If she is going to subsume 3 works by choreographers to her own continued polemic, she isn't thinking of aesthetics anyway. She, not quite tacitly, admits that all three works have something going for them, and they clearly all took a lot of work to do. But the emphasis is on all three together--which does not mean anything, and is disrespectful less to Balanchine than the new choreographers. It's still important to me that she wants to 'make her point' about the Balanchine 'followers' more than she wants to talk about the individual works. And in her capacity as an Establishment critic, she really should not be writing something that is reducible to 'a whole that didn't equal the sum of its parts'. I remember liking some other things I read not too long ago by Rockwell, but I can't remember it just now.
I see nothing in the review in question to suggest anything polemical in Ms Kaufman’s writing. Where is the defining thesis serving as the subject of her polemic?
Ms Kaufman may repeat her argument when she sees works that to her, find echoes of Balanchine’s choreography, so what is the problem? This is hardly polemical.
I think this thread may encourage those not familiar with her reviews to become addicted to her writing looking for controversy which in itself is an attraction to many, as the above confirms.