ABT receives $5 million gift

[Dale]

As reported in the NY Times, here's the release from ABT:

AMERICAN BALLET THEATRE RECEIVES $5 MILLION GIFT

FROM TONI AND MARTIN SOSNOFF TO SUPPORT NEW WORKS FUND

NEW WORKS FUND TO SUPPORT WORLD AND COMPANY PREMIERES

ALEXEI RATMANSKY'S ON THE DNIEPER TO BE FUNDED

American Ballet Theatre announced today the formation of The Toni and Martin Sosnoff New Works Fund with the receipt of a $5 million gift from Toni and Martin Sosnoff. The Sosnoff gift, the largest single donation from an individual to American Ballet Theatre, will help support all new works commissioned by ABT, including both World and Company Premieres. The World Premiere of Alexei Ratmansky's On the Dnieper, set for June 1, 2009, represents the first ballet to be funded by the Sosnoff New Works Fund, along with the Company Premiere of James Kudelka’s Désir.

“I want to thank the Sosnoffs for this extraordinary gift,” said Artistic Director Kevin McKenzie. “The Toni and Martin Sosnoff New Works Fund will enable our art form to grow and evolve through the creation of new choreography, while maintaining ABT’s commitment to presenting the classics.”

“This generous gift from Toni and Martin Sosnoff allows American Ballet Theatre to continue its mission of bringing the very best in ballet to audiences across the country and around the world,” said Rachel S. Moore, ABT Executive Director.

Toni and Martin Sosnoff have been supporters of American Ballet Theatre for nearly 20 years. Martin Sosnoff is the chairman and founder of Atalanta/Sosnoff Capital, a private investment management company. The Sosnoffs are members of the Board of Governors for The Richard B. Fisher Center for the Performing Arts at Bard College; the Fisher Center’s main theater bears their name. In October 2008, the couple sponsored ABT’s engagement at Bard.

“We have been truly fortunate to see ABT throughout the years and this is a very special way for us to recognize the dancers and the creative process, which have brought us so much joy. We hope our gift might inspire others to give back in some way,” said Toni Sosnoff. “ABT has incredible artistic balance: respect for the classics, with a genuine commitment to fostering new works. To keep classical dance relevant for audiences and performers, Toni and I felt that our support would be best used to continue to push the art form,” said Martin Sosnoff, Chair of the Investment Committee of ABT’s Board of Trustees.

Tickets for American Ballet Theatre’s 2009 Spring Season at the Metropolitan Opera House, priced $19 to $130, are available at the MET box office or by calling 212-362-6000. For more information, please visit ABT’s website at www.abt.org.

[Krystin]

ABT is very fortunate to get a gift of this size in such bad economic times. I hope it helps them push through the recession and stay a healthy and viable arts organization!

[abatt]

Let's hope they don't waste it by throwing it away on garbage like Citizen, which they presented last fall at City Center. It is one of the worst "ballets" I have ever seen.

[bart]

The fact that Ratmansky -- an established creator of important "new work" -- is on the team must have been a factor influencing the timing and size of this gift. He's also featured in the press release. Good news, indeed!

[Kathleen O'Connell]

See what kind good things happen when a company promotes a deserving dancer!

[DeCoster]

Visiting BalletTalk seems to bring happy news from ABT these days. Wonderful!

I agree that Citizen was pretty atrocious, but I have to come out in support of Rabbit and Rogue (the other new work last year). I really liked it, despite the critical response.

New works bring in younger audiences, and this, I think we can all agree, is a transition that needs to start happening to ensure the ongoing existence of ballet companies in the US.

[bingham]

Visiting BalletTalk seems to bring happy news from ABT these days. Wonderful!

I agree that Citizen was pretty atrocious, but I have to come out in support of Rabbit and Rogue (the other new work last year). I really liked it, despite the critical response.

New works bring in younger audiences, and this, I think we can all agree, is a transition that needs to start happening to ensure the ongoing existence of ballet companies in the US.

Great news!! Hoping, they can spend some of it for a Ratmansky Sleeping Beauty in the future.

[4mrdncr]

New works bring in younger audiences, ...

This statement got me thinking. I think it's become a mantra (cliche too?) for most arts organizations. But how true is it?

SOME QUESTIONS I HAD...

1) What is a "new" work? Short, modern neo-classical vs. classical full-length (ie. 2 or more acts)? Or simply a new full-length story ballet?

2) Do younger audiences attend the shorter modern/neo-classical pieces because they are curious, or have shorter attention spans, or prefer more "modern" music? Or (here's a question for all you statisticians): Do they also come to the full-length classics, but the aging baby boomers are taking up more seats so the percentage of younger audience members able to attend is lower? Which 'format' do the younger audiences actually prefer?

3) And considering the very young - children - which do they prefer? Short or long? Story or not?

4) Or is it all a nurture vs. nature thing, and it depends how you were raised to appreciate the 'old' classics?

PS. I usually tell people who ask about ballet, or which one to see: If possible, go see R&J because at least they will know the story, and won't feel lost if they don't understand the syntax. Sometimes I've suggested Corsaire because of the pirates and 'fireworks'. And Giselle because it's short--and again, easy to figure out. Only once have I suggested a short rep night to someone younger and new to ballet, and that was because I knew he was more interested in modern avant garde works. But don't let my biases skew the above questions or considerations.

[bart]

New works bring in younger audiences, ...

This statement got me thinking. I think it's become a mantra (cliche too?) for most arts organizations. But how true is it?

This got me thinking, too, when I first read it. I actually almost started a new thread on the question but had to drop it for lack of time. It would be interesting to hear people's responses. Possibly we can start a new thread, if interest develops.

Obviously, the quality of the "new work" is a variable. There's "new work" and then there is "new work." So is the question of its aesthetic relevance to the kind of "younger audience" you want to attract. Naked ballet dancers attempting hip hop would, for example, be very good box office ... for a while.

From what I read about Ratmansky, the commitment working creating new dance within a classical vocabulary and historical context seems real and deep.

[SanderO]

I think it's odd when some donor drops a lot of cash on an arts institution with some sort of agenda or conditions attached.

Especially in these economic times when ticket sales are off and perhaps some of the company are laid off why not simply give the money to the company and let them use it as they see fit.

The donor will get some "thing" as an acknowledgment but even that is a bit too much ego for my sensibility. I am reminded how Nancy Elison and her husband reputed gave huge donations to both the Met Opera and the ABT and what a coincidence that Ms Elison has done two coffee table books, one for the Met Opera and the other for ABT. This has nothing to do with the quiality of her work, because it's good. But there are many talented photographers who can't do these books... because they are not rich enough to be a sponsor and a photographer.

And then there's the Koch family which dropped a dime on the NYCB and got the theater named for them and they probably get to participate in the design decisions too. And from a very right wing family. That deal soured me on NYCB and I won't step in the place. But I don't think Mr Martins could care less where the money came from.

Color me cynical

[kfw]

I think it's odd when some donor drops a lot of cash on an arts institution with some sort of agenda or conditions attached.

I think it's kind of like when Ballet Talkers implore McKenzie to make this move or that, except that in this case people have the money to finance their hopes. They're doing nothing wrong, it's just up to McKenzie to accept or decline their request based on its artistic merit. Ratmansky looks like a pretty good bet, no?

[Drew]

I think it's odd when some donor drops a lot of cash on an arts institution with some sort of agenda or conditions attached.

....

And then there's the Koch family which dropped a dime on the NYCB and got the theater named for them and they probably get to participate in the design decisions too. And from a very right wing family. That deal soured me on NYCB and I won't step in the place. But I don't think Mr Martins could care less where the money came from.

Color me cynical.

...

If one looked carefully at the money sources of ABT and NYCB (long before Koch) there would be plenty to make one feel sour and worst. But where exactly is the "clean" money supposed to come from in these contexts? Shall we say the Ford Foundation--just as one example? Well, let's see...that money goes back to...oh, never mind...

I'm not saying that I would never draw the line--one can imagine (or read about) extreme circumstances where it might be better to let an arts institution die rather than play along with the status quo necessary to keep it alive--but even in more normal circumstances patronage has always had an ethically problematic side. More state support is something I would like to see, but that, too, is not always ethically or politically or even artistically unproblematic. (It was good for Russian ballet but also bad for Russian ballet that the Soviet Union "supported" it.)

For sentimental reasons, I have trouble bringing myself to say "Koch theater," but I bear no ill will to Martins and Mckenzie or, rather, I even admire them for doing what they can to raise the funds they need to keep their companies going.

I don't even really blame the donors for wanting to attach their name to something as a "legacy" or even directing it at things they especially care about. I do think company directors need to know when to draw the line in answering their demands. I can't comment on the coffee table book for ABT which I haven't seen, but a fund for new works does not seem inappropriate to me as a gift to ABT especially if "new" can be interpreted to mean new productions of older works which it seems to do.

I do absolutely agree that it would be more selfless and in many cases better for the institutions if donors were more willing to give their money no strings and no names attached...

(Of course, the above makes me more, not less cynical than Sander O.)

[SanderO]

Essentially the scourge of private donation to the arts is hardly different from what we see in politics and government where "money is free speech" and you can buy yourself some "politics". We all live with the consequences of that system.

Likewise the arts have decided to lay down with dogs and so they get up with a case of fleas.

I don't know that all the arts institutions in the USA for example every get together and have a little chat about their funding, sources and the strings attached, but if they (and their egotistical directors) could speak with one ethical voice and stop this, we might get a better and cleaner funding model.

The "People" in the USA have granted tax incentives for "charitable" donations. THAT SHOULD BE MORE THAN ADEQUATE OR INCENTIVE FOR SUPPORT OF THE ARTS. All the other stings, demands, naming rights and so forth a obscene exercises in egotism.

The arts are created by brilliant individuals and preserved in what SHOULD BE public institutions. Sadly artists have historically been the chattel of the wealthy and their work was exclusively for the wealthy.

I sense that too many artists are politically naive and those who rise to the top of these organizations know how to play the game and support and become part of the same ethically bankrupt system of exploitation.

By the way all the museums in Washington DC are free as all musems should be. And something similar needs to be done for the performing arts. I doubt we'll see that because of egos and exploitation.

Someone(s) have to take a stand, and it is not going to work if it is not someone who has the ear of the public and the powers that be. As long as people such as Mr. Martins raises toasts to the despicable Koch family little can change and he becomes a persona non grata to anyone who has a clue. His calculus to save his company, to give us lovers of ballet performances is nothing short of collaboration as the French did in WWII.

Everything is political.

[bart]

I'm with kfw on this.

Large donations with "no strings attached"? My own cynicism translates this into: "invitation to throw money down the drain."

Gifts like this -- gifts with conditions or for specific purposes -- are rarely simple matters of vanity or having a cultural axe to grind. ("Money for classical tutu ballets, only, please!" "Only if you bring in X or Y can control the project!") Donors of large sums tend to be results-oriented. Negotiating and framing a gift with conditions is a way of making sure that the money isn't put into a large pot to be (possibly) frittered away. After all, mismanagement and waste have been a part of at least a few of the stories we've been reading about financial troubles at cultural institutions.

The cultural need for developing new work seems rather clear to me. . A new work by Ratmansky -- who is, after all, making a larger artistic commitment to the company -- seems a marvelous way to inaugurate the long-term project.

Where IS the negative in this particular story?

[miliosr]

The negative to this particular story lies in the forlorn and unloved grave of Antony Tudor's Romeo and Juliet, which slowly molders into dust for wont of funds and resolve. Since reviving Tudor's Romeo and Juliet would not fall into either the 'World Premiere' category or the 'Company Premiere' category stipulated in the gift, it would appear that reviving the Tudor Romeo and Juliet via these means is an impossibility.

[bart]

The negative to this particular story lies in the forlorn and unloved grave of Antony Tudor's Romeo and Juliet, which slowly molders into dust for wont of funds and resolve.

An interesting point, miliosr. You remind us that "new work" is only one of the responsibilities of an enlightened and farsighted artistic organization -- and that ABT has long-standing obligations towards the Tudor legacy.

Perhaps the Sosnoffs' generous gift - by creating a large separate funding source for the development of new work -- will free ABT to use (or raise) other funds to address an equally important artistic project as regards Tudor and his central place in the history of the company.

I agree that the company should be cultivating the resources needed to accomplish both sets of tasks.

Regarding "new work": BT member abatt has just posted the following on the ABT Met Season 2009 thread:

An ad by ABT in today's NYTimes indicates that on opening night, Nina will dance a new work choreographed by Alexei Ratmansky.

[bingham]

The negative to this particular story lies in the forlorn and unloved grave of Antony Tudor's Romeo and Juliet, which slowly molders into dust for wont of funds and resolve.

An interesting point, miliosr. You remind us that "new work" is only one of the responsibilities of an enlightened and farsighted artistic organization -- and that ABT has long-standing obligations towards the Tudor legacy.

Perhaps the Sosnoffs' generous gift - by creating a large separate funding source for the development of new work -- will free ABT to use (or raise) other funds to address an equally important artistic project as regards Tudor and his central place in the history of the company.

I agree that the company should be cultivating the resources needed to accomplish both sets of tasks.

Regarding "new work": BT member abatt has just posted the following on the ABT Met Season 2009 thread:

An ad by ABT in today's NYTimes indicates that on opening night, Nina will dance a new work choreographed by Alexei Ratmansky.

The new Ratmansky is a "one-performance-only" piece choreographed for Nina's farewell gala .

[carbro]

I don't think I've yet to seen an intended "one-performance-only" piece performed only once. Somewhere along the line, most get pulled out and put into general rep. Of course, there's always a first (and possibly last) time.

Gifts like this are nothing new. Irene Diamond underwrote the six Diamond Projects for New York City Ballet, each yielding anywhere from five to ten premieres in a very short period of time. I agree that in the ballet world at large, the ratio of really good new ballets to snooze-worthy clones is worse than merely disappointing, but you have to give choreographers an opportunity to produce something good. If I had $5 million for new ballets, I think I'd invest it in a real training ground for choreographers, where they can spend a few years learning about such "finishing touches" as structure and musicality and find out that they just don't have what it takes before a major company gambles on them.

But, alas, I haven't yet won a big lotto jackpot.

When a donor writes such a big check, you can bet that it was preceded by discussions about the donor's goals and the beneficiary's needs and goals. I certainly think this is much more civilized than attaching some hot-shot's name to a dancer, as if the dancer were somehow personally beholden to their underwriter. Even though, I guess, in a way they are. That's undignified to the point of dehumanizing.

[Helene]

The negative to this particular story lies in the forlorn and unloved grave of Antony Tudor's Romeo and Juliet, which slowly molders into dust for wont of funds and resolve. Since reviving Tudor's Romeo and Juliet would not fall into either the 'World Premiere' category or the 'Company Premiere' category stipulated in the gift, it would appear that reviving the Tudor Romeo and Juliet via these means is an impossibility.

I'm not sure wh the neglect of "Romeo and Juliet" is a negative consequence of this gift, will allow ABT to divert funds they'd normally use for new works to other projects or to operating costs. That doesn't guarantee an R&J, but I'm not sure how the gift prevents it. There's plenty of room on the ABT calendar in both City Center and the Met seasons, although I hope "new works" includes at least one Ratmansky full-length over the next few years.

I think it's great that someone put a pile of money into new work. Often, people who designate gifts to organizations want only "Swan Lakes" or Zefferelli "Tosca"s. These donors are unlikely to be scandalized by new work and walk away in a huff.

If I had the shekels to save Tudor works, I'd give them to New York Theatre Ballet, not ABT.

[miliosr]

I believe I wrote that the continuing neglect of Antony Tudor's Romeo and Juliet was the negative to this particular story not this particular gift. Here's why: The gift may very well free up funding in ABT's budget but I am doubtful in the extreme that any savings will go toward saving the Tudor Romeo and Juliet. If ABT under Kevin McKenzie couldn't muster the resolve to save Tudor's Romeo and Juliet during the sixteen years for which he has been artistic director (but could find the resolve to stage, say, Within You Without You and The Pied Piper and their gaudy Sleeping Beauty and on and on and on), then I doubt he'll find the resolve to save it now -- savings or no savings. That's why this is a negative story -- because the gift unintentionally reveals that ABT would rather go chasing after every major, minor and played-out trend in the dance world than revel in the greatness of its own past.

[bart]

[Y]ou have to give choreographers an opportunity to produce something good. If I had $5 million for new ballets, I think I'd invest it in a real training ground for choreographers, where they can spend a few years learning about such "finishing touches" as structure and musicality and find out that they just don't have what it takes before a major company gambles on them.

Does anyone know if something like this exists. I know that there are choreographic workshops like the Diamond-funded NY Choreographic Institute. Here, for instance, is their description of their two-week "session" for choreographers:

The work of the New York Choreographic Institute takes place year-round. The primary focus is on two working sessions – one in the fall and one in the spring – that provide choreographers with uninterrupted time and studio space, and allow dancers to experiment with different ideas, approaches, choreographic techniques, and music. Included are:

Travel, accommodation, and per-diem.

Two-week rehearsal period.

Rehearsal space at:

New York City Ballet Studios.

Approximately three hours per day with dancers, either NYCB dancers (fall) or advanced students from the School of American Ballet (spring).

Informal showings of works-in-progress and/or demonstrations of different experimental approaches (invited audience only, no press).

Is there anything longer-term for would-be choreographers? (I mean, something analogous to dancer apprenticeship contracts or positions in studio companies?

[ ... ] I hope "new works" includes at least one Ratmansky full-length over the next few years.

It would be interesting to hear from ABT regulars on this. My own feeling is that there must have been a connection between this very large gift and the arrival of Ratmansky on the scene.

If I had the shekels to save Tudor works, I'd give them to New York Theatre Ballet, not ABT.

That's a great idea. Now we just need carbro -- or another Tudor fan on Ballet Talk -- to win the lottery!

[DeCoster]

New works bring in younger audiences, ...

This statement got me thinking. I think it's become a mantra (cliche too?) for most arts organizations. But how true is it?

SOME QUESTIONS I HAD...

1) What is a "new" work? Short, modern neo-classical vs. classical full-length (ie. 2 or more acts)? Or simply a new full-length story ballet?

2) Do younger audiences attend the shorter modern/neo-classical pieces because they are curious, or have shorter attention spans, or prefer more "modern" music? Or (here's a question for all you statisticians): Do they also come to the full-length classics, but the aging baby boomers are taking up more seats so the percentage of younger audience members able to attend is lower? Which 'format' do the younger audiences actually prefer?

3) And considering the very young - children - which do they prefer? Short or long? Story or not?

4) Or is it all a nurture vs. nature thing, and it depends how you were raised to appreciate the 'old' classics?

You've raised many good questions (that I can not answer) and exposed my somewhat sloppy generalization. I was speaking mostly from my own perspective and that of my friends who are occasional ballet goers. We want to see the ballet as an evolving art form, not simply as a sort of annual re-presentation of 19th century works (with 21st century athletic prowess, of course). And just as they were in the 19th century, I would like to see some ballets set to contemporary music. Why not? Ballet it a vocabulary of movement, not a historical exercise. I love the classics. I was immersed in ballet from a young age. However, I think to keep a level of excitement about ballet, there needs to be a sense that it is evolving and changing, a sense that there is something current and vital happening. For this reason, I think it is important for the art-form to balance re-stagings of the classics with new(er) works.

I think younger (and not typically ballet-going) audiences do have a lower tolerance for the pantomime and general silliness of some of the story ballets (I'm thinking of Corsaire and Sleeping Beauty especially). But children (who I was not considering at all of in my OP) eat that stuff up. Kids love goofy sultans, wicked sorcerers, magic fairies, etc. I was one of these children, and I still enjoy these ballets (depending). But if a company is seeking to attract more audience members in their 20s and 30s, I think they should consider ballets with more contemporary themes. That being said, maybe my statement has nothing to do with "new works" at all. I brought my boyfriend (a 31 yr. old non-ballet goer) to the Tudor evening, and he was floored. The psychological nature of the works connected with him much more than the story ballets (Giselle and SB) I dragged him to in the Spring. And I think he did really appreciate the variety of the mixed bill.

So, I apologize for my unqualified comments, and I can't be said to represent young folks in any way. Perhaps I just want to see more new works . . . and more Tudor for that matter!

[sidwich]

If ABT under Kevin McKenzie couldn't muster the resolve to save Tudor's Romeo and Juliet during the sixteen years for which he has been artistic director (but could find the resolve to stage, say, Within You Without You and The Pied Piper and their gaudy Sleeping Beauty and on and on and on), then I doubt he'll find the resolve to save it now -- savings or no savings. That's why this is a negative story -- because the gift unintentionally reveals that ABT would rather go chasing after every major, minor and played-out trend in the dance world than revel in the greatness of its own past.

While I would love to see a restoration of Tudor's "Romeo and Juliet," I'm not sure this is an either/or situation. As gifts go, I think this is a rather thoughtful one. With such a pressure on companies to keep mounting full-length story ballets with name-recognition, I would be surprised if ABT's funds for new works isn't one of the areas that needs shoring up in the budget.

Having grown up in a university setting, I can tell you, universities love "blank check" gifts, but it's not like any non-profit is going to turn down any money that comes down their way. In the end, it's not like gifts to undergraduate financial aid are taking money away from endowed professorships, cancer research or overseas studies.

And after all, Tudor's R&J was itself a new work not so very long ago, that may itself have benefitted from a gift such as this.

[bart]

This thread contains a long discussion of the fate of Antony Tudor's choreography at ABT. Those with access to Ballet Review might like to read Joel Lobenthal's thoughts about ABT's Tudor Centennial season (Spring 2009 edition). Lobenthal raises many of the same issues while reviewing performances of Pillar of Fire, Lilac Garden, Judgment of Paris, Continuo, The Leaves of Fading, and the bedroom pdd from Romeo and Juliet..