Calliope

As an ESPN watcher, I am not fond of all of the ads, but some are very tongue in cheek. There are several ads running before films, hopefully they don't go any further on the "dancer" campaign. I think most of the ads start (or end) "without sports..."

Is it me, or does it seem all of the women have a pinkish-red streak running across their eyebrows? And who'd have thunk it, Rachel Rutherford seems to have a nose stud! Unless that was poor alterations

In talking with different people about this, specifically the reaction to the Columbia tragedy, there almost seems to be a "disconnect". And I don't mean to discount what's happened by any means. But I think maybe because it was an accident, there's a different response. I think in a post 9/11 world, when tragedies occur, it becomes a media event and everything becomes a little more sensational. Ebay had to take pieces (alleged) of Columbia debris off that people were auctioning. That in itself made cnn this morning. And I don't want to rephrase anything else Alexandra just posted !

Here are some quotes from Twyla Tharp from the Richmond Times-Dispute on 1/31/03, that are relevant. Dance should be much more accessible in our culture than it is. It has become identified too much as that which is rarefied and elitist, as opposed to something that is made for all of us, and something that is our natural birthright," Tharp said. "I'm known for seducing people into believing that dance is relevant to their lives. You know what? It is. You know why? Dance is basically the primary art form, even though we have lost track of that. Without movement, you have no art, without movement, you have no painting."

A little of both. If you're taught to write with your left hand and then told to switch, it's difficult, unnatural even. But to put a dancer in a different company, and ask them to keep the style the usually dance with, would be like putting an electric guitar in the middle of an orchestra. Not to say neither the dancer or the guitarist doesn't know what they're doing, they would just be in a foreign environment.

I bought the Panasonic too. I admit to being a techie. I have a Tivo, which has a bunch of ballet performances still on it, so I transferred it to DVD. Perfect digital quality! Panasonic also released a VHS/recordable DVD machine, that is the easiest way to transfer, and you don't have to worry about the quality. For those wanting to buy the recordable DVD, I would wait a year or so, for the price to go down.

I think opera/music have the historical advantage, in that Bach, Mozart, Chopin... all got to write down what they did. The notes are not very disputable. It was also more flexible in performance. You can sing, play in your house, outside, in a hall, in your neighbor's house. You can quite do the Rose adagio in any of those places. And since ballet is a such a physically demanding art, it would be virtually impossible to learn all the styles. A port de bras at NYC Ballet is far different than the Royal Ballet's. And because of these company styles, the dancers are not as interchangeable. Nor are the ballets. Not every company can do a Manon, Sleeping Beauty or Giselle. And as for "knowing the past stuff so you can enjoy the new" is precisely the reason so many of us are concerned about certain aspects of ballet. Some of these companies are losing that "past stuff".

They learn the steps, they essentially sell the tickets, then they have to go out and perform. NYCB even has a "dancer of the week" which hasn't been done because they can't get the dancers to sit down for the interviews. Do dancers have an obligation to do p.r. as well?

Does a critic have an obligation to have to say something nice for every time s/he says something not nice? I like Gottlieb, he at least gives a reason he doesn't like something, and there's no sugarcoating. I think it would be foolish for a critic to think s/he could get an AD removed, any more than an AD should feel empowered to be able to remove a critic. Much like we tell dancers not to pay too much attention to the press, and many out and out don't read reviews, should the same be asked of AD's?

No, no, no. There should be no say from the company. If you look at today's reviews of NYCB, Clive Barnes in the NY Post basically trashed it, Kisselgoff in the Times loved it. It makes me wonder sometimes if they've seen the same performance, but it also makes me skeptical sometimes because certain critics never pan a performance/company. For a company to have any influence, the thought just makes me bristle. They might as well just have a staff member review the performances. That's why I value the criticism pieces (in the New Yorker) because it's an overview of the season (usually). For a company to have a say though, it wouldn't be criticsim, it would be marketing. Now I know that's a hot topic and everyone likes to speculate whether or not critics are in the back pockets of directors, but it's a flawed system that doesn't need any more influences. Otherwise we'd never have an objective opinion, which is what I try to think of critics as. Case A & B, not good. Case C, that's kind of a tough one, if the AD has been critically acclaimed elsewhere in print... well, I don't know, I've seen reviews in small markets that are basically "she looked fabulous in a short skirt, and the way their arms moved was like butter..." so it depends on the market and if the critic is actually "qualified". It could be that the critical acclaim came from small markets too, I'm sure middle of nowhere appreciates any ballet they get and write fabulous reviews, but since they rarely ever see anything. Goodness Alexandra, what a loaded question!

I think Alexandra hit's the nail on the head with media influencing a lot. Considering American ballet, is derived from all the others, I don't know that's it an americanization that's occurring. Right now it seems every company has "gimmicks" whether it's dancers who jump the highest or have the most exaggerated extensions, or like City Ballet has coming in the spring, we have an actor narrating (Wheeldon's new piece with John Lithgow) The Balanchine Trust ensures some "standards" by which it's performed and it's probably cheaper to do something that's already considered "successful" as opposed to trying to come up with something new to sell tickets. In most of the large companies, I feel the basic goal is to make money, not art. Which is quite capitalistic.

sorry, I did intend for new ballets, just not 15 that you'll never see again! A "carefully tended repertory", are there any of those left :rolleyes:

I have to admit, I haven't read it yet, I don't know much about Royal Danish or Kronstam. which is probably why I should read it! But everyone's comments have pushed me to go get it, so I'm ordering from Amazon today!

It can be applied to so many aspects, but let's stick to repertory first. Would you rather see more new ballets, hoping for that diamond in the rough (sorry for the pun) or would you rather see fewer ballets and have those be well rehearsed, performed, dancers not "thrown in" ....

I'll still never forget Whelan's Aurora debut, I remember wondering if she could pull it off, and she blew me away. Made me think twice about stereotyping!

I suppose we need someone to define classical ballet first. So I'll let the "experts" do that With the "neo-classical" ballet/modern mix forms somewhat dominating company repertoires, is the art evolving classical into extinction. I have to rephrase, because classical ballet will always be taught, but will it always be performed?

I don't know if early exposure makes a difference. It could make the wrong impression. It's like reading a book in high school, and then reading it again later in life, when life experiences make it more pertinent. I know a lot of people that didn't go to the ballet when they were younger, I think there's another thread still up on a British male writer, who's a perfect example. And would someone who's exposed to ballet now have a different "educational" background as opposed to someone who say it in the 50's or 60's? Obviously the length of time will be different, but will the evolution of the art make a difference?

I'd like to know what Maurin defines as connoisseur. I think there are certainly ballets that are "popular art", I think ballets like "Stars & Stripes" "Western Symphony" and "Nutcracker" qualify. Perhaps popular art in this case just means that anyone off the street would "get it"

Rumor going around is that Nicholson asked her to wear the outfit. All silly Hollywood speculation. As for the attention factor, hey Ms. Boyle is being talked about on a ballet chat board! Most of the fashionistas agreed, she didn't out Bjork, Bjork, but it was close.

Jack Nicholson said that "she's either a prima ballerina or a prima donna" It was a nice publicity stunt, as bad as the outfit was, she got people talking about her.

I was on vacation this past week down South and my relatives teased me about living in NYC which is an "over-cultured" city. So I asked them about high art, they said that's the "stuff that makes it to the sticks and sells"

Well I wanted to see if Miss Cleo was really a fraud or not, so I phoned and she recommended that I post this I'm kidding. So if ballet is a high art, are all ballets automatically high art? I was talking with a friend and the subject came up based on new works being created and whether or not they fell into standards with previous works. And is a more "modern" ballet company, one without an institutional past, do they fall under the same classification? My opinion, is I think money is the determining factor. And I have pre-empt this by saying, I mean none of this personally, I just think there is an education, whether it's by fire, or by family, as to high art. And I think nowadays, at least it seems, at least in ballet, that money is dominating what's being produced. And the real "art" is being done by the "struggling" artists, because they don't necessarily have a built in audience to please. I question whether or not art has lost it's "innocence", because so many people try to make a living out of it. Therefore, you almost have to make money, unless you're fortunate to be wealthy. Reading over my statements, I realize that it's so personal, I don't even know if there is an answer.

The phrase has been used a lot, which arts are considered "high art"? And are they still considered, today, to be "high art"

I always considered "Square Dance" to be very Americana. And Robbins ballets always had that youth that was so representative of the times (Fancy, West Side, Interplay) Aside from sports, the only thing else that really seems to give people American pride is war. Perhaps it's the short history, but...

They're photographed in Glamour's Feb. issue. Fashion shot.