SanderO

I visited the link of Julie Atlas Muz and only saw irreverence.. the poking of fun at stereotypes and cultural icons. Someone has to do it, and few have the interest or the guts. She does.

I was mostly bored, not outraged and found it not very interesting nor aesthetically pleasing.

Society and culture is built on a somewhat rigid structure of "meanings" and it is not especially difficult to identify them and use them for parody... essentially exploding the myth of meaning. Hey look ma... we made up all these myths and we all accept without question.

However, we can't build a society or a culture of arts without some sort of structure, meaning and hence icons. Much of post modern art is asking us to examine these icons and assumptions and show that their meaning is illusory like the emperor's new clothes... we all buy into these narratives. Art is really a meta world... it doesn't exist... we created it and we believe it exists.

And so what? This IS what makes the human mind and distinguishes us from animals... we create a meta world and everyone has one in their own mind.

There is nothing revolutionary in the idea that humans with their brains and powers to reason and abstraction have created a complex of intersecting systems and ideas which define society and culture. She, and others believe that pointing to it can be humorous and some sort of "art" in itself. We all know ideas don't exist... So what else is new? If it's meta it is art!

In looking at her work, I didn't find it amusing or even interesting. How easy it is to do myth busting and blow apart cultural stereotypes. She displays some talent, and uses nudity ( a societal no no) to expose what she believes is hypocrisy about nudity and the female body in our culture. So what? It's nothing but a bore. Perhaps to those so trapped in the myths, stereotypes and icons this may shock their world, make them laugh and even think about these stereotypes.

I return to my earlier comment above about clothing and covering our bodies. This usually is for protective purposes, task related and to convey some sort of message, such as status in society.

But there is the underlying notion that the naked human can be and is beautiful. So why hide it? Dance doesn't hide the human form. Her Rite of Spring tries to turn the idea of our clothing and the naked body upside down (literally)... but having costumes which conceal the form and show it awkwardly and then exposing the genitals and their purpose in sex and procreation IS the "real" rite of spring. Trite.

Many choreographers do use minimal costuming to reveal as much of the body as possible and the human form is completely revealed in all its glory. The final step to nudity brings back some of the individuality and the humanity by exposing flesh (and genitals) as well as form.

But of course this is only furthering the individuality of the dancer which is really most notably contained in the face of each dancer.

Stripping away all clothing and costume would reduce the dance to what can be derived from the meaning of movement, gesture, form and context. A story ballet, for example, would lose much of its message and meaning. Then take away the sets and what have you but naked humans dancing. What have you lost and what have you gained?

You have lost much of the ballet, obviously. But perhaps you will be forced to looked at the movement as a pure aesthetic.. devoid of cultural context. Fine... this is analogous to where modern art went in the 20th century away from objective art to abstraction. And it deconstructed art till there was almost nothing there there in the end (in my opinion). It reductionism to the level what nothing is left where meaning can reside.

I am not shocked nor interested in nudity and actually more annoyed that those who "play" with it for "attention". Having seen enough of it in my lifetime it is certainly no longer erotic or even titillating. I prefer to see the human form dressed because I find that has more meaning and nuance... and is equally, of not more aesthetically pleasing.

So, in my way of seeing dance, I like to see the beauty of the human form.. not hidden by bulky costuming, but neither reduced to pure naked forms in motion. I find unitards work better than nudity because I don't know that exposed genitalia contribute to form or movement... that is, unless the dance is literally about sex. If it were, exposing genitals would make sense. If it is not, it is only a distraction, like noise or a scratches on a record... they fog the message.

Naked makes sense in the shower or the bed... no?

What is ideal beauty and why is a clothed form more or less beautiful than a naked one?

I suppose the concept is that a nude form is the essence of the human body.

It is interesting to note how the concept of "perfection" of form in the human has evolved and is obviously different depending on context.

I have always found dancers bodies to be the most aesthetic in general, being well toned and defined. I wonder why actually seeing the genitalia would be so distracting when we know they are there? Yet, in the male nudity seems to destroy the line and harmony of the form... in females I see no difference at all.

Clothing can add a layer of meaning to the human form and it is something we come to expect in reading people.

Bob & Ray (and that's not meant to be funny),

It's hard to comment on this as I didn't hear the presentation, and don't have abroad view of all of American dance... nor the same for dance in Europe or Asia.

Having said that we DO have funding the arts problems in this country and one thing I noticed which greatly disturbed me was that the ABT "sells" their principal dancers to patrons... ie they can sponsor a dancer. What a weird (and repulsive) concept! But the effect of this is hinted at in some of the above... How we market dance as a business.

America is celebrity obsessed and although dance is usually an "ensemble" effort... the "buzz" is always about some personality... not that these people are not enormous talents... but it seems to be how we see, sell and conceptualize the arts. An orchestra is THE conductor... a dance company is THE choreographer or some principal dancer or two... the opera is always THE soprano or tenor... These ensemble efforts are so often seen, sold and appreciated as individual virtuosity... or celebrity.

America is the nation of THE individual and we worship celebrity and those who rise up and get noticed. That's what we want in America.

I don't know if this worship of the individual plays out the same in the rest of the world... but I can see how the rest of the world sees the US through that filter.

As far as modern dance is concerned, I would have thought that we would be perceived as ahead of the curve in this idiom... Martha Graham, Merce Cunningham, Paul Taylor, Mark Morris, Twyla Thorp etc...and I don't even know much about dance but these are names everyone knows in America. I can't think of one modern choreographer from outside the states (I am quite naive... but I am trying to make a point)... I am not saying that they don't exist... but I am not aware of any... Why?

I am looking forward to read the comments of those more knowledgeable about dance in America... I am very very new to it.... I don't have much perspective...

Vishneva in Manon

Klavier,

How true about cmpensation... but we do have a problem with economic justice and fairness all through this society. Willy Randolf just signed a 5.8 million dollar 3 yrs contract to manage the Mets. Fine and dandy... Imagine if those pay scales existed for the Choreographers or ballet masters?

It's a winner take all deal... But I am sure only the top dancers are well compensated for their art. For the rest it's a labor of love and an exploitation of their talent and dedication.

Unions were supposed to level the playing field a bit. I will write to a dancer or two and see what their opinion is on compensation. I don't expect any replies.

It occurs to me that dancers and opera singers (to a lesser extent) don't get close to the public. They rehearse, perform and they are rarely put in front of a camera for an interview unless they are really a major celeb. They seem more "invisble" than athletes, skaters and pop musicians... they rarely employ PR people and seem to be all about their art. When one thinks of these talented people who have studied for decades... perhaps a handful of their names are even known by the general public.

We (society) treat artists very poorly for what they give us (general public).

That's sad.

It is interesting that he said exhausting and exhilarating, because those were exactly the words I used above... and I was in the audience!

Some of others might comment on Rosie's question...

Can you wait at the "stage door" of the threatre with some flowers or something? Dancers do go home and rest I suppose...

I did go to the Netrebko PR event and got some memorabilia signed. She is very gracious and a good sport to sit there for a huge line of fans. The Met Opera Guild photographer snapped pictures and sent one to me... which is on my desk of yours truly smiling in disbelief next to the opera divsa herself. That was a thrill!! A kodak moment as they say.

I don't know that dancers do PR events like CD releases a singer might do.

I think if Rosie writes to the dancer c/o their company, there is a good likelihood he or she will send a signed PR photo back to her... I would give that a try.

I enjoyed Upper Room this fall at the ABT Gala... my first and only viewing of the piece.

It was terribly exhausting and exhilarating at the same time. I must admit the Philip Glass score drives me crazy... It makes me think of the movie Koyaniscatzi (can't remember the spelling) which was about the maddening chaotic insanity of our culture. Upper Room's score is much like that... and some of the choreography evokes this same level of beauty and chaos in the world.

Having said that the piece seemed a bit long for me and I feel it would have worked done in a shorter version. And it seems like the Glass score could be shortened. But the length amplifies one's response. I felt relieved that the piece ended... like crossing the finish line of a distance run. I never felt this with any other ballet I have seen... regardless of how athletic the dancing was.

I will see it performed again to see if it can have the same effect on me knowing what is coming. This type of re-viewing a dance is a deep joy in ballet because all the nuance emerges with different casts etc. even tempi..

Do post about your reactions on subsequent viewing. I am curious how it changes for you.

sz,

Did you see Paloma Herrera when she first appeared in Romeo and Juliet.. I think she was like 18 at the time??? Apparently she made quite the impression with her first time on the met stage as a principal. Have you seen her do the role recently? I believe we saw her do it last season and I thought she played (acted/danced) the young Juliet in the first act very compellingly for someone is probably 2x the age of what that character is supposed to be.

How do you get row A in the Dress Circle?... I've only gotten row B once or twice and it was way to the side... I am lucky to get C or D...

I find that the sound in the Met varies a lot depending on where you sit... or maybe I am getting deaf faster than I thought. A lot of the music doesn't have enough "punch" for my taste... especially when you are under an overhanging balcony. Mid orchestra seems to be good for seeing "acting" and without having to use binocs.

I find that I MUST use binocs up there... but the overview is wonderful.

Do you use binocs?

I found the ABT ticketing frustrating when I wanted to purchase early to get a series of ballets with the dancers I wanted to see. No way jose... So I waited and finally purchased the ballets and then they changed the casts! Bummer.

I come from out of town so last minute is not possible... even Met Opera rush means I have to give up almost an entire day!.

I purchased both Tuesday series and a single thursday to see Ferri in Mannon... My luck she will not dance that day!... But if she does I get to see two Mannons in the same week and that will be a dream.

With cost being no consideration... what would be the optimal seats for ballet at the Met... and the second choice?

What is the strategy of the ABT with their ticket sales? Do they hold back single (and multiple) purchases sales to allow the former subscribers first shot at renewal of "series" and then open them up to single (and multiple) purchases?

Are the "best" seats sold to repeat subscribers year after year?

Why can't ABT seem to set their casting at the same time as they set the program schedule?

Related to companies and their size and "reach"... a few more questions come to mind, and please forgive me for my ignorance about ballet.. but BT is such a great learning environment for me so I feel comfortable asking.

What exactly is a "season" in ballet? I know that, for example, ABT has a Spring season, but they also travel, it seems and perform around the country and the world. Does "season" refer the performances staged at their "home" theatre for specific part of the year? For companies which don't travel, do they typically extend (or stretch out) their season through most the calendar year? Does weather have anything to do with when a company's season is? NYCB seems to be running their season through the winter. ABT shares the Met Opera stage with the Opera and so they can't overlap too much I would assume, but that would apply to the NYCO and NYCB. For NYers we can see lots of ballet and opera from Fall through late Spring. How does this work in other companies around the country and the world?

When a dancer guests with another company, do they take a season off, or typically perform with both companies "at once"? My impression of Opera, is that the principals do more free lance work, moving from company to company as opposed to what I see in ballet. Is this correct?

I'm curious about the economics of working in various companies. I would presume the the larger, more well endowed companies pay the highest salaries to their people. Does this mean that a dancer, typically would move to a regional company to dance a different repertoire, probably more likely at lower scale? Or do they move from say.. soloist a big company to principal at regional one? Would that be a step "up" artistically and also salary wise? Might this dancer than return to a big company as a principal? I am not asserting that economic reasons factor into these decisions, just curious about how varible the rates (and job security) are for the large and smaller companies.

Are the major USA companies of comparable size to the non USA ones? And finally, how significant is language for dancer who moves from one country to another... does this even factor in to a dancer's decision as it relates to working with a new company?

I am well aware that to run a ballet company is a big business, so to speak... It is not only mounting big productions, orchestras, sets, costumes, rehearsal space, performance space, dancers and admnin. stand and on and on... even running schools associated with a company like SAB etc.

So there are large world class companies out there.. the most commonly known (and seen) ones.. and then there are smaller ones.

What are the lower tier companies like and how do they differ from the top tier? Are the smaller companies like the "minor leagues" in baseball where the best talent moves up to the big leagues, but these minor leagues are still professional baseball? How small can a company be and mount "good" ballet productions?

What are some of the more interesting companies below the top tier?

Klavier's point about two artists competing for focus is an interesting one. When the idea stuck me originally, I definitely envisioned the opera being subordinate to the ballet... much the way the score for the orchestra supports dance... why not have opera or vocal music since the voice is another instrument. Divas wouldn't like second billing I suppose...

There was a piece in the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/15/arts/music/15dica.html which reviewa a work which seems to be along the lines of what my original query was about.

The article mentions Puccini's first opera Le Villi, was conceived of first as an opera ballo. What exactly is an opera ballo?

If this piece, which did not get a stirling review in the Times, is still on, I might try to see it.

Do and BTers have any knowledge of or comments about this work?

Are the Met simulcasts going to be re shown or released on DVD?

I have been thinking about this issue in dance and also in opera.

What occured to me is that both are built on music... which opera IS music as well.

A choreographer creates a ballet to a piece of music. The music without the dance is not ballet. And indeed a various choreographers can create different ballets from the same music... they're supposed to do that. Choreographers are artists who paint with dancers.

Their work can be preserved through time by faithfully reproducing his or her choreography. There is value in doing this. But there is value in creating a new ballet to the same music and libretto (if there is one).

Opera will have different stagings.. and different voices singing, but you can't change the music. A choreographer could use a completely different complement of dancers. They have more flexibility and there is really no equivalent person in the opera to the choreographer. A Zeferelli Traviata is really about the sets and costumes... isn't it.. on recording it sounds like another staging (except with different voices). So to haul out an old production of the opera seems to be little more involved that getting out the old sets, costumes and blocking.

A ballet needs to be notated or recorded so the parts can be reproduced as the original. With newer works this is possible... but works from before film might be a lot harder (I plead ignorant about dance notation as a language going back to the earliest ballets). Opera doesn't suffer this handicap because hand drawings could be used to document how things looked. And this is why we know how poeple looked and lived in the past... art.

Yet even when one can see the work in video or film after the choreographer has passed... can the current ballet master (or whatever this person is called) get the same "quality" in his rendition from the company?

Interesting stuff eh?

I attended I Puiritani last night. The entire run of I Puritani has been sold out, perhaps because of Netrebko, or the broadcasts, but the audience last night loved the performance and especially Ms Netrebko. She can act and she has a commanding stage presence. Her mad scene was terrific.. but Eric Cutler didn't cut it as Arturo... his voice seemed too weak and tentative... not so for Netrebko... she attacks the music with amazing confidence and control. Not a good pairing for Netrebko... His O caro was disappointing...

These plots are silly aren't they? This one ends with everyone happy.. no one jumps to their death... but I wonder, are all story line operas and ballets so "silly".. Shakespeare's plots seem to at least at times not to be so silly... or am I nuts?

Speaking of the star system and public relations and the difference in ballet and opera... I attended a PR event at the met this afternoon for Anna Netrebko who has recently issued her Russian Album and was on hand at the book shop to sign copies.

This was the first time I ever have been to such an event and it occurred to me that since ballet is such an ensemble effort itwould be hard for a working dancer to do such a PR event. The Met was clearly promoting a star who is featured in their season this year, and Ms Netrebko is promoting her career as a soloist who appears with numerous companies around the world. You could sense the symbiosis.. and even Deutche Grammaphone was in on the action!

Principal dancers do seem to be have a star (celeb) quality and there may be some effort to promote them and in turn the company but it seems that the type of event this afternoon was one where the economic interests of the artist and the company aligned and were not at cross purposes.

The principal dancers in major companies appear to me to be more restrained and constrained by the "ensemble" nature of ballet/dance as far as the "star" system is concerned. After all... what can they sell as individuals? Not a new CD for sure...

It was interesting to see how many "fans" showed up for the event and had purchared her new CD.

My post was mostly a reference to large ballet format as opposed to smaller ones and how it reminds me of architecture.

Though I love opera.. it is never architectural and formal (for me), though some stagings (at the Met) have literal architecture in them.

I suppose that is one of the interesting aspects of classical ballet to me, a complete novice, uneducated lout that I am... it's use of formalism (what I call it) to carve out form, space and so forth in time on a stage. Ballet resembles moving architecture or living sculpture... opera does not.

So for me new choreography, is like experiencing new (classical) buildings and the element of scale applies. So I look forward to creative people using classical language to create the experiences which are so precious and fleeting in a ballet performance...

This is another precious aspect of the ballet... and all performances... they pass by like a river... the same but always unique. Rant over

OT...

As an architect I see ballet very much related to architecture... space, form, symmetries and experienced in time... In that sense, some of the larger productions evoke grand buildings. All the steps and so forth are almost like the classical elements of style... you see them repeated in great buildings and great classical ballet choreography.

So smaller productions might be "less" architectural... just a thought

To me opera performance lack this sort of form and space making experience of classical ballet.

There was a lengthy article in the NY Times about Wheeldon's new venture.

He intends NOT to do story ballet, but new works with classical choreography drawing from talent from around the world. He intends to do a 34 week performance season and is presently focused on getting funds together to launch the company.

Martins and McKensie were mentioned saying that there is always more room for more good dance and they seemed to welcome the "competition" and Wheeldon's move to carve out a new niche for clasical ballet.

Sounds like it might be interesting and I am looking forward to seeing what he comes up with. Wheeldon says he is not trying to be a new/next Balanchine... obviously rather big shoes for anyone to fill.

Good on him at 33yrs old. The proof of the pudding will be in the tasting