Simon G

She appeals because she sells seats to non-balletomanes precisely because she's like an identi-kit assemblage of everything a non-regular ballet goer, imagines a ballerina should be. She's very thin, very very pretty, takes a lovely photo. She smiles winningly, she has legs which go up to her earholes, round the back of her head and back again. She can stand on pointe, she puts her legs up very high, she's very pretty - and she looks very very good in publicity. And that's the thing, most people who go to ballet don't care about it very much, the punters who block book those incredibly expensive seats are mainly corporate geezers and their wives/mistresses etc. They don't go to the ballet to deconstruct technique, to compare choreography, productions, variations. To remember such and such a dancer in such a role x years ago and how that role has progressed in the hands of various ballerinas since. The people who pay the money to keep theatres running, who can regularly afford to buy those very very expensive seats want thin, pretty, winning, charming, winsome ballerinas with legs that go up to their ears. And can vaguely keep in time to music, which is what they're mostly listening to anyway. Somova is a ballerina for the corporate block, as opposed to those great Russian ballerinas of the past produced by the Soviet bloc.

I have to say I think Ashton is easily Balanchine's equal if not superior.

Hans & Cygnet, I completely agree with you and your assessment of her abilities as a dancer, however if you look at that clip of her in rose adagio it really is a completely different woman, well almost. Her musicality is atrocious, her turn out, well I think there it's not so much a caes of she can't use it, I think she actually doesn't have it, she seems to be one of those hyper flexible types with extremely loose joints and muscles who ironically don't have natural turn out. And yes, her feet are always going to be pretty awful. But if you compare the clips of her in the PDD from the Rose adagio filmed two years previously or the Etudes clip which is in the same league of cringeworthy, teeth-clenching pain inducing badness as the clip of Tom Cruise and oprah's couch, you really can see a hugely dramatic and marked improvement. Which can't have been easy to achieve. For that at least I give her kudos. I mean, yes, she's never going to be a ballerina in anything other than title, but she is at least turning into a competent soloist.

You know what? In fairness to Somova, who previously has been a dancer I absolutely couldn't stand for all the reasons mentioned on the boards, I had a look on Youtube at the most recent video uploaded of her, the Sleeping Beauty third act PDD - and I have to say it's like watching a totally, totally different dancer. She's really worked hard to overcome all her stylistic eccentricities and considerable technical problems. On her penchee's she never once take it to six o'clock nor does her tutu ever flop over her head backwards, her petit allegro, and small terre a terre work is just in a different league from anything I've seen her do before - her problem is precisely that she is so flexible and so long of limb that she was never on top of her legs, but here she's really reined it in and brought all those quick small movements down to where they should be. She also appears a great deal stronger, especially in pirouettes, supported and solo and her feet another big problem for her previously, are working so much better. Because she is so long musicality and keeping to the beat and rhythm is always going to be difficult and considerably harder than for a compact dancer, but in every aspect of her technique you can see she's put in what must have been a Herculean effort to improve beyond all recognition. I doubt she'll ever be a dancer I'd pay top whack to watch, nor would she ever be a favourite dancer of mine - but I do think when someone has really worked and the efforts are so remarkable and noticeable, it's definitely worth mentioning. She actually looks like a ballet dancer, and a very confident and competent one. Kudos to her.

There's a video of Parish on youtube from years ago at a Yorkshire Ballet Seminar, doing a series of double tours and pirouettes if not dazzlingly certainly technically efficiently - and this was before he joine the RB. And one can only surmise that since then his technique must have grown, by his own steam and efforts if not company management's support - and that's a killer to know you've come on leaps and bounds, to be able to see the improvement and yet year in and out still not see your hard work supported or acknowledged by management. The other thing is Parish has a perfect body, a real one in a million genetic fluke, a dance dictionary entry on "danseur noble" could be illustrated with his picture - and one does wonder why management never exploited this. Danseur noble types are rare as hen's teeth. Pennefather is physically the type and Mason does seem to be putting all her efforts into thrusting danseur noble status upon him, it's just sadly everything else that comes with it - clean technique, a plastic quality of movement and acting ability are lacking in Pennefather. Why isn't Mason looking at her lower ranks for qualities and potential that the Mariinsky management spotted straight off the bat? Mason who herself was a demi caractere virtuoso seems to value these qualities within dancers she fast tracks for principal. McRae & Polunin had the majority of their formative training elsewhere, and seems that the lion's share of the future repertory will be theirs, the other extreme is the bland handsome dope types she imports such as Bonnelli & Samodurov - it's a company of imports. Another thing I find really irritating is Eric Underwood. The first African American to be imported at lower rank and then promoted to soloist. What I find irritating isn't the fact that he's there, he's a beautiful exciting dancer with a clean, formidable classical technique, but the fact he's given nothing to do - except the standard fayre of pimps, bad-asses and modern work, he's basically type cast into the limited rep a classical company thinks black dancers are appropriate for and what's the point of a classical ballet company hiring and promoting to soloist a dancer of obvious talent and presence with a real feel and ability for classical ballet if you're not going to give him the classical rep to dance? It's made worse by the fact that Underwood is now in his 30s and his time to advance and build himself as a dancer within the classical rep is limited. How unbalanced and lopsided the company is and how fragile the pack of cards which is the hierarchy within it again can be seen in the Cuban Tour. When several of the leading principals were taken ill and couldn't dance. Three or four dancers' absence sent a company of 100 into a disarray and Mason scrabbling about for replacements at the last minute. All the pieces and ballets presented were foreign-principal showcases. Mason seems to totally ignore the concept of emploi where dancers are marked out as soon as they enter the company as potential inheritors of certain rep and roles and coached from the beginning to succeed in those roles. A corps de ballet is a training ground not a backdrop - and until this is acknowledged dancers such as Parish will continue to develop talents in angry isolation before taking their hard work elsewhere.

This story pretty much typifies exactly why the Royal is so artistically bankrupt and it's shameful commitment (or lack thereof) to nurturing and producing English dancers of excellence. I never saw Parish dance, but then why would I have? He spent the best part of half a decade languishing in the background, carrying spears, floral garlands - doing not much of anything. And sadly his decision while proving already fruitful for him, is so typical of many a dancer graduating into Britain's "flagship" company from the RBS. The gamble of moving half way round the world, into an alien culture at a greatly reduced salary is often the only other option to standing in the background for 15-20 years in the corps for the sake of a salary. You really do have to ask why is Mason so loathe to actually promote homegrown talent, to suggest that Parish doesn't have what it takes is specious, especially as his move is into the greatest classical ballet company in the World. Moreover, it's a sad indication that the Royal, founded on its superlative corps is no longer a company for corps dancers, neither is its rep. Mason either exports foreign stars and of the few English dancers she has supported, Cuthbertson, Watson & Pennefather, the men's deficiencies as classical soloists let alone principals is painfully clear as they struggle to execute classical enchainements with competency. Indeed Watson has pretty much given up the classical rep altogether. While I understand the running costs of the Royal are huge and stars do draw in the punters, if that's the Royal's only raison d'etre, if it's so artistically uncommited to developing dancers within the classical rep, from within its own school - then really what is the point of its existence? In the recent visit to Cuba Jonothan Cope had to be drafted in to dance Beliav in Month in the Country after a five year retirement because the two principals it'd been taught to both were ill. Why couldn't third or fourth casts from the corps have been taught the role? Not least as this is the ethos of a classical company's existence, the passing on of the tradition of the company style to younger generations. Parish, tall, young, classically lined and technical would have made a brilliant foyle to Natalia Petrovna's combustible yearnings. Parish's lack of promotion and support and his vindication of his unutilsed and ignored talent by the Mariinsky is yet another example, perhaps the most poignant one, that something is really wrong within the Royal's admin, with Mason's direction. The development of a homegrown principal of real technical ability and talent would have been such a coup for her administration and her inability to do so is just shocking, not only for the Royal's reputation as the cradle of the British school, but also an indictment that perhaps her eyes aren't on the ball.

miliosr, They did actually ask her to be in the reboot and she refused. Some really good horrors are the 70s "exploitation" flicks such as "Cannibal Holocaust" and "I Spit On Your Grave", which despite their rather sensationalist names are actually very good, well made low budget shockers with actual messages. For the depravity of human behaviour and the depths man can sink to, though it's not technically a horror film, Pasolini's "Salo, 120 Days of Sodom" will have you squirming. Rami's "The Evil Dead, 2" which is actually a big budget remake of his original low budget shocker "Evil Dead", is pretty vile with a sick sense of humour and his recent film "Drag Me To Hell" is brilliant, a high camp, gross out, brilliantly made horror film. And of course if you want a nasty bit of horror/torture porn, you can't go wrong with Eli Roth's "Hostel". And I think I've said far too much about my depraved psyche for one night.

Snuff would be preferable to Love Actually.

Here's De Frutos in The Guardian on the pulling of the work: http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2009/dec/1...avier-de-frutos In it he acknowledges that it was only appropriate for post watershed, and as I suspected, when commissioned the BBC thought because it's dance (or ballet, it seems they thought, showing a depressing lack of knowledge of wider dance forms) they assumed it would be anodyne, & safe for all the family, so always thought it would be pre watershed and scheduled it as such. Regarding the question of pious, appropriate Television viewing fayre for Christmas, and the need to safeguard the moral landscape of society by completely censoring all broadcasts pre and post watershed. I'd just like to point to the fact that part of the Xmas programming for terrestrial television on Channel 5 in the UK, and thus publicallly accessible to everyone of the 60 million residents of the UK is the Exorcist. The full version with nothing cut out.

Hi Ambonnay, I'm sorry if it seemed I jumped down your throat. It is one of my bugbears, male ballet dancers who seem to want to eradicate the perfectly natural biological fact of having hair. I know just as many ballet watchers have a problem of men with hair. As dirac said, the next logical post modern/feminist step is to have hairy ballerinas, with bird's nests and Chewbacca furry legs, poking out of their tights. I'd pay money to see that. I also can sympathise with dancers you really don't rate being feted and lauded to high heaven, I had that same feeling with Adam Cooper. He was a corps de ballet member in the RB when Sylvie Guillem plucked him from obscurity to partner her because of his height and he was fast tracked to principal status, then he was Matthew Bourne's Swan King in his Swan Lake and in the deluge of incredible, sycophantic press and attention, no one actually mentioned that he wasn't all that great as a dancer. It's just part of life, and makes it all the more sweeter when dancers you do like are given the attention they deserve.

Sorry, I didn't mean my posting to come over as so abrupt, I was typing on the fly. I suppose all I meant was that it's just not worth getting upset when a bit of hyperbolic, fluff journalism is nothing more than superficial. It's not geared towards ballet lovers, just people who like pretty pictures.

Ambonnay, I think this is getting a tad neurotic, maybe? If anything I find the habit of male dancers shaving away all traces of pubic hair a bit disgusting or at least unsettling - as if sex, sexuality, puberty and their entirely natural traits and characteristics are something to be ashamed about? Cory Stearns is a grown man, what's wrong with him being photographed as one? He's not asexual, emasculated or effeminate, in fact the image portrayed is one of masculine virility, an image which can only do the subject of male dancing, a subject which provokes ambivalent reactions in non dance fans, a great deal of good. Indeed judging my the hirsute glimpses of Millepied dressed in shirt, were he to have opted for the shirt off shot, it's highly likely he'd have borne more than a passing similarity to Chewbacca - so what? He's a hairy guy. The photos are nice photos, I totally agree with everyone that a fluffy bit of filler in Vogue isn't the place to discuss the finer details of ballet technique, most people don't care, certainly your average reader of Vogue is more interested in aesthetics than tecnicalities of a dance form. And getting uptight over a misnoma, or rather an opinion that is contrary to your own regarding Stearn's partnering abilities, especially as it's in Vogue, makes me question why this is so troubling for you. I've seen Stearn's partnering skills lauded in dance publications (I've never seen him dance, so can't give any personal opinion) just as I've seen other dancers who I have seen and don't like, praised to high heaven in dance journals - it's just par for the course, it's certainly not worth getting upset about. The only thing I don't like is Annie Leibowitz, I find her style very staged and arch as always. But any mention of dance in a non dance medium can only be a good thing - and if scores of women now flock to ABT performances to oggle Stearns, albeit with hairty pits, when before they wouldn't have gone to the ballet, that's a good thing.

Carbro, On a scale of 1-10? I'd give it a 3, bad pantomime, the only thing that raised it into "scandalous" level (if someone actively wanted to be scandalised) is that the main protagonist was supposed to be "a" not "the" pope. Canbelto, The thing I have to stress again is that the broadcast destination for this programming was BBC4, not a public channel, a very very specialised niche cable channel with an average viewing audience of about 6 people if they're lucky. And in truth if it IS post watershed why can't specialised programming still take place in appropriate formats, channels and times. Because the BBC was broadcasting pre watershed they pulled the De Frutos - a pity about the time slot, the De Frutos was the most interesting thing on the quadruple bill. No I did not cite this work as a potentially instructive piece, and I really wish my words weren't continually twisted to fill an agenda which was never mine in the first place. I said that in the case that a child may watch or inadvertantly come across a troubling or provocative piece of work, one could use it as a jumping off point to start a conversation or discourse about the issues in an age-appropriate manner. I never meant that parents should sit their kids down in front of the De Frutos as a form of anti-Catholic indoctrination. If a child around the age of five saw the few seconds which constituted the "offending" (to some) material, in all likelihood they wouldn't even register it, it's not that disturbing or interesting enough. A child of around 11/12 or over I'd have no problem with them watching all of it - though chances are they wouldn't actually be that interested. In the grey area between wider awareness and adolescence 5-10, IF the child saw it and wanted to discuss it - and if that child was mine, I would be prepared to open an age-appropriate discussion. That's all I'm saying. And I feel that's healthier than just ignoring that child's questions. I'm not saying that it would be an opportunity to discuss Catholicism from the Crusades to the current situation in Ireland. Here kfw, I really have to take issue. There's a vast gulf between morals and ethics and morals are personal to the individual, as soon as one begins to insist that one's moral standpoint is superior and that it become an ethical code by which the majority must abide, you are in deeply, deeply dangerous territory. I assume then that you and the other De Frutos detractors are morally superior to me? Don't worry, I don't take offence at all, but you fill pages of a website arguing the case for blanket censorship and the moral decrepitude of something you haven't seen and argue a case for this unknown work being banned from a domain where a greater audience may choose to view it and make up their own mind, based on their individual morals. A self-imposed position of moral superiority of a few, is advocating what the majority may or may not view for fear of corrupting their moral code, a moral code you seem to have decided upon. This is what makes me nervous and why it's not fair on your part to mention moral superiority and then refuse to elaborate further. This is the crux of this thread, and why I wonder if it can find any resolution - as long as anything is argued from the standpoint of unimpeachable moral superiority, anything I or anyone else says is ultimately useless. Our morals and views are inherently inferior.

Of course. I'd just leave that to parents, not to de frutos. But De Frutos has no desire or intention on instructing children in the dangers of sexual predators. The Eternal Damnation to Sancho and Sanchez was never intended for children, nor was it intended as instruction. It was on late at a theatre with a warning. The show when televised has omitted the De Frutos piece because it's being broadcast pre watershed, had it been broadcast post watershed it would have come with an "adult content" warning. What else can be done then? Must we have a total moratorium on all or any content deemed immoral or obscene in every piece intended for public viewing in all medium? Who then is going to police this body, decide the moral code and conduct, what can and can't be seen, what is and isn't moral and what floodgates of hypocrisy will be opened by this governing body? It's exactly that kind of institution of moral superiority and the machinations and potential for evil behind it that caused De Frutos to create Eternal Damnation to Sancho and Sanchez in the first place.

Actually Kfw, on this point sadly in our world warning children against predators and sexual abuse by adults isn't something you can avoid, it's part and parcel of protecting children full stop; that they know as early as possible the dangers out there.

kfw, I do appreciate that, and I promise I'm not being obtuse. However, what then is the answer? That's why we have watershed's, warnings before programmes with certain content and depressingly few specialised channels on TV where challenging work is actually shown. Of course it's a parent's right to avoid the issue entirely, just as that same parent is responsible for switching off or over should a programme become offensive to their personal morals or adult in content. I maintain that the De Frutos was NOT that bad, and that the few seconds of outre material was compensated with thirty minutes of rather turgid dance theatre. When we get to a point where we're no longer able or trusted to police ourselves and deemed incapable and unable to deal with the fallout should children view adult material, or answer questions and parent their own children - we're in trouble. This thread has been troubling - the very question which instigated the thread questioned the right to ideas and the right to express them, and the subsequent call from certain parties for what it would seem to be mandatory censorship is regressive and depressing. I wouldn't show a young child the De Frutos work, but then I would be concerned about showing a young child much of De Frutos' work, especially his wonderful pieces - once the child has reached 10 or so, I wouldn't have a problem. If the work came on TV again, same rules apply, if I didn't know the content and it started to tip into the adult realm, I'd turn off. If the child were on their own and watched then asked me later, I would talk about it, maybe watch it on the internet, talk to them about it and then stop TV privileges if they'd been watching on the sly. And this is why this thread is turning a bit schizoid. The right of the artist to express themselves how they wish & the way a parent parents their child are two different matters entirely - because it's the adults moral code using the child to impress their morals on not just the artist but society at large.

I read psychology at university and have subsequently been involved in supporting, guiding and directing young teenagers into education, skills, The Prince's Trust and work. I would not dare to make any of your statements regarding children that have the semblance of claims. But I defend your right to make them. I have of course not read any case papers, but one in ten children in this country have mental health problems which mean childhood experiences and influences are likely to be of significant importance. You say, "I still maintain that the absolute stranglehold that vacuous mass media has is far more damaging to the psyches and development of children's intellect than being confronted with challenging material." What is the evidence for this? Leonid, I challenge you to watch an entire afternoon of entertainment geared at kids/tweens/teens that includes, American Idol, X Factor, Hannah Montana, High School Musical, Hollyoaks, Best of Friends, Kyle XY, The Season, T4, Camp Rock, Trouble on Deck, The Jonas Bros, Aaron Stone, Beauty and the Geek, Search for a Pussycat Doll, Sonny With a Chance, Nicktropolis - there's a few to be getting on with. Then let's talk about the current mass media geared at youth. Yes, childhood trauma is the leading cause of psychotic disorder and disturbance in children. Incest, sexual abuse, PTSD, violence, bullying, underage sex, drinking drugs, negelct, no one refutes that. What is beneficial is keeping channels of communication open, you don't have to hit a kid with all the evils of the world and every sordid detail, but keeping discourse, debate open and answering questions in age appropriate manner is completely different. The point about the Victorians isn't that a return to the superficial morality they followed is the answer, rather that they were the biggest bunch of perverts going. If anyone has ever seen pornography produced in that era, they'll know, it's hardcore and far more centered around the taboo sexuality and morality they tried so very hard to divorce themselves from. But okay, here's a few things to think of: Two men rape a young woman, they cut off her hands and rip out her tongue in order that she can't name her accusers. A man kills two men in revenge, turns them into pies and tricks their mother into eating them. A man marries and has sex with his mother, unwittingly, when he finds out he pokes out his eyes. A young girl is raped in an Edwardian garden by a much older man, as his wife seduces a young boy. Sixteen youths are brutally tortured to death in war time Italy in the state of Salo by a priest, a minister, a politician and a doctor. A king's gay lover is murdered and that king killed by forcing a red hot poker up his rectum. A young mother finds her life is a sham and commits the ultimate sin in 19th century Norway, the monster abandons her husband and children forever. Those are a few examples off the top of my head. Shall we now censor and ban Shakespeare, Marlow, Pasolini, Euripides, MacMillan, Ibsen? At the very least let's keep our children away from these dangerous, sick so-called artists. But there's no fear of that, they'd rather be watching Hannah Montana & High School Musical.

I still maintain that the absolute stranglehold that vacuous mass media has is far more damaging to the psyches and development of children's intellect than being confronted with challenging material. And that there's zero chance a kid would sit through 40 minutes of niche market dance-based physical theatre when there's a whole world of drivel at his or her fingertips. But, how about we approach this from a different angle? The De Frutos wouldn't even register with children of a certain age, so let's say a child who is inquisitive, intelligent should happen upon a piece such as the De Frutos and ask about the symbolism religious etc within the piece. How would you honour that child's intelligence and perfectly reasonable questions by initiating a conversation with him or her? It would take some research on your behalf for starters, you'd need to know about De Frutos, his background dance, cultural and religious - there was an intellectual point and purpose as well as emotional one and indeed a commissioned one (it was made for the Spirit of Diaghilev evening after all). Then you'd have to research the transgressions of the Papacy historically, of the Roman Catholic church and specifically De Frutos' relationship with his religion. You wouldn't have to go into all the sordid details - but you could start an interesting and healthy discourse rather than censoring and rendering subjects taboo - most unhealthy approaches. Ultimately though, the upshot would be you'd have an arsenal of facts and issues which could be spoken about and discussed with the child. That for me is a far more grown up and rational approach not only to this whole issue, but also to raising children who are open, aware and intellectually inquisitive.

She said in her autobiography, Ashton considered her to be MacMillan's property and so kept away after Two Pigeons, then the R&J debacle happened and Seymour & MacMillan left for Berlin and Seymour didn't return to the Royal until 1970 when MacMillan began his disastrous directorship. By the time Ashton felt it safe to approach Seymour again in the late stage of her career for Five Brahms Waltzes & Month in the Country, the relationship between Seymour and Macmillan had strained considerably.

Here's a real teatime treat, the central pas de deux for Lynn Seymour & Anthony Dowell in Ashton's A Month in the Country. Filmed in 1976, they don't make them like her anymore: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OUIeOr3Bo8

Nanarina, It's funny, I used to use the "it's for art" defence when I was a kid with a hankering for smut, too. It's incredible that it still works! I suppose we could return to a Victorian policy of total censorship, cold baths, regular pre-emptive corporal punishment, stern Christian lectures, salpeter in milk, chastity belts and dressing table legs in trousers - because that really worked for them. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm just off to cleanse the streets of Whitechapel with my trusty scalpel.

I don't think the only choice is between vacuous and challenging. And not every insult -- certainly not de frutos' -- is challenging. kfw, You didn't see the De Frutos, how do you know? Though one thing's for sure, its mere existence is certainly challenging many people here's perceptions and views on what is and isn't art and the nature and purpose of censorship. Just think how much more interesting that conversation would be if we had all seen it and could discuss it from the same point without bias and kneejerk responses? So if anything it achieved its goal, we're talking about it and the issues surrounding it in a reasoned, intellectual way - why couldn't a child be brought into a similar discussion if they were to view it, and discuss it with responsible parents who trust their children enough to be able to be challenged, and to question their world in an intelligent and thoughtful manner?

You know what I was thinking and decided it'd be a far better World if there was indeed any real danger and possibility that an impressionable young person would ever be inclined to switch on a specialist arts channel and be confronted with troubling, thought provoking, challenging and even downright disturbing material with intellectual weight and power, than the reality that that same young person is 100% certain to opt for switching onto American Idol, Hannah Montana, X Factor or any other lobotomising crap that makes up the majority of modern media. This whole argument of complete censorship for the few remaining outlets in the mass media where content comes above popularity is deeply dangerous, it's asking to silence the few places where challenging and dissenting artistic voices can actually still be heard.

Alexandra, My gosh, having been to see the whole programme at Sadlers Wells, four choreographers, four pieces - all equally inane (though to be fair the Russell Maliphant piece was very pretty to look at) I swear on a stack of bibles the bigger question is why the BBC chose to buy the rights to broadcast that entire evening altogether. Especially when there really is no shortage of really great modern dance taking place throughout London all year round. Banal, really was the buzz word for the entire enterprise, what wasn't quite so banal was the £40 a ticket cost, I know I said one should go and see stuff one has an inkling one might not like, but next time I'm going to buy a cheap seat in the gods.

How can one be sure to avoid what one doesn't want to see, if when, what, and where are not known? I think you are quite right about the competition. If I were a child or teenager, I'd be drawn by the straightforward stuff, not a dance piece I had to watch carefully and put in context. The latter doesn't appeal very easily to channel-surfing. Helene, I was only having a laugh, I promise, I was actually rather impressed with Nanarina's ability to name programmes. The thing is though, all you have to do, all any kid has to do is log on and instantly a whole world of nastiness is at their fingertips. And in terms of protecting kids from that, I am in agreement with nanarina, it's relentless and anyone with kids or with kids in their care is right to feel worried. But I do promise anyone who hasn't seen the De Frutos, it really isn't that bad (in terms of obscenity, artistically it really is that bad, if not worse.) And while I can see the point of omitting it from a pre watershed slot, on BBC4 post watershed, on such a niche channel, which struggles to get audiences and really is of no interest whatsoever to anyone without a vested interest in the product, transmitting the piece isn't that big a deal: no matter what time of year. Sadly, despite BBC4's best efforts to create interesting, arts programming viewers rarely do go above the few thousands.