[size=4]To me, it's equally -- in my feeling, MORE -- important to retain a living sense of what 20th-century "neoclassicism" was and is, and how it revitalized and possibly saved a dying art form.
[size=4]I was talking about Balanchine's development of neoclassiscism, something which began as long ago as the late 1920s. [/size]I was NOT talking about what might happen at some point in the future, as your reference to Jennifer Homans' book implies.
[size=4]I can't think of anyone who would disagree with the idea that classical ballet in the 1920s and for a long time afterwards was in a very bad way in western Europe, almost non-existent in the Americas, and surviving precariously in the Soviet Union. This decline had definitely been turned around by the 1970s in most of the western world. [/size]My point was that Balanchine's neoclassicism -- which honored his love of classical ballet while refusing to be satisfied with merely repeating it -- was one of those factors responsible for that revival. Is this really controversial?