kfw

I have a probably-dumb question for anyone who knows Pictures at an Exhibition. Did Ratmansky choreograph a couple of loud falls? I ask because, while I didn't see it, it sounded like someone dropped his partner during one of the idiosyncratic partnering poses early in the ballet Saturday night. (I wish I could describe it better than that, but I was sitting upstairs and didn't see it clearly, and I liked the work so little I was already beginning to lose focus). At first I assumed someone goofed, but then we heard another thud not long thereafter. While I didn't care for it one whit, Pictures received the loudest applause of any of 7 ballets this Saturday.

If the new African-American fans Copeland attracts find they actually enjoy ballet, they will likely be eager to see a largely African-American company like Dance Theatre of Harlem. For DTH's sake, we can hope so.

That's the reason I was there, to see Reyes one last time. I hope she was as happy with her performance as I was.

Nicely put.

It can be hard to disentangle "I was there" from "this is meaningful to me." Copeland's debut will be understandably meaningful to a lot of people who aren't even big ballet fans. I'm reminded of Obama's inauguration, which I considered going to, but didn't because the press predicted long traffic jams just getting into the city that morning. I see those jams as the equivalent of $300 tickets.

Isn't that the whole reason she's a star, that she's an African-American ballerina - a point of pride for some and satisfaction for others, just as Obama was in 2008? I don't see any cause for shame.

Copeland said "having this role created on me." ABT's page says Osipova "created the role." It's possible the company's wording is just a formality,a nicety for the ranking star. The subject of the interview was Copeland's career, not the details of Firebird's creation, granted, but listeners who don't know any better would have thought Ratmansky made a ballet for her. dirac, I agree, we should call as we see it. We need the word "racism."

She said it was Brooklyn Mack. She also left the impression, plain and simple, that Ratmansky created Firebird on her.

Misty Copeland will be on the Diane Rehm Show on National Public Radio on Monday, 3/23. Later in the day. the conversation will be online here.

I think there is a strong case to be made against affirmative action, and some day, we can hope, it will be the stronger argument. But I don’t think it is now. I think that at the present, justice – not to mention empathy - mandates affirmative action. I agree in regards to attitudes as well, except I think that the attitude we usually need to change first, and then keep resetting when it jumps back to default position, is usually our own towards our ideological opponents. Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, author of The Righteous Mind, is wise in this regard, pricking presumptions – his own, and our own. Taking the right political positions is the easy part. It's no substitute. But back to Ms. Copeland. She'll be on the Diane Rehm Show on National Public Radio tomorrow (Monday, 3/23) morning. Go here.

I went to a literary event at an African-American cultural center this afternoon, and there I happened to see a multi-media exhibition for Black History Month entitled Because of Them, We Can, Reimagination Lab. Intended “To Educate and Connect a New Generation to Heroes Who Have Paved the Way,” it consists mostly of large photos (almost life-sized, and hung so high that the viewer has to look up – keen choices) by Eunique Jones Gibson “of children dressed as iconic trailblazers and today’s inspirational heroes.” Accompanying each photo was a quote from the featured hero. Here, more or less, is Copeland’s (the installation I saw, with the photo beneath the text, was all the more striking).

Informed opinions are no better than uninformed ones, is that it? Knowledge of the subject should be no prerequisite to forming an opinion on it? And you yourself are not a balletomane, i.e. a ballet enthusiast?;

OK. I don't want to effectively misquote you. But I don't think, in any case, that that bears on my point.

You have obviously and most definitely seen more than enough to be qualified to make a judgment, Helene, and I've seen enough to share your opinion. Tapfan, from what she's said, and from what she's declined to say when asked, is not. To put it another way, her opinion is not "colorblind." There is some irony here.

I believe my point was quite clear. And because you've seen a lot of ballet over the years you are qualified to make that judgment. Your words, not mine.

As determined by fans who do.

Tisch Dance and New Media will livestream Remy Charlip I Love You, what The New Yorker calls an "informal performance and talk," at noon tomorrow, Friday, 1/23. David Vaughan is among the scheduled participants. More information is available here.

You just may be thinking of this.

Oh yeah, thanks. That's what I was thinking of.

Fantastic. Thanks for all these. And doesn't "Dancing for Mr. B" have a Tchai Pas montage too? Haven't watched it in years.

By that logic, only people who have direct knowledge of every artistic choice Not so. Direct knowledge is likely to be the most comprehensive knowledge, and it’s the most likely to give understanding. We best understand people by actually knowing them. As far back as 1993, at least, if memory serves, Croce complained about steps disappearing from Balanchine ballets, and even though NYCB has a fantastic roster of dancers nowadays, people who saw them back in the day still say Suzanne Farrell Ballet, although its talent is far thinner, dances the masters’ work in truer fashion. Just as Miami City Ballet did under Villella, or SAB does in its workshops. These dancers didn’t know Balanchine, but they know what he wanted. None of this is to knock Cojocaru, who’s obviously a conscientious and wonderful dancer, and who would probably be the first to say that, with her background, she’s not ideal in this role.

If it all boils down to what individuals like, then “great art” is a meaningless phrase because there are no grounds on which to claim one thing is great and another is bad. Also, Cojocaru may have “seen” the choreography that way, or as someone not trained in the Balanchine style, she may have only been able to dance it that way. There may be a variety of legitimate ways to perform something, and some may contradict the creator’s intentions, but serious artists care about what the creator thought, and understand what that was, even when they disregard it. They only break the rules after they learn, or try, to follow them.

Yes you made that distinction, Kathleen, but first of all I was responding to Helene's words, which I see I should have quoted for clarity myself, and secondly, I don't think that's actually the implication, because it wouldn't make much sense. I can see a dancer, or anyone else, refusing to do something with their own bodies that offends them. If it doesn't offend them, they can't worry about the audience's response. It seems to me that's the choreographer's job.

Reading the quote again, I see there is nothing in there about the dancers not doing the move because someone else objects to it. That's not what's been under discussion.

Considering that this post triggered much if the discussion on this thread and that it was not an isolated opinion, another option is to trust that people have been following it rather than assuming a bad-faith strawman argument. Quoting is easy, and so is identifying who you’re responding to. I’ve done a whole lot of good faith, putting the best spin on what someone said debating. It would be nice to get more of it back. Like a casual "oh, sorry, I see why you thought that." No big deal and the discussion moves on.