag_17. It may have been a book as well, but I forgot. There was also "Mila 18" by Leon Uris but that was 1963.

[Jack Reed]

Okay, points taken, and thank you, but they only show why 17 and 18 are bad choices, don't they? Why "twenty-two"? Said aloud, this number has strong alliteration. I think it comes from the side of Gottlieb that's interested in, and has facility with, what we might call popular culture, manifested also in his collections of lava lamps, and of lucite purses.

[Jack Reed]

I take back what I said about Jacobs. I confused her with some one else whom I'm too embarassed to name. I think Jacobs's review isn't half bad. She evokes performances well enough and comments about them in illuminating ways so that her thinking might also apply to performances I might see in the future, and developing my appreciation of whatever I see that way has some value for me.

But I can't judge any correspondence, or lack of it, between her descriptions and the performances she saw, such as those by Part, not only because I wasn't there, but because I haven't even watched those dancers that much. And her sentence about "you're not really fit to judge her" seems a bit much to me too.