Help Us Spend Some of This Stimulus Package!

[Kathleen O'Connell]

Thought experiment: let's pretend that it suddenly occurred to President-Elect Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid that some stimulus package dollars might profitably be directed towards arts infrastructure in addition to bridges and tunnels and that Chief of Staff Emmanuel (who got tapped for this project because he has had ballet training) and NEA Commissioner Gioia are going to call you tomorrow for some ideas on how to spend $1.0 billion on dance (a mere pittance these days it seems).

What will you tell them? Note that the funds must be directed towards "infrastructure" in some way, shape or form -- so no commissions for new ballets, e.g. (that's what wealthy patrons are for ). These folks seem pretty detail-oriented and determined to jump out of the blocks quickly, so be specific -- something as gauzy as, say, "more arts education in our public schools" has probably already been doodled on a napkin by some earnest staffer or other, but they got stuck there and need some inspiration.

The checkbook's at the ready -- what would you do?

[Farrell Fan]

This is easy for me. I'd tell them to give the billion to the Suzanne Farrell Ballet. They need the money tp continue the Balanchine Preservation Initiative to restore "lost" Balanchine ballets. They also need it to extend the length of their season from the pitiful week or two per year to something closer to a month or two. They need to hire more dancers and might even do some touring. It's a shame that our great living link to Balanchine must struggle to survive, with the help of the Kennedy Center, when Her company deserves to be known nationally and internationally. It would be wonderful, the best thing to happen to American ballet since the Ford Foundation grant of 1963.

[kfw]

Ooh, I love the idea of spending money on preservation, Farrell Fan, except I'd divide the money up in order to also help preserve the work of Merce Cunningham and Paul Taylor. I have never seen Taylor's work in the theater; I mostly depend upon the consensus view of critics that he, like Cunningham, is a genius. Cunningham lost the financial wherewithal to document his work on film some years ago.

[papeetepatrick]

Ooh, I love the idea of spending money on preservation, Farrell Fan, except I'd divide the money up in order to also help preserve the work of Merce Cunningham and Paul Taylor. I have never seen Taylor's work in the theater; I mostly depend upon the consensus view of critics that he, like Cunningham, is a genius. Cunningham lost the financial wherewithal to document his work on film some years ago.

Half the money--$500 million-- to Martha Graham Dance Company, they need to always be able to have live music, and they hardly ever do--and better NYC schedules. Large amounts to Kylian performances, some of which have had to be cancelled this year in LA and not putting them at the Joyce, but rather at the KOCH--perhaps $50 million. Then $5,000,000 each to Farrell, Taylor, Cunningham maybe, with always emphasis on new work as well as preservation of old--make sure they always have live music. $100 million to papeetepatrick (I won't explain, but it's necessary), large monies to the World Music Institute for Indian and Javanese and other programs of Asian dance--perhaps $30 million. $200 million to Miami City Ballet so it can become the major Balanchine Dance Company, and then just move it to the KOCH THEATER and call it the New York City Ballet, because Villella is the best person to be in charge of Balanchine on a large scale. $10 million to Mel Johnson and rg to write histories of ballet and another $50 million for Mr. Johnson and rg to build a Ballet Museum near Ground Zero, where fundraising of Wall Street investors can occur on the side, in order to increase the funds already used for buying up toxic assets....I haven't got time to add this up, so if it goes over budget, there should be somebody willing to make up the balance. Monies to whomever to make possible a U.S. tour by POB, perhaps $30 million.

[bart]

I'd go with a project aimed at preserving on video-- and make available for distribution on public television, dvd sales, internet, college market, etc., etc. -- top-level performances of major works by choreographers of quality. The main criterion for selection would be: work that deserves to be preserved for future generations.

This would be like a souped-up version of Dance in America and Great Performances in the old days. There would be a serious attempt to identify and reward "the best," allowing of course for cultural differences, variants in taste, and (to a reasonable extent) the need to acknowledge work from more than the biggest metropolitan centers.

The aim should be to distribute the works that need distribution. (Remember, works that are boringly familiar to audiences in Manhattan are often never seen (not in quality peformances) by audiences from the rest of the country.)

Panels of experts on Ballet, modern, contemporary, etc., would nominate the works, productions, companies, etc., from which 10 or so works each year would be selected . Some would be from the great companies, others from high-quality smaller companies of high artistic aspiration and achievement.

A budget for marketing and distribution -- with a big emphasis on educating future audiences -- would be well-funded as well. Profits from sale of dvds would be shared with the companies involved.

This project would have guaranteed funding for 5 years with the possibility of extension for anotehr 5 years written into the legislation. That means that those whose favorites were left out the first year would be able to dream, hope, and probably lobby for the future.

10 performances x 5 years = 50 performances! So, even when politics changes again and laissez-faire capitalism reemerges, we'll at least have an amazing legacy of the best American ballet/dance to look at and learen from.

[papeetepatrick]

Your video preservation project is nice, but it sounds to me as though you spend about $50 million with what you have outlined. Gotta think BIG! If it's got to be fair with the Podunk School, remember that the biggies always have to be bailed out first or there will be nothing but systemic shock. I put lots of 'lower-downs' in my plan. I also think all sorts of ideas may be thrown out here at the beginning, and then they can be trimmed. Some of it ought to be illegally diverted to new work, since there may be no oversight, even though Kathleen has defined 'new work' as the province of private funding. I don't mind if we fund some new work and don't care if they're all Americans either--just so they make the work for America. I certainly don't think we need to be 'sensible' about all this, or at least not all the time (there's plenty of time for fantasy and no-nonsense when you don't have any power over the funding), and anyway Farrell Fan started out with such an extreme plan that anything that followed it was bound to seem almost podunk-friendly.

[Kathleen O'Connell]

Michael Kaiser sounds the alarm!

"While government bailouts are being offered or considered for financial institutions, the auto industry, homeowners, and so many other needy and worthy sectors, one group is quickly and rather quietly falling apart: our nation's arts organizations. In the past few months, dozens of opera companies, theater companies, dance organizations, museums and symphonies have either closed or suffered major cash crises ...

The arts have historically received short shrift from our political leaders, who all too often seem happy to offer bland endorsements of our work without backing those words with financial appropriations. But the arts in the United States provide 5.7 million jobs and account for $166 billion in economic activity annually. This sector is at serious risk. Because the arts are so fragmented, no single organization's demise threatens the greater economy and claims headlines. But thousands of organizations, and the state of America's arts ecology, are in danger.

We need an emergency grant for arts organizations in America, and we need legislation that allows unusual access to endowments. Washington must encourage foundations to increase their spending rates during this crisis, and we need immediate tax breaks for corporate giving.

As John F. Kennedy said, "I am certain that after the dust of centuries has passed over our cities, we, too, will be remembered not for our victories or defeats in battle or in politics, but for our contribution to the human spirit." As we print billions of dollars in bailout money, isn't it time to ensure that we are saving our soul as well as our economy?"

Here's the link to Kaiser's 12/29/08 Washington Post Op-Ed Article: "No Bailout for the Arts?

Let's hope someone with access to our nation's checkbook is listening.

[Alexandra]

If DanceView had a teensy tinesy little grant of about $25,000 we could do much better photos

Seriously, this is a great topic. I'd like a Festival of New Ballet -- where choreographers were invited to create a ballet USING THE VOCABULARY OF THE DANSE D'ECOLE, I.E., A BALLET on the company of their choice, and there would be a whole week of these ballets. No crossover, no hybrids. Tweak it, of course, but real ballets. With all respect ot the revivals, ballet needs new work.

[Kathleen O'Connell]

I think anything that put actual $$$ into artists' hands to be spent on the art itself would be a good start. And I would define "art" pretty broadly: I flipped through the NYT's little slideshow on NYCB's costume shop today and was very thankful that someone still sees value in giving these people the wherewithal to practice their craft.

[LiLing]

I vote for a restoration of the old NEA touring program, but on a much grander scale. Not only does this help subsidize companies, but the education of audiences has long term benefits. We can't expect taxpayers to support government support for arts that they never have a chance to see.

As for the infrastructure aspect, build suitable theaters where there aren't any. I read recently that The Paul Taylor Co. has toured to sixty countries, but not to West Virginia, or South Dakota. I say build a theater in Rapid City, and send PT!

[bart]

LiLing's first point made me reallize that, most of all, Ballet needs audience-formation (access to ballet; education in ballet; the belief that ballet is worth supporting and that, indeed, one should not have to live without it).

I am speaking of live performance. Video on dvd is useful, but I do not think it contributes all that much to audience-formation or developing patters on audience loyalty to live perfomance.

Although I don't know the "NEA touring program" that LiLing mentions, I think that a program to create, market, and present touring throughout the country sounds like an excellent idea. I'd put an impresario like Kaiser in charge -- not necessarily him, but someone like him.

The emphasis would be on

-- creating ballet programs that can tour, along with

-- developing and educating audiences. (This means that Alexandra's $25,000 would be entirely appropriate. DanceView, along with a handful of other ballet publications, have the potential to become very useful partners.

This should be a national project for selecting, preparing and presenting the finest ballet (choreography and stage production) that this country has produced and can produce, from Balanchine through Tudor and Robbins to ... (fill in the blank). A certain amount of "new work" would be fine, but the emphasis should be on work that is already proven but to which audiences do not always have access.

I am NOT suggest attempting to create a permanent company or companies. Nor does it make economic sense -- for the development of ballet as a whole -- to create a set of local companies or theaters which will have little impact outside their area.

I think it makes more sense -- and is a more efficent use of funds -- to create travelling teams of ballet professionals. The teams would have a month or so to prepare one or two programs. A team might tour for a month or two or longer. It might be joined by established stars for shorter periods. Major companies would be encouraged to release some of their dancers to join the tour for periods of varying length.

Continuity would be provided by a group consisiting of Tour Artistic Director, tour manger, technical people, musicians, and marketers. Marketing -- including education -- is crucial for point (b) the creation of audiences. Liaison with ballet schools, along witih special workshops and smaller-scale programs, are essential.

Funding should be for 5 years minimum. "Results" -- in terms of audience development especially -- would be measured. Each program should be filmed at a commercial level with the possibility of making the dvd available for sale.

Attention would be given to increasing the "social honor" of those involved in creating and performing ballet. At the end of each year, a special performance would be given, possibly at the Kennedy Center. The new President and his family would be pressured to attend. Funds would be included to make it worth PBS's while to televise the event and to local stations actually to show it.

[Mme. Hermine]

I would develop a web site specifically for downloads of videos and dance performances (not uploads), where people could pay either by subscription or by the download to get well produced copies of films of ballets, all legal. There wouldn't be an argument any more that physically producing the DVDs wasn't cost effective because there wouldn't be overstock anywhere.

Actually I think this could go along with bart's concept!

[sandik]

LiLing's post made me smile -- I've done some research about the effect of the Dance Touring Program (part of the NEA in the late 60s and 70s) on the development of dance in the US and it was quite phenomenal. The original impetus was primarily to get dance and dancers out of New York and into communities across the US. At that point, Hurok and other promoters were still pretty active in big cities, so the focus was pointed at towns and cities. Organizations in the community made the application to the NEA, so it started with an active local partner that usually already had a connection to their audiences. The presenters were encouraged to offer a residency, with teaching, open rehearsals, lecture-demonstrations or other events as well as straight performances, so the communities and the artists developed actual relationships. Often the local presenters were colleges, sometimes with a small dance program, so these residencies really strengthened those departments. In other cases, the DTP events became an anchor for a larger performing arts series and aided the growth of regional arts presenters.

Artistically, there were several unforseen consequences. Until that time, most choreographers worked on a project to project basis, bringing their dancers together to prepare for a short performance season, but losing contact with them for a chunk of the year. With the longer contracts that the DTP made possible, choreographers could make a longer commitment to their dancers -- the residency format gave them the opportunity to make a new dance on the road while they were performing an existing program, and to maintain a larger repertory than before. And the dancers, who had spent a chunk of their time in NYC waiting tables and taking class between gigs, were finally working enough weeks as dancers to qualify for unemployment on their off weeks -- for many of them, it was the first time in their careers that they made most of their income as dancers.

There were some less than cheerful byproducts of the system, which I won't go into right now, but overall it was arguably the most successful program the Endowment ran. Whenever I hear people claim that the government can't really help anyone, I always think of the DTP as an excellent counterexample.

[dirac]

Just a quick thank you to Kathleen O'Connell for starting this great topic. I'm really enjoying these posts!

[bart]

A very useful "stimulus" for ballet -- and the classical arts in general -- would be inviting a group of ballet dancers to perform at the White House, with all the trimmings that Jacqueline Kennedy used to orchestrate so well.

Whom, I wonder, should the Obamas invite?

[kfw]

A very useful "stimulus" for ballet -- and the classical arts in general -- would be inviting a group of ballet dancers to perform at the White House, with all the trimmings that Jacqueline Kennedy used to orchestrate so well.

Whom, I wonder, should the Obamas invite?

The Dance Theatre of Harlem, in whatever shape or form Arthur Mitchell can assemble it. Thanks, Bart, for the cheering thought.