kfw

Theoretically state can always do more, but as to Sander O's assertion that "the arts [ . . . ] should be accessible to all people," private philanthropists are people for whom it is accessible, who choose to make it accessible to others. We might say they are people who walk the talk. Their money might follow the state's, but the state in this regard often can't do without them.

I wouldn't say that's necessarily more democratic.The officials may be unelected but we may generally assume they were appointed because they have the appropriate expertise to make informed judgments, not something they would acquire by spending time and money running for office and attempting to ingratiate themselves with voters. They have informed judgments, but then we have our own. We can vote for politicians whom we hope will appoint officials whose taste we share, but the more direct and therefore democratic route is to support artists and institutions with our own money.

Alexandra's Tomalonis' excellent quarterly print journal DanceView includes long articles with photos after each taping session. A few days ago I posted a couple of excerpts from the piece in the latest issue on Yvonne Mounsey coaching Melissa Barak and Arsen Serobian in the pas de deux from Prodigal Son.

I blame it on the Nobel Committee.

The autumn 2009 issue of DanceView is out, and subscribers everywhere are smiling. On the black and white cover is a lovely shot of Thomas Whitehead embracing Tamara Rojo in "Goldberg: The Brandstrup-Rojo Project, a ballet danced this year at Covent Garden. This issue features the following articles: Horst Koegler's "Searching for What Makes Mankind Move -- Pina Baurch: 1940-2009" David Vaughan's "Working for Merce" Michael Popkin's "Contre Diaghilev: The Writings of Akim Volynsky" Mary Cargill's "King's Row: ABT's Spring Met Season" Marc Haegeman's "Troubled Times: The Mariinsky in Amsterdam" Carol Pardo's "The Wolf at the Door: Programs, Performances and Money: Miami City Ballet 2009-2010 Season" Reports from New York, London and Copenhagen, and San Francisco by Gay Morris, Jane Simpson, and Rita Felciano respectively. And then there is my favorite article in this issue, Nancy Reynolds' "Taping the Siren" on Yvonne Mounsey coaching Melissa Barak and Arsen Serobian in Prodigal Son for a Balanchine Archive Project taping. A few excerpts from Reynolds on the taping: And during the seduction dance, DanceView is the print big sister of danceviewtimes, and both are published by Ballet Talk founder and site owner, Alexandra Tomalonis. Subscribe and support this board, and have more to talk about too.

Didn't a lot of people say that after his first season?

Thanks for your review, DeborahB. I'd been really looking forward to reading reactions here. Unfortunately Gia Kourlas in the Times didn't think any better of the program the night before. I'm sad for Wheeldon's sake and sad for the art form's sake.

In street clothes? And it worked?? I guess that's the power of great choreography.

In his Kirstein biography Martin Duberman writes that the last perfomance, in Scranton, was on October 22, and that the next day "the company folded," only a week into the tour. As bart said, these images are treasures. Thanks, rg!

Who but the rich could afford opera and ballet if not for private philanthropy or, if you prefer, private "donations?

The question of what wealth is ill-gotten and what is hard-earned aside, there is at least something democratic about private individuals supporting artists and arts organizations they like, rather than all funding being doled out by unelected officials. I think we need both.

Darn, I can't find a thing to disagree with there.

That is a great question. In Balanchine's case, we can speculate that it's because he was much more interested in the women, and -- particularly if Villella's autobiography is any guide -- that he saw some men as potential rivals: "now, you're the star" (rough quote), as he said to Villella one of the dancer's rapturous receptions in the Soviet Union. Thank you so much, Jack and emilienne, for all you've taken time to record and recollect for us here.

Of course I agree. I also see no reason to think most of them don't. Protest can be kneejerk, but acceptance can be passive. Thoughtful engagement, of course, is the ideal.

Hallberg sure was a worldly, sinister von Rothbart to Part's Odile though.

They can, certainly. The risk is that they may wind up looking intolerant, foolish, and on the wrong side of history. You place your bet and take your chance. That's true, except that I imagine you'd agree that conscience takes clear precedence over worrying about what history will think. In other words, with respect, the risk as such is not worth considering. To consider it might be to impute to the artist with moral superiority, to appoint him moral arbitrer, along the lines of Shelley's claim that "poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world"; also perhaps to presume that historical progress is always for the better. These are popular positions of course, but not everyone holds them.

Patrick, I agree that art can be obscene, and as I've been saying, I oppose legal censorship. The artist, as a free moral agent, is free to express himself in his work and display it if he can. By the same token, the critic, the patron, and the ordinary ticketbuyer, as free moral agents are free to withhold their support and even protest and in so doing effectively -- not by law but by economic force --deny the artist the use of the same platform in the future. The artist is free to introduce his work to the community, and the community is free to say "take it elsewhere next time." You may see the community as exercising censorship or suppression here. I see it as an exercise of freedom, both legally and morally, on both sides. Oh, and I like your description of BT as a "highly civil area."

As I said before, I'm opposed to actually censoring works of art, but I don't think the argument above holds water. Much ground has been lost, it's true, but that's no reason to cede more. That obscenity is readily available online is no reason not to stand against it -- in reviews, in letters to artistic directors, in canceled subscriptions, etc. -- in the theater. Of course if someone is not opposed to obscenity, that's another argument; I'm only addressing what's written above.

Patrick, I agree that work like this should be allowed. Absolutely. But the question to me isn't whether the dance succeeds (on its own terms) artistically, but whether it's morally justified (an issue I consider implied in the question "How far can a choreogrpaher go in expressing ideas?"). The victim certainly has not just right but reason to give expression to his pain. After awhile though, unless he has a fresh perspective, he's just venting his spleen. Again, I'm reading this through the lens of that word "annoy." What's more, the Church is not just the Vatican and the local hierarchies that failed the faithful, it's those faithful parishioners in the pew, the ones who run and fund the soup kitchens and clinics and hospitals. I don't think they deserve to see the liturgy they hold dear interspersed with obscenities. Even protest and condemnation can be civil. Fresh perspective might be to depict the some of those good people for a change. They, not the minority of horribly unfaithful priests and their enablers, are substantially the Catholic Church. In any case, I respect your point of view, and I take Helene's point that Rome is still ripe for scrutiny and criticism. I think I've said my piece here and I'm going to bow out of the conversation unless it takes a new turn.

I dunno, Patrick, I can hardly say I've never delivered an angry insult myself, but I still don't think they ever do any good. I also think the Catholic Church is a pretty lame choice of targets nowadays -- was anyone in the audience really unfamiliar with the fact that the Church is made up of fallible human beings? What did anyone learn? What good could the piece have done? In what way could it have been activist? De Frutos might likely make your same argument, but that verb "annoy" sounds telling. Then again, maybe I'm wrong.

Thanks, Simon. It's not just the dance itself but his stated intention to "annoy" the Catholic Church and to do so in order to be scandalous (not to be scandalous for some good societal end) that strikes me as adolescent. But you have explained why he hates the Church, and thanks for doing so.

Well, he's forthright about his motivation, anyway. It's a rather adolescent motive, isn't it? Constructively criticize the Catholic Church would be one thing. To just take pot shots for the sake of irritating it is another.

Patrick, I can't imagine how a kid could be enriched by any work of art dealing with paedophilia or a lot of other vile adult behaviour, or not be hurt by it. I'm all for movie ratings for the same reason I'm all for parenting. I remember as an 11-year old hearing a recording of the pop singer Melanie -- remember her, I know you're old enough? -- in which she practically yelled out an accusation in raw pain. It disturbed me. I wrote a preview piece for a film festival today and in it referred to John Waters' "Pink Flamingos" as That pretty much illustrates my philosophy. Let people know what they're in for, and don't let the PC crowd scare you away from "moral judgment." What would they say about a snuff film?

I wonder if underage folks really weren't allowed in the theater in this case. I'm opposed to legal censorship unless the vile behaviour involves children, but not to setting age limits for viewing the stuff.

The test isn't whether Europe likes him this much or that much better than Bush, it's whether his policies have or have not saved lives, and telling the truth is always the best policy when you're trying to win over skeptics (not the immovable Right, but the self-declared independents, the swing votes he'll need in next year's Congressional races).