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

John Rockwell's article in the NYT


Recommended Posts

I was in no way meaning to decry Van Vechten's writing; I was saying that he was the music critic for the paper and was moonlighting as a dance critic. The Times would never in its wildest dreams have thought of hiring a designated dance critic at that point. A decade later it did.

Link to comment

Thirty years ago Rockwell was a rock music critic for the NYT. In the intervening decades he's covered music and opera, in the US and, I believe in Europe, and moved on to edit the Arts section (so he's been influential in the coverage for a long time, editing Kisselgoff and others). By my lights, this is called having a career -- learning, growing, pursuing different opportunities, enriching one's experiences. I wouldn't disqualify him for failing to lock into his life at any once stage.

I note an astute earlier poster who notes that he doesn't say he LIKES crossover, only that it seems to be on the rise. Newspapers' most basic obligation is to cover news -- good news, bad news and change -- so crossover dance needs to be critiqued intelligently as part of the coverage mandate. If he's going to see dancers whereever he finds them, in whatever kind of company, and holding them to standards of artistic integrity, are we supposed to be upset??

I'd hold fire for a year or so to see whether the man has taste, has an inventive eye, and more importantly, can write for not only dance fanatics but the potential "crossover" ticketbuyer who has not attended much dance. Surely the presenters on this board aren't planning to screen their audiences and tell folks who have only bought tickets to, say Riverdance, that they're not welcome at Swan Lake? There's time enough to whack Rockwell on content once there's some to really look at. I'm not mad ofr the patronizing tone in his prose but I can't quibble about the ideas -- yet.

Link to comment

Although Martin was highly influential, back then the Times was powerful but was still one among a number of New York dailies. Now, it’s pretty much the only game in town, especially in regard to dance. Apart from the Wall Street Journal, it is the only true national newspaper (I mean no disrespect to the LA Times or the Wash. Post, both of which clearly view themselves as national papers, and they are in many respects.) This is not to say that the views of other critics are not noted in the building -- but the chief critic at the Times is the big kahuna.

Thalictum may have a point. With all due respect to Rockwell’s background, which is admirable, it may not be a mark of respect for dance to reassign him in this way. (I am trying to phrase this carefully, because I don’t want to imply that he’s underqualified.)

Link to comment

Well his first review is up -- the Kirov's Cinderella -- and if it is any way prescient, we can expect graceful prose, a lot of historical filler for ballast, rudimentary technical or choreographic analysis and a heapin' of of exacty the kind of middlebrow sensibility and sentimentality that the Times adores. He certainly writes well, and on a tight deadline.

The picture is mis-identified: it's Tereshkina on the left, and Sheshina on the right.

Link to comment
Thalictum may have a point.  With all due respect to Rockwell’s background, which is admirable, it may not be a mark of respect for dance to reassign him in this way.  (I am trying to phrase this carefully, because I don’t want to imply that he’s underqualified.)

Thank you, Dirac, you've expressed my concern most completely. Would the Times or any other paper of record chose to assign a non-subject-area expert to cover a field? Can you imagine if, say, the classical music beat was reassigned and a movie critic was the top choice, for example? This is my greatest concern for the ramifications of placing Rockwell in the 'top spot' covering dance at the Times. It seems that the Times suggests that anyone can pick up the relatively 'short history' of the form without a long-term commitment to studying, learning and experiencing dance over a career.

Link to comment

I think he is going to fake his way through this assignment, and the Times will be perfectly happy that they could assign someone already on payroll and not have to add another salary. And when Anderson or Dunning retires I doubt they will be replaced. The Times has already demonstrated, by the radical shrinking of lineage, that they do not think dance deserves extensive coverage.

Link to comment
Well his first review is up -- the Kirov's Cinderella -- and if it is any way prescient, we can expect graceful prose, a lot of historical filler for ballast, rudimentary technical or choreographic analysis and a heapin' of of exacty the kind of middlebrow sensibility and sentimentality that the Times adores.  He certainly writes well, and on a tight deadline.

Is that middlebrow sensibility or non-balletomane sensibility? Those of us who want a balletomane's sensibility have other places to turn, thanks in large part to Alexandra. It will be interesting to to see if Rockwell is tougher on the home companies than Kisselgoff was.

Link to comment

I would say the overall aesthetic is middlebrow, which is fine except it homogenizes and freezes a very unadventurous inquiry. And it crowds out less safe, more venturesome approaches.

Need one be a balletomane to be a good mainstream dance critic? Not necessarily.

But let's face it, the Time would never have made a ballet/dance writer their classical or pop music critic, would they? -- Even with a three month crash course.

Ltraiger, you are absolutely right!!

Link to comment
Well his first review is up -- the Kirov's Cinderella -- and if it is any way prescient, we can expect graceful prose, a lot of historical filler for ballast, rudimentary technical or choreographic analysis and a heapin' of of exacty the kind of middlebrow sensibility and sentimentality that the Times adores. He certainly writes well, and on a tight deadline.

The picture is mis-identified: it's Tereshkina on the left, and Sheshina on the right.

Geez - this is a pretty harsh assessment. Rockwell is writing for an audience who may not know, or care, about in depth technical and choreographic analysis. It's a fact of writing for a mainstream newspaper - you either don't have the space to go too deep in, or an editor will tell you to please keep it in check so the average reader won't be turned off by the article. Its a review that fits in with the type of publication the NY Times is - it's not necessarily for the balletomanes.

kfw is right - balletomanes have Ballet Alert and the Dance View Times to turn to for more indepth analysis.

Link to comment

The Times has two former political writers now writing on food--WA Apple and Frank Bruni, and a former music critic writing on art--Michael Kimmelman, passing over the fairly savvy Roberta Smith. They have made similar lateral crossover assignments over the years. They seem to like someone familiar from within, with unthreatening taste and unstartling observations. Also in general the Times has a strange love-hate relation to intellectuals and artists. They have a longing for art but get fainthearted when it goes too far. They prefer the safe secondary version to real thing. Their recent obituaries on the real things, Francoise Sagan and Jacques Derrida, were provincial and shameful...

Edited by Quiggin
Link to comment
Geez - this is a pretty harsh assessment. Rockwell is writing for an audience who may not know, or care, about in depth technical and choreographic analysis. It's a fact of writing for a mainstream newspaper - you either don't have the space to go too deep in, or an editor will tell you to please keep it in check so the average reader won't be turned off by the article. Its a review that fits in with the type of publication the NY Times is - it's not necessarily for the balletomanes.

Is the New York Times becoming USA Today?

Link to comment

I think this is all very harsh. If anything I would say the Cinderella review is too earnest. It's like he wants you to know he really did his homework / this is not the first time he went to a ballet show. I would hope the prose lightens up a little as he gets used to writing on this topic.

Look, many people are not going to like any critic (except perhaps a couple dead ones). A lot of people hated Gisselkoff; she's gone, so it's time to hate the next one.

I agreed with the concern over his opening statement, linked at the start of this topic, which seemed to leave an opening for vastly reducing the number of ballet reviews in favor of loft cross over stuff. But this is his first and it's about ballet. And his second one is about Balanchine. So give the guy a break.

And now of course some people disagree with his view on the show. Well, personally I would be more worried if I did agree with a review in the paper. Why go to a show in that case?

The only thing that I don't quite get is Rockwell seem to think the skyscrapers and the lesbians didn't help the magic; but at the end he hastily adds that the final pdd would not have been as romantic if the traditional fairies etc had been around. So which is it?

I think the quality of the dancing and the soloists are the primary thing, and a good fairy is better than a bad lesbian - if I'm allowed a tasteless pun.

Link to comment

I've moved several posts over from the old message board that were posted there during the move. Here's one.

Posted by Herman Stevens before the move:

(Drew @ Jan 14 2005, 07:24 PM)

I also strongly agree with Quiggin's remarks about the NYTimes's ambivalence regarding artists and intellectuals.  (The Derrida obituary made me physically ill.)

*

So you really think of all daily newspapers the NYT is the one to chastize for their ambivalence towards the arts?

Link to comment

Posted by Amanda NYC before the move and copied over from the old message board:

(Herman Stevens @ Jan 14 2005, 11:45 AM)

I think this is all very harsh. If anything I would say the Cinderella review is too earnest. It's like he wants you to know he really did his homework / this is not the first time he went to a ballet show. I would hope the prose lightens up a little as he gets used to writing on this topic.

....

And his second one is about Balanchine.

In his second piece, about the all-Balanchine program, he also seems to try to show he did his homework-- I don't mind background, as it helps place a work in context and educate any readers new to the piece. But, I do expect some actual review-- in this there seemed to be one line of commentary for each ballet compared to tons of copy about the ballet. I'd like to hear a bit more about why he says what he does about the various performers and their performances.

I hope it's not because he is not versed enough to comment further... I'm curious to see whether he continues this approach.

Link to comment

Posted by Ari before the move and copied over from the old board:

Rockwell's NYCB review suggests that he is bored by classical ballet and prefers edgier, more modern things. He is perfunctory about Square Dance and Tchaikovsky Suite 3, but sounds genuinely stimulated by Stravinsky Violin Concerto and Wheeldon's Polyphonia. Of course, everyone has his own prejudices and preferences, and Rockwell is entitled to his. But I can't help but wonder whether his lack of interest in classical ballet is rooted in unfamiliarity, and whether he will make an effort to rectify that. For someone in his position, the consequences could be serious if he doesn't.

Link to comment

Posted by Thalictum before the move and copied over from the old board:

Whether this is now a relative distinction or not, the Times remains the country's, and probably the world's major newpaper, and that makes it all more, as Quiggin rightly said, shameful that they treat these subjects with the back of their hand. Given the resources at their disposal, their arts coverage is, yes, SHAMEFUL. I expect nothing honorable from the Post or the News anymore politically or in any other way, so, yes, I am more apt to write them off entirely.

Link to comment

Posted by Carbro before the move and copied over from the old message board:

QUOTE(Ari @ Jan 14 2005, 05:30 PM)

Rockwell's NYCB review suggests that he is bored by classical ballet and prefers edgier, more modern things.

As I recall his rock critic years, he was biased towards boundary-breaking acts. No reason to think he should approach dance from a different sensibility.

QUOTE

Of course, everyone has his own prejudices and preferences, and Rockwell is entitled to his. But I can't help but wonder whether his lack of interest in classical ballet is rooted in unfamiliarity, and whether he will make an effort to rectify that. For someone in his position, the consequences could be serious if he doesn't.

*

As a friend once pointed out, you can't really be a restaurant critic if you're not willing to eat everything. The more I think of it (with the help of some of the comments on this thread), the more it seems the so-called and self-appointed Newspaper of Record will indeed give dance short shrift for at least the near future. Grrrrrr. angry.gif

--Carley

Link to comment

Posted by Drew before the move and copied over from the old board:

Herman Stevens asked if I really thought of all the NY papers, the Times was the one to chastise about arts/intellectual coverage--a schrewd question. I suppose the answer is that I do hold the Times to a higher standard, because it represents itself as offering a higher standard. Its part of the Times' "identity" to cover intellectual/artistic issues, and yet, it often does so in a peculiarly anti-intellectual way. I confess, too, I'm more irritated by their coverage of intellectual/literary debates than their coverage of other arts--and that's something I was especially responding to in Quiggin's earlier remark. (Some years, ago, when still living in New York, I sometimes read Newsday and did find better Book reviews than in the Times.)

(Thalictum said something similar a few posts earlier as well.)

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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