kfw

Ok I take it back. "Bad faith" AND racism. Better? And you've been one of the harshest critics in these various threads, how many Misty performances have you seen this season? (I've seen her in La Bayadere and Sleeping Beauty).

And this is from someone who immediately thought Damian Woetzel was "comped" bc he said he was "honored" to be at a Misty performance.

False on both counts. I've never criticized Copeland's performances, and I've made it a point of saying that not having seen her, I have no opinion of her dancing.

Also, I will repeat, I did not say Woetzel was comped. Please go back and read what I did write, including the compliments I have given Copeland on several occasions, before you make more false charges.

ETA:

Michael Cooper in the NY Times story about Copeland's promotion writes that

If the company had not promoted Ms. Copeland, it risked being seen as perpetuating the inequalities that have left African-American dancers, particularly women, woefully underrepresented at top ballet companies.

AND this discussion reminds me a lot of the Arlene Croce "Discussing the Undiscussable" article. I think the outrage at that article was the perception that Arlene Croce was letting her well-known political views affect her thinking and that the non-review was really a thinly disguised rant at the gay community which happened at that time to be going through an AIDS epidemic AND prejudice that would be inconceivable to today's NY'ers.

In other words, criticizing a community that is enduring tragedy is by definition bigotry, and well-known conservatism is by definition bigotry, period.

It's a decidedly guarded review. For once, Macaulay is afraid to offend. He takes obvious flaws and spins them as something positive. Copeland's inability to complete the required fouettes, and substituting quick single turns instead? "A smart alternative." What?! Can you imagine how he would tear through a dancer from NYCB, or any other ABT dancer, who chose not to display technical skill while making their major NY debut?

Do you think these ladies (Wilkinson and Anderson) were there because they asked to be included, or did ABT/Team Misty contact them to make it more of a historic "event".

Suffice to say the house was sold out, with people screaming and many applauding in all the wrong places. I fear this is the future of ABT.

First, canbelto you were charging racism, now when pressed you're only making the vague charge of ugly bad faith. Bad faith is of course exactly what you exhibit yourself in parsing words, taking them out of their context, and insisting on attributing bad motives to the people who wrote them when other explanations are plausible.

I didn't make any of those comments but they're all defensible.

1) A critic would risk the charge of racism for harshly criticizing Copeland's performance. A humane critic would also hate having to harshly criticize a rising African-American dancer. So most critics would be disinclined to harshly criticize Copeland.

2) There would be nothing wrong with Copeland's people inviting Wilkinson and Anderson.

3) The person who made that observation was there and you weren't, so you can't challenge them on the facts. And no one likes to have Swan Lake unnecessarily interrupted by applause.

You're assuming this "segment" has no interest in seeing "white" bodies in leading roles, that this "segment" has no interest in ballet beyond Misty, that this "segment" is there only bc Misty is dancing. Well this "segment" that you're referring to I assume is mostly African-American, since you'd never assume that a white person who was attending a Misty O/O was there "only for Misty." Would you assume that, say, an Asian person who is at a Hee Seo performance is only there because Hee Seo is of Asian ancestry? That's what I'm talking about, the assumptions of bad faith that are present about Misty's audiences and the assumptions of bad faith that come up with everything Misty does/says. If she invites Raven Wilkinson onstage after her Swan Lake, it must be because her publicist arranged it. If she walked the red carpet it's because she's a famewhore. If Damian Woetzel was "honored" to be there he must have been comped/paid shill. Those overwhelming assumptions of bad faith that are attached to everything Misty does is what is making me flat out say that this is racist.

Wow, what an interesting discussion here since I last tuned in. 1) From the sound of it, lots of white people, including at least one on this board, made it a point to see Copeland's SL specifically to see her. People do this for specific dancers all the time. If I lived in New York, I would have been at her performance last week, drawn in part by the fact that she's the first African-American to dance O/O. What in the world is wrong with a minority member, or anyone else showing up to see a dancer specifically or in large part because she's a minority member?

2) did anyone actually say or suggest that Woetzel was a shill? I mentioned the possibility of his being comped in passing as a possibility which would have made his use of "honored" correct - in other words, if she had invited him as a friend. "Shill" is your own imagination. Likewise, did anyone actually say or suggest Wilkinson's appearance was a PR move, or is that another assumption of bad faith on your part?

You cry "racism," but I see another form of prejudice, political correctness, which has very honorable roots, but too often hardens into what we've seen here: the policing of and parsing language, the isolation of criticism from its context, the inability or unwillingness to credit the other side's good faith, and which finds "vile" the proposition that an African-American might act in both praiseworthy and unpraiseworthy fashion - in other words be fully human.

I don't read Moonlily's statement as an assertion that's it's okay for Hallberg to lie. I read it as a proposed explanation for why some people are more willing to make excuses for Hallberg than for Copeland.

I think one thing that happens in a discussion such as this, where people on both sides are emotionally invested in their arguments, is that statements get interpreted as meaning more than they actually say. In other words, one has a tendency to assume that the person one is conversing with has a more extreme set of views (in opposition to one's own) than they may actually have. Sometimes that's true, and there are people involved in these discussions who have firmly made up their minds on one side of the issue or the other. But there are a lot of people involved in these discussions who are genuinely interested in working through ideas, and their statements can easily be misinterpreted as being more rooted in an ideology than they in fact are. (I think this has happened at times in the context of this particular discussion thread.) I think it's important to try to see what others' words actually say and mean on their own, to the extent that that's possible. (I readily acknowledge that misinterpretations can easily occur and that I have been guilty of them.) Online communication is tricky, because we don't have each others' body language and tones of voice to guide us in interpreting their words.

Another excellent post, nanushka, thank you.

Isn't there any kind of BA rule against writing one excellent post after another??

Princeton University Press put out a critical edition of the Auden poem a few years ago, with an introduction and notes that very much added to my pleasure in the poem when I read it.

Some of the things said here about Copeland have not been at all pleasant for me to read, but sometimes it's necessary to read them, and speak up with differing views.

If you feel someone deserves defending, it's certainly honorable to defend them.

If there was a white (or even Asian) dancer who could not do the steps or choreography, no way that dancer would get the free pass Misty is getting. And get promoted to principal?? No way in any other company.

What about Veronika Part with her technical weaknesses? (I happen to love her dancing.)

Well, it's been said before here, but I'm happy to say it again: If those "many minds" believe that Copeland was promoted (if she is) because ABT was running scared, it isn't a problem for Copeland or for the people who don't share this belief. it's only "unfortunate" for those who will be doing this mental asterisking and not as a matter of the general welfare. Everybody else is going to be just fine.

Well I'm glad of that. Me, I’m just fine about what people think of Copeland’s promotion and how she gets it. I love reading different opinions, especially when people are clearly thinking them through to defend them, because that makes for a good debate.

The absence of proof is not proof of an absence.

That's right.

I don't think there's any proof that it's been a motivator to date.

I never claimed that he's feeling no pressure. I simply think that his behavior and decisions to date have shown that he has not made it a deciding factor.

I don't know it could ever be proved, or could shown to be a deciding factor, unless he told us.

If ABT is called "racist," the only new audiences/potential donors that ABT stands to lose are Copeland's new audiences and people who stray in on their own, due to lack of a strategy to actively build audiences.

If ABT is not just called but successfully labeled racist, then I think it's safe to say good people will run from it like they run from anything else racist.

Helene, I think my answer comes down to one word, racist. To not be called racist is a powerful motivator. Especially so in this, ABT's 75th anniversary year. It's true she could always be promoted later, but the spotlight is on the organization now. People expect it now.

ETA:

Were there to be a groundswell against ABT, who would those people be,

As I said, the people initially attracted by her triumph-over-racism story. Really now, she's a big celebrity because of this story, and McKenzie's feeling no pressure not to ruin the ending?

To mimsyb: I think it's Violetta Elvin as Aurora.

Judging from a large headshot in Ballet Panorama by Baron, published in 1954, it looks like Elvin to me. In any case, the whole video is just delightful. Thanks, meunier fan!

If anything, you should support Misty's 'PR' - which is designed to encourage lots of black girls to study ballet (and not, as many cynically suggest, to bully KM into promoting her to principal).

Given that she's a smart human being and can see more than one reason to promote herself, I imagine she has more than one reason, including but not limited to that noble one.

Tackling the classics in her 30s for the first time cannot be easy for Misty. I am sure that like most dancers, she puts a lot of pressure on herself and is constantly looking to improve (and wants to feel like any promotion she may receive has been earned).

No doubt.

I think we need a Ballet Alert countdown clock!

If Copeland doesn't make principal - a huge if - and she then calls that racist - another huge if - I'm sure her claim will get tons of attention, although I'm not sure what a 60 Minutes story on it would consist of - interviews with critics illustrated by video clips that could clearly show the non-dance public how much better she is than Hee Seo?

Helene, I think there has been no negative groundswell because her story has made her look like a rising star who would eventually be promoted. It's only now, as her profile has been cresting (and as she's been given a ballet even many non-balletomanes have heard of) that those in the know say "if it's going to happen, now's the time, or soon."

Why would ABT care about certain members of the public concluding it was a racist employer?

You must be kidding! Because there would be a huge and immediate "groundswell of negative publicity," the flip side of the groundswell of positive publicity Copeland's been getting.

Helene wrote:

One of your concerns is that we won't know if Copeland is promoted, whether this was entirely merit-based. It's not my concern, but my response to that concern is that she could just as well have not been promoted earlier because the merit of her dancing was veiled by the obstacle of racism, and once removed, she can be judged on the merit of her dancing.

Interesting argument. I don’t remember anyone saying her promotion has come unjustly late, but interesting argument.

We've been debating how much Copeland should have known and researched before proclaiming herself the first black soloist at ABT. You've been calling this a lie. I believe my post speaks to another possibility and is quite pertinent to the debate. Just one of several details discussed many times.

Thank you for explaining. Just to be clear and detailed, your position is that having been conscious of standing out due to race (probably since she first joined the company in 2000 and even before – perhaps someone who’s read her whole book can say for sure, but it stands to reason) after 14 years she still had not bothered to ascertain the truth of something so central to important to her narrative – that being so (naturally) concerned with setting precedent, she had never even been interested enough to just ask, say Kevin McKenzie or another longtime company person, how much a precedent she had actually set? I don’t find that scenario convincing.

> “The Big Lie” is your rhetoric, not my thinking.

I think this is a logical extension of your characterization of Copeland's statement as a "lie" repeatedly in this and prior Copeland threads. "Lie" means she knowingly spoke falsely with the intention to deceive, and there is no proof that she did, and not calling her a "liar" doesn't diminish this charge.

Lots of things that can’t be proved are considered most likely true based on available facts and logic. No, saying someone lied about something is not, when I say it, the same as characterizing them a Big Fat Liar, for reasons I took time to explain.

I think she would have had to be dumb to knowingly speak falsely with intention to deceive: most of the people who know, trained, and danced with the other black soloists are alive and well and could easily have "exposed" her. I find it curious that ABT never made the correction -- "Miss Copeland is third in the fine line of black soloists at ABT, and we are proud to have her" -- since it is their history that was misrepresented, and it's not as if they risked not having access to her had they done so.

I find that lack of correction curious too. As to Copeland, I agree, the claim wasn’t too smart, no, but people blurt things out sometimes, and since the impulse to correct would clash with the impulse to cheer on another trailblazer, I’m not surprised those dancers didn’t (to my knowledge) publicly correct her.

The assumption that Copeland/Copeland's PR agent had full control of how the narrative was spun and weighted is also up for debate, regardless of the impacts -- positive and negative -- that narrative had. She most likely had most control over what was in her book, although her publisher's editorial staff and/or legal team might have had some say in it.

I doubt her PR team told her to not to correct the Glamour interviewer.

While there is currently a storm of predictions of and support for her promotion in the mainstream media, it isn't clear whether her PR efforts delayed the casting that could support her promotion and the promotion itself, since there have been many benefits to ABT from this delay: packed houses and high ticket sales for the journey to the top, passionate support from her followers, snowballing free publicity in the mainstream media that dovetailed nicely into ABT's 75th anniversary celebrations, the biggest name recognition among the general public in the US for a ballet dancer for many, many years and, once again, tied to ABT, and fierce debates among fans, stoking the Copeland vs. Abrera vs. Lane debates.

Why would PR – in effect, publicity - “delay” the casting that generates more publicity and sells all those tickets?

If Woetzel said he felt "honored" to be present at Wendy Whelan's farewell or Julie Kent's farewell would you have reacted so negatively?

You bet. Like I said, I hear the phrase a lot. It bugs me. In fact I said in my original post that I wish "people," plural, would quit misusing the word.

canbelto, I really don't think kfw is making a point about Misty's debut in particular. kfw is making a point about language usage (see above posts). The same point could be made (though I wouldn't make it -- because I have no problem with this use of the word "honored") about someone's attending any event of significance for which one has purchased a ticket.

Not everything is a dig at Misty or her dancing!

Thank you.

canbelto, to me the question isn't whether or not Woetzel felt honored - he said he did - but whether he was or not. I think I've explained why.

Last night was a revelation after the disastrous ABT season. This morning I am still in awe of "Song of the Earth". It really hits home for the older generation (Me) It's hard to believe MacMillan was only in his thirties when he composed this. Each of the 'songs' I found riveting---both choreographically and emotionally. Heart wrenching.....is there a recording of this around?

Sounds wonderful. There is this 14-minute rehearsal video.

Having enjoyed Sarah Lamb's Aurora in D.C. way back in 2006 (?), I love reading such good things about her on this thread.

I believe that kfw is quibbling over the nowadays quite conventional and idiomatic (but, to language purists, somehow distasteful) transformation of the noun's meaning into use as a passive verb or predicate adjective -- i.e. saying "I'm honored" when one means one feels privileged. (Forgive me, kfw, if I'm wrong, and if in fact you are making a quite different point.)

No, you're right, some of us language lovers are bugged (I prefer this technical term, “bugged,” in honor - wry usage there - of Esther Balintz’s great line in Jim Jarmusch’s comedy “Stranger Than Paradise,” “This dress bugs me” ) when a new usage of a word threatens to obscure the old one.

It sounds like you're asking dirac, but I'll just say a couple of things. If I've used the term "PR offensive, then "PR campaign" would have been better. She's hardly conducting a war. In regards to appeals to merit, her dancing is of course an appeal to merit (an awkward term which I think was mine, but I'll let it stand).

Honestly, I don't think she should care about most of those arguments, and I hope Marina Harss and other professional critics are right: that there's a promotion coming her way. But my bias is towards movement quality over body type, and versatility and expression over technique.

Judging from the Swan Lake reviews, she seems to have earned a promotion.

dirac wrote:

Helene, and others, have explained well and thoroughly why the Big Lie by which you set such store is disputable. You say that you "await specifics." In this thread, and in the old Copeland threads, it seems to me that we are up to the wazoo with specifics.

“The Big Lie” is your rhetoric, not my thinking. I could call Copeland a lot of positive things, like incredibly hard-working, determined, brave, beautifully poised, etc., and I’ve called her some or all of them here. She wants to be a role model. Overall she’s a wonderful role model but, like the rest of us, not always. I don’t choose to call her by the name “liar” because that denotes someone who lies habitually, for whom lying is an integral part of their character, and I have no reason to believe that describes her. I do, however, think that one has to make a lot of excuses for her not to think she probably lied about this. The impulse to make those excuses and to believe every particular of her story unreservedly, can be honorable. Unfortunately, some people with honorable intentions on many issues habitually distort the other side’s arguments, and then dismiss the distortions.

As for specifics, when directly asked for specifics, you specifically have fallen silent or replied with generalities. Enuf said.