abatt

NY Times Article Re Koch Theater

99 posts in this topic

there is at least something democratic about private individuals supporting artists and arts organizations they like, rather than all funding being doled out by unelected officials.

I wouldn’t say that’s necessarily more democratic.The officials may be unelected but we may generally assume they were appointed because they have the appropriate expertise to make informed judgments, not something they would acquire by spending time and money running for office and attempting to ingratiate themselves with voters.

Who but the rich could afford opera and ballet if not for private philanthropy or, if you prefer, private "donations?

The state could do more.. Private money tends to follow public money and when the government takes a leading role in promoting and funding the arts it provides an example to follow.

Given that, we have very little choice in the matter nowadays. So, what practicable alternatives are there to what we have now?: that is, dependence on private philanthropy and its hand maidens, big Tax Deductions and serious Social Climbing?

Considering that private donations have fallen sharply for obvious reasons, more stimulus for the arts would have been helpful. (There was some, but probably not enough.) I know this will not happen.

Bill Gates is full of so much guilt about his wealth that he is now devoted all his time to assuaging that guilt by trying to help the less fortunate
.

He should feel guilty about all that lousy software. Still, Gates is a poor example of the undeserving rich. His generosity goes far, far beyond the usual even for a man with his money and at least he didn’t make his dough exploiting cheap labor and destroying the environment.

If the rich want to give, that’s splendid, as long as I’m not expected to tug my forelock and gurgle about how wonderful they are for doing it. (Lincoln Kirstein was an outlier; there are few rich folks with his commitment, expertise, and dedication.)

What is a bit different is the level of public awareness. We have so much more information available to us today via the media and the internet and people are able to make connections that would have been much more difficult, say, twenty years ago.

Quite right.

Share this post


Link to post
there is at least something democratic about private individuals supporting artists and arts organizations they like, rather than all funding being doled out by unelected officials.

I wouldn't say that's necessarily more democratic.The officials may be unelected but we may generally assume they were appointed because they have the appropriate expertise to make informed judgments, not something they would acquire by spending time and money running for office and attempting to ingratiate themselves with voters.

They have informed judgments, but then we have our own. We can vote for politicians whom we hope will appoint officials whose taste we share, but the more direct and therefore democratic route is to support artists and institutions with our own money.

Share this post


Link to post
Who but the rich could afford opera and ballet if not for private philanthropy or, if you prefer, private "donations?
The state could do more.. Private money tends to follow public money and when the government takes a leading role in promoting and funding the arts it provides an example to follow.

Theoretically state can always do more, but as to Sander O's assertion that "the arts [ . . . ] should be accessible to all people," private philanthropists are people for whom it is accessible, who choose to make it accessible to others. We might say they are people who walk the talk. Their money might follow the state's, but the state in this regard often can't do without them.

Share this post


Link to post
Money ruins everything it touches.

Unbelievable thing to have to hear.

Bill Gates is full of so much guilt about his wealth that he is now devoted all his time to assuaging that guilt by trying to help the less fortunate.

He's no such thing, and is just as generous as dirac pointed out. There needs to be all sorts of funding, and that means MONEY. This always includes wealthy private individuals, and it has always needed them. This is so obvious it really seems ridiculous to even have to say it. For one thing, they even want to fund these things. We are not at some ashram with 'living off the land', and most of us who even made a little bow to such things gave that collective crap up long ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Bill Gates is full of so much guilt about his wealth that he is now devoted all his time to assuaging that guilt by trying to help the less fortunate.

Bill Gates' parents were philanthropists long before he as a college freshman borrowed $75K from his father to start Microsoft, and it should come as no surprise that he followed in their footsteps. Long before he became mega-wealthy, Gates started a corporate matching program for any 501-c-3 organizations to encourage all employees who gained wealth through stock options to give back to their communities, knowing that in general it takes three generations for charitable giving to take hold and that many of his employees did not come from families that had a history of giving. Through the company program, he encouraged them to start. It wasn't just the Porsche dealers and general contractors who benefited from the Microsoft millionaires and thousands of Microsoft employees who never came close to being millionaires.

Share this post


Link to post

It's interesting that Gates who has developed the devilish software system is so publicly generous and that Apple which has developed the angelic software system has a rather obscure philanthropic program -- one of "America's Least Philanthropic Companies" :Stanford Social Innovation Review.

Even more devilish than DOS is Slajov Zizek's London Books riff on "Liberal [in the old fashioned economic-liberalism sense] Communists":

Liberal communists do not want to be mere profit-machines: they want their lives to have deeper meaning. They are against old-fashioned religion and for spirituality, for non-confessional meditation (everybody knows that Buddhism foreshadows brain science, that the power of meditation can be measured scientifically).

This isn’t an entirely new phenomenon. Remember Andrew Carnegie, who employed a private army to suppress organised labour in his steelworks and then distributed large parts of his wealth for educational, cultural and humanitarian causes, proving that, although a man of steel, he had a heart of gold? In the same way, today’s liberal communists give away with one hand what they grabbed with the other.

... The same Soros who gives millions to fund education has ruined the lives of thousands thanks to his financial speculations and in doing so created the conditions for the rise of the intolerance he denounces.

"Nobody Has to be Vile"

Share this post


Link to post
Even more devilish than DOS is Slajov Zizek's London Books riff on "Liberal [in the old fashioned economic-liberalism sense] Communists":

... The same Soros who gives millions to fund education has ruined the lives of thousands thanks to his financial speculations and in doing so created the conditions for the rise of the intolerance he denounces.

Zizek is IMO an ultimate charlatan and fraud. He's shrewd, but he's always got his eye on the trends and will say anything With a little change in the materials 'Soros' has 'given' or 'lives ruined' and slight change to a smaller audience, what he says of Soros is surely true of him. His followers spend all their time guessing what tricks are up his sleeve now, because he is a master illusionist and I don't think serious at all, just very media-savvy and well-educated. His old theses on the 'virtual' are repellent beyond belief, like the stupidest caricature of the much better work done by Baudrillard, and with none of the science of even a nut like Ray Kurzweil, with his Singularity and desire to live 5000 years. Zizek exaggerates everything until it's worn out, then notes that it's worn out, and figures out something else 'the entertaining philosopher' would find profitable.

Of course, the comparision ends there. He doesn't consider himself 'rich', so his 'philanthropic contributions' don't even need to be written up. He makes plenty of money from his lectures and has a minor audience for his new books, churned out yearly. They even let him write terrible op-eds in the NYTimes. This is mostly off-topic, but I think that, even though goods ought not to 'ill-gotten' (everybody would say that), almost all of them can be traced back to some kind of exploitation, so it's not worth giving to much credence to except in the most extreme cases. Maybe Phyllis McGuire's Sam Giancana money put into her Las Vegas mansion was not exactly a philanthropic use of funds, but lots of the big industrialists are entirely responsible for enormous giving to the Arts, and this is just part of how life works. The imperial and royal courts throughlut history all stole and exploited from poorer souls, but there would be no ballet without them.

So, I'd say 'Everybody has to somewhat vile'. this surely includes ALL property owners, but I'm not the one that has a problem with that. If others do, then they ought not to have houses, etc.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the link to that article, Quiggin. He has a point, although it's always been easier to make fun of rich men with a vestigial conscience instead of those who happily gorge and exploit without a qualm. The former occupy a hopelessly false position and the latter at least have the virtue of consistency. I will say that the public probably got more from the likes of Carnegie and Frick than we have from the robber barons of today.

Their money might follow the state's, but the state in this regard often can't do without them.

It does follow the state's. It's generally understood that the support of the NEA, for example, often acts as sort of Good Housekeeping seal of approval, encouraging private funding.

Share this post


Link to post

Zizek was being playful, but his point was that the movement of fast capital of the last ten years -- totally untethered from any reality or responsibility, almost a pure abstraction -- has caused turbulence for lots of poor countries.

John Maynard Keynes -- hardly a Zizek (and married to Russian ballerina Lydia Lopovoka!) -- has pointed out roughly the same thing in his image likening capital to a school of goldfish lying in a pond in peaceful suspension at one corner. Then suddenly, in the flash of on eye, they are in another corner for no good reason. Keynes was for some sort of tethering of capital (one imagines Roman goldfish on chains).

Today's Financial Times "Long View" is, in the same way, nervous that the nervous capital of hedge and other hair-trigger funds -- the "dollar carry trade" -- will not stay in place long enough for solid "long-term buy-and-hold investors to put more more money into markets." Lots of everyday lives are tied to these marionette movements of money.

Zizek has made lots of complicated ideas fairly accessible -- Terry Eagleton and Frederic Jameson have some quibbles but have given him good marks -- and he spoke at the same forum Jane Jacobs and Joan Didion do here in San Francisco and also at a small down-at-the-heels book store on Valencia Street. At least in that context, he did look like someone having taken something of a of vow of poverty -- and genuine in his concerns about the loss of culture, in the broadest sense.

One of Z's themes was about fast middle class normalization of previous dangerous ideas and zones -- which as someone interested in city planning these days, I see in the shockingly rapid assimilation of the Meat Packing District in Manhattan into grand hipness, without a even decent period of mourning for the old.

Hopefully Mr. Koch's nervous capital is at finally at rest in its new seats, viewing Opera & Ballet.

John Maynard & Lydia lighting up

Share this post


Link to post
also at a small down-at-the-heels book store on Valencia Street. At least in that context, he did look like someone having taken something of a of vow of poverty -- and genuine in his concerns about the loss of culture, in the broadest sense.

He's taken no such vow, but is a poseur. I've been reading him and discussing him with theorists and philosophers for over 10 years--but once in a while he'll have an idea. He's primarily a good 'intellectual trendy'. After 9/11, there were three Verso books commissioned by big 'cyber-names' and philosophers--Virilio, Zizek, and Baudrillard. Zizek's was easily the most appalling. With every new book, he grabs attention by contradicting himself and saying, more or less 'isn't that adorable the way I can play with my own foibles, or whaever you'd call them?' In making things more 'accessible', he often just makes them different and therefore false. I liked him at first, but by now I don't believe a word he says. It's just posturing. Baudrillard did a lot of posturing too, but the method by which you make huge messes in order to find some diamond in the garbage would work for him; he was not the careful and fastidious type of thinker, but every now and then he's come of with something. Zizek stole tons of his ideas and cheapened all of them, especially as regards the hyperreal. Then he contradicts what he last said because he hadn't believed it to begin with. Anybody can 'look theyv'e taken a vow of poverty'. I can assure he has taken no such vow, and feels free to polemicize everybody and his brother. He also has no decent understanding of art, and one of his most idiotic fugues is crap about how art outside its original organic context no longer has any value--typical, because of course it lacks some of its original environmental power, but Zizekians will often tell you that Micheleangelo doesn't mean anything anymore. He's on his way out, though. The 'object-oriented philosophers' are the buzz by now, and they're not paying much attention to Zizek, he's paying attention to them. And what's so great about a 'vow of poverty' anyway? So he can criticize rich people? The point is, I know he's got dough anyway, and can always get more very easily. He's way beyond some ordinary tenured academic like even Jameson (thought I don't mean he's wiser.)

Also, talk about 'the loss of culture' is about as convincing to me by now as 'the end of history'. This is just the 'darkening tones' talk of the leftist media theorist, and they've been doing that for decades. I dont' buy it.

Share this post


Link to post

Been there -- to the lobby, anyway. :dunno:

I don't know whether this is permanent or not, but there are no tables in the lobby -- either the folding tables under the casting sheets or the red marble tables near the steps. This is a problem, because after the ladies have bought their tickets, there's no surface for us to rest our bags while placing our ticket/s and credit card

Other than that -- and the ugly, backlit, accordion-pleated shower curtain that covers the wall of box office windows -- not much looks changed.

Photo here.

Share this post


Link to post

The Get 'em in, Get 'em out theme continues in the revamped

ladies rooms too. At least the one I visited at the City Opera Gala.

The vanity area is gone, replaced by more stalls. There's mirrors

over the individual sinks but no area to check out one's hair and

make-up. I hope the dancer's dressing rooms are more comfortable.

But that box office looks intimidating. As you approached it, could

you hear Darth Vader's theme music?

Share this post


Link to post
The Get 'em in, Get 'em out theme continues in the revamped

ladies rooms too. At least the one I visited at the City Opera Gala.

The vanity area is gone, replaced by more stalls. There's mirrors

over the individual sinks but no area to check out one's hair and

make-up. I hope the dancer's dressing rooms are more comfortable.

But that box office looks intimidating. As you approached it, could

you hear Darth Vader's theme music?

this sounds as if more of the ladies' rooms have been renovated as the first circle one was some years back. and if so, yippee; i hated the long lines that all the other ones had. four stalls is not enough.

Share this post


Link to post

As I climbed the stairs to the orchestra level for NYCB's Opening Night, I was greeted by an artist friend who gasped, "Isn't the theater beautiful?!" (perhaps in other words). I hadn't yet seen anything much beyond the lobby, and in fact, indicated to him the offending shower curtain around the box office windows. But indeed, everything in the public areas, had been cleaned up. The new carpeting, a brighter red, has a nice tone-on-tone pattern of an open weave. Inside the auditorium, the seats are quite different.

I was immediately aware that I was sitting on less cushioning than previously, but I wouldn't call it uncomfortable. I went to hang the strap of my bag over my armrest, and unlike in other theaters (including the old NYST), it instantly slipped off. I removed my jacket and tried to tuck the sides behind the seat, but the seatbacks are too close together, and perhaps only a cotton shirt could fit in that space. It's going to be very interesting to see how patrons cope once winter and heavy coats arrive. Call me fussy if you will, but it seems important practical matters have been overlooked, even though I realize the seat design is all in the cause of better acoustics (too good, since I could hear human activities halfway across the Fourth Ring).

Some years ago, some intelligent person -- a woman, no doubt -- got the great idea of redesigning the 4th Ring Ladies' Room to double the number of stalls. Even this did not completely eliminate the lines, but we no longer worried about wasting a whole intermission waiting. This resulted in a somewhat cramped sink area, and opposite that a "dressing table" where we could fix hair and makeup. It was not ideal, but it was a practical response to an everyday problem.

Now, we've lost the primping area and all those extra stalls, inside of which there aren't even little shelves for our programs. If a woman is carrying a clutch with no strap, she'll have to figure out how to manage with one hand or place her bag on the floor. Tiny detail, and in the scheme of the cost, I think they could have found a way to give us shelves.

Also, they've installed those powerful blowers to dry our hands. Three weeks after the theater opened, the one I tried first was out of order. I've also heard that without regular, thorough cleanings, they are unsanitary. Unless the custodial staff has undergone a similar renovation, remembering empty soap dispensers, I can almost guarantee that they won't be.

The bathroom looks sleek and modern, but I don't think most of us use it for the opportunity to admire the design.

I'm sure that the technical upgrades of lighting, the orchestra elevator, etc., etc., will enhance the company's experience, and maybe even ours. But somehow, practical details which may seem small to the audience but are not, were inexplicably overlooked.

I am not happy.

Share this post


Link to post

Does the theater still have a coat check? I realise waiting in line for that is a pain, but perhaps in unusually cold weather it could be a solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Does the theater still have a coat check? I realise waiting in line for that is a pain, but perhaps in unusually cold weather it could be a solution.

That I didn't check (no pun intended), but I doubt it can accommodate 3,000+ coats.

Share this post


Link to post
Does the theater still have a coat check? I realise waiting in line for that is a pain, but perhaps in unusually cold weather it could be a solution.

I've always just folded mine up and stuffed it under my seat. If I recall correctly, there is a charge for the coat check, which not everyone is going to want to pay, lines aside.

Share this post


Link to post

Good points--I did not realise there was a charge.

Share this post


Link to post

I found the new auditorium dismaying. The glamour is gone, the place looks and feels like a fancy movie theater. The loss of the two front rows and the concomitant enlargement of the orchestra pit throw Philip Johnson's design proportions off completely; the semi-circle of the audience is broken and with the absence of carpeting the impression of red and gold and of an urgent audience is altered. I disagree with P. Martins speech, that opera and ballet begin with music: not true visually. Both art forms begin with the stage. It's a fundamental mistake to make one so aware of the damn orchestra. (And now will NYCB actually get one that plays to such a level: this isn't going to be the Kirov in the pit).

My impression of the renovation is that NYC Opera has finally succeeded in dragging NYCB down to its level, that of a regional company. The house no longer makes the impression of a world class venue: like I said, a movie theater instead. A great regional hall, now nothing more. This could have been Cleveland or Seattle. The costume jewelry 1960's magnificence of the original Kirstein/Johnson conception has been lost.

Share this post


Link to post

The Second Ring ladies' room on NYCB's opening was out of order, and I was directed to go to the First Ring. How long has the theater been open that this should happen? And for those of us who eschew bottled water, I was dismayed to find that the water fountain on the right side of the Second Ring spewed the same old tepd water. (And I was told that this was the only fountain actually working!!) Why couldn't something so very basic be fixed? Grumble, grumble....

Share this post


Link to post
A great regional hall, now nothing more. This could have been Cleveland or Seattle.

At least we have great acoustics in our regional houses :wink:

Share this post


Link to post

To be honest, I've always thought NYCB ought to have given way on the acoustics from the beginning. An opera company can't do its best without good acoustics, whereas the dancers ought to be dancing as silently as possible anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
I disagree with P. Martins speech, that opera and ballet begin with music: not true visually. Both art forms begin with the stage.

I like what he said. The stage comes in later.

It's a fundamental mistake to make one so aware of the damn orchestra. (And now will NYCB actually get one that plays to such a level: this isn't going to be the Kirov in the pit).

No, it isn't, and it could well be just the thing to force the level up.

Share this post


Link to post
The Second Ring ladies' room on NYCB's opening was out of order, and I was directed to go to the First Ring. How long has the theater been open that this should happen? And for those of us who eschew bottled water, I was dismayed to find that the water fountain on the right side of the Second Ring spewed the same old tepd water. (And I was told that this was the only fountain actually working!!) Why couldn't something so very basic be fixed? Grumble, grumble....

Hi Bobbi,

The second ring ladies' room wasn't out of order on opening night --it was being used for a "coat check/waiter room."

I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving!

Share this post


Link to post
Hi Bobbi,

The second ring ladies' room wasn't out of order on opening night --it was being used for a "coat check/waiter room."

I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving!

That's even worse, no matter how many additional stalls they put in. Exactly where were they putting the coats? Or the waiters?

Share this post


Link to post