nanushka

I don't think it's really possible to quantify these two things, which is what would be necessary to make such a comparison.

I would actually be surprised if this convo hasn't already taken place –– albeit apparently off the record, too bad!

Either that or a reference back to Irina?

...on the other hand, she does have some social media presence, and the fact that so many of her former ABT colleagues have been completely silent there regarding her departure (a huge contrast to the many tributes to Vishneva) is really striking, and disappointing. There have been some exceptions. But why such total silence from dancers such as Gomes and Whiteside (both former frequent partners), Murphy (fellow senior principal), etc? Is it self-protection? If so, that seems extreme.

Oh yes, I didn't mean to suggest that. I just meant that the fact Part doesn't even engage to the degree of other non-Misty principals (e.g. Murphy, Whiteside, Boylston, etc.) suggests that if she's aware of how essential having a mass audience following can be, she hasn't acted on that awareness in that particular way.

She's also saying those things in what's undoubtedly an extremely frustrating, troubled, stressful time –– which of course is not the best time for one to be posting publicly on Facebook. She may well have a sense of that in general. If so, though, she hasn't shown a strong interest in all the sort of social media-based "personal brand management" that has become so common. And on the last point, you're certainly right.

This is an interesting theory, but couldn't Vishneva's share have covered Shevchenko's rise from soloist to principal? If I understand you correctly, Khawly was sponsoring Vishneva as (semi-)principal, Part as principal, and Shevchenko as soloist. Would sponsoring Part and Shevchenko both as principals have really made a difference? Part also wrote on FB that a sponsorship had been offered for her but that ABT declined. Edited to add: Sorry for the redundancy. I see now that aurora made the same point above.

Beautiful tribute, Drew. I hope and think you're right about this. I feel immensely lucky to have been here now to see her.

I'm sure we could "imagine" lots of things, but what would those imaginings be based on? As for her reputation –– I've never heard anything like that and would be curious to know your sources.

I still haven't been quite able to bring myself to watch. Maybe tomorrow. :/

I disagree, personally. I think of numerous male dancers as being quite beautiful. My problem with "handsome" is that, historically, it has been used as an adjective to describe women who "are not feminine in the way I [the speaker] think they should be." I think it's used for a dancer such as Part precisely because she is not delicate and conventionally sylph-like. In other words, I think it's an insult (by those who think in that narrow-minded way) disguised as a compliment.

Doesn't your point suggest that "handsome" and "beautiful" should be equally objectionable?

I agree, somewhat. But the ending counts. It's a final statement of how one was valued. And not only at the end but also along the way many of us believed she was not valued in accordance with her talents. A "very fine career" for a fairly senior principal generally does not include quite so many Wednesday matinees as Part danced as recently as a few years ago.

And one other: "handsome."

I see what you mean, but I'm not too worried. Can you imagine what the public would do if ABT were to treat David like they just treated Veronika? He certainly may not be kept on as a full principal, but I can't imagine they'd go as far. Plus, he'd have a lot more post-ABT options than Veronika likely has now. I'm certainly not worried for him –– perhaps just worried for us, that we may not see as much of him as we'd like in future years.

She's been reported in the press as being 5'8. Not sure of the others' exact heights. I don't really buy the idea that the lack of potential partners was a determining factor. The need for tall partners is just as good a reason as many others for giving promising male soloists a shot at principal roles, and they could have done so more with Hoven, Forster, etc. They chose not to. If they wanted Part to dance, there were people around they could have had her dance with.

I was particularly curious about Whiteside, who was backstage taking pictures in jeans shorts and a t-shirt (as shown in public videos and pics on Instagram), but who did not appear onstage, correct? And I believe they have a pretty good relationship. Edited to add: ...as demonstrated in his caption on this IG post of his (love the duck icon, a reference to her name!):

In part, perhaps. But to be fair, she also had quite a following in her own right.

Yes, as we've seen there are certain dancers who are allowed, or welcome, or encouraged to stay for quite some time after age 39. Gillian would certainly seem to fall in that category. At least that would be my guess.

This is an interesting detail; I didn't realize that. I've heard that there are some age-discrimination protections that kick in when a dancer reaches 40. Does anyone know if that's the case or know any further details about that?

We were having exactly the same thought.

I'm recalling now what Veronika wrote on FB, quoted above (in bold), along with the suggestion fondoffouettes made at that time.

Certainly. It's always essential to clearly identify what is merely speculation or possibility rather than fact.

Yes, I certainly don't think Christine or Devon themselves deserve any blame for this (and I know you weren't suggesting that, abatt), but it's hard to avoid the speculation that KMcK wanted to keep his options open to see how the female soloists did this season, then decided on a rather large number of female principal promotions (when's the last time we saw three soloist-to-principal promotions at one time for a single gender?), and subsequently decided to send Veronika packing.

And here I thought this was the day I was going to get back to focusing on work instead of ballet!