Dancers "sponsored by"
Posted 23 October 2002 - 09:20 AM
Then at the end of the programs performances were "underwritten by"
What does this all mean? And is this new?
Posted 23 October 2002 - 09:30 AM
Posted 23 October 2002 - 09:46 AM
Does that mean the "sponsored by" is the salary and the individual performance "underwritten by"?
Just to play devil's advocate. Isn't that like "buying" casting?
Posted 23 October 2002 - 09:53 AM
It's certainly a debatable question. One the one hand, if a company wants to get the best stars and can't afford them, is it okay to turn to donors and say, "We need $25,000 to hire Dancer X. Can you come up with it?" There are questions, of course, as to what that does to the home team, but that's another issue.
On the other hand, what if I've won the lottery and want to see Dancer X. He or she may be over the hill, or trained in a completely different style -- or, in the opinion of the company director, not good enough. One would hope that, in that case, the director would say, gosh, thanks, but wouldn't you like to donate to a new wing of the studio instead?
I think part of it may be that onceuponatime people gave money to the arts because they believed in the arts, and because of noblesse oblige. That's dead too now, mostly. Now people want to see their name on something -- the back of a seat, in some opera houses. Or "This new ballet has been brought to you by"....and so, I suppose, it's easier to get money if you think that your $10,000 (or whatever) is buying a particular performance.
I wonder, though, if the marketeers are making assumptions, and trying to sell the performances, where another road would work just as surely, if it were properly explained.
I am really afraid we will live to see a ballet where the dancers wear baseball caps with "Pepsi" on them, or Sominex really will present "Sleeping Beauty" -- and Carabosse will give Aurora a spindle in the shape of a Sominex tablet, with the words of the brand writ large upon it.
Posted 23 October 2002 - 09:59 AM
I can just see the anti-depressant company's lining up to sponsor Giselle already!
Posted 23 October 2002 - 10:03 AM
Posted 23 October 2002 - 10:56 AM
Posted 23 October 2002 - 11:51 AM
Posted 23 October 2002 - 11:52 AM
Posted 24 October 2002 - 08:49 AM
Posted 24 October 2002 - 11:24 AM
Sorry...couldn't control myself....
Posted 25 October 2002 - 11:03 AM
This started as a way to raise general operating funds when dance started going out of vogue - late 1980's - and AIDS, etc. became the place to give. Adopt a Dancer campaigns to buy pointe shoes for a specific dancer allowed donors to see their contributions onstage as well as build personal relationships with the company.
Finally, please bear with artistic directors to a point. They have a tremendous obstacle in raising the monies to present what you all love onstage. Raising even fifty thousand dollars is not easy and takes so much time away from a director's love - working in the studio with dancers. Also, when you see companies paying tens of millions to place their logo on stadiums or in movies, the temptation is great.
Posted 25 October 2002 - 04:23 PM
Having said that, is ABT's defection from AGMA (the union) also allowing them to do this?
Posted 25 October 2002 - 08:43 PM
Isn't it also common practice for guest artists to be sponsored?
If sponsorship is becoming more commonplace, does that open the door for wealthy families to subsidize the contracts of sons/daughters who might not otherwise be offered company positions? Or does that practice already exist in other forms?
Posted 26 October 2002 - 08:08 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases (adblockers may block display):