Mashinka

How far can a choreographer go in expressing ideas?

159 posts in this topic

Papeet,

The production came with a warning on all printed and online material AND I was told at the box office when I bought my ticket that the De Frutos could cause offence. It was also printed that discretion was advised and the production was NOT suitable for kids.

How much more is necessary? The venue acted responsibly, an adult was given ample warning to make an informed choice - to go any further into debate over this is moot. What nanarina is arguing is a suppression of ideas.

Any day a kid can log on unsupervised and have access to a world of filth on the internet, DVDs of the nastiest sort are freely exchanged and handled, indeed log on and with a free to download torrent finder program a kid can log on to a torrent download site and download any and all video nasties and sex films. Why on earth would a piece at the end of an evening be more damaging to kids and social fabric than the web? Especially as kids are restrained by financial circumstances and pocket money, a ticket to De Frutos cost £40 and a planet worth of smut is free.

What poses a greater threat to propriety and the moral imperitive to safeguard children? This isn't a debate it's simply a no brainer.

I am not suggesting auppression of idea's, Creativety is a major part of my life. However, what you say about Kids today, I totally agree with, and kind of proves my point!!!

Share this post


Link to post
I am not suggesting auppression of idea's, Creativety is a major part of my life. However, what you say about Kids today, I totally agree with, and kind of proves my point!!!

Nanarina,

There's a huge difference between readily available free porn on the internet and a show with a warning that the content is adult in a theatre by a serious and excellent choreographer. What more could Sadlers Wells have done? Wrapped the theatre in brown paper? And really one always has the option to just get up and leave, god knows I've done that enough in the course of my theatre going lifetime.

Moreover, the internet has only made it easier to access stuff, when I was a kid in the 80s my first exposure to video nasties came when I was 10 and a friend's older brother had videos of I Spit On Your Grave & The Exorcist; they scared me silly but haven't really done any lasting damage. (I've left myself wide open here, so everyone do your worst.)

The whole evening was rather ill advised "The Spirit of Diaghilev", what the hell is that anyway? And indeed until De Frutos came on it was a deeply pretentious boring evening. McGregor who in the press criticised the output of the Ballets Russes as largely awful decided the spirit should be commemorated by something which truly raised the bar for sheer awful - Cherkaoui decided to reimagine the Faun, not giving much attention to either the Nijinsky or Robbins and came away with egg on his face and Maliphant just phoned in his work and banked his commission money and good for him, at least it wasn't pretentious.

Only De Frutos actually gave real consideration to "The Spirit of Diaghilev" and what that actually meant; fearlessness, the audience be damned, court controversy and be in your face. On reflection De Frutos must have known what he was doing he's far too intelligent and talented and that was what was so wonderful, the whole concept of the evening was vapid and facile and his work was the little boy in The Emperor's New Clothes. In one fell swoop De Frutos pointed out the evening was pretty much of nothing and embarrassed the proceedings and the audience was rather naked polemic. It was great - for all the right reasons, because the evening was just wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
What more could Sadlers Wells have done? Wrapped the theatre in brown paper?

:o Thank you for that mental image, Simon.

Share this post


Link to post
Moreover, the internet has only made it easier to access stuff, when I was a kid in the 80s my first exposure to video nasties came when I was 10 and a friend's older brother had videos of I Spit On Your Grave & The Exorcist; they scared me silly but haven't really done any lasting damage. (I've left myself wide open here, so everyone do your worst.)

We agree, Simon, that you were not damaged. Your energy is exemplary and inspiring.

Share this post


Link to post

:

What more could Sadlers Wells have done? Wrapped the theatre in brown paper?

:clapping: Thank you for that mental image, Simon.

:thumbsup: It would take quite a few rolls.

Share this post


Link to post
Apparently the BBC is filming this programme for airing in December (as one of a series of 3 Diaghilev-inspired programmes) so we shall all (all of us in the UK, that is) get a chance to see it.

The problem of putting something like this on the box is that the impact diminishes when viewed next to the horrors shown on the news on a daily basis, but whatever the intentions behind its creation, for most people this work will leave a bad taste.

Hopefully the viwers will comsider making a complaint if they so wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Patrick, I can't imagine how a kid could be enriched by any work of art dealing with paedophilia or a lot of other vile adult behaviour, or not be hurt by it. I'm all for movie ratings for the same reason I'm all for parenting. I remember as an 11-year old hearing a recording of the pop singer Melanie -- remember her, I know you're old enough? :thumbsup: -- in which she practically yelled out an accusation in raw pain. It disturbed me.

I wrote a preview piece for a film festival today and in it referred to John Waters' "Pink Flamingos" as

variously decried and celebrated for its outré behavior and graphic perversity.

That pretty much illustrates my philosophy. Let people know what they're in for, and don't let the PC crowd scare you away from "moral judgment." What would they say about a snuff film?

Thank you KFW. My sentiments exactly "Let people know what they are in for".

Share this post


Link to post
Why are you so against people being protected from seeing something that is pooibly horrific, when it can be omitted? there are degrees of all things. So why cannot they be moderated in advance? I do not have a narrow view on life, I have seen many charges over the years, some for the better and some for the worse. In fact I am quite open minded. I was not suggesting Censorship[ was providing information, what I meant was it is good to know that I at least am pleased to feel protected in what I am expected to witness either on the stage or off.

Well, yeah, this thread has amply protected you from the new Frutos piece.

As for 'omitting horrific ballets', I'm afraid I have to take a break without further ado. I have heard that 'PAMTGG' is horrific, but I didn't see that either. I KNOW that I thought Robbins's 'Glass Pieces' was 'horrific', but not because it didn't have any sex in it.

I have changed my post to read OBSCENE, which decribes the point I was trying to make much better.

Sadly I am unable to check a dictionary or thesaurus. when I cannot think of the right word to use. as I am partially sighted and cannot see them .By the way I am not against free artistic expression I use it every day in my own work.

Share this post


Link to post

Nanarina,

You're right for the most part there is no protection from the truly obscene: all one has to do is log on. However, their is the conscious decision to search for it, even if it's just typing something in google.

My story about my very first nasty video does have a serious message, it used to be that if you were hankering to be disgusted you had to actively search for it, that included (if you were under age) knowing people, doing groundwork, swapping material etc but you know at the same time it is all part of growing up.

The one area where I truly believe more and more that censorship is damaging and indeed moot is in the performing arts - art used to be confrontational, disturbing, challenging and so little of it is, so little on display excites, sensationalises or provokes and what's more what could be a greater form of censorship than making an active decision to actually go and watch something live, having to travel to a venue, pay a large amount for a ticket, programme, meal, interval drink etc and wait and watch the show? In fact in that respect the De Frutos was quaintly old fashioned - you had to actively seek out being outraged and disgusted - and they stated the potential for offence AND they stated the piece wasn't acceptable for children AND they put the work on after 10 pm. They acted like responsible adults.

Again, parents need worry far more about a torrent finder programme online, which totally circumvents all the online child safeguards, than a half hour piece about the Catholic Church.

David Dougill in the times said he thought Diaghilev would have been outraged by De Frutos; actually I disagree I think Diaghilev would have been outraged by the boring insipid fayre on before it, I also think he'd be outraged by McGregor's damning inditement of the Ballets Russes as largely awful and McGregor's truly awful take on ballet and dance. De Frutos, I think he'd have been rather amused by the his attention grabbing tactics and if he saw De Frutos' real work I think he'd have been enchanted.

The thing is this isn't just a one off, this has been going back years : Lady Chatterly's Lover, The Pillow Book, Torture Garden, Diary of a Chambermaid, Nana, In the Realm of The Senses, Marquis De Sade, Jiri Kylian, Marina Abramovic, Frank Moore, Les Amants, Salo etc etc etc

Acts of obscenity and art have always been intertwined, I cannot for one second condone censorship on art, it defeats the very nature and purpose of its existence.

The De Frutos work was obscene sure, an obscene take on a religion whose very existence has been intertwined with some of the very worst atrocities and obscenities.

I don't know what more one can say on this topic, no one needs protecting from De Frutos, but we all need protecting from a State that passes mandatory censorship on speech and expression.

Share this post


Link to post

Agree with everything Simon said, and anyway, obscenity is protected as free speech, at least in the U.S. That's as it should be, or just try to change it. Even if you got it changed for live performance, that's the LEAST of it. Obscenity is here to stay, you just have to know how to handle it and avoid it if you want.

Acts of obscenity and art have always been intertwined, I cannot for one second condone censorship on art, it defeats the very nature and purpose of its existence.

The De Frutos work was obscene sure, an obscene take on a religion whose very existence has been intertwined with some of the very worst atrocities and obscenities.

Oh yes, is this ever right on the money. I'd just add, of course, that with the net as you've pointed out, obscenity is also not just instantly available, it really renders issues of censorship a moot point, becauee the lively arts would never be more than a millionth-percent of all of it. If you're worried about too much obscenity, then no need to focus on rarefied forms like the occasional ballet, but rather where it's omnipresent.

Share this post


Link to post
If you're worried about too much obscenity, then no need to focus on rarefied forms like the occasional ballet, but rather where it's omnipresent.

As I said before, I'm opposed to actually censoring works of art, but I don't think the argument above holds water. Much ground has been lost, it's true, but that's no reason to cede more. That obscenity is readily available online is no reason not to stand against it -- in reviews, in letters to artistic directors, in canceled subscriptions, etc. -- in the theater. Of course if someone is not opposed to obscenity, that's another argument; I'm only addressing what's written above.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, obscenity can be opposed in limited areas, usually more elite ones. This is normal, and can sometimes work--just on a daily level, you can't behave in an obscene way in a courtroom, restaurant, etc. And numerous posters have made clear their opposition to Frutos's work, despite Simon's having outlined all the warnings. I agree with him, because Frutos has the right to display such a work if he can do so; what he's described are way more than ample warning, plus the additional 'just leaving'. But to try to 'supress works of art' which, according to Simon, Frutos's piece is (even if he doesn't think it's a good one, or rather at least he thinks Frutos is himself a 'real artist), then you are trying to suppress and censor works that you don't consider art because you consider them obscene. But there are many obscene works that ARE art; this is probably one of the major sources of contention on this issue, not only between you and me and others here, but in the bigger world of artistic judgment. That's why there are different definitions for obscenity and pornography; you can say that Genet is just an 'obscenist' (to coin a new word), but this is not the usual assessment of Genet, and he's just one of many. So it's a matter of perhaps deciding that 'no obscene materials can be works of art' and deciding that these CAN be censored and suppressed. Clearly, a number of people here feel that way. Good luck on that; because the law is not on that side even when it's not even a question of 'artistic worth': Work that is unquestionably worthless is protected just like the rest.

But my main point is that whether or not you oppose obscenity (and/or when it's also just low pornography), it's protected as free speech when it is written or filmed or photographed material. That's why the issue of anti-obscenity is by now mostly a matter of at least keeping it out of a few highly civil areas--like, for example, at BT, we can write clever racy things, but we can't curse. That's good, I'm glad we can't. But I think what i am trying to say is if you're interest is anti-obscenity, you will naturally focus on the most populated regions of it; if your interest is keeping ballet that is obscene from getting onstage, it's as you say, write people, protest in individual ways. I suppose these actions can work from time to time, probably have. Artists usually are not concerned with this kind of thing, though, even if they are not themselves involved in work that isn't concerned with the slightest off-colour gesture or remark. They are far more concerned with unbridled free expression. I support this myself, and have no intention of stopping, of course. Which doesn't mean I want to see the Frutos; I don't care to. Simon wanted to check it out, and did, and I thought did a fine report on it.

Share this post


Link to post
. Which doesn't mean I want to see the Frutos; I don't care to.

Patrick,

One thing I can't stress enough, really highly enough is how absolutely beautiful Javier De Frutos's work can be and how if you do have the chance to see his fine works, go.

Of those works I'd include:

Blue Roses - his take on The Glass Menagerie

Milagros - his version of Rite of Spring, done to the two piano version and originally staged on New Zealand ballet.

Nopalitos - A dance based on the Mexican Day of the Dead

Paseillo - one of the few pieces I've seen to Mozart where Mozart didn't trounce the choreography.

Los Picadoros - to Stravinsky's Les Noces, nothing to do with a wedding but just defies description

Cabaret - choreography for the Kander Erb musical which won him an Olivier. Just sexy, not Fosse style or derivative and wonderful.

He is just marvelous when he's on form and he's more often on form than not. Just a choreographer of beautiful, humane, passionate dance. Don't let one report on one dance detract from that, if you have a chance to see his work go.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, of course I wouldn't, and one of the things of this thread is really to find out all about him and his dance gifts. Will we see him in New York? He does sound like a real adventurer.

Share this post


Link to post

Patrick, I agree that art can be obscene, and as I've been saying, I oppose legal censorship. The artist, as a free moral agent, is free to express himself in his work and display it if he can. By the same token, the critic, the patron, and the ordinary ticketbuyer, as free moral agents are free to withhold their support and even protest and in so doing effectively -- not by law but by economic force --deny the artist the use of the same platform in the future. The artist is free to introduce his work to the community, and the community is free to say "take it elsewhere next time." You may see the community as exercising censorship or suppression here. I see it as an exercise of freedom, both legally and morally, on both sides.

Oh, and I like your description of BT as a "highly civil area." :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post

I have just looked at my booking confirmation e-mail which states

contains strobe lighting. Contains scenes of an adult nature.
The strobe lighting rather worried me as I am a migraine sufferer, but as 'scenes of an adult nature' can mean anything I wasn't overly concerned about what I would see. The e-mail did not specify which ballet contained the adult scenes or the strobe lighting.

As I considered De Frutos the most able choreographer amongst those presenting work that evening, it was his offering I was looking forward to the most. Perhaps I am more sensitive to depictions of violence than most; for many years I never bothered with a television and only got one in the late '80's to watch ballet videos on. I have to say that I was shocked by the violent content of so many TV programmes after a gap in telly watching of about twenty years and I don't think it is coincidence that the casual violence one sees on the streets exists side by side with a diet of unpleasantness on TV programmes.

In general dance rarely expresses violence, so the unrelenting stuff in ED to S & S came as a particularly nasty shock. As I went to the first night I hadn't read any reviews (which were mixed by the way), but if people sitting silently, almost in a state of disbelief and with their hands in their laps is an honest audience reaction, then the public did not care for what it saw any more than I did.

Share this post


Link to post
Perhaps I am more sensitive to depictions of violence than most; for many years I never bothered with a television and only got one in the late '80's to watch ballet videos on. I have to say that I was shocked by the violent content of so many TV programmes after a gap in telly watching of about twenty years and I don't think it is coincidence that the casual violence one sees on the streets exists side by side with a diet of unpleasantness on TV programmes.

In general dance rarely expresses violence, so the unrelenting stuff in ED to S & S came as a particularly nasty shock. As I went to the first night I hadn't read any reviews (which were mixed by the way), but if people sitting silently, almost in a state of disbelief and with their hands in their laps is an honest audience reaction, then the public did not care for what it saw any more than I did.

Mashinka, when I read your first post, it was the sense of violence that struck me most about what you saw at the performance.
a Pope with grotesque prosthetic belly and buttocks sexually violates two male acolytes and three pregnant women and encourages them to perform further acts of physical and sexual violence on one another whilst everyone chants prayers in Spanish interspersed with the screaming of obscenities. The whole thing culminates with the beating to death and garrotting of one of the women.

I confess to sharing your feelings about the cavalier acceptance of graphic violence by the majority of pop culture audiences. Emotionally, behaviorally, and even ethically I think an entire generation is being re-sensitized -- or DE-sensitized -- in this matter.

Whatever the sources of de Frutos's anger -- and regardless of whether it is justified -- his particular form of gratuitous violence action seems poor way to express his feelings. At worst, it degrades the audience. At best it shows a paucity of imagination.

I was intrigued by your statement: "In general dance rarely expresses violence ..." The fight scenes in Romeo and Juliet, even the death of Giselle and Albrecht, are violent, but highly stylized, and completely integrated into the story. Of the ballets I can recall at this moment, Spartacus seems most brutal, but even here everything is consistent with the setting (slavery and war) and character (all the men are professional killers in one form or other), and with the movement style of the work as a whole.

Another point: The Spartacus story expresses a postitive value system greater than the world's brutality. Human love, the fight for social justice, the importance of humanity and human dignity: this is what you are meant to remember and hold in your heart when the curtain falls. Even Crassus has his coherence and his dignity. Such elements seriously undermine the violent episodes by offering the audience a MORE powerful and hopeful way life in a brutal world.

De Frutos's piece, if I understand it correctly, makes no attempt to offer an alternative way of addressing the evils which he sees. Nor does it seem to wish to allow the audience the chance to transcend the choreographer's own, personal anger.

Share this post


Link to post
I was intrigued by your statement: "In general dance rarely expresses violence ..." The fight scenes in Romeo and Juliet, even the death of Giselle and Albrecht, are violent, but highly stylized, and completely integrated into the story. Of the ballets I can recall at this moment, Spartacus seems most brutal, but even here everything is consistent with the setting (slavery and war) and character (all the men are professional killers in one form or other), and with the movement style of the work as a whole.

Another point: The Spartacus story expresses belief in a value system greater than the brutality of the world: a love story, the belief in fighting for social justice, the importance of humanity and human dignity. These undercut the violence by offering a MORE powerful image of how of deal with life, even the horrible aspects of life. De Frutos's piece, if I understand it correctly, makes no attempt to offer an alternative way of addressing the evils which he sees.

Agreed: but these are all narrative works with the fighting being just one element of the story and the ballets you single out have the ability to deeply move an audience whilst telling that story. The only two examples of what I would call gratuitous violence that unsettled me on a ballet stage were both MacMillan works - in Judas Tree and Prince of the Pagodas; both of these were specifically violent towards women.

ED to S&S has no real narrative at all just as it has minimal dance content and the sexual and physical violence is quite unrelenting. I will reiterate that it was the violence that upset me, had de Frutos's Pope been involved in a lengthy orgy with the altar boys and female worshippers; I would not have posted my original question but would simply have written it off as a turkey. What I saw was deeply, deeply unpleasant and if it is reactionary or prudish to object to the sight of a pregnant woman being punched in the belly, then I am a reactionary prude.

Share this post


Link to post
The artist, as a free moral agent, is free to express himself in his work and display it if he can. By the same token, the critic, the patron, and the ordinary ticketbuyer, as free moral agents are free to withhold their support and even protest and in so doing effectively -- not by law but by economic force --deny the artist the use of the same platform in the future.

They can, certainly. The risk is that they may wind up looking intolerant, foolish, and on the wrong side of history. You place your bet and take your chance.

I would not have posted my original question but would simply have written it off as a turkey. What I saw was deeply, deeply unpleasant and if it is reactionary or prudish to object to the sight of a pregnant woman being punched in the belly, then I am a reactionary prude.

Thanks, Mashinka. I can't pass any sort of judgment without having seen the piece myself, but it is certainly fair to ask the question about work you find deeply disturbing.

Share this post


Link to post
The artist, as a free moral agent, is free to express himself in his work and display it if he can. By the same token, the critic, the patron, and the ordinary ticketbuyer, as free moral agents are free to withhold their support and even protest and in so doing effectively -- not by law but by economic force --deny the artist the use of the same platform in the future.

They can, certainly. The risk is that they may wind up looking intolerant, foolish, and on the wrong side of history. You place your bet and take your chance.

I would not have posted my original question but would simply have written it off as a turkey. What I saw was deeply, deeply unpleasant and if it is reactionary or prudish to object to the sight of a pregnant woman being punched in the belly, then I am a reactionary prude.

Thanks, Mashinka. I can't pass any sort of judgment without having seen the piece myself, but it is certainly fair to ask the question about work you find deeply disturbing.

Mashinka- you had every right to post this post, and your question was very valid, as for your being reactionary or prudish to object to watching something which was a seriuosly obsene unpleasant episode, to be made to feel in the wrong, is not acdceptable. We are forced to listen to others, but we can make up our own minds, to disagree. Ignore others opinion, if you feel so inclined, as they do ours, and you should stick with your original feelings without listening to them. I would have most definatly felt the same, and been sickened by such a violent action to an unborn child. . Thank you for telling us about this work, I certainly would have been upset if I went to see it, not because I am a prude, or do not value freedom of expression, but I do not like excessive violence. But it would not have been my scene at all, I much prefer a classical ballet either traditional or productions like Manon, Mayerling, Les dame aux Comellias though in contrast I also like some which are a little more risque, like the modern Sylvia, Clavigo, Proust. (I am now waiting for the comments regarding me calling them "Risque"!!!! Then there is Etudes, Scene en Blanc etc.Thank you once again for giving us your responses. From what you said It would appear the prior warnings were not very efficient. :off topic:

Share this post


Link to post
Perhaps I am more sensitive to depictions of violence than most; for many years I never bothered with a television and only got one in the late '80's to watch ballet videos on. I have to say that I was shocked by the violent content of so many TV programmes after a gap in telly watching of about twenty years and I don't think it is coincidence that the casual violence one sees on the streets exists side by side with a diet of unpleasantness on TV programmes.

In general dance rarely expresses violence, so the unrelenting stuff in ED to S & S came as a particularly nasty shock. As I went to the first night I hadn't read any reviews (which were mixed by the way), but if people sitting silently, almost in a state of disbelief and with their hands in their laps is an honest audience reaction, then the public did not care for what it saw any more than I did.

Mashinka, when I read your first post, it was the sense of violence that struck me most about what you saw at the performance.
a Pope with grotesque prosthetic belly and buttocks sexually violates two male acolytes and three pregnant women and encourages them to perform further acts of physical and sexual violence on one another whilst everyone chants prayers in Spanish interspersed with the screaming of obscenities. The whole thing culminates with the beating to death and garrotting of one of the women.

I confess to sharing your feelings about the cavalier acceptance of graphic violence by the majority of pop culture audiences. Emotionally, behaviorally, and even ethically I think an entire generation is being re-sensitized -- or DE-sensitized -- in this matter.

Whatever the sources of de Frutos's anger -- and regardless of whether it is justified -- his particular form of gratuitous violence action seems poor way to express his feelings. At worst, it degrades the audience. At best it shows a paucity of imagination.

I was intrigued by your statement: "In general dance rarely expresses violence ..." The fight scenes in Romeo and Juliet, even the death of Giselle and Albrecht, are violent, but highly stylized, and completely integrated into the story. Of the ballets I can recall at this moment, Spartacus seems most brutal, but even here everything is consistent with the setting (slavery and war) and character (all the men are professional killers in one form or other), and with the movement style of the work as a whole.

Another point: The Spartacus story expresses a postitive value system greater than the world's brutality. Human love, the fight for social justice, the importance of humanity and human dignity: this is what you are meant to remember and hold in your heart when the curtain falls. Even Crassus has his coherence and his dignity. Such elements seriously undermine the violent episodes by offering the audience a MORE powerful and hopeful way life in a brutal world.

De Frutos's piece, if I understand it correctly, makes no attempt to offer an alternative way of addressing the evils which he sees. Nor does it seem to wish to allow the audience the chance to transcend the choreographer's own, personal anger.

The use of fights in Ballet are usually very spectacular, choreographed to fit in with the storyline, it may be considered vioilence by some, but not me., It is not usually offensive'but is part of the plot, and can be very exciting depending on the production.

In Roland Petit's Clavigo there is a fantastic fight in the Part 1, which is set to

a brilliant musical score.by Gabriel Yared. it is so well constructed it sends shivers down your spine (or at least mine) the combination of music and movememnt is quite spectacular. But it does not overstep the mark at all, everthing is controlled and the resilt is very effective. It is danced on the DVD by Nicholas Le Riche and Yann Bridard of the Paris Opera Ballet.

I also really like Sparticus, I have seen it live and on DVD, the Slaves dances are paricularly exciting, I also love the dance of the Roman legion and their women,

again the rhyrum and the music build up to an exciting climax, after which follows the Pas de deux, full of spectacular lifts, between the leader and his mistress, also the wonderful slave Pas de deux to the well known lovely music. It is one of those tunes that stays on your mind.

No there is nothung in classical Ballet's that I know offends me I could watch it time and time again. And I have to admit I do!!

Share this post


Link to post
The artist, as a free moral agent, is free to express himself in his work and display it if he can. By the same token, the critic, the patron, and the ordinary ticketbuyer, as free moral agents are free to withhold their support and even protest and in so doing effectively -- not by law but by economic force --deny the artist the use of the same platform in the future.

They can, certainly. The risk is that they may wind up looking intolerant, foolish, and on the wrong side of history. You place your bet and take your chance.

That's true, except that I imagine you'd agree that conscience takes clear precedence over worrying about what history will think. In other words, with respect, the risk as such is not worth considering. To consider it might be to impute to the artist with moral superiority, to appoint him moral arbitrer, along the lines of Shelley's claim that "poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world"; also perhaps to presume that historical progress is always for the better. These are popular positions of course, but not everyone holds them.

Share this post


Link to post
No there is nothung in classical Ballet's that I know offends me I could watch it time and time again. And I have to admit I do!!

Nanarina,

Funnily enough that statement is pretty much the credo of the modern dancer pioneers and the effect which caused Duncan, Graham, Wigman, Holm, Cunningham and on....

And actually we could also see that being the reason for Fokine, Nijinska, Balanchine etc revolting againt the classicism of Petipa. It was certainly MacMillan's reason for creating The Invitation and The Burrow.

I do agree with you strongly nanarina about the need to protect kids from the deluge available on the internet and I'm sure you're not a prude, I suppose the thing is one has to operate one's right and ability to walk out or not go to something. Ultimately censoring what can be seen is actually censoring thought and ideas.

There are many artists I have a really hard time with especially conceptual artists such as Marina Abramovic, I just find her art repellent - ditto this Italian guy in London called Franko B, whose exhibition actually made me throw up, I shan't go into details. But again even though I hate the art or content I defend utterly their right to do what they want.

I agree with Mashinka, the De Frutos was rather silly, it didn't offend me, I thought it was too childish, but at the same time it fit the evening for me as the whole thing was rather ill advised.

Patrick, I don't know if De Frutos will come to the US. He needs a large company with a fairly large budget to perform his works, whether or not anyone will put up the dosh in the US remains to be seen.

Share this post


Link to post
No there is nothung in classical Ballet's that I know offends me I could watch it time and time again. And I have to admit I do!!

Nanarina,

Funnily enough that statement is pretty much the credo of the modern dancer pioneers and the effect which caused Duncan, Graham, Wigman, Holm, Cunningham and on....

And actually we could also see that being the reason for Fokine, Nijinska, Balanchine etc revolting againt the classicism of Petipa. It was certainly MacMillan's reason for creating The Invitation and The Burrow.

I do agree with you strongly nanarina about the need to protect kids from the deluge available on the internet and I'm sure you're not a prude, I suppose the thing is one has to operate one's right and ability to walk out or not go to something. Ultimately censoring what can be seen is actually censoring thought and ideas.

There are many artists I have a really hard time with especially conceptual artists such as Marina Abramovic, I just find her art repellent - ditto this Italian guy in London called Franko B, whose exhibition actually made me throw up, I shan't go into details. But again even though I hate the art or content I defend utterly their right to do what they want.

I agree with Mashinka, the De Frutos was rather silly, it didn't offend me, I thought it was too childish, but at the same time it fit the evening for me as the whole thing was rather ill advised.

Patrick, I don't know if De Frutos will come to the US. He needs a large company with a fairly large budget to perform his works, whether or not anyone will put up the dosh in the US remains to be seen.

Simon I would like to respond to your comments, firstly referring to Sir Kenneth MacMillan's The Burrow and The Invitation. However as I was not involved with The Royal Ballet during The Burrow, I do not have the knowledge to do so. However I was there for The Invitation, which you no doubt are aware was very progressive for the time. As an "insider" I witnessed the response it received, at first there were many eye brows raised, some critics belied it, whilst others praised it. During first performaces as it ended there was a marked hush in the audiorium. and then the appluase would start slowly and build. As there was a quick change near the end for the rape scene, I was at the side of the stage. Although they had been forwarned by the dance of the acrobats (who appeared and behaved as mating chickens). The audience still seemed to be somewhat stinned. Later when I worked for the Touring Company, we performed it in the provinces, and by then a notice stating it was for adults only and not suitable for children had to be displayed at the front of the theatre we were visiting.

After this at least while I was still working with the company, Sir Kenneth's work became less contriversal. He certainly had been given a hard time during this period. Although people outside the company may not have been aware of it.

manon was premiered which I was also priveledged to be connected with. His older productions such as Solitare and Danses Concertantes also remained in the repertoire., as well as a new Romeo and Juliet.

Before moving on I must mention sir Frederick Ashton (affectionatly known as Sir Fred) and his many lovely Ballets, Fille Mal Gardee, Les Deux Pigeons, Ondine, Sylvia, A Day in the Country, Cinderella, The Dream,Margurette & Armond to name just some of his work. What a wonderful contribution the two "Sirs" made to British Ballet.

Now changing the subject I want to bring up something I think you may have not appreciated, you mention Mashinka thinking the De Frutos was "rather silly". I think you need to read her post again, what she actually commernted is" What I saw was deeply, deeply unpleasant" . Which is far more serious than just being called "rather silly. "From reading what has been posted, I feel the Choreographer needs to address his anger, frustration or whatever was behind his creation. If this is truly not up to his usual standards, and disapointed his follower's, It is in his hands to move on forward to restore his reputationh.

Share this post


Link to post
That's true, except that I imagine you'd agree that conscience takes clear precedence over worrying about what history will think. In other words, with respect, the risk as such is not worth considering. To consider it might be to impute to the artist with moral superiority, to appoint him moral arbitrer, along the lines of Shelley's claim that "poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world"; also perhaps to presume that historical progress is always for the better. These are popular positions of course, but not everyone holds them.

I don't impute to artists any kind of moral superiority. I just think it's the better part of wisdom for the folks readying the protestations and the tar and feathers to think a bit. My two cents.

Ultimately censoring what can be seen is actually censoring thought and ideas.

I think most of us can agree on that. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post