l'histoire

On 1/2/2018 at 7:58 PM, kfw said:

Does one rarely seen ballet really perpetuate any kind of stereotype? To whom? Who in 2018 is really so unintelligent as to think less of Asian women having seen Bugaku? Unfortunately sometimes it's precisely the insistence, well-intentioned as it is, on having serious conversations monologues in which one opinion alone is considered respectable and others are labeled shameful that makes the people most in need of education turn away. Some are racist; few are stupid. 

Well, yes. When it's part of an entire cultural construction that presents the Orient in a certain way, it does - it's part of it, part of the post-war history of it. It's not just Bugaku; it's not just the ridiculous Chinese dance in the Nutcracker (as someone who literally makes my living studying Chinese performance art, I still have no idea where the "index finger in the air = Chinese!" thing comes from, and it seems that's finally going by the wayside - good!), it's not just blackface or ridiculous Orientalist plots strung together so we can see some beautiful ballerinas doing their thing (as in a great many ballets of late 19th c. origin). It's all of it, and the long history of it, and there is a l-o-n-g history of it. 

The idea that all East Asian countries "borrow" from each other in the same way that, say, Europe has "borrowed" anything from "the Orient" or created Le Corsaire or Madame Butterfly is rather absurd - this is not how cultural flow has functioned in East Asia. There was borrowing yes, but with an entirely different inflection when we're talking "Japan taking on the Chinese poet Li Bai" versus "Raymonda" (or Bugaku). 

It truly isn't a matter of someone watching the ballet and going "Oh, wow, now I see, Japanese women are subservient sex toys!" - it's the matter of something perpetuating things that *already alive and well in the dominant culture.* Again, do I think that was Balanchine's intent? NO! But he wasn't immune to imperial Russian or US culture. How could he be? I would love to see Bugaku as a leotard ballet, truly, versus how it exists now, which is basically a leotard ballet trussed up in bizarre clothing (horse hair wigs and cocktail umbrellas and flowered bikinis - Seriously? I say that as someone who finds the tutus from the 1st part quite beautiful, and yes, resembling a lotus, despite the hair and makeup. But I think I'd find Kent & Villella - or contemporary artists - just as moving in practice clothes as weird wigs and half-dressed, truly). 

And, bluntly, my experience as a professor (of East Asian history - I'm not just yammering on here with no basis in my own professional experience) has been that many are racist, and many are ignorant - not stupid - but it means that it is not a given that the sorts of cultural signals some people read as obvious ("Oh hey this is pretty racist!") read as such. 

I don't think Asian cultures "need protecting." I just think they have the right not to presented in often profoundly absurd, sexist, orientalist ways. I teach students semester after semester the AMAZING cultural - social - political achievements that have happened in East Asia over the centuries. Were this not a ballet board, I could go on at length. 

4 hours ago, pherank said:

I'm wondering if you think the most offensive element is actually just the face paint worn by the dancers? During the Heian period, the aristocratic women wore distinctive makeup and hairstyles (the aristocratic men too actually) so there's an obvious tendency to go with a similar look. I haven't seen the present day NYCB perform Bugaku though, so I wonder if the face paint is still being used. I also wonder if Japanese audience members find it at all offensive to look at.

Gonna go on a limb here, but I'm p. sure Mr B. knew little-to-nothing about Heian-era aesthetics (also, the women had blackened front teeth & umpteen-thousand layers of kimonos in that period, which is not exactly jiving with my experiences with Bugaku, but your mileage may vary. The spectacular photo of Kent & Villella features Kent in a flowered bikini, which I'm quite certain was not authentic Heian-era gear. Perhaps someone does do it with 18 layers of kimono on the woman? If so, I'd LOVE to see photos, and I mean that sincerely). 

The issue with cultural appropriation is not that people borrow from other cultures. The issue is that there is a power imbalance here & always has been (at least since the 19th c. on) - "I can borrow from you, transform you to my liking, AND HAVE THE PLATFORM TO DO SO'- the reverse is not possible, and it contributes to other issues, whether we like it to or not (I've only seen Bugaku on recording & rather like the ballet - think it's quite cool in a lot of ways! - but also recognize that it's Really Problematic). The "borrowing" is always done from a dominant culture, frequently for reasons of feminizing an Other. I sincerely doubt that Balanchine was TRYING to do this in Bugaku, but this is the insidious nature of "orientalism," etc: people aren't TRYING to perpetrate these things, but they do, because of overarching views on the Other, or the Orient (among other things). And that's precisely what makes them so insidious, and why they need to be called out. You shouldn't have to be in blackface or yellowface for someone to say "Oh hey maybe this is problematic." 

Dear Aurora, thanks for confirming my thoughts!Anna Johansson wears a classy, puffy tutu. Not a saggy cheap cocktail dress as in the ABT faux-Bakst Follies!

I've been registered on BT for years, but haven't bothered to comment before this; I think aurora's point was that the late 20th c. hooped tutu has not always been standard. The in-between look of the Mariinsky version is equally as 'ahistorical' and, dare I say it, silly looking - at least, that was my impression viewing the clip (Ratmansky's point that one does not show one's underwear to the czar - nor a ruffled tutu panty, presumably - is well taken. Pick one, was my thought upon viewing the Mariinsky clip). Furthermore, IMHO, trying to create the same kind of aesthetic with a long, puffy, bell-type tutu as seen in the Wiki photos with today's dancers - who look NOTHING like late 19th c. dancers - would look ridiculous. Part of the reason those old photographs look so nice is the balance between the larger bust, the very narrow waist, and the flair after the hips. Pray tell, who on stage today could replicate that look (no one, because that's not what ballerinas look like today)? Perhaps the "cocktail dresses" should have a little more "oomf" below the hips, but they look very nice in motion & also play into the aesthetic the creators were after.

I find the big platter tutus that flop over ballerinas heads in penche, among other moments, extremely distasteful, but they're all over the place. I think the softer, non-hooped, loosely-tacked "Karinska tutus" used in a variety of Balanchine ballets much more aesthetically pleasing - but I don't complain about the 'pancake' tutus; that's the aesthetic these days, regardless of how attractive it is.