SanderO

Carbro,

Thanks for the reference. I, did indeed show and admit to my ignorance about Edwin Denby, but my feelings about ballet photography still stand. Even though Denby is dead and may have been a sensitive and talented dance critic... he was wrong about at least some ballet photography, in my opinion.

Perhaps when he was writing there weren't the quality of photography that is being produced today and he may have been accurate in his description of what he saw at the time. But conceptionally he was wrong even if no photographer of ballet at the time had done anything more than "snapshots".

This raises, in my mind the notion of the advancement of "art" over time. For me, this is most obvious as seen in film. Although there were undoubtedly great films done in the era when film was first introduced, the medium was new, obviously unexplored, and the efforts often look naive, crude and unpolished. Much of this can be attributed to technical advancements, but some of it has nothing to do with technical matters, like scripts, acting, blocking, composition and so forth. Although we have a lot of awful films produced today (most of them) we do find many talented cinematographers who have elevated film to a high art (almost).

Since I wasn't around in the early 20th or the late 19th century I don't know whether Opera and Ballet were more artistic, refined, polished or whatever word you want to apply... or if the productions were of the same level. When you introduce the technical advancements available today, a Met Opera production of Zauberflote, for example, looks very different than it would have in Mozart's time, but the music etc is exactly the same. Have the new artistic directors and artists who perform these masterpieces managed to elevate older productions or are they just a different "version"? Look at Shakespeare.. Now there's a timeless genius!

Most of what looks like advancement may be attributable to technical advancement, especially in the case of photography. But having more technical abilities at one's disposal may in fact, be the gateway to artistic expression, perhaps not achievable with more privative tools by lesser artists. That, of course is debatable especially for something like Ballet.

How much of the art of a performance is the dance, the music, the choreography, the costumes, the sets, the lighting etc.? Could a great performance at the opera be in a terrible production? Performance artists do have to consider and work in context... and in the case of ballet it can depend on the partner or the corp even!

Interesting stuff to thing about.

The use of ballet in photography is a very special genre. It can be looked at in one of two ways in my opinion. One being documentary snapshots... a slice of time which cannot possibly convey all that is going on during a dance. At best it might imply something. Studio shots are almost the equivalent of passport photos... of publicity shots.

Another type of photography using ballet as a subject attempts to use the dancers, the graphic composition, light and shadow, the ability to closely examine the human form much the way a painting is a visual statement. The purpose is completely different... and it is not meant to be ballet. It is meant to be PHOTGRAPHY. All photography has some subject... dancers and ballet happen to be one of many.

When we look at objective art paintings we don't dismiss them as irrelevant because they fail to accurately portray movement or show the effect of time, of gesture and so forth. They are not meant to be "life"... they are meant to make us think about the subject, the visual, and things "implied" by the artist.

Ballet photography is not meant to be Ballet... yet it is referential and can be very powerful and evocative of the emotions, as for example, in story ballet. Or it can be something which is visually stunning like a marble sculpture of Michalangelo or Bernini. Denby were these sculptors doing with that stone and chisels?

Photography of dance is meant to be different from film or videos of dance... which are really only "facsmiles" of an actual performance. No one would even claim that a video or film of a performance comes close to being "art". It's not meant to be. But some ballet themed photographs are definitely elevated to the level of art. It's meant to be art.

I would refer readers to view some of Gene Schiavone's work;

http://www.geneschiavone.com/gallery/Principal-Dancers

especially his black and white photos as the one mentioned above by drb. I don't know who Denby is, but he needs to spend some time with some of the photography of Mr. Schiavione and others, and I remind him of the painting by Rene Magritte who addressed the very concept that Mr Denby is so blind to, The Treachery of Images

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rene_magritte

What is really quite amazing about some ballet photography is the ability of a single still image to "transport" the viewer and capture some of the power of ballet. This is the genius of great ballet photography. It's rare, but it's there. Look for it!

I got into a discussion at intermission as I waited for a beer during Madama Butterfly with someone ahead of me as we stood under the Chagall about the architecture. He loved and I told him that I could find nothing I liked about the place.

The outside is vulgar with no refinement, huge arches of inappropriate travertine... something seen in Roma! The architect could not find a modernist vocabulary so he used those immense arches, but of course there is no detail or articulation as in classical architecture. And the form looks like something a child might come up with.

When you get inside you have the curvilinear grand stair case which is completely out of place with the orthogonal geometry of the building. It's as if the architect said let's copy the form of a grand staircase from the beaux arts era. Horribly executed. And it is much too close to the entry doors and of course there IS NO main entry or symmetrical entry... There are numerous entry points without the approaching person knowing where to penetrate that awful facade.

Of course the massive Chagall paintings cannot properly be seen, so they are essentially like wall paper.

The best thing I can say about the hall itself is that the seating is comfortable and the title bars are handy to follow along when you cannot understand the language of the opera. The use of gold is another feint to glamor but it comes of as tacky again because of the failure of the architect to do the something with proper scale.

The proscenium has another weird out of scale ornament at the top and the lighting... especially the UFOs which rise up signaling the beginning of the performance are very tacky looking.

I think anyone associated with the design of that building inside and out should have their license revoked and never be allowed to design again. Most are probably dead by now.

The Met stage seems to me monumental and extremely flexible and can support enormous casts and productions, but that is the work of the set designers etc. Obviously the stage and lighting allows for some amazing "effects".. especially for Met Opera productions, like Zauberflote, Tosca, Aida, Traviata and so on.

It is so sad that the artists have to perform in such a tacky, vulgar looking venue.. absent scale, or charm and certainly architecture that will be torn down and not missed.

What a bad period for architecture - the 60s.

Gene Schiavone, the amazing photographer of ballet has a wonderful series from the Bolshoi in DC... These photos are stunning:

http://www.geneschiavone.com/gallery/Bolsh...-Feb-25%2C-2007

And while you are at his site... take some time to look at the Denis and Anastasia Matvienko of the Kirov...

But all the galleries he has there are incredible and show the wonder of ballet in photography. Treat yourself... and have a look.

Ballet, opera, concerts and theater can and are performed in different venues (theaters, Halls). I wonder what impact the "hall" has on both the performance (performers) and the audience (you).

Speaking for myself, and living in NY I have only experienced performances in a few venues. I have seen ABT at the Met and City Center and they were very different experiences... And the NYCB at the NY State theater and Paul Taylor at City Center.. and a few other companies in the more distant past... And recently we saw the Hamburg Ballet at BAM.

Same for opera, I have only experienced operas at the Met, the NY State theater, and Gilbert and Sullivan at the City Center. We're lucky in NY to have quite a few Halls!

I do feel differently at different venues and when I was in Italy I purchased a poster which depicts the great opera houses of the world and on the plane back, there was a film done about the Paris Opera and that theater looked fabulous. It had me thinking about different halls ever since. The Teatro Comunale in Firenze was rather unimpressive for the opera. I prefer Carnegie to Avery Fisher for orchestral concerts.

For those who have seen performances in many venues, how was it different? Have you seen the same company perform in several venues... even the same work... and how was that different? How important is the venue or the Hall to your experience of the work?

What are the best venues for ballet and opera in your opinion and from your experiences. Personally, I don't care for the architecture of the Met Opera and it always bothers me a bit when I attend even the greatest performances there. I think I would find the Kennedy center equally off putting.

What say you?

Mel,

I find that comment you referred to by Arpino as very interesting. I am an architect and find much resonance between classical ballet (some modern dance) and architecture. It's more theoretical than practical, but both involve very formal elements "strung together" to create the "work"... following formal principles.

Both ballet and architecture are concerned with space, volume, form, light, shadow movement and even time. They each use the elements of symmetry, repetition, mirroring and so forth to create formand define space and volume. Both are "rule" based as defined by principles of physics. The relationship of ballet to architecture is best appreciated when viewing the work from above as opposed to from the orchestra level.

Do choreographers study their works from "above"... because some pieces are quite stunning and as intricate as architecture or even a flower or Swiss watch movement.

When ballet goes to the literal with storylines with realistic costumes and sets the abstract relationship to architecture and pure form often seems to break down.

Do ballet positions and movements have somewhat universal meanings... like words do in language? And why do nobles and commoners, for example, move differently?

Do choreographers ever write about their work, the way modern painters and sculptors do? It seems that the intent of the artists is often expressed in written commentary... after the work is completed.

This is a good topic.

First it depends on where the review appears and who it is targeted at. You obviously will get a different type of review in a dance publication from what you might get in the New York Times.

As someone with no training in ballet I look to the comments of others to learn. The ballet talk reviews of the NYCB and the ABT, which are the companies whose performances I attend, are far superior to what I read in the NY Times, for example. The Times reviews may give more historical / cultural context and the BT reviews tend to focus on the dancing and choreography. Of course reviews of the NYCB by BT's SZ are outstanding as she was a former dancer with the company... so I would say she has quite a bit of "dance experience". I don't think John Rockwell has come close to a bar in a studio, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a keen eye and a deep understanding of the entire genre of dance. I didn't find his reviews enlightening and I won't be missing them.

In general, I find the Times reviews hardly dig deeply into a performance, especially when one considers how much effort each participant puts into a performance. Describing a dancer's performance with one adjective is hardly a review... is it?

On the other hand, if the reviewer is writing on such an esoteric and technical level, it usually flies right past me and is of little use... but it might work for others who are formally trained in dance.

My frustration is that I often want to see performances which receive good reviews, but this is virtually impossible. It's like reading about a baseball game... it's over and you can't go see it. You can see the same team but not the same game. While this is not a perfect analogy, the casting changes and it seems that each performance is truly a unique experience. And this is one of the most special things about ballet.

I think we need reviews... but better ones.

Celebrities obviously have a love hate relationship with the public. They want their attention, love and support of their work, but they also want a private lifeso they can live without harassment of being stopped by strangers.

Obviously these encounters can range from polite to being stalked... which seems to be the case with pop stars or atheletes.

Probably the best and safest environment to meet celebs is an organized event where the artists are availble to interact with their fans, such as a PR event. These can satisfy the needs of the fans to interact on a "personal" or almost a one to one level, even for a brief time, but also allow the artists their privacy. I think many companies organise variations of non performance public events for their artists. And for the fan they don't have to feel as if they are accosting somone who is essentially a stranger.

Being a well known public person creates very assymetrical relationships for fans and artists, who know will know lots about the artists, but the artist will know abosolutely nothing about the fan, except that they admirer the artist's work.

I would have liked to chat a bit with Ms Netrebko, but since their was a long line and all sorts of security, photographers etc standing around, there was really very little personal interaction possible. Bummer that.

Weird ain't it?

Bart or anyone else... can you provide links to Opera boards which would be on par with Ballet Talk?

Ending the evening with the Firebird was quite thrilling. The first piece Circus Polka was adorable and you could see what these young ballerinas might grow up to accomplish by the time the evening was done. Bouder is such a young and talented artist... and one wonders which one of those lovely little ballerinas will dance the Firebird in 10 years.

Ms Bouder and Mearns were dazzling. Bouder moves with such percision that she seems to carve space with a sharp knife... her facial expressions were wonderful too. Hard to take your eyes off her when she is on stage. I read somewhere that she first did the Firebird as a replacement with only 2 hours preparation. If this is true, that would be amazing... what a role! She nailed it last night.

The sets and costumes for Firebird were on par with those of Zauberflote at the Met... visually stunning. Wouldn't it be great if reality was a colorful as it was in Firebird?

We sat in the orchestra and could not see the Gergiev, but he got a wonderful performance from the orchestra.

Jeu de Cartes had wonderful costumes and the corps is very strong. It is not a great ballet and nothing compared with what was to come with Firebird, but it was delightful and light.

We loved the scene where all the ladies let their hair down in Walpurgisnacht.

A hot performance on a biting cold evening warmed our hearts. Thank you NYCB.

Gene Schiavone has a new series of photos done in the studio of Anastasia and Denis Matvienko of the Kiev and Bolshoi Ballets:

http://www.geneschiavone.com/gallery/album09

He has some incredible photos there of this amazing couple. Has anyone seen them dance? Don't these photos make you want to see them perform?

Carbro,

McKenzie's compensation package may be quite a bargain in the context of corporate CEOs and top management in the business world. But that is precisely the problem here. Everything is now driven by the obscene greed of capitalism.

Remember Grasso from NYSE who had his friends on the compensation committee award him hundreds of millions in compensation as a golden parachute. Capitlaism is about one thing only... the creation and preservation of personal wealth. As such it makes no sense in the arts. Art is not about money it is about beauty!

The arts are not market driven (should not be), but competance and artistic merit driven (if driven is the right concept even). But capitalism has infused itself into every aspect of life, into every institution asserting that the market produces th best results and winners must be rewarded and inspired by receiving lots of money. See... money is the goal not art! But they are trying (and successfully) corrupting the arts.

There is something terribly wrong with this. No?

I think Mr McKenzie's compensation is both fine for NYC and appropriate for that position. I live here and make a whole lot less.

I don't think I want to read the financial reports of non profits.

But I did want to make the point that capitalism and the greed which drives it is extremely off putting. Sure people need money to live and to travel and so forth. I don't begrudge anyone of a rich,interesting and varied life. But I am disturbed that the pay scale for some of these people in the arts "industry" is through the roof.

What happens is John Q artist then demands $100K for his painting from some collector and once he convinces someone to pay that price.. he has set a bench mark for all his work and the skies the limit. And then you have all these artists around who are looking to cash out with wealthy collectors. Then they create lots of hoopla about John Q and he has shows and then the museum buys his work or is left a "gift" from one of the donors... for a tax write off... meaning that the taxes never make it to the give coffers and the OTHER tax payers share the burden of running this country. Of course these donors are on the boards of the museums, influence policy and so forth.

It's nothing short of corruption, cronyism, insider trading and everything else that goes on in wall street and the financial sector.

When is someone going to start trading ballet futures or buy shares in painters?

I just read a rather upsetting article on the front page of the New York Times titled:

Donor's Sweeten Director's Pay as MoMA, Prompting Questions.

What the article revealed was that Glenn D Lowry who was the museum's director for 12 years was paid enormous compensation for his work.

He is the highest paid museum director in the USA (and that means the world of course as no other country would pay such compensation to an administrator). He was paid a cool $1.28 million... but that was in 2005. They haven't released his most recent compensation. Oh I forgot.. Barry Bonds signed a 15.8 million dollar deal this year.

The article goes on to describe how these folks live... free luxury apartments, mortgages paid etc.

So what has happened to the arts? Why is this slacker being paid so much money? Why isn't a $200,000 enough for this fella to run the museum on? I heard once that Laura Walker who runs WNYC is paid $450,000. Can some explain why the MoMA director is paid $1.28MM?

Capitalism is really ugly... ain't it? Personally I will never set foot inside the MoMA again and intend to send them a letter explaining why. I don't even want to know what the director of the MetOpera or ABT is paid. I do know that they are selling ballet pointes at intermission to fund a medical insurance program for dancers. How much money can they make from selling pointes? Why don't some of these greedy people pay the medical insurance for these dancers?

Capitalism and it's worship of wealth and money has polluted the arts. It's a rich man's game.

I watched the PBS broadcast of I Puritani last night. I saw it last month at the Met. But what impressed me was the whole marketing angle of using Anna Netrebko for promotion. Granted she is quite a good soprano... but even her label Deutche Grammaphone is marketing her like an MTV rock star. It may suit Ms Netrebko's personality... but the whole thing is really off putting to me.

Am I the only one is going sour on what capitalism has done to the arts?

Storylines in classical ballet and operas tend to be very cliche... using the same themes again and again. And there is no reason to assume that cultural stereotyping is not incorporated into librettos which look almost cartoon like. I find most of the stories "silly"... but they are frames to hang emotional interactions between humans.. love, jealousy, vengeance, betrayal and so on.. and they play them very big usually.

It's hard not to think without stereotypes... they are handy and have some basis in truth. But they can be dangerous too... Life is more complicated and nuanced. We don't live in cartoon worlds or black and white.

I suppose if everyone accepted that these storyline are what they are... sexist, racist and so on... then we might able to use them as productive and instructive.

But mixing art and politics can be dangerous too. The arts can be a mirror held up to society and if it shows us the ugly underbelly than perhaps it will have a positive effect... but you don't want to be perpetuating some nastiness.

Do you?

I have a great idea for funding. Ticket sales based on your means to pay. Mr. and Mrs. money bags have to pay something like $25,000 for an orchestra set and Mr. and Mrs. worker pay $25. All those folks in the orchestra are paying $100- $175 per ticket and their average net worth is $10MM probably. The same ones who fork over $750 a ticket to hob nob with the company at the Met Opera gala.

So that performance is for the la-di-dahs... no ifs ands or buts.

It's morally and ethically repugnant for a donor to "sponsor" and litereally pay the salary and so forth for a dancer in a professional dance company.

If said donor's want to support the company they should make a donation to the company... and hopefully annonymously since who give a hoot about them anyway? The public is interested in the arts.. not the aristocracy which has more money than they know what to do with and give some of it to them arts for vanity often.

The companies, universities and so forth which accept these donations and name buildings, and so forth are also to blame. This has gone way to far.

The robber barons exploited the workers and then took their ill gotten wealth and built universities, libraries, musuems and concert halls.. so they could sanitize their ribbery and have a place to see art and artists perfrom for them. Of course the workers don't have the time, energy or education to appreciate the arts. Screwed again.

The whole situation stinks.

I suspect that most of the funding for the big companies... ABT, NYCB and the MetOpera DOES come from wealthy patrons and not ticket sales.

Are their financial reports public? I would be curious to see their balance sheet.

What is rather sickening is the "need" of the owners of ABT dancers to have their names plastered all over the place. Isn't it enough to devote several pages in the program to a list of donors? Obviously not... they lay out big bucks to own a principal dancer and in addition to the tax write off they want some sort of "glory". For what? Giving away money they don't even need, and probably never even did a moment's labor for.

These types of donors sicken me. They have no class at all.... I mean character

But that's the American way ain't it?

Funding for the arts is a dodgy affair. Running a big opera or ballet company is an enormous expense and just selling even high priced tickets to performances is not going to bring in the revenue to support all the operations.

So these companies are out seeking funds from wherever. Sadly our government spends billions and billions on weapons and not the arts. And so it falls to sponsors, both commercial and private.

You can "own" a principal dancer at the ABT if you donate enough. I suppose it gets you some face time with him or her.

It's sad that companies have to resort to this. it's also degrading to have these artists selling shoes. And it is tacky that these companies try to leverage the arts or artists in ad campaigns.

It's pathetic and repulsive. It's capitalism.

We attended last night. We enjoyed the performance very much. I wont go into a long review except to note that the rock music part was oddly out of place with the ballet which had a dream like quality.

I hadn't read the Mann book in many decades and I liked seeing the dance version with a vague remembrance of the story

The thing which I liked very much was the use of the piano which was on the corner of the stage and the pianist did much of the music and at times the dancers would interact with her... so she was both the music for the dance and like a piano in a rehearsal studio she was IN the ballet as a pianist... strange sort of homage to the music which ballet is built on. The juxtaposition of Bach and Wagner... again the contrast between old and young...dream and reality.

There was a mirror used from a ballet studio and references to water of course in the sets since it took place in Venice.. yet another aspect of Aschenbach reflection on his condition... how we try to see ourselves as others see us.

At one point Aschenbach also leaves the stage and enters the orchestra aisle...playing the part of a choreographer looking at his stage.

There was a lot going on between the dance, the sets, and the story... between the story and the thoughts of Aschenbach... and his reality.

I would like to see it again because I felt that there was so much going on and it demanded several viewings to take it all in.

If you have a chance to see it...don't miss it.

For me, still images of ballet are very interesting visually, because ballet and dance is MOSTLY about movement, although there are some "frozen" positions.

The movement carves out space, form and volume in visually exciting ways... absolutely no doubt about that.

However, the still image becomes more graphic... like a painting or a sculpture which can be even referential to the movement it was "borrowed" from. The photo I noted seems to have this quality and it makes me wonder if choreographers ever see this when they "compose" ballet.

This is something unique to ballet. It doesn't work for opera, because at best you get a freeze frame of the stage during a performance.. the music is lost. The same is true, of course, for music performed and captured in a still photograph. But ballet CAN and DOES live in the still image because it IS fundamentally a visual medium... though built on music.

Lately, I wonder why ballet photography is not a more "developed" genre using images such as the Manon one noted above... It would appear that many visually sensitive people could be "pulled into" ballet based on seeing some of these compelling images... as opposed to balletomanes finding a means to recall a ballet moment.

And these images can stand alone as works of art as well.

Winne,

Welcome to this amazing site. Not everyone here knows alot about ballet or the arts. I am one of the least informed and, like you, BT for me is one of the most amazing resources and very user friendly too. Do not be intimidated... just ask... and your questions will be answered and very interesting discussions may ensue. The BT people are very welcoming and friendly... and they all love ballet!

Richard,

This is a stunning photo and a similar Schiavone one IS used by ABT in their literature. It is a color version of the same "instant" from Manon, but I believe it is not the same photograph. Look at Diana's right hand. Please look at the literature and tell me if you agree. I believe the B&W is superior.

There is something about some photos of ballet which freeze and "extend" the moment and allow us to see so much more than when it flies by with the music.

There was some nudity at the end of the online video clip where several dancers are upside down... with their full skirts covering their upper body and their legs spread wide apart exposing their naked genitalia facing skyward ( I believe some were men in drag... but the clip is quite small)... in an almost obscene/provocative and "suggestive" manner.

Having seen that clip... I wouldn't waste my time in going to a performance... I saw enough.