WSJ Article on Possible Misty Copeland Promotion

[dirac]

Is it reasonable to think that ABT is concerned about the impact of a failure to promote Misty at this time (particularly, as you've said, if another female soloist is promoted)? I think it is.

If Misty is promoted, will I assume that it is primarily due to those fears? No.

Will the true, full reason for that promotion, should it come, ever be known or even knowable? No.

Will there continue to be a belief, in many minds (note: I don't say mine), that Misty's promotion is due to ABT's fear of racist accusations? I think there will be.

Is it unfortunate that those beliefs will remain and will be basically impossible to dispel? I think it is.

Has Misty's PR campaign made it more likely that those doubts will linger? I think it quite possibly has.

Well, it's been said before here, but I'm happy to say it again: If those "many minds" believe that Copeland was promoted (if she is) because ABT was running scared, it isn't a problem for Copeland or for the people who don't share this belief. it's only "unfortunate" for those who will be doing this mental asterisking and not as a matter of the general welfare. Everybody else is going to be just fine.

[Jayne]

If Stella Abrera gets promoted, will she be the first Phillipina-American to reach principal at ABT? Can anyone confirm?

[kfw]

Well, it's been said before here, but I'm happy to say it again: If those "many minds" believe that Copeland was promoted (if she is) because ABT was running scared, it isn't a problem for Copeland or for the people who don't share this belief. it's only "unfortunate" for those who will be doing this mental asterisking and not as a matter of the general welfare. Everybody else is going to be just fine.

Well I'm glad of that. Me, I’m just fine about what people think of Copeland’s promotion and how she gets it. I love reading different opinions, especially when people are clearly thinking them through to defend them, because that makes for a good debate.

[bingham]

If Stella Abrera gets promoted, will she be the first Phillipina-American to reach principal at ABT? Can anyone confirm?

If promoted, she will be.BTW, Filipino(a)-American is the term that is usually used. As of now, she is the 1st Fil-Am soloist of ABT. I don't know if it is known that Anthony Huxley is the 1st Fil-Am principal of the NYCB. His maternal father(or grandfather?) was a very prominent political figure in the Philippines.

[dirac]

Well I'm glad of that. Me, I’m just fine about what people think of Copeland’s promotion and how she gets it. I love reading different opinions, especially when people are clearly thinking them through to defend them, because that makes for a good debate.

Some of the things said here about Copeland have not been at all pleasant for me to read, but sometimes it's necessary to read them, and speak up with differing views.

[kfw]

Some of the things said here about Copeland have not been at all pleasant for me to read, but sometimes it's necessary to read them, and speak up with differing views.

If you feel someone deserves defending, it's certainly honorable to defend them.

[dirac]

If you feel someone deserves defending, it's certainly honorable to defend them.

It would be preferable not to have to do so, and certainly not at such length. But that's how it is.

[On Pointe]

It seems that Misty Copeland has become the avatar for all that is right, or wrong, for black artists in America. Perhaps her promotion or lack thereof will engender discussion about other odd racial disparities, like the abundance of black male dancers in ballet companies, the dearth of black male singers in opera, and the near total absence of black players, male or female, in symphony orchestras. (We'll have a black female President before a black woman becomes concert master of the Chicago Symphony, so that was one choice in the WSJ's little quiz that was easy to eliminate.)

If Misty is passed over, I doubt that there will be any groundswell of anti-racist sentiment against ABT. ABT's racial makeup is the rule in the ballet world, not the exception. After several years with no black women, NYCB now has one, so ABT, with two, is actually ahead of them. San Francisco Ballet has two, one of whom is Brazilian. Second tier companies are better, but black women who actually dance leading roles are exceedingly rare (although Houston Ballet and Nashville Ballet had black Swan Queens before ABT.)

When the Bolshoi Ballet toured the US in the 1960s, they had more black female dancers than any ballet company in the US, and one, Marjorie Scott, was an important soloist and coach. There were probably fewer than one thousand black people in the entire Soviet Union at that time. Yet when Balanchine wanted a black ballerina to dance with Arthur Mitchell in The Figure in the Carpet, he had to borrow Mary Hinkson from Martha Graham. (Does anyone remember that it was Lincoln Kirstein's original intent to form a company with equal numbers of white and black dancers?)

Theresa Ruth Howard's article is strangely passive-aggressive - she states multiple times that she isn't blaming Misty for the lack of recognition of other black women in ballet, yet she does just that repeatedly, by castigating Misty's PR team. If other black ballerinas are forgotten, or lack Wikipedia entries, how is that Misty's fault? Anyone can add information to Wiki.

Then there's the taboo subject of visibility. Misty doesn't have a "black body". She has a Misty body, unlike anyone else's, white or black. Most successful black women in ballet are light skinned like she is. Raven Wilkinson passed for white until she was outed in the south. Nora Kimball is half Japanese and scarcely looks black at all. Misty could have used her step father's last name and been accepted as "Hispanic", but her very insistence upon her black identity seems to annoy some ballet fans. She ruffles feathers by telling the truth. She also fills seats. Like it or not, she's a star.

[Plisskin]

Eh. Noone wants to call this backlash seen in some people for what it is to be honest. It's very much a reflection of the current American political climate and recent events in the last few years. Heck, few weeks. For instance, David Hallberg has articles in the NYT, Washington Post and elsewhere proclaiming himself as the "First American at the Bolshoi". He's said it in various recorded interviews even quite recently. Yet nary a peep from the same people typing up long winded negative essays about Misty's "First Black Soloist at ABT" mistake even though she's since corrected that going on 2(plus?) years now.

[nanushka]

Eh. Noone wants to call this backlash seen in some people for what it is to be honest. For instance, David Hallberg has articles in the NYT, Washington Post and elsewhere proclaiming himself as the "First American at the Bolshoi". He's said it in various recorded interviews even quite recently. Yet nary a peep from the same people typing up long winded negative essays about Misty's "First Black Soloist at ABT" mistake even though she's since corrected that going on 2(plus?) years now.

I actually just recently read one of those "long winded negative essays" about Misty that made reference to her false claim in direct comparison with David Hallberg's false claim. Sometimes the "They criticize X for Y when they never criticized Z for Y" claims make a very good point -- but sometimes, when one looks, one finds that they did in fact criticize Z for Y as well.

[Barbara]

I'd have to go back and listen/read but my recollection is that David Hallberg has referred to himself as the first American to join the Bolshoi as a principal dancer.

[Plisskin]

I'd have to go back and listen/read but my recollection is that David Hallberg has referred to himself as the first American to join the Bolshoi as a principal dancer.

Nope:

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/pueyvf/david-hallberg

The first one is from this year. I can find more but I'm on my phone. Interesting how there always a million and 1 excuses for Hallberg and other dancers but not Misty. Very interesting.

[nanushka]

Interesting how there always a million and 1 excuses for Hallberg and other dancers but not Misty. Very interesting.

What excuses have been made for Hallberg's false claims?

[canbelto]

Well in general (and in the old Misty Copeland thread) people said that Hallberg had earned his respect and so his claim was excusable. Which brings me to this main point: it seems as if a lot of people like David Hallberg's dancing so they give him a pass. But since they don't like Misty's dancing she's a liar, a manipulator, a self-promoter, blah blah blah.

[Moonlily]

Hallberg did not earn his rank as principal dancer because of his claim while it is feared that Misty's claim might play a role when she gets promoted - not being the sole reason however. Criticism is aimed at Misty on various levels, not just one and mostly parallels to other dancers can only be found on one of several levels. Some regarding Hallberg, some regarding Hee Seo and Isabella Boylston etc.

[Plisskin]

Hallberg did not earn his rank as principal dancer because of his claim while it is feared that Misty's claim might play a role when she gets promoted - not being the sole reason however. Criticism is aimed at Misty on various levels, not just one and mostly parallels to other dancers can only be found on one of several levels. Some regarding Hallberg, some regarding Hee Seo and Isabella Boylston etc.

So it's okay to lie as long as you "earn your rank"? Hmmm. Like I said, interesting.

[Moonlily]

It is not okay. But one accusation less. Misty: Lying AND possibly earning her rank by it (again, just a fear that some express; it might play a role, not be the sole reason). David Hallberg: Lying.

Why do you assume I think it is okay to lie as long as you "earn your rank"? Also very interesting.

[nanushka]

So it's okay to lie as long as you "earn your rank"? Hmmm. Like I said, interesting.

I don't read Moonlily's statement as an assertion that's it's okay for Hallberg to lie. I read it as a proposed explanation for why some people are more willing to make excuses for Hallberg than for Copeland.

I think one thing that happens in a discussion such as this, where people on both sides are emotionally invested in their arguments, is that statements get interpreted as meaning more than they actually say. In other words, one has a tendency to assume that the person one is conversing with has a more extreme set of views (in opposition to one's own) than they may actually have. Sometimes that's true, and there are people involved in these discussions who have firmly made up their minds on one side of the issue or the other. But there are a lot of people involved in these discussions who are genuinely interested in working through ideas, and their statements can easily be misinterpreted as being more rooted in an ideology than they in fact are. (I think this has happened at times in the context of this particular discussion thread.) I think it's important to try to see what others' words actually say and mean on their own, to the extent that that's possible. (I readily acknowledge that misinterpretations can easily occur and that I have been guilty of them.) Online communication is tricky, because we don't have each others' body language and tones of voice to guide us in interpreting their words.

[Helene]

The prevalent explanation for Hallberg's mistake is that he didn't know, which is what I think happened in Copeland's case. That he made the mistaken claim, and that people still think he never made the claim, hasn't been given as much weight in Hallberg's case and certainly isn't discussed as regularly as Copeland's. He has been excused for the mistake by some who've said that it doesn't really matter much, because he was a prominent principal dancer and didn't have much to gain by the mistake, while Copeland has much to gain by it. I don't buy that argument, and think that if there's a standard for this, he failed it as well.

I think there are several factors in Copeland's PR case. The first is that, as many have argued in different contexts, Copeland's case is unique and her life story is, in part, what makes her interesting to the media, in addition any discussion of racism, and that was the case when she was a teenager and her custody situation was a media thing. Were she a black ballerina who was brought up in Scarsdale and had been dancing since she was three, I doubt there would have been much interest if she had claimed to have faced racism, any more than it was when Tai Jimenez couldn't get a contract with a top NY company after Dance Theatre of Harlem disbanded.

I think there is room for, at most, two-three black ballerina stories in the media, which was Teresa Ruth Howard's point. We had, concurrently, Copeland, DePrince's personal story plus competition results, which covered several other bases, and Adams at the Bolshoi school, which is of less interest, since the Bolshoi now runs programs for and has many more foreign students. DePrince's AD put a moratorium on press access after her book was published, and, since she was dancing in Europe, that attention was likely to die out, like with Adams, who was overshadowed by the Hallberg story, because there's little room for more than one "American dancer in Russia" meme. No one has a story to take DePrince's allotted slot.

Apart from scandal, there aren't many more hooks. "Black ballerina joins Atlanta Ballet corps de ballet," might make a nice set of features in Atlanta, but "60 Minutes" isn't going to care about it. (When was the last time they cared: when they interviewed Gelsey Kirkland after "Dancing on My Grave?)

The singularity aspect of her story is, of course, a draw, and speaking about other more contemporary black ballerinas like she does about Wilkinson, for example -- and her PR person might be betting on this message and developed a strategy to keep it from being diluted -- but the idea that she should be sharing the exposure and the glory, I don't think would work well, because the media is not going to care about other black ballerinas without compelling stories nor in complex messages, ie, with more than one modifier. Statements like "I'm honored to be third in a line of black ballerina soloists at ABT," let alone naming them, I'm guessing would be edited out.

Copeland is also unique because she's aiming for the pinnacle of almost exclusively white ballet excellence, at least as understood in the US.

[kfw]

I don't read Moonlily's statement as an assertion that's it's okay for Hallberg to lie. I read it as a proposed explanation for why some people are more willing to make excuses for Hallberg than for Copeland.

I think one thing that happens in a discussion such as this, where people on both sides are emotionally invested in their arguments, is that statements get interpreted as meaning more than they actually say. In other words, one has a tendency to assume that the person one is conversing with has a more extreme set of views (in opposition to one's own) than they may actually have. Sometimes that's true, and there are people involved in these discussions who have firmly made up their minds on one side of the issue or the other. But there are a lot of people involved in these discussions who are genuinely interested in working through ideas, and their statements can easily be misinterpreted as being more rooted in an ideology than they in fact are. (I think this has happened at times in the context of this particular discussion thread.) I think it's important to try to see what others' words actually say and mean on their own, to the extent that that's possible. (I readily acknowledge that misinterpretations can easily occur and that I have been guilty of them.) Online communication is tricky, because we don't have each others' body language and tones of voice to guide us in interpreting their words.

Another excellent post, nanushka, thank you.

Isn't there any kind of BA rule against writing one excellent post after another??

Also, does anyone here want to claim Hallberg wasn't lying, like some people reject all possibility that Copeland was? What this site needs is a good debate. ;)

[Moonlily]

I don't read Moonlily's statement as an assertion that's it's okay for Hallberg to lie. I read it as a proposed explanation for why some people are more willing to make excuses for Hallberg than for Copeland.

Yes, thank you, this is what I meant.

I agree with your second statement as well; and I wasn't even expressing my own views on this matter exactly, but wanted to offer an explanation as you said. Some might also be more inclined to make excuses for the fame part as long as it is not connected to ranks and promotions. In Misty's case, many issues are intertwined while for other dancers who share some points of criticism, it's more clear-cut it seems.

[Helene]

Also, does anyone here want to claim Hallberg wasn't lying, like some people reject all possibility that Copeland was? What this site needs is a good debate. ;)

Once again, I don't think either was lying, given that there's no proof that either spoke with intention to deceive.

My standard is the same for both.

[nanushka]

Once again, I don't think either was lying, given that there's no proof that either spoke with intention to deceive.

My standard is the same for both.

There is a difference between saying, "I do not believe X was lying, because there's no evidence that X spoke with intention to deceive," and saying, "I believe X was not lying, because there's no evidence that X spoke with intention to deceive." I wonder if this difference is at the root of some of the debate between Helene and kfw in this discussion thread. Helene, which of those would you say best articulates your mindset in relation to Copeland and to Hallberg?

[fondoffouettes]

Just to put things in perspective ... one of the world's foremost museums and research institutions falsely claimed that a famous painting was appearing in NYC for the first time ever, and they then had to back peddle.

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/18/paintings-first-time-in-new-york-no-way-no-how-says-brooklyn-man/?_r=0

They had no intention to deceive, and they did their due diligence in checking facts; these things just happen sometimes.

It's really easy to get "first" claims wrong, even when you do all your homework. I can't imagine Hallberg, Copeland and their respective PR people dove into the archives to do their research. Today's PR firms probably think a five-minute Google search is all that is needed.

[Moonlily]

There is a difference between saying, "I do not believe X was lying, because there's no evidence that X spoke with intention to deceive," and saying, "I believe X was not lying, because there's no evidence that X spoke with intention to deceive." I wonder if this difference is at the root of some of the debate between Helene and kfw in this discussion thread. Helene, which of those would you say best articulates your mindset in relation to Copeland and to Hallberg?

I do not intend to discuss the discussion for long, but I wanted to add that part of the issue is also that users in this discussion have to handle different sorts of replies and claims all at once. Just now I noticed how I first explained why some might take more issue with Misty's "lying" rather than David Hallberg's "lying" because that was the topic at that moment - even though I do not believe in them lying either, in the heat of the moment I just forgot to mention that in my post. After that it got all focused on the "lying" and I failed to take a step back and clarify that it's all just in case someone assumes both are lying which isn't necessarily true. It's a very entangled matter.