nanushka

That seems like a useful way of thinking about it: concept and execution. I'm curious how much of a say Stafford will have in the former, though. Will he give much input? Will he exert his veto power? Will he care to? Will he need to? Will he have the temperament to? All remains to be seen. (Or not — since much will be out of view. But still, I'm curious.)

Whelan has been named "associate," not "assistant," but yeah — Kourlas seems to be working from an assumption that the structure is supposed to be one of equal power but really isn't, and that irks her: The thing is, they didn't decide to have two people share the top position. I wonder if the way the announcement has been rolled out by NYCB has contributed to that impression. Completely as a side note, I found it quite ironic to read Kourlas, of all critics, expressing concern over the idea that chumminess might preclude objectivity in artistic discernment:

Gia Kourlas has a strong take:

I wouldn’t necessarily take it that way. I read the main purpose of her post as being to celebrate the placing of a woman in a strong leadership role in the company. To be sure, silence can speak, but I don’t think it necessarily has to. Bouder is committed enough to (and vocal enough about) women’s issues that I can imagine her posting that remark without thinking too hard about the optics.

Nancy Goldner has a good discussion of the piece in her excellent book More Balanchine Variations.

Yes, I think it could be really good and hope it works out. Here's how the Times article ends:

He certainly seems to have behaved unwisely if he hopes to see his works remain in the active NYCB repertoire.

The write-up in the Times: https://nyti.ms/2EEOHsD

There are several ballet-focused blogs that have reviewed multiple performances, though none that I can link to here.

Certainly possible. If so, he obviously didn't communicate that very clearly to Stafford, who found the change to be "jarring" and "upsetting."

Nor I. But that’s quite separate from the question of what Bouder does or does not think about the morality of hierarchies. My point was that clearly she does think that’s why Martins made the change.

Given that the hierarchy exists, Bouder perhaps has a right to expect that it would not be dispensed with merely for the sake of retribution. That's apparently what happened. She may or may not be "in favor of maintaining hierarchy." One would have to ask her. Are there specific public statements she's made that suggest her currently voiced concerns are hypocritical? Keep in mind that the sentence you've quoted is written by the author of the article, not spoken by Bouder herself. (All we know is that Bouder was originally cast for opening night, and then later — late enough that it was jarring to Stafford, Bouder and others — the casting was changed.) As for what feminism "should be about"...there are lots of different answers to that question. I wouldn't presume to know what Bouder herself thinks. Bouder could think that it's not great to have such a hierarchy but, if it's going to exist, it shouldn't be dispensed with at the whim of a powerful man who's angry about having been criticized by a woman.

Kyle Froman (former NYCB dancer and now professional dance photographer) writes in the comments:

Those you follow seem to show up first. Also listed there (though ABT, not NYCB) are Skylar Brandt, Scout Forsythe and Zhong-Jing Fang.

I just clicked to view the likes, and Roman Mejia and Erica Pereira are among the 7 that first showed up on my screen, without even scrolling down.

He doesn't, actually:

Exactly. If the article and Bouder are deepening the rifts in the company, Martins is too. Bouder is likely not the only one who thinks that Martins' action was retaliatory. The article states that the move "jarr[ed]" and "upset" Stafford and that he's concerned that "the dancers' interests" need to be "protected":

Mearns actually just recently posted about dropping Lilac on her IG:

There’s a weakness of leadership that’s inherent in the structure of an organization and there’s a weakness of leadership that’s inherent in the character of the leader. I don’t think those are the same thing.

I do wish we had a direct quote — but yes, it almost certainly was. So far as I can see, this is the only part where Bouder is cited as having directly commented on Hyltin: That said, if indeed Martins acted in retaliation for her previous public comments, and if one believes some of more troubling allegations that have been made against him (not at all a given, I know), the hashtags on Bouder's Instagram post today carry some force: #timesup #speakout #nomoresilence #standup #nomoreretaliation #speakoutforchange #thisisnotok

Certainly, but that's not all that apparently happened. Also from the article: I'm not necessarily disputing your broader point about the article—but the problem was apparently not quite as simple or minor as how you've characterized it. Bouder is not the only one who's outspoken in the article; so is Stafford.

In what way do her words suggest that she is naive to that fact? She didn't say or suggest that NYCB, as a workplace, was unique in being led by a tyrant (her word, not necessarily mine), so far as I can see. From the fact that there are multiple tyrants it doesn't necessarily follow that a person shouldn't call someone out for being one of them.

Still, they could easily send a strong message (if "they" = new leadership inclined to do so) by dropping those works that aren't so essential, and thus demonstrating that Martins' actions have consequences. As a result, they may not in fact be stuck with his decisions and control. If it means his works (other than a few box-office necessities) get dropped from the repertoire, he might change his behavior. If he doesn't, his power and presence will be diminished.

According to the Times, Peter Martins remains an unwelcome presence at NYCB: https://nyti.ms/2NiDDUT Bouder had some particularly harsh words for him:

Sara Mearns has a nice IG post about (not) dancing Lilac Fairy: