kfw

I'm not convinced that the issue is necessarily "racism" in the classic sense of believing that one race is inferior to another, or, in this case, that men and women of color are inferior as dancers to white ones. I wonder if it isn't more a failure of imagination and / or a lack of trust in the audience -- i.e., the inability to get past skin color for what I'd argue are outmoded aesthetic / theatrical reasons. Not "aesthetic" in the sense that dark skin isn't beautiful, but rather from a (perhaps unacknowledged) belief that it will be disruptive as theater if Odette and Siefried or Aurora and Désiré or Giselle and Albrecht have different skin colors. Could be. I pay little attention to Hollywood, but don't some African-American actors have box office figures to rival those of whites? In TV-land until very recently, Bill Cosby was “America’s Dad.” More specifically, if I’m not mistaken, the theater world, or at least the off-Broadway community, embraced non-traditional casting a long time ago. So race needn't be a barrier in dance.

Leaving aside whether or not Copeland deserves promotion for her dancing - a subject I have no opinion on, not having seen her dance - what about a hypothetical soloist of any race who is getting lots of outside attention, who essentially has a fan club, and is selling lots of extra tickets because of it. For an AD, what are the ethics of promoting that dancer for the sake of his or her bottom line, and by extension, for the survival of the art form?

That's such an important point, that good and bad live side by side in people. I don’t think it’s unreasonable, I just think it’s less and less likely to be true, for reasons I’ve tried to explain. No, art isn’t made in ideal social conditions, but I think that when it comes down to it, the argument that black dancers are likely to be held back by racism is an argument that the people with power over their careers are either less aware of their instinctive biases, or care less about them, than we on BA are/do. And racism is one bias everyone has been forced to think about and examine themselves for. Still, with your admirably honest post, you make a strong case.

Good points, good idea. (Lifts a mug of coffee).

This performance - actually two complete performances by two different casts - is now available here. After a few minutes of credits, Patricia Lent and then Jenifer Goggans introduce the dance. The dancing begins after the 11-minute mark.

There is some evidence that it's not so hard to get police, prosecutors, and jurors to believe "complete nonsense" when race enters the picture--whether or not they are themselves, as individuals, racist and--in some cases--whatever race they happen to be. Nothing to do with the "ballet world"? -- I doubt it. Even if I allowed that the ballet world lacks its own version of racial crankiness (which I don't) I think cranks couldn't wield the influence they do (wouldn't get the attention they get) if they weren't touching some chord in others less cranky than themselves. I suspect the 'birther' movement vis-a-vis the President wouldn't have the little traction it does in terms of news coverage/interest etc, if there weren't other non-birthers vaguely uncomfortable with a black President and even one for whom they may have voted. I'm tempted to respond to this in more depth, but it's straight politics, and not BA territory. However, birthers get no respect, even from other conservatives, and 'racial crankiness" in the ballet world is what I'm looking for evidence of. It's not evident in Project Plie, or in the photo I posted. What problems has she had? It's great that people want to recruit and support African-American dancers. Racism has obviously kept them out of dance in more ways than one. But that's different than saying they face racism in the dance world today greater than the support they have in the dance world today (support this thread is evidence of), or that Copeland did. Regarding what you wrote below (the software's being cranky), I was exaggerating to make a point. I didn't mean to suggest these people don't exist at all.

I don't know where they get these people, Not from my neighborhood or, I'll bet, yours. I have to assume those figures are wildly inflated for the reason you mention. In any case, what's the argument in regards to Copeland? Will anyone argue that thirty-eight or even fifteen percent of people in the ballet world are so racist they'll believe complete nonsense? Even if we take the fifteen percent figure as real for the sake of argument, the other eighty-five percent think of the fifteen, or at least their views, in terms that, if posted, would violate BA policy on respectful debate. Eighty-five percent beats fifteen every day, What effect can fifteen have in a ballet company if eighty-five oppose them? The other thing is that we often see what we expect to see (and maybe I'm doing that). I’m not questioning that Copeland thinks she encountered racism. But if we grant that there has been significant racial progress, then we need to ask at what point the I-had-to-face-racism object lessons become counterproductive, teaching people to become expect and fear what’s probably not there, or is not a real obstacle (the racists being relatively powerless). Copeland’s story, especially at the moment, is in part the story of a black dancer embraced by a largely white audience. That makes it less heroic (though no less admirable), but even more something to celebrate. It's worth noting that in this photo of the party scene in Ballet West’s Nutcracker at the Kennedy Center, three or four of the eight girls appear to be African-American.

I’ve been reading Jennifer Fisher’s excellent Nutcracker Nation, and for a break I read Edwin Denby’s essay, Meaning in the Nutcracker. Denby writes: This makes me laugh, but I’m willing to be convinced there’s something to it. Clearly Clara/Marie is attracted to Drosselmeier’s nephew, in a way that’s probably new to her. But while romantic fantasy/sexual awakening is one thing, I’m not even sure how to describe the other in terms that make the story coherent. Drosselmeier gives Clara a doll that symbolizes, er, something or other-breaking? Why? And how would she possibly understand that meaning anyhow? Or if we say that the symbolism operates in the narrative although Clara is unaware of it, how does that fit with the happy ending, the suggestion that the two will have a happy future together as adults? Denby seems to answer this and say that this symbolism was understood to be a subtext of the Hoffman story, noting that Ivanov “would find my account of his ballet absurd,” but that Hoffman was “a master of the free association device” that was “as familiar to educated persons in 1820 as it is to us, and practiced by them with more sense of humor.” But I’m not sure I understand that last sentence. Is he saying that seeing the psychosexual symbolism, which he earlier seems to treat seriously, is akin to making a ribald joke?

Thanks for posting, Amy. There is a Time-Life article on Fontaine, with great photos, here on the same site.

The Times has a piece on a 90th birthday celebration turned memorial for Freilicher: Generosity of Everyday Surrealism

Addie Tapp is now listed as a member of Boston Ballet's corps de ballet.

Thanks!

I think this thread has made it clear that a lot of people care, and that talented African-American dancers will be promoted, and articulate ones won’t lack for platforms and publicity. They aren't all going to enroll and rise up from the ranks in a day, but they'll be coming. I saw one - I think she was 14 or 15 - in a featured role in a small-city Nutcracker last year. She was the most interesting and exciting dancer on stage, guest professionals included, and she wants to go pro.

For some of us who don't get to see School of American Ballet's annual workshop performances, noted for the purity of their Balanchine style, tonight's PBS broadcast of Serenade and excerpts of Swan Lake, Coppelia and Western Symphony, will be one of the year's highlights.

A reminder here that this year's workshop will be featured in a not-really-Live from Lincoln Center broadcast on PBS entitled “Curtain Up: The School of American Ballet Workshop Performance." Some stations will show it tonight, Friday night. In New York it will be shown on Sunday. Alastair Macaulay has an enthusiastic preview: A Performance Onstage Returns Anew on the Screen

I know I’m not the only person you’re talking about, but since what I think has been misunderstood and mischaracterized by some posters, I’m going to summarize it here. I’m skeptical that Copeland had to overcome racism, because while racism persists, many people today, thankfully, are eager to give African-Americans opportunities. It’s hard for me to imagine she didn’t encounter these people along the way, and that they didn’t have the more influence. (I’m not suggesting she received special favors. She clearly didn’t need them anyhow). I could very well be wrong (and Copeland may have noticed the racism and not its opposite), but that’s what seems likely to me. Having achieved success in her ballet career, Copeland was well-positioned to make a “lucrative and rewarding career for herself” offstage as well, and while I doubt details of her story, and self-promotion makes me a little uncomfortable (I’m like those Lake Woebegoners Garrison Keillor gently makes fun of, in that respect), it’s a free country, and if that’s what she wants, more power to her. In general, I’m glad that she’s been able to make money, gain recognition, and gain outside dancing opportunities. She’s earned it. I do see irony in the fact that her offstage success is attributable in significant part to her story of overcoming racism, because even if she did so, she’s benefitting now from whatever the opposite of racism is now, something that might be called black privilege (a description, not a pejorative), which proceeds from empathy and goodwill, but which also stigmatizes any criticism of African-Americans as automatically racist (an attitude very much counter to King’s ideal of judging people’s actions regardless of skin color). Likewise, criticize a successful woman these days, and you’ll likely draw charges of sexism. It’s not like sexism isn’t a reality, so some degree of suspicion is justified in many cases, but political correctness makes it automatic and de rigueur. I think Copeland made a poor decision by posing for a racy ad when she’s a role model to so many girls, and has said that’s what she wants to be. Some people see that as female sexual empowerment. I disagree, Having said that, I recognize that hers is hardly an unusual choice these days, and not so unusual among dancers either, and even some people knock her for it and look the other way when other female – or male – dancers do it, racism and sexism may apply. But I haven’t seen those people. In any case, that decision is dwarfed by the good work Copeland’s doing. The photo aside, I admire her for using her celebrity for the good of African-American kids (a stated goal) and the good of the art form. In her hard work and determination and dedication, she’s a fantastic role model. To my personal taste her (beautiful) figure isn’t ideal for a ballerina, but that’s my problem, not hers. Some day, I hope to see her dance.

No kidding? I didn't know that. Try as I have, his work has never been much to may taste, but that enriches those poems at least. Yes, thanks Quiggin.

Webster's online defines "demure" as "quiet and polite," "not attracting or demanding a lot of attention : not showy or flashy." As a standard for women's behavior, rather than behavior chosen by a particular woman, it sounds old-fashioned and more than a little sexist, but I don't think for a moment abatt meant it that way, but rather as a synonym for modest, which in my book is a virtue for anyone. By who? If there are people who call them wholesome and Copeland not, that's pertinent to this debate. Who are these people?

Dirac wrote: I don't judge people as a class, so I don't think sex workers are worse than anyone else either – than me, for example. But sarcasm substituting for argument coarsens debates, and dismissive generalities, precisely because they lack specifics, don't advance them either. I remember when the former, at least, would not have been tolerated on this board. Helene wrote: I agree. And also how they react to opinions other than their own.

I'm a moderate, so I'm used to criticism on both sides. Woe is me? Hardly.

Tuesday's Washington Post had an article about an intemperate, mid-Honors show speech by the show's longtime producer. Apparently McBride had already been feted however, along with Hanks and Green, and I'm glad about that.

I think people often find what they want to find, aurora, and if they prefer instead to give people the benefit of the doubt, they often find something else. Productive debates, in my opinion, are ones that don't necessarily change anyone's basic opinion, but that help them better understand, rather than condemn, the other ones. I think there are a range of respectable opinions on the issues we've discussed here, and respectable and not so respectable ways to voice them. And I'll leave it at that.

Very interesting. This is a bit but one thing that surprised me when I saw Balanchine's Nutcracker Sunday, not having seen it live for 13 years, was how vivid the characterizations were (from the Second Ring). I've watched the NYCB film many times, and I expected to miss the closeups. But the acting was so sharp that I didn't.

There is nothing wrong with addressing one thing someone says and not something else they said. That's how a good debate proceeds, with the parties narrowing down the discussion to what they disagree on. You used the word "we," and I argued that it was too broad. You responded to what I said with an argument addressing what I had not said - in other words, as if I had - and it's argument, as I noted above, that I agree with. I think the bottom line here is that a few of us are criticizing a couple of things Copeland has done - things that people of all races and both sexes do - and others are trying every way possible to paint that criticism as racist and sexist. It won't wash.

aurora quoted abatt, who used the terms "modesty" and "demureness." She did not put those words into abatt's keyboard, and she rightly pointed out how demureness is gendered in definition, a double standard when not expected of boys. I could be wrong, but I don't remember a trail of commentary or distaste when male dancers have done what, by the standards applied to Copeland, are far from modest in photos. I wrote that " I think modesty is every bit a gentleman's responsibility as it is a lady's," and aurora countered - to me, not abatt - with the dictionary definition of demure, which had nothing to do with it. That's clear. And I find the shots of male dancers that she posted as distasteful as the one of Copeland. As I was saying . . . Tapfan, Copeland herself has said she wants to be a role model for black kids. I can't imagine what's wrong with noting that she is one. It doesn't imply she's only a model for them. Does anyone object when people cite Obama as a great role model for black kids? The irony is that for the most part she has been a fantastic role model for any kid.