Simon G

No worries Lady k, hope you write a most excellent essay.

Hi Lady Kay,

Ah! Now I know exactly what you need to research for you essay question. If you can try and get your hands on these books, I don't know what your library is like:

The Vision of Modern Dance - as above.

Merce Cunningham The Modernizing of Modern Dance - Roger Copeland

http://www.amazon.com/Merce-Cunningham-Mod...=dp_kinw_strp_1

There's one book which is brilliant by Carolyn Brown, Cunningham's main dancer for 20 years and will give you everything you need

Chance & Circumstance - Twenty years with Cage & Cunningham - Carolyn Brown.

http://www.amazon.com/Chance-Circumstance-...1737&sr=1-3

Merce Cunningham 50 years - David Vaughn

http://www.amazon.com/Merce-Cunningham-Fif...1737&sr=1-4

Merce Cunningham Notes on Choeography - Frances Starr

http://www.amazon.com/Merce-Cunningham-Cha...914&sr=1-24

I suppose the things which are most appropriate for the question are:

Cunningham's early performing experience with Graham and Graham technique. Things to focus on are:

The highly structured and codified technique of Graham.

The way that this relates to the highly structured and codified ballet technique.

The structure of Graham ballets - they became increasingly story based, the technique and dramatic structure was directly linked to commissioned scores, they had a narrative base - they're essentially story ballets.

Cunningham's breaking away from Graham and the "classical" hierarchy of American Modern dance in the mid to late 40s.

His meeting with John Cage and his first solo concerts in 1944 & 1945.

The notion that dance, story and design were not necessarily connected and all inter dependent of each other.

The formation of his company at Black Mountain college in 1953.

Bennington College.

Bennington was a very important set up. It was a summer programme where the big movers and shakers were invited to give residencies in all aspects of Modern dance. It ran for about 20 years from the late 30s to mid late 50s

At that time Graham, Louis Horst, Doris Humphrey & Limon were the leaders in the American modern dance movement - in 1958 Cunningham and his company were invited to take up a summer residency there and it was a historic meeting of the establishment vs the new young pretenders.

Things also to focus on as this is important in regards to post modernism is despite the notion of chance procedure the one aspect of Cunningham's work which was not left to chance is the technique.

In technique there is none more thorough, rigorous or challenging than Cunningham's. In that respect he was no different to Graham.

In relation to your essay question the knock on effect from Cunningham to "post modernism" is just that the post moderns were rebelling against the concept of technique, rigour, formalised dances and virtuosity.

The most famous example of this is an essay by post modern dancer and choreographer Yvonne Rainer called "The Mind is a Muscle" with her famous statement "No To Virtuosity".

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080186079...Yvonne%20Rainer

The Judson Church Group.

The Judson Church Group were in many ways a direct rebelling against the modern vision of dance of Cunningham who was the hero of the "avant garde" because in their eyes he was still bound by formalism and technique.

However many of them had studied or performed with Cunningham or were still performing with him at the time of the famous dance concert in 1962 at Judson Memorial Church.

Democracy's Body Judson Dance Theatre 1962-64 - Sally Banes

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/082231399...Yvonne%20Rainer

The people to research in relation to this & Cunningham are:

Robert Dunn - Who gave a composition class at the Cunningham Studio in 1960 and was one of the movers & shakers of the post moderns.

Yvonne Rainer - essays, her "Ordinary Dance" was the big "hit" of the first Judson concert.

Judith Dunn - a dancer with Cunningham and leader in the post modern movement.

Steve Paxton - Cunningham dancer 1960-64. Inventor of "contact improvisation" technique.

Deborah Hay & Alex Hay - Deborah Hay danced with Cunningham on 1964 world tour & founded her own company.

Lucinda Childs

Trisha Brown.

Douglas Dunn - ex Cunningham Dancer

Lady Kay - if you can really get your hands on the Carolyn Brown book as it gives first hand accounts of all these people and their work - Black Mountain, Bennington in 1958 etc. She was there and also discusses Cunningham's disastrous attempt to give a "post modern" solo concert of Judson Church inspired dance.

Also The Vision of Modern Dance is a series of essays by all these movers and shakers and is excellent as each choeographer talks about their work in relation to others. It also has Yvonne Rainer's "The Mind is a Muscle" reprinted in full.

That's a really vague potted history and list but I think it should get you going in the right direction.

I was just thinking as well Lady Kay. that in terms of "historic" you can also apply this to certain works in a modern choreographers canon or certain "events" which became important in the history of dance and in the technique and artistic history of not only that choreographer but in dance history itself.

Martha Graham had several of these which were directly linked to certain seminal works and periods of her artistic development:

Dance, Lamentation, The Heretic, Frontier, Appalachain Spring, Night Journey - all mark several extremely important moments when certain ideas and advances in her technique took form and were expressed in a single work.

However, those can also cross over in several choreographers works within a specific artistic movement - The Americana arts movement of the 30s can include Frontier but also Doris Humphreys' The Shakers.

Merce Cunningham is another who had several of these seminal work moments: Crises, Winterbranch, Summerspace, Walkaround Time, Suite for Five, Story, Aeon, Rainforest - all moments when the art and choreography and artistic manifesto found a single expression in a single groundbreaking work which became historic.

Another such moment for Cunningham happened on the world tour on June 24th 1964 when invited to presnent the company in Vienna at the Museum of the 20 Jahrhundert, they found that the space was unable to support a proper performance with lights, prosecenium arch or even normal theatre set up. So they performed a 90 minute dance concert which incorporated several excerpts from existing dances joined together to form a tapestry of one whole new dance piece. This became known as Event 1 - over the years they've performed hundreds of these "events" each numbered - it was an historic moment in the way dance could be programmed and performed.

Paul Taylor is another who has several seminal works such as Orbs, Aureole, Esplanade - in these pieces which come to be called "masterpieces" the intention was to explore a facet of dance which was so successful that the pieces ended up being historic. Esplanade for example is a dance piece made up of not a single dance step. It's all about running, walking, skipping, falling, jumping but no actual "dancing" in the traditional sense.

Another way of looking at historic moments is in certain concerts or movements. I don't know if you've heard of the Judson Church Group? On July 6th 1962 a group of choreographers who'd all studied or performed with the "established" companies set up a dance concert at the Judson Memorial Church in New York to present work which went against all established notions of technique, virtuosity and dance. This group included people like Yvonne Rainer, Trish Brown, Steve Paxton, Lucinda Childs, Douglas Dunn presenting work which baffled, angered and bored many people. However, it became the beginning of "post modern" modern dance and set up the careers of these dance practitioners and gave a platform for their own experiments in dance form. In Paxton's case his technique is widely known as "contact improvisation". The Judson Church performance, the group and the dance form it inspired is an important moment in modern dance history - although at the time the people involved were trying to deconstruct all notion of establishment, posterity and history the irony is it was an historic moment within dance.

Indeed how does one define "historic" especially in an evolving art form - how long is a piece of string?

Lady Kay,

To properly answer your question perhaps you could explain where you heard the term "historic modern dance" and in what context? It's very vague and open to endless interpretations - as there have been endless chapters and periods of modernism throughout dance history, indeed a hundred or so years ago Swan Lake would have been "modern" and none could have guessed it would be destined for historical posterity. Or since Nijinsky's Rite of Spring pre dated Fuller, Fokine and any of the great modern choreographers, you could argue that's when "modern" began?

Also modern dance was not just confined to America, Joos, Leeder, Laban, Wigman - all european chapters in dance's history.

In relation to the term "modern" there's nice passage from Martha Graham's memoires:

When Garson Kanin recommended that I choreograph The Goldwyn Follies. Sam [Goldwyn] said, "I've heard of her. What kind of dance does she do?"

Garson brightened with "modern dance". To which Sam replied, "Not modern dance. It's so old fashioned." He was right.

Modern dance dates so quickly. That's why I always use the term contemporary dance" - it's of its time. I never, never say "modern dance". There is no such thing. Everything in art changes, except the avant garde.

A really good starting point to learn about modern dance from the 19th century to present day would be to read "A Vision of Modern Dance"

http://www.amazon.com/Vision-Modern-Dance-...2439&sr=1-1

This book charts the progression from Fuller & Duncan, touches on eastern europeans such as Wigman, deals with the big "3" Graham, Holm, Humpherys; the second generation such as Limon, Cunningham, Taylor and deals with the post modern Judson Church group, such as Rainer, Dunn and finishes off with "present" day choreographers such as Mark Morris.

Philip

Here's my problem with your posts. They make no sense, there's no coherency of purpose, point and no argument. I never said elitist, I said you're a snob, the protracted phonetic lines of the country "bumpkins" being a case in point. Instead of offering up their mangled vowels & parochial mentalities for our "amusement" why not get off your tractor and get to know them, talk with them; you assume you and your life is outside their realm of experience and this is why your posts are juvenile - as with your farmer neighbours you assume droite de seigneur. Your posts also ramble somewhat incoherently without making a point, and confuse a deluge of facts, anecdotes and personal opnon with having made a point: indeed Bart had to dissect a single paragraph in order to try and ascertain your point.

You like to provoke with fairly overt statements, okay fine that's good to provoke debate, but then you don't debate, also you assume that those reading haven't the knowledge you do. I know Tetley was trained and danced for Graham, and before that he danced for Joffery but when I see the way he tries to blend the Graham technique into ballet lexicon - it makes me cringe. It's why Graham refused for the majority of her lifetime to let her works enter the reps of ballet companies - though I'm sure you know this.

It's great to be opinionated, but it's meaningless if you (one/anyone) can't express that opinion clearly, meaningfully and accept that one's opinions may be anathema to another. I think that's why I find your attitude very adolescent - there's no discourse, only attack and one upmanship and the certainty that you look down on me and anyone else whose opinion or world view you deem to be inferior. And yes that is juvenile and boring.

So forgive me if I seem to be an ignoramous - what's your point? Explain it to me as you would those bumpkins on the bench and maybe we can start to talk?

This is what reading too much Ayn Rand does for one.

Philip,

I don't quite get your point and I don't feel you actually know what you're talking about either. On the one hand you're calling for an end to heroes and sacred monsters and advocating a demcratisation of the arts through cross pollinisation and then on the other hand you contradict your quasi-Marxist, egalitatrian manifesto by calling fans of popular culture through American Idol, So you Think You can Dance etc "dunces". An end to perceived snobbism from a snob? Since you want to see ballet expand to a mass media market how do you expect the "dunces" to value it anyway? You're aguments are on so many levels a peculiar brand of inverse-inverse-snobbism.

Your points aren't provocative precisely because they're so confused, generic and I'm sad to say more than just a little bit banal.

The fact is classical ballet is classical ballet, it's a language a lexicon and it's not "cool"; but by not being "cool" I neither mean it's outdated or worthless. Rather it is what it is, timeless, beautiful and eternally valid and pertinent and relevant.

I'll tell you what makes me gag, is when ballet tries to be "cool" to be anything other than what it is; work like Glen Tetley's where dancers bend their backs and think they're contracting a la Martha Graham, works set to pop and rock music which are effectively MTV videos on stage, works where the choreogapher tries to make ballet anything other than what it is - ballet; as if they're embarrassed to be seen associating with something so outdated and ancient. In which case don't choreograph ballet.

You want to "nail the coffin shut" why exactly? I think that's what irks me about your posts, these aren't inflammatory statements, they're juvenile ones and you don't back it up with anything like a reasoned or thoughtful argument. Simply saying they're dead and they're time is over isn't an argument it's a statement of fact backed up with bias and is effectively worthless.

But if you do really do, want to nail the coffin shut, fine, just don't watch ballet. Because without Balanchine, et al and by et al I mean real choreographers of worth and genius of ballet - there is no ballet, no past, no heritage, no point and no future.

McIntyre, Wheeldon, and Alonzo King etc, etc., etc. Ya know, the 21st century world is too small for one great choreographer.

In those three Philip, it doesn't even have one.

Yes, I saw her in both R&J and The Dream dancing with Wayne Eagling. Her physical appearance came as something as a shock to most as we’d never seen anyone that thin at the time, she looked rather like an olive on a stick I seem to remember. The general opinion was that she wasn’t significantly better than most of the RB principals.

Mashinka

I think that's slightly unfair, Britsh audiences have always had a tendency to take umbrage and be somewhat ungenerous to those they perceive as interlopers; and in this case the civic pride of audience members wasn't in accordance with the critics. Indeed when Kirkland first appeared with the company the RB was definitely heaing towads its most lacklustre state in decades.

The critics however, didn't agree, having read the reviews from that period they showered her with superlatives and couldn't praise her highly enough. Indeed Ashton and De Valois were of the same opinion, and hoped to form a longterm relationship with her sabotaged by her much publicised problems.

I was actually far too young in the 80s when she danced to have seen her, so I can only go on reports and reviews, however I will say one of the ballerinas of that time once described her to me and her working methods in terms that went well into the bitchy and scathing - which led me to think that there was more than just a tad of jealousy and envy.

In films I've seen of Kirkland from that period and the 70s one thing can't be denied she was a phenomenal one off.

Deborah,

Do you know if she was one of the 11 corps members whose contracts were terminated or did she leave for other reasons of her own volition?

Buddy & Jack,

The thing is when it comes to pessimism about the future of ballet and dance I'm probably the greatest pessimist here. Things aren't great and there's no reason to believe that they'll get better any time soon, if at all.

Which is exactly why when the fates throw you a bone it's best to just take it for what it is, a nice segment on a mass audience light entertainment show.

Demographics for television are hard to pin down, especially for one such as Letterman whose demographic can alter radically depending who he has on - the show Part was part of was about as mass media youth audience as one could get in terms of the other guests; indeed the audience which ballet is trying hard to attract as a new generation of audience - and perhaps that's why Part was so ideal she was young, beautiful and contemporary.

Introducing people one on one to high art forms one loves is great, I wouldn't knock it Jack, but new audiences are created through people actively seeking something out, from their own initiative because something piqued their interest; which is what Part did.

I have absolutely no belief that Part has started a US wide revolution in ballet attendance, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if for a very brief time ticket sales for companies across the US and especially ABT show a marked improvement and who knows, maybe some of those curious people may like what they see, ballet as ballet, and new converts are born.

Oh, no Jack...I meant in a video clip...althought the idea of the Black Swan coda LIVE does indeed sound wonderful to me. Now, I know that THAT would be close to surreal...but yes, even if presented as a stunt, it would have been very exciting. Hey...I even felt that presenting Part going on pointe was meant to be perceived as a mere stunt, to which people responded applauding and cheering.

Cuban,

The problem with extended clips shown on primetime TV is that rights have to be paid after a very short amount of time dependent on the contract with the film company who filmed the ballet and AGMA and whatever other governing bodies regulating the performance rights of musicians, directors, producer etc

That means for the fouette coda every dancer seen, every musician playing and a whole host of technical, backstage and production crew would all have to be paid for a short segment which would have passed for nothing and detracted from the main event Part, herself.

So they audience applauded when she went on pointe? So what, would you rather they'd booed or laughed at her? It was a rather sweet and lovely moment - extended ballet clips would have been out of place in the context of what this interview, the format of Letterman and what the segment was about.

The interview was fun, not pretentious, perfect in context of what it was and for the format it served - a light, engaging segment in a light entertainment chat show. Anything else would have only excluded the audience for which it was intended.

Jack, I hear what you're saying about ballet not merely being an athletic event, but an art form, I agree, but for a widespread audience who dislike or are indifferent to ballet, what's wrong with focusing on how incredibly hard it is to master as an athletic art?

I kind of get the feeling that people want to be outraged, upset, disgusted etc with Part on Letterman so much so that they're not allowing themselves to enjoy this event for what it was.

I thought Veronika Part was absolutely great, this is a reason to be happy, she did ballet a great service in agreeing to go on Letterman and being as super, charming, sexy, intelligent, humourous and engaging as she was.

Jack,

I think you're reading far too much into this. Letterman complemented Part on several occasions for her grace, her athleticism and her ability. Bringing up the painful element of dancing is no different from questioning an athlete on injury, pain and endeavour - instead of reading a sinister overtone into what are completely innocent harmless questions, isn't it great that a ballerina is being asked those questions on Letterman rather than Serena Williams, Michael Phelps or Rafael Nadel?

I think it's important that everyone stop focussing on the negative and what "should" have been but be happy that for the first time in decades a wonderful ballerina was given a huge nationwide audience to promote her art form by just being herself. In terms of marketing for ballet Part probably did more in those six minutes for ballet than the entire combined marketing budgets of all the large, mid scale and small ballet companies in the US.

And this is the thing to remember, no one likes ballet, no one of course we do, but in terms of the wider public consciousness its silly, elitist, boring, anachonistic, self regarding and exclusory, precious and snobbish and not worth taking notice of - and then there was the wonderful Veronika Part who in six minutes proved herself to be none of those things and by proxy ballet too.

I agree with Farrell fan that I doubt she's made a huge longterm impact on new ballet fans, but I'd be willing to bet that for a good few months at least ticket sales for ballet companies throughout the US, and especially at ABT for Part's performances will take a distinct and dramatic upturn.

I'm guessing there were many jealous principal dancers over at ABT who would have loved to be on Letterman. Any idea how Veronika got the invitation?

Just look at her.

Having just watched the interview online, I think it's important not to be too precious about ballet and Part. Part came across as bright, funny, witty, charming, sexy as hell and willing to laugh at herself and able to take a joke - and the audience were laughing with her. In short she was a terrific advocate for ballet.

The last time a ballerina had such a mass-media platform was probably when Kirkland was pushing Dancing on My Grave and let's face it that hardly did ballet's PR any favours. In that short interview she probably reached a wider audience and piqued more interest in ballet than a thousand performances of Swan Lake.

The greatest thing about her and the image she presented was debunking this rather anachronistic view of a ballerina as some quasi-sacred, sexless, anorexic bunhead - which let's face it is the layman's view of a ballerina. She was sexy, gorgeous, womanly and despite some obvious nerves held her own against a seasoned interviewer such as Letterman. She didn't take umbrage at ballet being presented in such a media friendly, accessible way and that was why she was so great - she was fun, irreverant she really did ballet a lot of favours and good for her. And in case I didn't mention it already, she was beautiful and sexy as hell.

Simon, I'm confused as to the morale and cohesion that you speak of in the corps. Surely you don't assume that there aren't at least a few dancers at NYCB who are glad to see these 11 go. Ballet companies can be very ruthless and extremely competitive among the dancers. Even at ABT, despite what the board members here have characterized as the "right approach" to layoffs, there are intense rivalries among the dancers. Sure there are cliquies, but outside of that many are enemies. (it is always so funny to watch the dancers greet each other so pleasantly on stage).

David, no one is questioning the Darwinian approach to ballet, how tough it is, nor the rivalries within. Yes, I'm sure there are some who are glad and yet conversely many who suddenly realise how perilous their positions are. That sword of Damacles can fall at any time in the most arbitrary of ways.

On a related note, I don't think having "senior corps" is a good idea at all. There is so much young talent out there that will never have a chance to shine simply because they began their dancing career at a time where the top companies were "full" with "senior corps." Again, this is just my personal view, because I tend to embrace the vicious competitive nature of ballet companies rather than reject it as damaging to morale. I think joining a ballet company is inherently bad for morale!

This is where your argument becomes specious, you seem to view experience, talent, commitment as worthless commodities, what then is your upper limit for a dancer to be allowed to "languish" in the corps? Your personal view would have denied us the careers of Merrill Ashley, Heather Watts, Rachel Rutherford, Daching Waring, Vanessa Palmer, Emmanuel Thibault, Veronika Part, to name a few. There are numerous thread here about corps dancers we love as if they were stars etc But the most regressive and damaging view you take is that because a dancer was never favoured by management enough to rise quickly or become "stars" they are worthless dancers. When I talk about morale I mean that corps morale is damaged when cheap easy to hire and fire apprentices are used as a means to bulk up a corps whose positions are under constant threat. Also do you have such contempt for the corps as part of performance that you think it can be replaced with green, not quite ready dancers merely serving as a back drop for principals? That the wealth of experience and technique a seasoned corps member could bring to a role, to the unity of the corps is negligible?

And I also have to agree with Beatrice that her interview made Ms. Flack appear unprofessional. I can't comment on NYCB's company class policy, but generally speaking for a lot of other upper-tier companies company classes are required for the Corps, not so much for principals and soloists. It does appear to me that 9 years in the corps without any significant roles should have sounded some major warning bells, that she has been "passed over." In fact, I think 5 years in the corps without any progress is more than enough time to realize that you're not moving up, with a few exceptions. Thus, for Flack to state how surprised she was at her layoff makes me think she had a naive perspective, if she thought she coudl be a 20 year corps member at NYCB. Of course I do feel for her, because she did work so hard early in her career to rise up to NYCB.

I'm sure Ms. Flack is touched by your concern for her naivety and early work ethic. She stated that company class is not contractual. There have been two posts here about how company class can fall well short of what a dancer needs to maintain and improve technique, also read the article she doesn't state that she never went to company class. Your five year career plan for dancers is charmlessly Soviet in its ruthlessness; and says more about you than the talent of the dancers who keep plugging away and their ambitions. Flack states the steps she took to advance, talks feelingly and eloquently about it.

Indeed your censorious tone and five-year termination plan is exactly why Flack did this interview - she doesn't want to be so easily deleted as embunhead described; hit key delete. I applaud her actions - why should she roll over and play dead, play the good girl?

However, if you really feel this strongly why not write to Ms. Flack and tell her yourself? Write to her, tell her your points and views on her dancing, her self-delusion and her career and the interview. Instead of attacking her third party through the anonymous medium of a message board.

Beatrice,

Look, I'll stop being silly and I'm sorry if I got a bit arsey, but debate aside, the one thing that I absolutely understand about Flack and a decision which she should not be judged upon is that of class.

I have no doubt that her decision to take class outside was a source of immense angst for her and can't have come lightly; and yes, there is of course the element of the rogue pack animal deserting the pack to feed elsewhere and the repercussions that must have been immense (even though company class was not contractual.)

In an ideal world she should have put her face in for show then studied outside, sure, but a corps dancer is constrained by time and money. Class is the two hours in the morning when a dancer puts themselves together, works through their diffculties, refines technique and prepares their body for the challenges to come. It would be wonderful if the teachers provided could do this for a dancer - but every dancer is different and what their bodies need highly personal.

Those two hours are all the time a dancer has. Sure a soloist or principal has more free time, plus personal coaching AND the money to pay for personal one on one tuition. A corps member doesn't and a corps member is constantly on call and in rehearsal.

Also, corps classes can be jam packed, indeed are, the one on one lacking, the class geared to maintaining corps unity not designed for individuals searching to improve the dancer they want to become.

The other thing lay men can't quite get their heads around is the fact that all ballet is not the same nor is the approach of a teacher to technique and the emphasis certain teachers place on technique can damage the body of certain dancers (as anyone schooled in the West will tell you after they've taken a hard core Vaganova barre, your knees feel as if they've been hit with a sledgehammer.)

Another problem is injury, Flack has had significant hamstring injuries and one thing serious injury does do is force you to re-evaluate your approach to class work and technique. You can't just go back to what you were doing and bash away again - injury changes the body permanently and when a dancer comes back it's as if they're training a completely new body.

When a corps member enters the corps of course they take company class, it's an absolute delight, you've finally arrived, or so you think. But as you grow and understand that your body is finite and fallible the approach you take to training it in order to get on stage which is the goal of any class, especially company class changes.

A wise management will recognise this and see that the dancer who needs to find another way of working is doing so in order to properly fulfil their obligations to the company - of course this doesn't always happen unless the dancer is soloist or principal and then they're left alone.

But whatever judgement calls one can make about Flack, and yes, trying to exhibit her painting at the corps gala was misjudged, I agree, one area which I understand completely is her need to find training which would enable her to dance to the best of her ability.

Beatrice,

What's wrong with dirty text messages or sex in the air displays?

You asked why I read in between the lines. Because to me, someone who goes to the AD and tells him how much she wants larger roles should be attending company classes with some regularity. Because to me, someone who seems to think that a benefit gala is an appropriate place to air her gripes shows a certain lack of discretion. I do not believe that being in the corps for nine years and never given opportunites to advance is recompense enough. I believe that we, quite simply do NOT know if she was given those opportunities - and if she was not, why. What I believe is that she was given an opportunity few in this world are, and the simple nature of the beast is that in the ultra-competitive world of the performing arts, if you're not the best at your game, you will be replaced.

And, yes. I have seen Flack perform. And yes, I have worked closely enough in the arts to know the politics involved. I am fully aware that it's not always fair. But I'm also aware that there are two sides to every story, and I haven't seen enough to paint this particuar girl as a martyr.

The last line here is EXACTLY why she should have been aware of the larger economic crisis and its effects on the arts. Because, I can tell you that EVERYONE living in New York right now with any common sense at all is going above and beyond. Jobs cuts are terrible things, but in this economy, they are going to happen. Now is not the time to not attend classes that are "strongly encouraged". Ballet is an art, but it's also a business. If cuts are going to happen, they are going to effect the people who, for whatever reasons, are considered the most expendable.

You know Beatrice, I really think you should calm down take a moment and see how defensive and incredibly presumptuous and sanctimonious you're sounding.

Firstly no one is portraying Flack as a martyr, I don't think she is, and I'm sure she doesn't either. Nor are they refusing to see the side of management - but what people are worried about is the erosion of morale and cohesion within a corps which takes a rolling appoach to apprentices as money cutting device.

I think it's incredibly sanctimonious of you to be micro managing Flack's career and incredibly presumptuous; you say none of us know the full story, quite true. Yet you seem to know enough to tell her where she went wrong, what she should have done and to question her committment and work ethic.

Your bland accusatory statement that she was a fool not to attend company class betrays how little you know about the mechanics of maintaining technique. Going to class isn't the same as going to your aerobics class after work. Approaches to technique change radically from teacher to teacher and every dancer comes to understand their body enough to know what they need to maintain an improve. While you were denigrating Flack's application to her career you might not have noticed Flack saying that "core strength" has always been her weak point and I would assume that as a professional with enough vested interest to want to push herself she chose teachers in Bielski and Burmann whose focus on technique places demands she could not find in generic company class.

Flack knew what every dancer does - the wrong teacher can have a devastating effect on dance health. You seem to see her not taking company class as a conscious snub to management. Indeed you could conversely argue that the confidence studying with Burmann and Bielski gave her in her technique is what prompted her to ask for more responsibility in the first place.

What on earth do you mean by "going above and beyond"? That's incredibly patronising why not write to Flack personally and tell her this. A dancer goes above and beyond every single second of their lives; and I'm not saying it's not the right of management to decide who to push, who they prefer and sadly who to throw away. No one here is; the debate is in the how. And this I think is the crux of Flack's unhappiness that the sacking orchestrated in such a way to seem a public PR excercise by a cash strapped company hid a behind the scenes drama of moral cowardice.

Well, in my opinion it "got her" the chance to perform with one of the most prestigious ballet companies in the world. For whatever reason - and we will never know the entire story - that chance did not develop exactly as she would have liked. I hate the fact that she is in pain, however, things that she expressed in this article gave me a glimpse into the possibility that she was not the most professional or most hard-working dancer on the roster. Of course, I don't know the specifics and I am only going on things she said. But reading between the lines, I questioned her professionalism.

Of course she needs to grieve and she's entitled to her pain. I'm not even saying that she needs to look at the economy or the bigger picture at the moment. I'm just saying that there IS a bigger picture. And included in that picture is the fact that the arts community in NYC is very small. Once you get a reputation of being difficult to work with or entitled, it's hard to get a job. I don't think it's naive to say that she probably didn't do herself any favors in the long run with that interview.

Beatrice,

Again you are being incredibly defensive and rather unfair. Anais' Nin's dictum of "we don't see things as they are but as we are", springs to mind equally applicable to Flack and yourself.

YOU read between the lines and decided she must be unprofessional and slack in her approach to her work and life. Why? You also decided that the mere fact of being in the back of the corps for nine years, never given opportunities to advance is recompense enough. Flack didn't and talks feelingly about her sincere efforts to advance - as well as candidly about her shortcomings.

Have you ever seen Flack perform? Seen her in class, seen the approach and dedication she brought to her work? Or have you ever worked within a large arts organisation and been subject to the internecine politics therein?

You did state that you thought she should have been aware of the larger economic crisis and effect on the arts in relation to her own predicament. Why the hell should she? When all is said and done Flack is a woman who needs to meet her rent, bills and living expenses; and now everything is a struggle, like for hundreds of thousands across the world laid off due to factors no fault of their own.

And why should she shut up and play the good girl? It's a role corps dancers play their entire lives - like Helene I'm glad she was so candid. The economic reasons given to sack almost a tenth of the roster do seem specious when a large spate of hirings followed. And what do NYCB intend to do when the year is up and they have to offer contracts? Is there going to be an endless rolling of apprentices till the corps is nothing but a background for soloists and principals?

As many have stated the talent in the principal level is rife with dancers who frankly should have retired and are untouchable.

I very much doubt Flack wants to be part of the arts scene anymore. This interview had an "end of the affair" feeling and good for Flack, I'm so glad there are people unafraid to stand up be counted and blow the whistle. It's only through people brave enough to say "I was there and it stank" that change ever comes. And having seen NYCB perform on several occasions I agree, "prestigious" means nothing if that prestige is varying degrees of brilliance versus mediocrity cruising on an illustrious past.

I'm kind of torn on how I feel about the article. On one hand, I give her credit for speaking her mind. But on another hand, I sort of feel like she is throwing a temper tantrum. She doesn't really appear to be looking realistically at the impact that the recession is having on the arts (or the NYC job market in general). She didn't appear to be coming across as particularly professional. She didn't seem to take into account the impact that this article would have on her future. And the story seemed extremely one-sided.

Beatrice,

This is kind of naive. When your whole world has been destroyed and everything you've ever worked for taken away - you don't care about the bigger picture, about the economy or anything except that white hot core of pain.

Of course it was one sided, it's her story. And she felt, quite rightly that this kind of behaviour is never spoken about, corps members, dancers disappear as she said just removed from a roster and that's it. She didn't want to just disappear without giving her side.

company class is a strange thing, YES it's good to be seen but if the ballet master or mistress doesn't teach in a way that gives you what you need you are better off finding a teacher that can.

This article isn't about professional. She's been a professional from childhood - and where has it gotten her? It's the fact that an ex professional is talking about the ugly side of a business that makes it so much more truthful than those awful anodyne press releases that claim everything is hunky dory and people are just "going their seperate ways."

I think Sophie Flack needs to see this firing as a door opening rather than a career in dance ending. She may have only ever wanted to dance for NYCB but at 25, she still has a lot of dancing left in her. Why throw out the pancake and the sponge? Maybe work in a modern dance or contemporary ballet company where your breasts aren't too big and heavy stage makeup isn't used? Moving on could be a great thing for her. Also don't corps dancers generally retire at a younger age than principals or soloists? I think I read somewhere that corps dancers are usually pushed out around the age of 30 or thereabouts. So it is not a forever thing. She may have faced the same situation five or eight years from now at an older age with less options open to her.

I passed by the Majestic Theater - home to Phantom of the opera and took a look at the cast list up on the wall. There are some ballerina roles in the show that are often taken by former ABT and NYCB dancers - I noticed the name Amanda Edge up on the boards. It seems she has been doing Phantom for some years now both in Las Vegas and New York. There are lots of jobs for dancers with good training if you want to look beyond the two big companies in NYC.

Many, many talented dancers didn't go anywhere at NYCB in the last 25 years under Peter Martins - even dancers who made principal often have had a languishing on the vine experience for both themselves and their fans. Recently the company has had an influx of really talented young dancers - Pereira, Morgan, Scheller, Peck, Hyltin and Mearns who are all under 25. Clearing out dead wood happens in all companies. I am actually more against principals and soloists having a guaranteed sinecure with the company. What is Nilas Martins dancing these days? How much is he getting paid?

Faux Pas,

Maybe she wants to quit dancing. It's not true that dance is interlocking and connecting in terms of disciplines, for some when they danced in the company they wanted, in the style theyve wanted, the rep they wanted - that's it.

NYCB dancers have traditionally had a tough time transitioning to other companies - the NYCB style is so unique, so distinctive and technical demands so geared to one style of ballet - the transition is sometimes impossible. Ansanelli went from being a star at NYCB to having a pretty rough time at the RB, despite achieving principal status again. (Though I think a lot of the criticism levvied at her was deeply unfair - she was often the most exciting thing on stage.)

Modern and musical theatre have their own rigours and disciplines and if you hav no interest in them why do them? Modern pays abysmally and musical theatre is pretty superficial - this belief that you should keep on at all costs when you've had what you've wanted already is a specious one. The impression that I get from her interview is that to continue in this manner is like flogging a dead horse.

Sometimes when somethings dead and done, it really is.

I think she mentions in the article that she, and others who were let go, committed the infraction of not attending company class. For people in the know, what is the significance of this? Is failing to attend company class a big strike against you?

It's a bit like being a priest and never attending Mass.

Dirac,

As you said, it's more about the overwhelming anger of being laid off than anything else. I'm sure at some point Flack will reread the interview and think "Jaysus, I should have maybe held back a bit here."

I do admire her cujones, as I said, and I think a lot was motivated by l'esprit de l'escalier". I get the feeling had she said what she wanted when she was being fired, as she explicitly states she regrets not doing, she'd have felt the catharsis this interview brought, or I hope brought her as I've no doubt that several bridges have been burnt.

I also do feel that perhaps this interview is what she needed to do to bring a conclusion to her dance career. From the tone it would seem that as far as she's concerned that's it and one thing I know from experience dance is so all consuming that there's no easy way to end it - you have to just slam the door shut and move on.

I also think tha Gia Kourlas might have been a bit more discreet and not so eager for sexy copy, though I know asking for morals from a journalist is slightly naive. I'm sure Kourlas knew that this was going to stir up a hornet's nest - she gave Flack all the rope she wanted.

And I do hope that the people who will get p.o'd by this will recognise Flack's anger and hurt and just take one for the team and not hold i against her longterm.

Aesha Ash took some time off because of the death of her father. As she told it, Peter Martins essentially told her that she would not be advancing within the company and she should use this time as an opportunity to consider other options. Aesha left and went to a smaller company, and also did a guest stint with Morphoses.

Another point is that Ms. Flack seems to have ignored or been oblivious to warning signs, such as not being cast in featured roles over a long time period.

Sascha Radetsky at ABT. It was clear he was not going to be promoted to principal, so he moved to a smaller ballet company in Europe. This was at great personal sacrifice, since his wife Stella continues to be a soloist in NY at ABT. Corps members who are receiving warning signs should take stock of these examples.

I think the thing is here a question of the individual's response. I remember the Ash incident and you have to admit that for out and out cruelty this tops Flack's experience. To use someone's deep grief as an opportunity to blindside them is cold. Ash was also very critical of this in interview and the effect it had on her grieving process. But it was a private sacking one on one, Flack's was very much part of a public happening. As she said she didn't want to be faceless, just disappearin from the roster as if she never existed.

Flack did set up an appointment to speak with Martins to discuss her roles and if we take her on her word was offered the chance to learn new rep, dance new roles. Which never materialised then shortly after this she learned in the press of her termination. I don't think it's a question of why but how - and sadly the how in big organisation is cruel.

Radestsky actually made a much much better move, not down but up. Dutch National Ballet is a bigger company, with better facilities, much better repertory and far more performances, better contractual conditions etc In the world canon of companies it may not have as long established a name as ABT but it is still a highly regarded name and a much better job at every level of dancer. In as much as I'd rather see SFB than ABT any day of the week. There's a lesson there never trust in brand names.