citibob

Mel, why is it so important to discredit any autistic diagnosis for Edison? And also, why not Einstein? It's true, most autistics are not savants. But there are many very bright autistics. "High functioning" autism is defined by a score of 70 or better on an IQ test (that is, within 2 standard deviations of "normal" score). Temple Grandin is much more than "high functioning". She is actually quite a brilliant woman with a PhD, one who has had a significant effect on an important industry. No she's not a savant, but most brilliant people who have made significant contributions to our world are not either. It's likely that autistic people span the range of intelligence, just like others do. Many things that others take for granted, the autistic person must learn carefully. The most intelligent autistics with a keen eye for observation and analysis will eventually figure these things out and can go on to great things in life. They maybe be labeled "high functioning" or not even labeled at all. Just because they've figured out how to deal with the world does not mean they're no longer autistic; it just means they've figured out how to pretend to be normal. The story is very different for less intelligent autistics. If they never achieve certain skills --- such as talking --- then they will fall further and further behind their peers as time goes by. They will consequently score very low on IQ tests and require institutionalization, no matter what their intelligence could have been. It's like being locked inside a box with no way out at that point. These people get all the press because they're so obviously "disabled". The education of the autistic child must focus on unlocking the box and teaching the child to deal with the world. If that can be done, then the autistic child will grow into an autistic adult whose gifts can be recognized by the larger society --- whether those gifts are great or small. Raw intelligence can never hurt in this process.

As for Thomas Edison, one can search Google and come to one's own conclusions. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-...G=Google+Search

If you find focusing in the studio to come easily, then you're probably not autistic.

I have now idea why this thread ended up in Aesthetic Issues. I find the article somewhat sensationalistic and somewhat short on serious discussion about autism. I might point out that no matter what you think about this kid, he IS a Jazz phenomenon --- and you and I are not. That simple fact SHOULD give one pause before using terms like "damaged" in reference to his frontal lobes. No, I do not feel sorry for Matt's parents. Not at all. It's like feeling sorry for the parents of Albert Einstein or Thomas Edison, both of whom were also autistic. Anyway, autism is hereditary and parents of autistic children are often autistic to some degree themselves. And that helps them better understand how to raise these children. As far as dance goes: yes, there are genius autistic professional dancers. No, autistic dancers do not master steps after they are demonstrated once. But a great intelligence, photographic memory, etc. can help one progress through the levels of the academy a LOT faster than for most students. I have seen it twice now. Adherence to the technique and structure of ballet is the autistic dancer's great strength. Autistics are visual thinkers. One autistic dancer with photographic memory imagines how she wants the step to look and then makes her body do it in the mirror. Also, autistic dancers tend to know better the details of what the choreography is SUPPOSED to be --- there is less slip or slide in their minds as in the minds of other dancers. Never just "oh let's do a tombe pas de bourree and get on with it." And they know what the steps were last year and what changes were made between last year and this year, and how the dance developed from the year before as well. The weaknesses come in the dramatic aspects of the art: the on-stage relationships, what the dance is trying to portray, the nuances of meaning in the movement, even working with a partner. And especially maintaining a focused attention. With care, all these aspects of the art can be mastered over time. However, the typical ballet academy or company is typically NOT a good environment for the autistic dance student or professional dancer. There are many reasons for this.

In things of trends, it often seems everyone is copying everyone else. A recent trend in ballet imagery is that of the ballerina in "everyday" settings. I think it started with NYCB and dancers lounging around en pointe in Central Park as if they were part of the scenery. It's not such a big step from there to dancers walking dogs, especially since dogs and Central Park kind of go together in the New Yorker pshyche.

Interestingly, the same large organization has had a profound impact on what's going on at SPAC and the Wang. Apparently, this is not an isolated incident...

Same thing is happening in the technology world. But I read an interesting take on it as compared with Europe. Europe was termed "pro-market", whereas America was "pro-business". That means that Europe tries to set things up to give everyone a fair chance. In contrast, America sets things up to make existing businesses profitable --- "what's good for GM is good for America", etc.

One of the behind-the-scenes players in the recent Nutcracker turmoil in Boston is a certain media company against which the Wang Center must compete. That company owns 1200 radio stations, or 11% of ALL radio stations in the USA -- and a greater percentage in major markets. It is also doing the best it can to monopolize on live entertainment, which (among other things) is making it hard for the Wang to compete. According to December 2003 Harper's Magazine, many live shows go from one venue to the next, all owned by this same company. They are told where and how to perform --- lest they risk losing crucial exposure on a major portion of the radio stations in the country. "[As a band] there's only one place to go --- and it doesn't matter whether or not they make you a fair offer. And pretty soon, they don't have to make you a fair offer. And they can decide what band is playing and what band isn't." One executive in this company, when asked why they are seeking to dominate live music as they do radio, said: "People attending a concert are experiencing something with tremendous emotion. They're... vulnerable." This level of concentration of power should scare anyone who values American democracy. Freedom of speech was ensured by prohibiting government censorship, so that the government could never control the media. What good will that be if we end up with a few major corporations controlling the media? Ballet is entertainment, maybe it isn't so critical to democracy. But Rock Music has always been a crucible for political reform. If Rock Music can no longer gain an audience if it displeases those in power, we really have lost something critical to our democracy. And of course if one company owns so many radio stations, what are the political ramifications to someone who holds views contrary to that company --- a political candidate, for example. How will those views ever be aired? In this light, it seems that the future of the Nutcracker might be the least of our worries. Something to think about... [There was an indepth article on this issue in December 2003 issue of Harper's Magazine. All quotes are from that article.]

Mel, I'm using "postmodern" in its technical, not literal, sense. The postmodern (in the literal sense) is quite modern (in the technical sense). In fact, modernism (in the literal sense) is quickly fading into history.

The modern age started with the Enlightement. The basic idea is that things are knowable, ordered. Knowledge can be broken down, reduced, each part studied separately, and reassembled. There IS a truth, and we will set out to find it. Modernist philosophy is reductionist, plodding, careful, linear. Modernism seeks to resolve tension. It's what gave us science, and we have seen great benefit from that. Clearly, modernist thinking has a lot going for it. In ballet, you might call the classical narrative ballet modernist. This happens, then that, then that, then she dies and that's the end of the story. A linear plot line can be traced through it all. Postmodern thinking came about with greater awareness of other cultures. Suddenly you had two people, one saying "A is true" and the other saying "A is false". We see this all the time when you bring any two religions together, for example. Postmodernism lives in constant tension. You don't live with "either A or B" but "both A and B". It questions the idea of one absolute truth --- replacing it with a truth that is relative to the observer. The postmodernist doesn't seek to resolve tension in his life --- but rather to get the right amount of tension between conflicting goals so life can be lived inbetween. Kind of like winding up a violin on each end until it sounds the right note. The web is also postmodern. No longer do we sit down and read a whole document --- we jump from hyperlink to hyperlink. There is no longer a single linear narritive thread to it all. My AD's dances are also postmodern in their narrative. Yes, they are narritive --- but only to a point. The narrative comes in bits and snatches that can be arranged --- or rearranged --- according to the viewer. You cannot sit down and write out a libretto to the action you see happening on stage. Postmodern architecture shows a similar strand. It borrows from any and all styles it sees fit. You might get a modernist cube sticking out of a wall of classical columns, for example. I can point to several postmodern architectural elements around Boston, but it wouldn't mean much to someone who doesn't know Boston. But we should be glad for it. Postmodern architecture finally put an end to modern architecutre --- and its associated barren concrete walls and brutalist concepts. We're entering a postmodern age. Generation X and Y are definitely postmodern, the web generation. If you're older than that and you don't have some sense of sympathy to postmodernism, you will lose your grandchildren.

Charleston already had two companies. But supposedly, ASB was supposed to serve a wider region. Another problem was their disdain for hiring Americans. I learned today that English National Ballet is allocated two work visas per year. They regularly turn down qualified non-British they would otherwise like to hire, in favor of British dancers. Until Globalization becomes universal (probably not a good idea), there will/should always be restrictions on hiring foreigners. And yet here was an American company that showed very little desire to hire American dancers...

I read an article somewhere that the company had officially folded.

More gamepieces: * The sweaty tights * The SMELLY pointe shoe * The mirror * The sprung floor * The water cooler * The limping dance teacher

Festival Ballet Providence already puts up the Nutcracker in Providence. Not only would they be likely displeased to see the Boston Ballet nextdoor, it's also unlikely that BB would find enough ticket sales in a small market like Providence to meet their needs --- Festival Ballet has only 5 performances of Nutcracker 2003. I think any talk of taking BB's Nutcracker on the road --- or putting it up in a significantly smaller space --- would entail a different production.

It always feels wonderful to have the professionality of one's company publicly questioned by someone who does not know it. Our Nutcracker has 20-25 dancers. It is often described as "intimate" by the press, but rarely "spare". We also have one of the lowest injury rates in the industry. Maybe it would look sparse on the Wang stage, but we've never put it up there. The fact is, a performance on a smaller stage in a smaller auditorium doesn't require as many dancers to fill it up. In any case, hiring more dancers would not be a problem for Boston Ballet. As was pointed out earlier, they only hired 2% of the dancers who came to audition. They could easily hire another 2% for Nutcracker if they wanted to, just like Radio City hires its dancers for the Christmas season. Good dancers are easy to come by. Since dancer salaries are only a tiny fraction of a production's budget, hiring more dancers for the same number of ticket sales wouldn't necessarily blow the budget. (The scenery costs an ENORMOUS amount, and many of these costs are recurring. In past years, advertising has tried to wow us by telling us how many tons of confetti were used for the snow scene --- and then not recycled. I wonder how much that costs...) I wasn't saying that the Wang Center is the largest auditorium in the country, although it is certainly one of the bigger ones. I WAS saying that BB's Nutcracker is the largest Nutcracker in terms of TICKET SALES. I have a hard time believing that the ticket price for the Rockettes will be any higher than for Boston Ballet's Nutcracker. Nutcracker tickets already run about $90 for good seats, even $36 for lousy seats. That is more than NYCB, more than ABT, more than any show I've ever seen on Broadway. Probably that's because there is less competition than in NYC. I just cannot imagine the market bearing anything more than $90 per ticket at this point. More likely is that the Rockettes have reigned in production costs. They pay their dancers very well. But orchestra, sets, etc. are probably all on a MUCH smaller scale. I agree entirely. However, that is not their problem with the Nutcracker --- they can still sell plenty of Nutcracker seats, probably enough to justify the Wang Center for them. However, what is the Wang Center to do the rest of the year with such a big theater? In general, the entertainment and media industry seems to be moving toward more choices, each one in a smaller venue. Big screen cinemas have given way to multiplexes. ABC/CBS/NBC has given way to 250 Cable channels. And I really, really believe that the future of ballet (and live theater in general) lies in a larger number of smaller productions. Along the lines of choice, here's an idea for those who like the Holiday show but are sick and tired of seeing the Nutcracker for the hundredth year in a row... BB could produce MORE THAN ONE Holiday show. One could be a scaled-back Nutcracker. The other could be something else with a Holiday theme. It could certainly backfire if done wrong, but it could also bring back customers who used to see the Nutcracker but got bored of it after a decade. And the real dance afficiandos would buy tickets to both... We have a definite shortage of theater space in Boston. We need more small-to-midsize theaters, and we need them more in places like Cambridge. The articles seem to indicate that part of the problem is with the Wang Center itself --- that they have a hard time paying their own bills. Mel, do you know the address of the Tremont Street Theater? It isn't Tremont Temple Baptist Church, is it? That was always a church... (but is now facing the same problem as the Wang Center, that of filling the seats). Look at it on the bright side, in Cambridge we converted a Baptist Church into a theater.

Yes, that's what I mean. Clearly it would require some re-tooling. The suggestion comes from the observation that whereas BB's business model of the 100,000+ Nutcracker is in danger, plenty of ballet companies do just fine financially on smaller productions. That combined with the fact that BB is many times the size of those companies means that it too could play the mid-size Nutcracker game as successfully as anyone else if it wanted to.

There seems to be a belief in the world of ballet management --- probably borne out by actual ticket sales --- that the same old stuff is the most predictable way to produce a show and ensure a certain number of ticket sales.

I'm not talking about touring. I'm talking about mouting multiple small stay-in-one-place productions rather than one that's the biggest in the country. There are surprisingly few economies of scale in ballet, and it could easily turn out that this is at least as profitable a route to take as the current one.

The Rockettes have put on shows in many cities. Both they and the Wang Center probably know what they're doing. Web polls are not a very accurate indicator of Rockette ticket sales. By virtue of its nature, the Web poll is going to attract mainly people who have a distinct interest in the article it accompanies --- namely, those who would rather not see the change. Yes it is --- but it has also been shrinking for many years. Any rational business model must either take this into account or figure out a way to reverse the decline. One must question the artistic value of being the biggest or of having the most tons of confetti for snow. Boston Ballet is big enough, it could put on multiple Nutcrackers in smaller auditoriums --- just like it now has multiple schools. It could do a smaller downtown Nutcracker, then one on the South Shore, one in MetroWest and one on the North Shore. That might help boost ticket sales by making it more accessible to the communities that support it. Depending on how it is done, it could also reduce production costs --- not to mention the possibility of employing more dancers in an age where there are thousands of great dancers with no work prowling the streets.

Radio City Music Hall in NYC is definitely live and kicking as a live venue. They advertise a variety of shows at their building throughout the year. But that has little to do with the touring production --- which is more of a brand name. I do not know how many touring or satellite companies there are --- probably as many as they feel they can do. I know someone who danced for them for their Detroit company a few years ago. Apparently they pay dancers very well, even better than Boston Ballet. One has to think about it. Their tickets probably aren't any more expensive than those to Boston Ballet's Nutcracker and they don't have donors (they're for-profit). So what are they doing right that they can pay their dancers so well, pay the Wang Center so well, and still end up with a profit? Makes one wonder... Construction of new venues is VERY expensive. If BB cannot pay for the Wang Center, I cannot imagine it could put up funds for a new venue either. I suppose the hope is that maybe someone else (taxpayers?) will pay. In any case, the construction of additional holiday live entertainment assumes an expansion of the holiday entertainment market at $90/ticket. How many families of five are likely to watch Radio City AND Boston Ballet? Simply the presence of Radio City in town will probably eat into Nutcracker ticket sales. I expect that the Wang Center has been operating just like any other business --- the price it tries to negotiate probably depends on the demand for theater space at that time of year. It would certainly be willing to provide non-profit organizations space at a lowe rate --- as long as that space is provided during lower-demand times of the year. Of course, the Holidays are peak theater season. It is no surprise the theater would want top dollar during those times. I would not expect the Wang's non-profit status to depend on the non-profit status of its tenants. It should also be clear that the City of Boston did not send the Nutcracker packing --- the Wang Center did. That is their right. We may love ballet, but we cannot force that on others. As for Mateo's experience with the Nutcracker at the Emerson --- actually, the show was sent packing because the Emerson underwent renovations and simply COULD NOT house the show in 2001 and 2002. Mateo's Nutcracker therefore moved "temporarily" to the company's new space in Cambridge. It involved a LOT of changes. But after two years in the new space, organizational will to move back to the Emerson waned. It will go up in Cambridge now for the third time in a row. Why? Most fundamentally, it's probably because the "new" downsized Nutcracker was at least as good for the bottom line as the "old big" Nutcracker, even though there are only 25% as many seats to sell and actual ticket sales are down 66%. The Emerson costs a LOT of $$ to rent as do all the downtown theaters --- not to mention the logistical hassles involved. The new theater also has a bigger stage, more room to control and organize 100's of kids backstage, and is easier on everyone's nevers. Marketing is also easier --- it is VERY easy to fill the smaller number of seats that ARE available. Makes one wonder why we pay so much for the downtown theaters... For this reason, I do not see the situation as hopeless. Will things change? Yes. Will the "new" Nutcracker be smaller, both in budget (scenery) and audience? Almost certainly. Will it destroy the organization? Probably not. There is a lot of potential. But to see that potential realized, people will need to engage in some creative problem solving and be willing to make some changes. Based on the above quotes, it seems that is exactly what Boston Ballet's executives are doing at this point.

Problem with suburban venues is they're very hard to get to for people who live on the OTHER side of Boston.

What we've learned from the software world is that copyrighted, proprietary software has a short life --- it is lost as soon as the company that wrote it decides it is no longer in their interests to continue developing and marketing the software. Software that is NOT copyrighted in the traditional sense --- and is freely available to anyone who wishes to look at or use it --- seems to stay around forever and keep growing and improving. It seems that the same is true for ballets. Ballets that are tightly held by their creators live a LOT shorter lives than ballets that are not. That is one reason Balanchine's works are used so much these days --- because he put a system in place to allow and encourage others to use them.

I think what irks me here is that in this case, a non-profit institution has spent resources doing something that is clearly not in the best interests of its customers. We're used to that kind of behavior from for-profit corporations --- they answer only to their shareholders and only secondarily to their customers. But non-profits are different, since there aren't really shareholders in the traditional sense. I think this is probably the result of someone who decided that ABT needed to be managed more like a "real" corporation, so it can balance its bottom line. Probably, the board brought in some top management brass with corporate experience. And now we see a company that looks more and more like Coca-Cola every day --- first in its advertising and marketing, now in its possesive approach to intellectual property as well. Whatever the cause, I think that if you make contributions to ABT and you like to watch ballet in New York, then you need to ask why the company is now doing something that will diminish --- not enhance --- your experience as a ballet lover.

It's sad, but in the computer industry schoolyard bully has become de rigeur over the past few years. As with Les Sylphides, it has also resulted in a general degradation for everyone. I can cite dozens of recent cases that are just as hideous --- and probably have a more direct influence on our lives as well. Intellectual property laws in the United States really, REALLY need to change --- and this ABT case is just one example of why. I think my point here is that ballet is a microcosm of the rest of society. Wow! But I'd believe it, too. Wouldn't it be neat if ABT instead spent all that money on getting new choreographers to make something great in 3 days?

In my experience, a good director will be able to get dancers to dance the way he/she wants in significant ways, even in just one season. Dancer turnover is often high in small companies (and even in many large companies; witness the recent YEARS of chaos at Boston Ballet), but to label a group "pickup" just because it's small is somewhat insulting. It demeans the director's ability to get what he/she wants. It degrades the hard work put in by the dancers who have been there year after year and who form the core of the company's artistic personality. In this case, it also degrades the hard work Farrell has put in to build a training program --- not at all the norm for a small company. To suggest that Peter Boal has a greater influence on the dancing that Suzanne Farrell, even though he's only there briefly to guest, is also insulting. Peter Boal is certainly a great dancer ---- but so was Suzanne Farrell, and she DOES run the company. I consider any dancer who gets to dance with her to be rather lucky. I am therefore not surprised that people who have seen Ms. Farrell's company say it dances with a consistent style. I would not expect anything less from someone of her caliber. It is the ONLY way a small company such as hers could attract and maintain national attention for as long as it has.