Alexandra

Bruce E. Fleming has raised many of these questions in a collection of essays called Sex, Art, and Audience, most, if not all of which, I believe, initially appeared in DanceView. I remember his "men in tights" article, in which he postulated that straight men are used to baring their chests -- that's "masculine," it shows off the muscles -- and are comfortable watching men with naked chests, but cannot drop the eye below the waist with any degree of comfort. I wanted to comment on kfw's point about watching bad ballet, because I think it raises similar issues. kfw wrote: I know men who will happily attend the symphony but balk at ballet. I've had friends who I knew not to take to a local Nutcracker, but I thought might like the Kirov. "It's a decadent art form," one glowered. "Oh, my God!" another said at first intermisison (of the Bolshoi's "Raymonda") "The whole night is going to be like this?!!!!" It wasn't the prettiness -- although that opens up another wormy can; what's wrong with prettiness? Gautier liked it! -- and it wasn't the tights, it was more personal aesthetic, I think. They hated ballet, but were perfectly happy at Pina Bausch or Forsythe. As for European/American differences, in Denmark there was, until quite recently, no problem getting boys in the classes and men in the theater, and I think part of it was that there were good roles for men. Little boys could see a place for themselves on stage. The "men in tights" issue was a big one backstage. "I didn't need to wear the white tights," older character dancers would say, with obvious scorn of those who did. (That's gone now.) But one thing that is different there is that the dancers are more integrated into society as a whole, it seems. Alexander Kølpin said he came to ballet because his next door neighbor happened to be Niels Kehlet and he'd talk to him when Kehlet mowed the lawn, asked him what he did, and learned he was a dancer. Among university-educated young men (I obviously don't know all of them!) there is a theater/opera/ballet going habit. I thought Copenhagen was "enlightened" in these matters until an American friend introduced me to her Danish sailor husband. "Alexandra just came back from Copenhagen and watching the ballet!" she said, and he nearly ran. Literally. Shifted from foot to foot, "Oh, I don't know anything about things like that," as though -- to relate to Leigh's story -- I had accused him of something. Of what? Being homosexual? Or simply being one of those awful people who likes art? Or perhaps was merely very uncomfortable that a topic about which he knew nothing had been raised?

Check out Judith Mackrell's look ahead to 2003 (dance events in London). One of them is the news that Carlos Acosta will choreograph his own autobiography (and presumably star in it!) http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/st...,861920,00.html

I think the difference is that you can begin a modern dance career at 22, but you can't begin a ballet career at that age. So for anyone who has a chance at getting into a good company, college has to wait. The only program about which I know anything is the one at Indiana University. Violette Verdy teaches there and there's an interview with her on the main site Verdy interview She said their students do get into companies, but not the biggest ones. What I thought might come out of the universities, though, were university companies -- although I take Leigh's point that you're unlikely to get the best art unless you have the best dancers. But a university could provide the infrastructure for a company, and, using unpaid student labor , lots of rehearsals, training in lighting and costume -- and collaboration with musicians!!! I don't think the young modern dance scene is any healthier than ballet right now, not that I ever bought into the idea that modern dance is inherently creative and ballet is inherently anti-creative. I think you learn by working with masters -- whether the master is Balanchine or Graham. Interesting that Graham produced great rebels, and Balanchine produced imitators. But I think that's an accident of history.

I've read many references in English books, newspapers, and magazines over the years about the "tights in the provinces" problem, that when ballet tours small towns -- where, apparently, people go to the theater to see whatever is playing so they can heckle them -- tights cause a problem for the local populace. (Not saying this happens every time in every town, but there were letters to the editor in Dance and Dancers about it.) So many good issues have been raised here -- I hope people will go back and read through on the last page to see Mel's post-911 theory, and Leigh's AIDS theory, and Paul's account of the AIDS-innocent sexual choreography -- I'll bet that turned off the general public; it would have out here! I think citibob made a good point about attention to line being considered effeminate. Attention to anything unathletic is considered effeminate; not gay or straight, as Paul pointed out, just effeminate. I remember during one Olympics our pair skating champs were a truck driver and a waitress -- don't remember the names, but I remember the bios. And Truck Driver met Russian skaters for the first time and was openly envious -- Not fair, he said. We have no exposure to artistry here. It's great to have affirmative action for boys, but if you're not educating the other boys, the ones who are the donors, audience -- and editors! -- of the future, you're only doing part of the job. (Citibob, the best affirmative action for boys was Alonso's in Cuba: Castro gave her carte blanche at the orphanages and she "recruited" toddlers with ballet bodies.)

Just to slip in a quick comment -- kfw, the construction worker ideal is from women's magazines in the 1970s. There were articles about it -- can a college girl date a construction worker? The opinion was ventured that they were, er, more adept than college boys, etc.

Thank you for all of these! More fun to read them than to watch the Nutcracker I saw More please!! This may be the only view we'll get of ballet around the country.

Yes, we're not disagreeing Paul, and I'm very glad to have such an impassioned defense of high art on this board! What I meant is that I don't think high art consciously sets out to tell The Truth (it does it inherently, if it is high art; does that makes sense?) Saying that one is telling The Truth and you'd better listen would be cause for mockery. I thought you were writing from the Texan's viewpoint But the result is Truth, if it's art And I agree that there are people -- probably because they're NOT educated, and mistrust something that seems so arcane and that has never been explained to them -- for whom art does raise anger, resentment, and the weapon used against it is mockery. (Next stop, accusations of elitism, then cutting off the funding, then book burning.) As for Barry being a comedian -- of course. And if you deconstruct his piece, you could read it as an apologia for getting interested in ballet through his daughter, but in Guy terms. I'm not suggesting we all write an email to Barry telling him how ignorant he is, just examine some of the reasons WHY this piece would be written -- he knows his audience. He knows there are more "I like it when the guy dumps the girl in the bushes too" people than those who'd prefer to see beauty. vagansmom, I hate to blame television for everything, but who else is there? We don't read, our attention spans are 30 seconds long at best, we need everything delivered to us in a jingle. We didn't get that way without help! So I agree. And of course there are many men who do like ballet and many women who'd rather watch the dog play frisbee (a squadron of dogs doing this, information, might qualify as a ballet). I've read several men on message boards saying they didn't discover ballet until they were 30, 40, 50, etc. because they thought it would not interest them and were angry at the lost years. I think that's a crime (not for the men, but for the schools that didn't teach them). And when read stories like this, I always wonder how those millions of dollars of grants for dance education are being spent!

Maxi, I thought it was funny too -- but it does raise stereotypes about ballet that many who love dance hate, and what's disturbing is that there are many more Dave Barrys out there than there are guys who go to the ballet. vagansmom, I agree -- it's education. The older men I know, men who were boys before World War II (so now, very older men!) all went to the ballet when they were kids, and they love it now. Post-War men -- maybe it's televised sports, maybe it's that the arts aren't taught in school, but they don't go (and many women don't too, of course, but women aren't usually writing the articles and complaining about the tights ) dirac, haven't ballet and opera have been high art since the de Medicis? Dancers don't have respectability -- and no art has respectability in America, except among the dread "elites" -- but I think that's a different matter. Apologies to Paul, whose first post I somehow missed -- but I think what you wrote "Manly men are back, and they're rather loud about it" is very true. The fashion turned in the '70s, with my generation. Slender, elegant poetic types were out, beefcake was in. Seven Sisters girls hooked up with hardhats. Why brains and brawn are mutually exclusive I don't know -- it's the male equivalent of Dumb Blonde Syndrome -- but yeah. To be manly, you have to spit in public, avoid the arts, and be, well, loud about it

I don't know whether Dave Barry is Texan or not -- he writes from Florida now, I think. Do opera and ballet really cry out to be parodied? This is one American instinct that often makes me cringe -- Robbins will almost do something beautiful, and then have to put in a handstand to let you know he really didn't mean it; a lapse in taste -- the beautiful part, not the handstand. Or Eliot Feld, in the same case, will have his dancer step in something (snicker snicker) nasty. Why? I've always loved the Trocks -- mostly because they are the only company, when they're at their best, that cares about some of the same stylistic niceties in ballet that I do, but I have friends who will only go to the ballet with me when it's Trocks time. The rest is boring, or silly, or whatever. But I've never thought that opera and ballet -- or serious theater, or any of the other high arts (I know one isn't allowed to say that any more, but I do, and I don't care ) claim to tell The Truth? It's much easier to mock than to create, and it's very, very hard to create excellence on a high level within the restrictions of high art. When what's produced is good, I don't think it evokes parody. When a production is pretentious, then it does. But parodying it just for the sake of poking fun -- why? I don't think ballet and opera are inherently pompous, but I think that the Barries of the world do. I've always assumed it's that they grew up in a world where art had no place. If you grow up in a world where it does, all the suspicion, and urge to deflate, and mock, etc. seems odd.

Thanks for posting that, Calliope. That interview refuses to die! Of course, neither the interviewer nor the magazine had any ill intent in this. There were reportrs afterwards that his career had suffered for it -- but we put that down to gossip. I'm glad that it worked out for him in the end. TimeOutNY articles seem to make it on line about a month after they're out; I'll keep looking for this one and link when it's possible. I'll soon be putting up articles from past Ballet Alerts and DanceViews and this interview will be one of them

Yes and no, dirac I think there are instances of looking at something and saying, "Oh, how stupid" and then, as farrell fan indicated above, coming back to it a few years later when you know something about it and understanding it I took one look at demolition derbies and decided I didn't like it I don't think that digging deeper into the culture and mores will make me like it any better, but I avoid it, I don't mock it. From where does the urge to mock what we don't understand come? There's something about ballet -- and opera -- that seems to threaten some people. Dance, too, generally; no matter what the costumes, modern dance and modern music can make people like Barry squirm -- and attack it in writing, or cartoons, or just nastiness around the water cooler. Art is threatening? Citibob, I think your comments about effminacy are right on, and despite several decades of "consciousness raising" and "equality for all" it persists. Little girls are given boys names; boys named Sue are still rare (FF, when I was growing up, my aunt would come in, look at the television when my father had a football game on, sniff, and say, "Silly little men chasing that ball up and down the field." However, her take on ballet was equally sniffy: "Look at those silly people jumping around." Her idea of culture was sitting still and reading or listening to music As for sports, I saw one baseball lgame. My father took me to see Ted Williams because he was "the greatest player." He was with the visiting team. We sat near some horrible men who yelled obscenities at him throughout the game, trying to unnerve him. I've never liked baseball since. I used to like football, though, before TV ruined it. )

I think the discussion above was a theoretical one about creativity ex-institutio or within an institution. But in the article, in the section on the difficulty of fundraising it said: "The center may also affiliate with a local university." There are a lot of ways to "affiliate." It could mean that students could take courses at the Center for credit in exchange for some revenue, say. But it's not a project generated by a university.

I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone here knows -- I think you posted this awhile ago and there were no responses. There is a French language forum on Critical Dance -- www.criticaldance.com -- with quite a few Paris posters and someone there may know. Or you might try the newsgroup alt.arts.ballet (It's a newsgroup that you should be able to access through your browser. If not, go to www.google.com and search for alt.arts.ballet.) Good luck! Of course, we'll leave the post up here and hope that someone who knows RF will see it.

I loved the story about his daughter signing autographs in "the lobby." It is funny, but unfortunately I think he does reflect the opinions of many men, at least American men, about ballet. And it is ignorant -- and hard to combat. A delicate question, but why do men go bezerk at the sight of men in tights? Women are confronted with naked and half-naked females day and night and we don't run out of the hall screaming. Is that the reason? That women are conditioned to it throughout a lifetime, and men are not, and so are either outraged, or horrifically uncomfortable, or both? He asks the men to grab a pair of shorts -- not knowing, I think we can be confident in saying, that this was exactly what men used to wear. If not shorts, a costume over the tights. Really, guys, what is it? And how do you/did you get over it?

Ashton's The Dream (especially) and Fille at ABT -- not perfect, but a darned good start. "Dances at a Gathering" by San Francisco Ballet (Ken Cen) Much of what the Suzanne Farrell Ballet performed here; the company is maturing, and Gavin Larsen is on my Dancer to Watch list. Otherwise, not much of a year for me.

What other dance performances (besides ballet) struck you this past year? For me, the interesting new work -- by far -- was in modern dance, and I'll name three: Shen Wei Dance Art’s “Near the Terrace," or the first part of it, anyway (it was a short dance created for ADF which was then expanded, and the expansion doesn't match the original). I reviewed this one from the Post, and will quote from it "[it] is beautiful and wondrously strange. Dancers, dressed only in pale blue skirts, their bodies powdered white, walk with measured tread and fall, in slow motion, into each other’s arms. Someone is always moving--walking, crawling, rolling--yet there is little movement. The dancers repeat movements endlessly as though caught in a dream, unable to run, unable to escape danger, but there is no fear, only serenity." Dana Tai Soon Burgess's 10th anniversary concert. He's a local modern dance choreographer who's just hitting his stride. He's very much a "visual artist" -- the dances are moving paintings, the design is as important as the movement, and everything -- movement, music, design, concept -- fits together perfectly. I think what appeals to me about it is the lack of excess. Everything is spare and pared down. His movement is a combination of American modern dance and various Asian dance forms, from kabuki to the martial arts, but instead of throwing it all into the blender, he selects a few movements from a broad palette and creates worlds with them. Anjelin Prejlocaj's "Helikopter" was the surprise of the year for me. I went in expecting to hate it -- everything I'd read about him screamed Pretension -- and was completely absorbed by it, even though the lighting effects, which everyone raved about, weren't visible from the Eisenhower Theater orchestra. I thought his dancers were extraordinary and pray that they're a model for the future. They looked like "normal" people -- beautiful, extremely fit normal people, but there wasn't a freak in the bunch and they danced like gods.

From Sunday's Miami Herald (and syndicated around the country): The Lord of the Dance doesn't have anything on me Anything we could say to Mr. Barry? [Please read the whole article. There are parts that are quite funny.]

Tommasini has a piece in the NYTimes today that lays out his problems with this La Boheme: Look What They're Doing to Opera

I think that's a good question -- and good answer. There are places for both, but the avant-garde, even an old one , doesn't really work very well in an institution. We coould get into the "tenure" vs. "creativity" debate. I keep hoping that a new wave of creativity will come from the new university ballet departments, with all their resources (and the built in structure, not to mention the adjacent theater and music departments) but it hasn't happened yet.

Ballet.co has just put up a huge section on Nureyev -- biography, roles, links, what he danced in London. It looks as though there's still some material to be added, but well worth a look. http://www.ballet.co.uk/nureyev/index.htm

I think the conference is about more general topics than commissioning specific ballets. They're important topics, and it would be nice to discuss them I'd say it's a good idea to have a meeting of artistic directors and an exchange of ideas about where ballet is and where it is going. What do you think of the agenda? Where do you think ballet is going?

Some productions use Clara, some use Marie. Marie was the name of the little girl in the E.T.A. Hoffman story, and Clara was the name of the little girl in the first ballet. If you'd like to read about Nutcracker, check out Mel Johnson's pages about the ballet on our main site. It's got a lot of fascinating information, and it's a quick read! The Nutcracker

I agree that the use of the term "soulless" could be discussed, Farrrell Fan While Sugar Plum isn't an acting role in the same way that Lady Macbeth is an acting role, it can still be bombed by non-acting, as Mel put it. Things like carriage, awareness of one's surroundings, relationship with other dancers including one's partner, etc. Cardboard princes (or sugar plums) aren't cardboard because of the nature of the role, but because of the way, unfortunately, at times these roles are danced.

Thanks for posting that, creativejuice -- but when I click on the links, I get the home pages. I found Citron's article by searching for "Heather Ogden" but the same search on the nationalpost site didn't find the article you cite. The opinions -- I don't like/I like -- are certainly apposite, but Citron is saying she doesn't think the dancer can act, and Wilson is saying that the same dancer has a nice smile and presence -- and those are different comments. Not that critics don't disagree, of course! I'd second Leigh -- I don't expect them to. I don't read these two regularly, so I don't know which one I'd "trust" and which one not But I don't think what they wrote cancel each other out; they're ddressing different aspects of the same dancer. What this tells me is that Citron demands good acting, and Wilson is happy with good, clean dancing.

I was posting at the same time as Mel -- didn't mean to leapfrog you. It is interesting, isn't it, that the reaction to Mason has been almost universally: One -- hooray. The dancers trust her. Two -- who will be the assistant AD? That's who'll be the next director. This indicates to me that she's seen as a caretaker figure rather than someone who would shake things up. (To stay within Mel's train of thought, that's what they thought about Pope John XXIII; it's not a sure shot.) Is it a case of old generals fighting the last war? They were criticized for bringing in an Outsider; they'll appoint an Insider. They were criticized because the last director was not only clueless but crude; they'll appoint someone who can calm things down and knows who she has to bow to. This could mean that if Mason's honeymoon doesn't outlast her first season, which is often the case, the next call will be, "For God's sake, get someone from outside!" Who knows?