kfw

LOL. I love it.

Well I'm impressed by your research skills, or dedicated digging, or something. With multiple posters posting, it would be helpful if people would specify who they're responding to, especially if the comment they're addressing was made awhile back and has been followed by a lot more discussion.

What an apt metaphor.

At least one commenter in this thread indicated that Copeland made a bad choice, presumably either by appearing in the work or by not following Lane and Forster's example and toning it down. Yes. But the question was who suggested she should have refused to appear in work "someone else finds it vulgar or offensive" but she didn't. Did someone really say that? Seems to me people are rebutting things no one said.

She didn't look like a Balanchine-trained dancer, and she was probably only dancing Balanchine because she was asked to. I thought she looked lovely in it anyhow.

The contract says "morally unacceptable to the Artist." Hard to imagine an AD objecting to a dancer finding breast-grabbing morally objectionable, even if he personally didn't. No, I don't know why a dancer would refuse to do something they find unobjectionable just because someone else finds it is. Who brought that up?

Noted, and thank you for explaining.

It's really sad to hear that the company's Balanchine is slipping, but I'd go see them anyhow, even in this program, if they'd just come some place close. They used to bring a program or two to the D.C. area every year, but with the exception of a Charlottesville appearance in 2007, they haven't been here since 2004. I suppose there is no money for touring. What a pity.

Kathleen, maybe you’re thinking of another poster, I don’t know. Otherwise, with respect, what amazes me, although it shouldn't be now, is that an argument that dancers share responsibility for what they choose to dance is equated with some larger presumption about who they are as persons. And why would it just be a presumption about Copeland, since I’ve consistently mentioned Whiteside as well? He’s the guy who actually made the move in question, after all. As I said earlier, it’s obvious that character is made up of many, many decisions. It’s the mom informs us that Whiteside’s a great guy. May I say, I’m not shocked that a guy who would do that on stage is a great guy. As for Copeland, I’m on record as being skeptical of some of her story, but her discipline and determination is admirable, and she makes an excellent impression in interviews. Likewise, because one bad move doesn’t demonstrate a person’s overall character, a criticism is not by definition a put down. “Righteous” is a word loaded with all the wrong connotations. Some people object to seeing twerking and breast-grabbing onstage (but see the paragraph below) for the same reason we’d object to seeing it on the street. You may disagree, but we think it belongs in private. If that opinion is “pearl-clutching,” then goodness, what is most of the human race for most of human history? If you guys don’t want us calling you non-objectors . . . I don’t know, “loose” or some such silly thing, please give us the same benefit of the doubt. What I think is that if – if – those dancers were uncomfortable with what they were asked to do, they had the power – certainly Copeland did – to say so. With that said, I think your second point bears on whether the Prodigal Son comparison is apt. The parable of the Prodigal Son is a story of mercy and forgiveness, and although the Siren in the ballet is Boris Kochno’s invention (I guess), the ballet illustrates the same thing. So it takes a definite point of view, and not a flattering one, of the Siren. So as I said earlier, here’s where I’m hampered by not having seen the ballet, but if Scarlett was attempting to depict something crude as crude, as Balanchine did, that puts the dancer’s choosing to do it in another light, and I see no reason for objection (although I. as an audience member, would still rather not see it). But it sounds like his intentions were obscure, at least to the audience if not the dancers. If they were clear, we might not be having this discussion.

But Copeland (and Whiteside) are who we're talking about, so I don't know what your point is. Also, they wouldn't have had to opt out of the whole ballet, just do a few seconds of it the way the other cast did. Anyhow, if Kathleen's right about Scarlett's intentions, that puts their agreeing to do it into a whole other light.

its the mom, that's a touching tribute to Whiteside. In regards to that AGMA contract proviso though, "e.g.." as you may know, means "for example, so if ABT has the same thing, the dancers could have opted out.

Well, sort of. As a freelance writer, it's true that I'm not compelled to write on certain topics or take a certain approach to something by an employment agreement. But what this means in the real world, is that I'm free not to work. Which means, of course, I'm free to not make any money. Speculate all you like about our working conditions -- either the dancers in the studio or the writers at their desks. Just know that the abstract world you discuss is only partially related to the specific world we work in. I take your point, but in regards to Copeland and Whiteside, Copeland's an up-and-coming dancer with a popular following. It's 10-1 she could have expressed discomfort with the move and had Scarlett change it, as he may have for Lane, without suffering consequences. To be specific and not abstract, what good options would McKenzie or Scarlett have had? It wouldn't have been in their interest to take her out of the piece or not cast her elsewhere. Of course it's true she may have had no objections, but I'm responding to the argument that she had no choice in the matter. ETA: The better analogy might be to your being asked to tout something you found morally offensive. How many of us would, at the boss’s behest, do something we found offensive? If we did, that would be on us as well as the boss. And to the people who call this Misty-bashing: my argument would stand, and the question of responsibility interests me, no matter who we’re talking about.

I previously wrote: I'm aware that the passage was short. No, the choice of whether or not to do the passage (presuming for the sake of argument that they objected to it, but Aurora's right, they may not have) wasn't a moral hill to to die on - they were highly unlikely to have faced grave consequences. You make an interesting point about Prodigal Son though, and here's where my not having seen the Scarlett does enter in, specifically in regards to your belief that he meant that passage to be offensive (just as Balanchine meant to depict degeneracy and degradation). Aurora, the two different choices are of much different magnitude. That's my point. If demonstrators can risk their lives for what they think is right, dancers can risk a choreographer's displeasure for what they think is right. But I agree, we don't know if they did. I'm just responding the argument that they had no choice in the first place.

Selma is an excellent and topical example of people facing consequences for doing what they think is right and refusing to do what they think is wrong when the consequences utterly dwarfed those of refusing, as up-and-coming (powerful) dancers, to do a certain passage. Yes, the movement does sound vulgar to me. I make no apologies for that.

Yes, then my other argument could be dismissed on moral grounds, with no need to deal with it on its merits. In fact, we don’t know if Whiteside and Copeland liked the movement or hated it, but your other argument rests on the presumption that human beings lack free choice and have to do what they’re told, even when they have moral qualms. Apparently we need a BA field trip to see “Selma.”

The choreographer obviously bears the chief responsibility for the steps, and it's true we don't know what went down in the studio. But we do know, as the different versions of the passage demonstrate, that we all have free choice.

Whiteside and Copeland chose to dance the steps, but character and integrity and moral compass are determined many choices, and who can’t be legitimately criticized for making some wrong ones? Is one bad choice determinative? How much do a few seconds of vulgarity really tell us? There is some jumping to conclusions going on here, and not be me. Also, do we have to dislike everyone we criticize? I don’t dislike Copeland, which is why I’ve said a number of positive things about her. And while I question her story, I’ve also said she may well believe it. On the other hand, I don’t think something can be excused just because it pushes boundaries and buttons. As for Archeron, I saw it twice and didn’t like it, but don’t remember any part of it being suggestive.

OMG!!! Two dancers defied the critics and did the steps the way the choreographer wanted them done! They just don't make artistic integrity like they used to. If Copeland made a bad choice, so did Whiteside -- not to mention Gomes, who set up the punchline. Integrity is being true to one’s own values even when a boss’s values conflict, isn’t it? If Lane and Forster were allowed to dance it differently, Copeland and Whiteside could have as well.Scarlett's about their age too, or even younger, which would make it easier to assert themselves. It’s not surprising that a pop dance move creeps into a ballet, and obviously there is a long history of the high using the low, but one thing I love about going to the ballet is that I don’t see that sort of crude sexual display. That’s a refreshing break from a lot of pop culture. Balanchine can be erotic, or playfully sexy, without being base. That 's refreshing too.

Sounds interesting. Joyce Carol Oates' essay, Confronting Head-on the Face of the Afflicted, can be read after Discussing the Undiscussable here.

Doesn't the Schindler's List reference lend some principle, right or wrong, to her argument, though? Everybody hates the Nazis. Everybody loved that guy.

If Croce’s politics were liberal, her political sympathy with Jones might have kept her from writing the piece . . . who knows. But I don’t think either her argument that victimhood by itself isn’t art, or her dislike of “utilitarian art,” depend on politics. The first strikes me as similar to what Milan Kundera said about definition of kitsch in The Unbearable Lightness of Being: How nice (how alive, how righteous) it feels to be moved by, and feel solidarity, with victims. And how hard it is to knock a dance that asks us to do so. Jones’ you-gotta-be-kidding-me reaction to her charge that he just wanted attention was perfect, though. I think her unfortunate lack of empathy and imputation of bad faith are what most clearly show her politics.

She was in both Snowflakes and Flowers on 12/7.

Hmmm. That's more or less unfortunate. Thanks for the explanation. I also don't understand why the seat just to the right of my decent, left side orchestra seat this March was 70-some dollars more than mine.

Maybe so, but that's not what she had to say and what she did say was thought provoking. To me her central point is more important that reviewing a specific piece. I'm not sure we disagree, but I should have been more clear. I'm thinking of Croce talking about being manipulated and intimidated "into accepting what you saw as art."

Doesn't that come to the same thing? They want to sell more higher priced tickets. I hate to see the upper rings empty, but I can understand needing to make money. Whether they'll make more in the long run or slow the growth of their audience, attracting fewer people who will eventually buy better seats, is another question. Thanks for those memories, Jack. I wish I'd been in New York back then. "Civilization" indeed.