Kathleen O'Connell

Some of those names are pretty good (Ajax! On the short list for the next pupper!), but a lot of them are just not dog names. KATniss? No. Just no. Mystique? Bovary? Now, Mewstique for a glamorous ball of white floof YouTube cat would be awesome ... and I suppose Mewstique's YouTube dog frenemy might be Bowvary. Ok. I'll show myself out. PS - Isn't naming your dog Cujo kind of like naming him Cerberus?

The Brahms-Schoenberg finale is one of Mearns' best roles, along with Walpurgisnacht. I don't want to take anything away from Kowroski (and I hope she's OK), but right now Mearns is just blowing the doors off of the Rondo alla Zingarese. It's the kind of Balanchine role that suits her talents and her temperament as if it had been made to order for them.

Eh. I see no reason to give him that much power. He's on the roster, like it or not. If there's a program I want to see, I plan to see it whether he's on the casting sheet or not.

The Onion has a take. Grumpy Cat may be gone, but this meme lives forever.

I've seen Reichlen's Titania several times and I think she's quite good in the role; she's especially lovely in the scenes with her retinue. But honestly, I've started choosing my Midsummer Night's Dream performances based on who's cast in the Divertissement. NYCB seems to have no trouble coming up with a reliably decent Titania, but doesn't always nail the casting for the Divertissement. Out of Bouder, Fairchild, Hyltin, and Lovette, I'd choose Hyltin. Also, I'd avoid Pereira's Hermia if I could. She is so much smaller than the rest of the cast that she looks like a child dancing among grownups, which I find really problematic in the Lovers' secenes. It goes without saying that Laracey is a lovely Hermia, and I'd be very interested in seeing what Gerrity does with the role.

Here a link to some footage from Bartók Ballet that NYCB posted to its Facebook page. There are parts of the ballet (and, ahem, the score) that aren't this frenetic, but the clip is a decent sample of what the work looked like on stage. Not everyone is going to like this work, and that's OK.

I really do think that someone who's unfamiliar with Tanowitz' choreography might have trouble finding a way into Bartók Ballet on a first viewing (or even repeated viewings). It can seem like she's allergic to the kind of gracefully curved line that's a hallmark of ballet vocabulary, or the resolution of a phrase into a position of balanced repose. The Bartók score itself is an added complication. I love it, but it is definitely tense and dense — there are parts where I can feel my muscles tightening up just listening.

Not particularly. I've seen Ib Anderson, Peter Boal, Benjamin Millepied, and Adrew Veyette dance Oberon. Although Boal and Millepied weren't tall dancers per se, they also weren't short powerhouses like, say, Horiuchi.

Some quick takes on NYCB's 5/12/19 Matinee: Program and Cast Valse Fantaisie (Balanchine) - Pereira, Ball A Suite of Dances (Robbins) - Ulbricht Bartók Ballet (Tanowitz) - Hutsell, Kitka, Miller, Nadon, Smith, Villwock, Woodward, Alberda, Applebaum, Fahoury, Henson Bright (Peck) Adams, Gerrity, Mearns, Bolden, Janzen, Scordato Western Symphony (Balanchine) - Phelan, Stanley, Pollack, Angle, Mearns, Mejia 1. My companion, who is professionally connect to the dance world but who was an NYCB first-timer, observed that the afternoon felt akin to attending a Fall For Dance performance, and I don't think she meant it as a compliment. Frankly, I found it hard to disagree. 2. I found a lot to like in Bartók Ballet and look forward to seeing it again. I know and love the Bartók string quartets, so I didn't find the music to be a barrier to enjoyment: it's not pretty, but I think it is very beautiful. I also know and love Tanowitz' choreography: some of the things I like best in her work turned up in Bartók Ballet. I might not have enjoyed the ballet as much as I did if I had to simultaneously wrap my head around both Tanowitz' and Bartók's pointed departures from, for lack of a better term, "common practice," but I walked into the theater knowing what to expect, and that might have made all the difference. (I listened to String Quartet No. 5 just before I left for the theater, and was interested to see how Tanowitz would deal with certain aspects of the score, e.g., its folk rhythms, the sound effects, the way it ramps up tension and barely releases it, etc etc etc.) I liked seeing how the dancers dug into everything Tanowitz gave them to do. Gretchen Smith, who has worked with Tanowitz before, and Devin Alberda looked absolutely terrific; Bartók Ballet is very much an ensemble work, but Smith and Alberda seemed to be in the point of focus a bit more often than their colleagues. But really, everyone shone. 3. It took me longer to type in the cast of Bright than it did for them to dance it. It was harmless, I guess, and lord knows Gerrity, Adams, and Scordato could use more time in the spotlight than they're getting, but I wish they had gotten more than this trifle. 4. I have no love for Western Symphony's Schlock and Awe. It did not help that half the cast just bored me out of my skull.

Two thumbs way, way up for Jowitt's Time and the Dancing Image! I've read it through twice and refer to it often, and every time I do it triggers a new insight or prompts me to think about something in a new way. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Jowitt doesn't make critical assessments or that she's "neutral," but she makes every effort to describe things objectively and in good faith. The book is out of print, but there are plenty of used copies to be had at practically give away prices, so there's no excuse for not grabbing a copy. Nancy Reynolds' and Malcolm McCormick's No Fixed Points surveys twentieth century dance generally and has useful chapters on ballet was well as modern and postmodern dance.

Very sad, but dying peacefully in his sleep at the end of a long and fruitful life serving both his art and those who would learn from him surely takes away some of the sting.

Congratulations!

Well, there is a Cunningham work in NYCB's repertory (Summerspace) and Balanchine himself invited Martha Graham to collaborate with him on Episodes. I'd consider some of Martins' choices to be further removed from the ballet mothership than Cunningham—or Tanowitz, for that matter, who is in a clear line of descent from Cunningham. On the evidence of The Runaway, I'd say Kyle Abraham was more intrigued by the potential of classical ballet vocabulary as exemplified by the NYCB dancers he worked with, than, say, Angelin Preljocaj. (To be clear, I don't much mind that NYCB has commissioned works by Preljocaj; Spectral Evidence is a cherished guilty pleasure and I delight in an occaisional La Stravaganza hate-watch. But enough with the Bigonzetti already. I can't even hate-watch Oltremare.) I won't see Tanowitz' new work for NYCB until next weekend, but I have seen a lot of Tanowitz and to my eye, she doesn't just know the steps (and she does know the steps), she's also alert to their potential as a vocabulary. Here are some excerpts of previous work she's presented with ballet dancers you know, plus and excerpt from Goldberg Variations, with members from her own company. When I look at works like these, I see a choreographer who is more than open to the possibilities of ballet's vocabulary, and not just its wham-pow effects (like extreme extensions, blinding speed, and pretzel partnering). Here's an excerpt from Day for Night for Vail with Joseph Gordon, Calvin Royall III, and Gretchen Smith: Here's Solo for Patricia with Patricia Delgado: ETA: Solo for Patricia is followed by another Tanowitz work, Entr'acte, which looks a bit more Merce-y, but is very much in line with Tanowitz' work. Here's Blueprint, also with Delgado as well as two dancers from Tanowitz' company: And finally, an excerpt from Goldberg Variations:

I've seen Baily Jones in two featured roles recently—the Fairy of Courage (Sleeping Beauty) and the Waltz of the Golden Hours (Coppelia)—and based on those performances I expect she'll do well.

Just some quick notes on Wed 4/24/19 The program: HALLELUJAH JUNCTION: Hyltin, Stanley, Ulbricht [Solo Pianos: Grant, Moverman] HERMAN SCHMERMAN: Mearns, Pollack, Phelan, LeCrone (replaces T. Peck), Ball, Alberda, Sanz (replaces T. Angle) THE EXCHANGE: Kowroski, Phelan, Dutton-O’Hara, Wellington, *Pereira (replaces T. Peck), Gerrity, Hutsell, Kretzschmar, *Danchig-Waring, Scordato, Applebaum, Huxley, Gordon, *Alberda, Henson, Hoxha [Solo Violins: Delmoni, Kuo; Solo Viola: Kang; Solo Cello: Zlotkin] CONCERTO DSCH: Mearns, T. Angle, Bouder, Garcia, Huxley [Solo Piano: Gosling] I had to skip Hallelujah Junction, and while my life wasn't materially altered for the worse, I'm sorry I didn't get to see Hyltin and Stanley dance since they are two of my NYCB favorites. As far as I'm concerned, Devin Alberda was the star of the evening, or at least the MVP. He looked terrific in his featured roles in Herman Schmerman and The Exchange and was eye-catching in the corps of Concerto DSCH, too. He's been a beautiful dancer since day one, but he was on absolutely fire on Wednesday evening. His take on Forsythe's choreography was particularly fluent and on point. No matter how knotty, extreme, or off-balance the steps were he made them look logical and even beautiful. Bravo. This was my second viewing of The Exchange, and much to my surprise, I liked it a lot more that I did the first time around. I wouldn't rush to the theater just to see it, but I won't mind seeing it again. I wish the company could ditch the costumes for the second phalanx of women (led by a much improved Pereira on Wednesday) though: they look like big red tablecloths draped with no particular skill, and flatter no one. It was really good to see Danchig-Waring back on stage and dancing at what looked to be full strength and also good to see Pereira tear into Peck's role with a purpose. Over the past few seasons it's seemed like Mearns has been hell-bent on dialing everything up to eleven whether the choreography called for it or not, and, to my eyes at least, her dancing was starting to look forced, effortful, and drained of nuance. So it was a delight to see her blaze through Herman Schmerman and then promptly turn down the heat and soften her attack in Concerto DSCH. She looked really good in both. Garcia looked great in Concerto DSCH, too; his role required him to match Bouder and Huxley step-for-step, and he did not suffer by comparison. I was sorry to read above that he might have been injured. If the new regime is giving dancers like Alberda, Pereira, and Garcia new leases on their careers, then please let's have more!

I remain agnostic as to the extent to which Ramasar and Catazaro participated in the most egregious of Finlay's group chats. (The details provided on page 12 of the complaint suggest that Ramasar did actively seek out explicit photos: "52. On May 21, 2018, another NEW YORK CITY BALLET, INC. principal, Amar Ramasar texted Mr. Finlay, "I love you! Text me those, photos/videos!!") Since I don't have to work with either man—and they are men, not boys—it's not for me to say whether or not his colleagues can or should "move on." That's for them to decide.

My impression from Waterbury's complaint is that both Ramasar and Catazaro participated in group chats with Finlay in which explicit photographs of their female colleagues and peers were exchanged. Since the texts in the aggregate have not been made public, we have no way of knowing the extent to which either man was a participant in the denigration of their peers and colleagues, and my original post did not in fact accuse them specifically. Rather, my point was that the activity couldn't be dismissed because "it had nothing to do with work." When one suggests that one's colleagues and peers should be tied up and abused like farm animals—whether it's because of their gender, their race, their religion, their sexual orientation—it has everything to do with work no matter when and where it takes place.

I would consider some of the comments the participants in the group chat are alleged to have made about their female colleague and peers to be derogatory in the extreme, e.g., "I bet we could tie some of them up and abuse them... Like farm animals" to which defendant responded, "Or like the sluts they are". Calling your colleagues "sluts" is not essential to survival.

Do we have any evidence of that other than denials from the defendants? Which claims have been disproved? I'm not challenging the assertion, I just haven't been following the developments in the case particularly closely and I honestly don't know if any of the allegations that matter have been confirmed or denied.

If the allegations made in Waterbury's legal filings are factually correct, a number of men in the company or connected with it in some way circulated explicit photos of or made derogatory sexual references to other dancers and dance students.

I will add that I believe that genuine remorse for the harm one's behavior has caused to others, accepting responsibility for that behavior, and making a good-faith effort at restitution is something we can encourage and embrace. So is forgiveness. Banishment is not the only course of action; but redemption requires more than regret at being caught or a mealy-mouthed "I'm sorry if anyone was hurt" by way of apology. Perhaps "counseling" is shorthand for that difficult process.

Had Finlay texted derogatory comments about his colleagues and peers based on their race, religion, or sexual orientation, and, had the recipients of those texts willingly participated in the conversation, would we think he—and they—should be allowed to remain in the workplace?

Just FYI: 1) I don't often sit in the orchestra, but when I do I actually prefer to be further back because the rake is a little better that it is in the rows closer to the stage. (I also prefer sitting further back and a it off center to get a better view of the choreographic patterns, but that's a matter of personal taste.) 2) Also, if you ever want to see what the view is like when you are buying NYCB tickets, all you have to do is go to a date on the performance calendar, click on buy tickets, go to the section of the house that you're interested in, and then, when taken to the seating chart, click on the little camera icon in the upper left hand corner of the screen to enable a bunch of clickable camera icons spread over the seating chart. Click on one of those, and it will show you the view from that part of the house. (I hope that's clear!)

I'd rather evaluate an artist's oeuvre on the basis of the work itself and on its influence than on the artist's bons mots. In the specific case of Picasso, one also gets gems like these: "Women are machines for suffering." "For me, there are only two kinds of women: goddesses and doormats." “Every time I change wives I should burn the last one. That way I'd be rid of them. They wouldn't be around to complicate my existence. Maybe, that would bring back my youth, too. You kill the woman and you wipe out the past she represents.” "To make oneself hated is more difficult than to make oneself loved." (If the testimony of his family and the many women he used up and abandoned is any evidence, I gather he rolled up his sleeves and really dove into the difficult work of making himself hated. Ideally we could just ignore an artist's biography too, but that's hard to do.) I think Macaulay's pronouncement that he cannot rank Walker Evans with Pavel Tchelitchew based on the evidence of MoMA's Kirstein exhibition is at best glib. Roberta Smith's response—"Who's ranking?"—redirects the discussion in a more useful direction, which is to try to place these artists in context and understand why Kirstein esteemed them rather than their (ultimately) more famous and influential contemporaries. (I'm frankly intrigued by the fact that Kirstein championed both Evans and Lynes: it's difficult to imagine two more different sensibilities.) Still, I'm glad she pushed back on Macaulay's assessment of Evans. Just nodding my head in violent agreement. A little video of Smith and Macaulay walking through the gallery together and chatting about what they were looking at and their responses to it in real time might have been delightful. But I think the print (ahem, or words on a screen) product should be reserved for a more considered assessment. Oh, and I hate the article's headline: "Lincoln Kirstein: A Modern Tastemaker With Some Iffy Taste." "Iffy" isn't the term I'd use to describe Kirstein's choosing the figurative over the abstract. I wouldn't want to spend too many hours of my life looking a the work of Paul Cadmus, but it's not like it's junk and I can see where it slots into the art history timeline next to Otto Dix and Max Beckmann. (Looking at "The Fleet's In" makes me think that maybe R. Crumb is his real heir ...) I can also see the link with Lynes. I feel your pain. I happened to change offices at work many years ago, and my predecessor had installed a very large framed poster from some Bonnard exhibit or another on the wall right across from the desk. There wasn't any money in the departmental budget to replace it with something different, and there was a prohibition on hanging something of one's own without permission, so I had to look at it for what felt like an age until I managed to leap through enough bureaucratic hoops to get something more suitable for day-in-day-out gazing up on the wall. I vastly prefer Bonnard's exact contemporary (and fellow Nabi) Édouard Vuillard, who doesn't seem to get the "room after room" treatment nearly often enough. ETA: since Evans, Cartier-Bresson, and Dorothea Lange have been mentioned in this thread, I thought I'd enthuse about their much less well-know but wonderful younger contemporary William Gedney, who works in the same tradition, along with his own great contemporary, Robert Frank. Just about the whole of Gedney's work has been archived at Duke University and just randomly pointing and clicking at the collection unearths wonders.

Artists are certainly free to trash talk each other as much as they like, though I will note that they tend to trash talk their rivals rather than their peers in other art forms. I read your comments as somehow justifying Macauley's dismissal of Evans in favor of Tchelitchew, which is an entirely different kettle of fish altogether. Picasso was indeed very good at getting people to talk about Picasso.