Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

ABT for Sale


Recommended Posts

From Links:

"When American Ballet Theater performs its George Harrison tribute, Within You Without You, at the Metropolitan Opera House this spring, the dancers will wear "a range of cK Calvin Klein jeans, four styles in juniors and women, and three for men." Oh, yes, Calvin Klein is underwriting the Met performances of this ballet."

...and when Alina Cojocaru guests at ABT next week...her name in the program will be changed to Coca-cola-ru...cuz Coke is setting up machines in the lobby...

What price Kevin McKenzie's soul? Do I have any bidders?

(Spin, George, spin!)

Watermill

Link to comment

McKenzie is following in the ABT tradition, Watermill. Some years ago, when Pavlova perfume came out (is it still on the market?), ABT had people in the lobby of the Met hawking the fragrance. There are probably other examples. Anyone remember them?

Link to comment

Yes, Ari, I know that promotion of the higher arts has been slowly sliding towrds the gutter since Lord Olivier posed for Polaroid and Thomas Hoving commercialized the Met. But I still prefer to howl in pain rather than go numb and become a pop-zombie.

But what are some of the issues here?

I well know the practical necessities can lead to a blurring of good taste in advertising. But who's going to stand up to the marketing weasels and show some leadership, draw the line? Obviously, I'm laying some blame at McKenzie's feet but there should be some upper management, some board members who disdain this creeping commercialism. Someone upstairs has to have standards, no?

And what about the integrity of the costume designer who chose the right fabric, just the right cut and seams and closures for the dancers? To have their work and choices cast aside for brand name off the shelf stock is insulting. Not sure I'd want to design for ABT if my costumes could be set aside by a sizable check from K Mart Kasuals.

And I think Harrison would be outraged at the use of his spiritual song as the basis for worldly gain.

Then again, he 's probably somewhere laughing at the whole thing.

Watermill

Link to comment

Ah... but, citibob, Pointe Magazine always has some dancers from various schools and/or companies in a mini piece about dance wear of some sort... to me, this Calvin Klein jeans type of thing is much, much different. :)

It appears to me that ABT is more assertive than ever at having their name in front of the "masses"...and I suppose they're smart to do this but I would prefer it if they'd spend their money on starting their own school of ballet.

Link to comment

Performances are generally always underwritten, even theaters now are company branded.

Costumes seem to be "sponsored by" a lot. The Manolos in "thou swell"?

But I don't think McKenzie has sold his soul to the devil quite yet.

But I still don't like the "dancers underwritten by"

Link to comment

I don't have my programs from the City Center season, but weren't those costumes -- the originals -- items from the Calvin Klein line?

There is a difference between Lord Olivier becoming a Polaroid spokesman for his personal enrichment and a not-for-profit organization trying to muster financial support for its very survival. I don't like the commercialization of the arts, but given the world as it is and the government's reluctance to put public funds into the arts, I don't know what other options there are to keep American arts vital.

Link to comment

We live in a society in which we like to believe we're getting something for nothing.

TV is "free", and that's good, we think. We don't notice the premiums we're paying on everything from McDonald's to Coca-Cola to General Motors. Yes, every time you buy a nationally branded item, you're helping support quality (or otherwise) TV programming.

Maybe we need to understand that when the corporations underwrite art, we are ultimately paying for it, while simultaneously ceding control.

Link to comment
I well know the practical necessities can lead to a blurring of good taste in advertising. But who's going to stand up to the marketing weasels and show some leadership, draw the line? Obviously, I'm laying some blame at McKenzie's feet but there should be some upper management, some board members who disdain this creeping commercialism. Someone upstairs has to have standards, no?
I quite agree with you, Watermill. In pointing out that this coziness with brazen commercialism has been characteristic of ABT in the past, I meant only to underline the fact that the company has always (well, as long as I've known it) lacked the kind of integrity that would allow one to take it seriously as an organization devoted to art. This is in contrast to New York City Ballet. This isn't the place for a rant on the subject, but this integrity is one reason I think that NYCB is so important in American culture and in worldwide ballet culture. Whether or not you like their esthetic, Balanchine and Kirstein were men of fierce principle, and their company has carried on their ideals. It is possible to survive as a nonprofit artistic endeavor without selling one's soul to the devil of commercialism.
Link to comment

Citibob and Ari, we may be blurring the issue of sponsorship in the not-for-profit sector and the beneficiaries' final product.

Does Movado lay a quid pro quo to ABT, "We'll be a major supporter of the season, we think you need a new Swan Lake and we want Kevin McKenzie to choreograph it"? No. I think the policy is set by the artistic staff in consultation with the Board (for only the broadest matters). If a choreographer mounts a piece and wants the dancers in jeans and tees, and Calvin Klein (the corporation) is willing to donate same, I say the corporation is entitled to a public expression of the company's gratitude and recognition of its contribution.

This is not new. It's exactly equivalent to the portraits of sponsors that populate 15th-century frescoes on the walls of Italian churches -- art that we now venerate.

In the early 1940s, Nelson Rockefeller (together with the US State Department) sent Balanchine and American Ballet Caravan on a tour of Latin America. His wisdom, resourcefulness and the willingness of the government to support the venture led to the creation of Concerto Barocco and Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto. Today the expense of such an undertaking would be prohibitive, probably even for a third-generation Rockefeller, and the government is less enthusiastic about cultural exchanges like this.

Movado, Philip Morris and Revlon, etc., are merely the Renaissance popes, Medicis, Sforzas, etc., of the 21st century, but with a whole lot less artistic say over the final product than the earlier patrons.

I am not defending commercialization as desirable, but merely recognizing it as necessary to maintain vital artistic activity in the absence of broadbased public support on the European model.

Link to comment
Originally posted by Watermill

But who's going to stand up to the marketing weasels and show some leadership, draw the line?  Obviously, I'm laying some blame at McKenzie's feet but there should be  some upper management, some board members who disdain  this creeping commercialism. Someone upstairs has to have standards, no?

I am not in marketing (although I may be a weasel) but I have to take exception to that part of the post I excerpt above.

A board member of an arts organization may well disdain commercialism of the art form he supports, whether it is creeping, galloping or has already breached the walls. However unless that board member is willing to do something about it his or her disdain will have the same impact as that shown by members of Ballet Alert.

If the board member decides to do something it is a different story. And what the board member can do is simple. Tell the artistic director, general manager, whomever makes the ultimate decision, that in order to keep commercialism at bay he or she will donate the funds lost when the commercializing sponsor is shown the door.

Link to comment
Movado, Philip Morris and Revlon, etc., are merely the Renaissance popes, Medicis, Sforzas, etc., of the 21st century, but with a whole lot less artistic say over the final product than the earlier patrons.

There's a big difference. The earlier era was not steeped in commercialism. Yes, individual patrons were acknowledged, and what they got out of was probably individual prestige. Every ballet company still does that today, in its donors listing.

But getting Calvin Klein to sponsor a show is fundamentally different than getting the Pope to sponsor it. Calvin Klein isn't interested so much in personal prestige as in money. And the idea is that this will help SELL jeans.

When we say the modern world is highly commercialized, we mean that buying and selling stuff has increased to a frenzied pace, and that the act of buying selling stuff has been linked to just about every area of modern life --- apparently now ballet as well.

Link to comment

Well, frankly, if I wore jeans, knowing Calvin Klein was sponsoring ABT I would be more likely to buy his brand rather than another one. Not because I have some dumb reaction to seeing the name that causes me to instantly rush out and buy, but because I want to encourage a company that chooses to spend its dollars this way.

Of course, I am not a smoker and never did become one, despite the Philip Morris sponsorship. As an adult, I can think and make choices.

At the time Michelangelo, Raphael, etc. were painting for the Pope, he was very much a secular ruler, determined to display his immense wealth and power in the company of other rulers of his day. The currency has changed, but I am not convinced the motivations were purer.

ABT seems to constantly be in dire straits. They are looking for money where the money is. Too bad our government doesn't support the arts the way others do.

Link to comment

It's my understanding that ABT's burgeoning summer intensives have done a lot to improve ABT's budget situation. If we are talking about consumer exploitation, a tagline mentioning Calvin Klein pales in comparison to the exorbitant fees ABT charges for their overcrowded auditions and their deposit schedules. I would far rather see them take money from corporations.

Link to comment

I don't know that ABT makes much off their summer intensives, they're tution seems to be inline with respective companies (at least in the NY area) and while the deposit schedule is frustrating, it's no different than what kids go through with college applications.

Link to comment

I really don't think we can say that NYCB has had purer principles than ABT: greater LUCK, yes, in getting money throughout the years.

It's no different, I think, than many other aspects of life. Wealthy individuals can AFFORD to have high ideals; less fortunate individuals often don't have the choice. They have to be scrappy in order to survive.

I have no problem with ABT's relationship with Calvin Klein and I wish them all the luck in keeping their name in the public consciousness. They're doing what they need to do to keep going.

Link to comment

Love this lively discussion!

Ed, I think I'm making a different point.

It's not WHO should pay but WHERE to draw the line between commercialism and the artistic integrity of a performing arts organization. Heck, ABT could make millions tying into Disney, Brittney, or Fox Reality Show #27. But they don't because there is a theoretical line somewhere out there which when crossed will turn off subscribers.

Obviously my old fashioned ouch point is much more sensitive than ABT management's. Though I know that in these times, the line will move toward commercialism as other funding sources are diminished (Look at PNB's woes). And I'm the first to admit that if it came down to a choice between no ballet at all or the McDonald's Variations (Doesn't Ferri have Golden Arches?) I'd still sit in the fourth ring with my free Happy Meal ("Look: a Jock Soto Action Figure!") I just don't think it's quite that bad...yet.

I will also try to be fair to ABT and guess that they turn down a lot of money from inappropriate sponsors who whould just love the step up in class a tie-in to the ballet would provide.

However, being true to my crusty old self, I remain adamant that the actual wearing of an advertised product during an artistic performance amounts to a commercial. If McKenzie wants to make a curtain call covered in CK, that's fine. But to integrate the product into the actual performance and send out press releases notifying the public (and mentioning it in the program?) is gross commercialism.

So when is the Kirov mounting "Back in the USSR" ?

Watermill

Link to comment

But wait, lots of designers (Versace comes to mind at NYCB) costume ballets. And NYCB engages in the same practice (as vagansmom points out)

It's not as though you can sit in the audience and see the CK on the jeans or anything.

It's not really any different than the "united airlines is the official airline of ABT" or "Freed/capezio the official shoe

Link to comment
I really don't think we can say that NYCB has had purer principles than ABT: greater LUCK, yes, in getting money throughout the years.
I wasn't referring just to their fundraising, vagansmom, but to the overall ethos of the company (which informs fundraising among many other elements of the company's dealings). This is very different from ABT's, and always has been. And we can't say that NYCB has had greater luck than ABT is fundraising, because we don't know what goes on behind the scenes. What we do know is that the company has never lowered itself to serve as part of some commercial organization's advertising.

Using Manolo Blahnik shoes in a ballet is not the same thing. Ballet companies have struck deals with makers of commercial clothing and props for years, giving them credit in the program in return for free products. But I can't recall a manufacturer/designer actually underwriting the cost of performing the ballet containing their products before. What's the difference between "sponsoring" a particular ballet and just giving the same money to the company without a requirement for specific program credit? It's the fine line that Watermill mentions. The specter of an institution of high art succumbing to crass marketplace mores is dispiriting and makes me question the artistic validity and value of the work at issue. That's where a responsible board, executive director, and artistic director must step in. Their decision reveals much about the company.

I should say that there are certain facts we don't know about the ABT situation. Would the company have performed the ballet if Klein hadn't forked over the money? Was he given similar credit in the program for the City Center performances? We don't know precisely how this all came about.

Link to comment

Worthy points, Calliope. But Versace was involved as a designer, part of the artistic team. As I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the whole point of this product integration is the very fact that the dancers are wearing off the shelf stock. So that you and I will go buy the same jeans.

(Pardon me while I chuckle at my self looking anywhere near as good as the dancers. But that's what advertising is about isn't it?).

I would also suggest that the press release and program notes will make the audience "see" the CK. Listen to the chatter during intermission.

See Ari's reply above regarding the difference in benign and malignant sponsorship. To it I would add the following question:

If UAL were the official airline of the Metropolitan Opera and the airport scene in "Nixon in China" was dominated by a United Airlines 747, wouldn't that be over the line? (Ed, what do you think?) I'm probably over reacting a bit, but this feels almost as bad to me.

Watermill

Link to comment

Arts organizations, including a LOT of dance companies, have been partially funded by Phillip Morris.

Anything else pales in comparison.

Cigarette manufacturers are merchants of death. They produce and sell a product that, if used correctly, will make the user ill and shorten his life.

I am not saying that they shouldn't have taken the money but once they did, as far as I am concerned, anything goes.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...