WSJ Article on Possible Misty Copeland Promotion

[canbelto]

You're assuming this "segment" has no interest in seeing "white" bodies in leading roles, that this "segment" has no interest in ballet beyond Misty, that this "segment" is there only bc Misty is dancing. Well this "segment" that you're referring to I assume is mostly African-American, since you'd never assume that a white person who was attending a Misty O/O was there "only for Misty." Would you assume that, say, an Asian person who is at a Hee Seo performance is only there because Hee Seo is of Asian ancestry? That's what I'm talking about, the assumptions of bad faith that are present about Misty's audiences and the assumptions of bad faith that come up with everything Misty does/says. If she invites Raven Wilkinson onstage after her Swan Lake, it must be because her publicist arranged it. If she walked the red carpet it's because she's a famewhore. If Damian Woetzel was "honored" to be there he must have been comped/paid shill. Those overwhelming assumptions of bad faith that are attached to everything Misty does is what is making me flat out say that this is racist.

[nanushka]

You're assuming this "segment" has no interest in seeing "white" bodies in leading roles, that this "segment" has no interest in ballet beyond Misty, that this "segment" is there only bc Misty is dancing. Well this "segment" that you're referring to I assume is mostly African-American, since you'd never assume that a white person who was attending a Misty O/O was there "only for Misty." Would you assume that, say, an Asian person who is at a Hee Seo performance is only there because Hee Seo is of Asian ancestry? That's what I'm talking about, the assumptions of bad faith that are present about Misty's audiences and the assumptions of bad faith that come up with everything Misty does/says. If she invites Raven Wilkinson onstage after her Swan Lake, it must be because her publicist arranged it. If she walked the red carpet it's because she's a famewhore. If Damian Woetzel was "honored" to be there he must have been comped/paid shill. Those overwhelming assumptions of bad faith that are attached to everything Misty does is what is making me flat out say that this is racist.

abatt said nothing about Misty's audience. abatt's point was about the people that KM is (in abatt's view) trying to attract. abatt did not say that Misty's audience is entirely made up of those people. abatt simply said that KM is trying to attract people who want to see non-white dancers. abatt did not say that those are the only people who have an interest in seeing Misty dance.

Again, one can certainly disagree with the claim that KM is trying to attract those people.

[nanushka]

You're assuming this "segment" has no interest in seeing "white" bodies in leading roles, that this "segment" has no interest in ballet beyond Misty, that this "segment" is there only bc Misty is dancing. Well this "segment" that you're referring to I assume is mostly African-American, since you'd never assume that a white person who was attending a Misty O/O was there "only for Misty." Would you assume that, say, an Asian person who is at a Hee Seo performance is only there because Hee Seo is of Asian ancestry?

There's a difference, in very basic logical terms, between assuming, on the one hand, that those who want to see black dancers are themselves black and assuming, on the other hand, that those who are black want to see non-black dancers. I'm not saying that abatt was making either assumption, but you seem to conflate the two, which is a logical fallacy.

[canbelto]

I'm saying that there are so many assumptions of bad faith tied to everything about Misty, from her audiences to her motivations to her behavior to her social media account, and those assumptions of bad faith are so vituperative and excorciating, that I can find no logical reason behind it besides race. And that the responses in this thread and others have hit many code words that are used traditionally to dance around race.

[kfw]

You're assuming this "segment" has no interest in seeing "white" bodies in leading roles, that this "segment" has no interest in ballet beyond Misty, that this "segment" is there only bc Misty is dancing. Well this "segment" that you're referring to I assume is mostly African-American, since you'd never assume that a white person who was attending a Misty O/O was there "only for Misty." Would you assume that, say, an Asian person who is at a Hee Seo performance is only there because Hee Seo is of Asian ancestry? That's what I'm talking about, the assumptions of bad faith that are present about Misty's audiences and the assumptions of bad faith that come up with everything Misty does/says. If she invites Raven Wilkinson onstage after her Swan Lake, it must be because her publicist arranged it. If she walked the red carpet it's because she's a famewhore. If Damian Woetzel was "honored" to be there he must have been comped/paid shill. Those overwhelming assumptions of bad faith that are attached to everything Misty does is what is making me flat out say that this is racist.

Wow, what an interesting discussion here since I last tuned in. 1) From the sound of it, lots of white people, including at least one on this board, made it a point to see Copeland's SL specifically to see her. People do this for specific dancers all the time. If I lived in New York, I would have been at her performance last week, drawn in part by the fact that she's the first African-American to dance O/O. What in the world is wrong with a minority member, or anyone else showing up to see a dancer specifically or in large part because she's a minority member?

2) did anyone actually say or suggest that Woetzel was a shill? I mentioned the possibility of his being comped in passing as a possibility which would have made his use of "honored" correct - in other words, if she had invited him as a friend. "Shill" is your own imagination. Likewise, did anyone actually say or suggest Wilkinson's appearance was a PR move, or is that another assumption of bad faith on your part?

You cry "racism," but I see another form of prejudice, political correctness, which has very honorable roots, but too often hardens into what we've seen here: the policing of and parsing language, the isolation of criticism from its context, the inability or unwillingness to credit the other side's good faith, and which finds "vile" the proposition that an African-American might act in both praiseworthy and unpraiseworthy fashion - in other words be fully human.

[nanushka]

I'm saying that there are so many assumptions of bad faith tied to everything about Misty, from her audiences to her motivations to her behavior to her social media account, and those assumptions of bad faith are so vituperative and excorciating, that I can find no logical reason behind it besides race.

I don't think you're wrong about this. I think you're right that that has been an undercurrent in some of the comments made about Misty.

But I think the problem arises when this causes one to misread what a specific person has said in a specific instance, because one assumes that everyone who says something negative about Misty -- or even something not obviously positive about Misty -- is motivated by racial animus. I think this prevents our ability to see and engage with what people who disagree with us (who have a whole diversity of opinions and reasons for those opinions) are actually saying.

And if we're going to do that, then why bother having a discussion?

[abatt]

This is what the ABT website states regarding project plie, which Misty is a leading partner in:

In September 2013, American Ballet Theatre announced the formation of Project Plié, a comprehensive initiative to increase racial and ethnic representation in ballet . . .

How is it that you assume it must be racist to point out that McKenzie is trying to tap into new audiences - new "segments" of the population who have not gone to the ballet - brought to the theater by Misty, when ABT has itself expressly stated that ABT is part of a "comprehensive initiative" to increase racial and ethnic diversity in the ballet company and in its audience members. My assertion that McKenzie is trying to tap into new "segments" is, at its heart, no different from ABT's own stated goals. Do you see a "coded message" in ABT's project plie?

[canbelto]

Here is what one poster "laurel" said about Macauley's review. Again, an assumption of bad faith on the part of the poster for Macauley:

It's a decidedly guarded review. For once, Macaulay is afraid to offend. He takes obvious flaws and spins them as something positive. Copeland's inability to complete the required fouettes, and substituting quick single turns instead? "A smart alternative." What?! Can you imagine how he would tear through a dancer from NYCB, or any other ABT dancer, who chose not to display technical skill while making their major NY debut?

Here's what "abatt" said about Raven Wilkinson's presence:

Do you think these ladies (Wilkinson and Anderson) were there because they asked to be included, or did ABT/Team Misty contact them to make it more of a historic "event".

Here is what mmisyb said about Misty's audience:

Suffice to say the house was sold out, with people screaming and many applauding in all the wrong places. I fear this is the future of ABT.

Read them and tell me honestly that there isn't a really ugly undertone of bad faith present in all those posts.

[nanushka]

Read them and tell me honestly that there isn't a really ugly undertone of bad faith present in all those posts.

I'm not disputing the fact that there have been statements made on this board that have such undertones (though, to be honest, I don't think you've chosen particularly strong examples here). But I think that fact has caused you to misread statements that don't have those undertones and to mischaracterize what they literally say rather than engaging with what they do say.

[abatt]

How does asking whether Misty's reps contacted Wilkinson and Anderson to appear at the SL performance indicative of racism? I asked whether her reps or ABT invited these ladies to add a more historic element to the proceedings. Where is the racism in that?

[canbelto]

Ok here's another:

If there was a white (or even Asian) dancer who could not do the steps or choreography, no way that dancer would get the free pass Misty is getting. And get promoted to principal?? No way in any other company. I wonder how many RB dancers not doing a show have seen ABT this week (I'm venturing a guess none, since I've seen them in the audience or at the stage door). No wonder NYCB dancers have such contempt for ABT.

This one really spells it out. And other comments I can't find right now because they were removed for violating board policy.

[Helene]

The audience that McKenzie is now attempting to tap into are those who prefer to see non-white bodies on stage in a lead role. It's a segment of the population that might never have attended any ABT ballet performance but for the fact that an African American is cast in the lead. The interesting question for me is what percentage of this audience will return for the rest of the ABT shows in which Misty is not performing. Will this lead to the casting of Misty multiple times per week for as many shows as she can handle.

I don't know on what this is based, but this is a simplification in itself. McKenzie is interested in people who buy tickets to see Copeland dance, and while there is a visible increase in the number of black audience members at her performances, the tickets sales aren't attributed to a single motivator that the audience had a preference to see non-white bodies on stage. It's a simplification for the audiences who are visibly black, and it's a simplification for the audiences that aren't visibly identifiable. Dancers prominently in the media have always attracted new audiences, and people who want to know what the fuss is will come to find out for themselves. Younger people who have grown up in new media are more attracted to a performer who has a big media/social media presence and endorsements that speak to them, ie Under Armour vs. Rolex.

I would think that Copeland's new audiences are just as likely or just as unlikely to return for the rest of ABT as any other audience that isn't comprised of the "ballet family." Maybe some will be bitten by the ballet bug. Maybe some will decide that this ballet stuff is a live art form and not some ossified stereotype they had in mind. Maybe they will see another dancer who catches their fancy. Some will come back to ABT after years of not attending. The good news is that there are so many more of Copeland's new audience that if the standard percentage holds, that means more people who will stay, especially now that Copeland has been promoted to Principal, and she should expect more roles and more performances at her new rank. If she gets more roles in the Fall season mixed rep, that would be a win-win for ABT, since Fall ticket sales aren't as strong and in a mixed bill, there are more dancers in featured roles at each performance to grab people's attention as well as expose a greater range of ballet than people see in a given full-length.

I believe it more likely that some black girls will see someone like them on stage and think there might be a chance for them, and that some black parents in the audience will be more like to encourage, or at least not actively discourage, their daughters from pursuing ballet, like the Ford Foundation grant convinced Merrill Ashley's parents that ballet was a legitimate path for their daughter. I also believe that the group of young ballet fans, like in the photo accompanying today's NYT article about Copeland's promotion -- everyone else was given perfunctory mention -- will expect to see more diversity in their classes and not find it that unusual to see black students and dancers at their level next to them at the barre. However, I've always believed that audience and talent development is more than what can be tallied by immediate indicators.

Would you assume that, say, an Asian person who is at a Hee Seo performance is only there because Hee Seo is of Asian ancestry? That's what I'm talking about, the assumptions of bad faith that are present about Misty's audiences and the assumptions of bad faith that come up with everything Misty does/says. If she invites Raven Wilkinson onstage after her Swan Lake, it must be because her publicist arranged it. If she walked the red carpet it's because she's a famewhore. If Damian Woetzel was "honored" to be there he must have been comped/paid shill. Those overwhelming assumptions of bad faith that are attached to everything Misty does is what is making me flat out say that this is racist.

As someone who saw the support the Korean American community gave to Yu Na Kim in her competitions, ethnicity and race can be a primary driver, and there may be plenty of fans who are there only because Hee Seo is Korean. (Obviously they are not driving ticket sales like Copeland.) However, it has been rare for that claim to be made here, while this has been a regular point of discussion around Copeland, and Seo's lack of technique or other performance deficiencies have not been attributed to her character or race.

And it is certainly true of a very visible segment of the audience who show up only for the "-Ovas." As Robert Gottlieb wrote in his recent review on Eifman Ballet's visit to NYC, "He was admired in New York, too, until the savagery of most of the critics (myself included) brought the audience to its senses, except for the loyal Russian-American crowd that throngs the sidewalk outside the City Center whenever he appears. (Sociologists, take note: they were smoking less this year than in the past, when West Fifty-Fifth Street was a pulmonary disaster zone.)" According to the stereotype, the ones who speak Russian loudly in the lobbies, reek like ashtrays, answer their cell-phones mid-performance, scream like crazy for their favorites, and sit on their hands for all non-Russian dancers. In other words, the ones who are visibly identifiable and who don't represent their entire "segment."

[abatt]

Correct. Russian audiences come out in large numbers to see Russian dancers. Minorities are coming out in large numbers to see Misty dance lead roles at ABT. There is nothing wrong with those choices. So why is it considered nefarious and evil to state that this phenomenon is occurring? Why does it lead to an automatic hurl of a racism charge or a "coded message"?

[Kathleen O'Connell]

How about "The audience that McKenzie is now attempting to tap into are those who are excited to see non-white bodies on stage in a lead role" or "thrilled to see non-white bodies on stage in a lead role" as an alternative to "prefer"?

[canbelto]

Here's the original message:

The audience that McKenzie is now attempting to tap into are those who prefer to see non-white bodies on stage in a lead role. It's a segment of the population that might never have attended any ABT ballet performance but for the fact that an African American is cast in the lead. The interesting question for me is what percentage of this audience will return for the rest of the ABT shows in which Misty is not performing. Will this lead to the casting of Misty multiple times per week for as many shows as she can handle.

Ok "prefer to see non-white bodies onstage in a lead role" and "might never have attended any ABT ballet performance but for the fact that an African American is cast in the lead" is automatically followed up by an assumption that Misty will be over-cast so these same people will come to the ballet over and over again. Again, an automatic assumption of bad faith/ignorance on the part of the audience. They might be ballet enthusiasts from minority backgrounds who are excited to see a big dance event. They might be dance enthusiasts period. Assuming that Misty's audiences don't know anything about ballet, just there for Misty, is offensive.

It's not pointing out Misty's audiences that is, IMO, racist. It's the assumptions about those audiences and what they know/don't know/behave/what they're interested in. Also the conclusion that this will be a bad thing for ABT. But whatever, I don't feel like this conversation is between culturally/politically unaware people. I think most everyone in this convo knows about racial code words and stereotypes so all this innocence is very coy.

[Helene]

It's not pointing out Misty's audiences that is, IMO, racist. It's the assumptions about those audiences and what they know/don't know/behave/what they're interested in. Also the conclusion that this will be a bad thing for ABT. But whatever, I don't feel like this conversation is between culturally/politically unaware people. I think most everyone in this convo knows about racial code words and stereotypes so all this innocence is very coy.

As you've said. Clearly not everyone here agrees. One of the characteristics of a discussion board.

[Plisskin]

Here's the original message:

Ok "prefer to see non-white bodies onstage in a lead role" and "might never have attended any ABT ballet performance but for the fact that an African American is cast in the lead" is automatically followed up by an assumption that Misty will be over-cast so these same people will come to the ballet over and over again. Again, an automatic assumption of bad faith/ignorance on the part of the audience. They might be ballet enthusiasts from minority backgrounds who are excited to see a big dance event. They might be dance enthusiasts period. Assuming that Misty's audiences don't know anything about ballet, just there for Misty, is offensive.

It's not pointing out Misty's audiences that is, IMO, racist. It's the assumptions about those audiences and what they know/don't know/behave/what they're interested in. Also the conclusion that this will be a bad thing for ABT. But whatever, I don't feel like this conversation is between culturally/politically unaware people. I think most everyone in this convo knows about racial code words and stereotypes so all this innocence is very coy.

And this has been the underlying issue in these Misty threads. No one wants to say it and call it for what it really is. Typical of the U.S. especially when you look at recent events. A plethora of excuses for Hallberg, Seo, and a million and one explanations for why the online venom aimed at Misty is "different" and excusable.

[nanushka]

Ok "prefer to see non-white bodies onstage in a lead role" and "might never have attended any ABT ballet performance but for the fact that an African American is cast in the lead" is automatically followed up by an assumption that Misty will be over-cast so these same people will come to the ballet over and over again. Again, an automatic assumption of bad faith/ignorance on the part of the audience. They might be ballet enthusiasts from minority backgrounds who are excited to see a big dance event. They might be dance enthusiasts period. Assuming that Misty's audiences don't know anything about ballet, just there for Misty, is offensive.

It's not pointing out Misty's audiences that is, IMO, racist. It's the assumptions about those audiences and what they know/don't know/behave/what they're interested in. Also the conclusion that this will be a bad thing for ABT. But whatever, I don't feel like this conversation is between culturally/politically unaware people. I think most everyone in this convo knows about racial code words and stereotypes so all this innocence is very coy.

You persist in either misreading or willfully mischaracterizing what abatt wrote. The point was not about Misty's audience -- which is diverse, both racially and in their motivations for attending. The point was about KM's attempt (true or not) to draw in people who wouldn't otherwise come to ballet. Those people, then, would make up a "segment" of Misty's audience.

Did abatt suggest that "Misty's audience" (your term, not abatt's) is wholly or even primarily made up of such people? No. Is KM interested in drawing such people? That's what's debatable.

[abatt]

McKenzie would be motivated to cast Misty multiple times in a week because the demand for tickets exceeds the supply, since her shows sell out quickly. There are clearly more people who want to see her perform than there are available tickets for those performances. There is no "assumption of bad faith/ignorance on the part of the audience" in questioning whether McKenzie intends to give her a lot of performances to sell out the house. Your interpretation is unfounded.

[Helene]

You persist in either misreading or willfully mischaracterizing what abatt wrote. The point was not about Misty's audience -- which is diverse, both racially and in their motivations for attending. The point was about KM's attempt (true or not) to draw in people who wouldn't otherwise come to ballet. Those people, then, would make up a "segment" of Misty's audience.

abatt's words were "might not have attended," which means an audience segment that prefers to see non-white dancers that has come to fruition, not a potential audience, and wrote that McKenzie might cast Copeland more frequently to attract them.

[nanushka]

And this has been the underlying issue in these Misty threads. No one wants to say it and call it for what it really is. Typical of the U.S. especially when you look at recent events. A plethora of excuses for Hallberg, Seo, and a million and one explanations for why the online venom aimed at Misty is "different" and excusable.

I don't think anyone here has disputed the fact that this has been an issue in the Misty discussions. (At least I haven't. See above.)

The problem comes when this becomes an excuse to dismiss any statement one disagrees with as being motivated by racism, particularly when doing so depends on one's mischaracterizing those statements.

The problem comes when one assumes that those one disagrees with on particular, discrete issues are necessarily the same as those one disagrees with on deeper, more fundamental issues.

And the problem comes when one assumes that others have more extreme negative views than their words actually express -- causing one to misinterpret those words.

As I said above: if you're going to do that, what's the point of having a discussion? Reasoned debate of the many interesting issues surrounding this public figure becomes impossible.

[nanushka]

abatt's words were "might not have attended," which means an audience segment that prefers to see non-white dancers that has come to fruition, not a potential audience, and wrote that McKenzie might cast Copeland more frequently to attract them.

But abatt did not suggest that "Misty's audience" is wholly or even primarily made up of such people. canbelto has interpreted abatt's words to mean that.

[canbelto]

I don't think anyone here has disputed the fact that this has been an issue in the Misty discussions. (At least I haven't. See above.)

The problem comes when this becomes an excuse to dismiss any statement one disagrees with as being motivated by racism, particularly when doing so depends on one's mischaracterizing those statements.

The problem comes when one assumes that those one disagrees with on particular, discrete issues are necessarily the same as those one disagrees with on deeper, more fundamental issues.

And the problem comes when one assumes that others have more extreme negative views than their words actually express -- causing one to misinterpret those words.

As I said above: if you're going to do that, what's the point of having a discussion? Reasoned debate of the many interesting issues surrounding this public figure becomes impossible.

I don't know, it might actually lead to self-awareness that many people hold prejudices and biases that would never come out in "normal" life because:

1. In real life social factors and the awareness that NYC is a very diverse city makes you more careful about expressing these ugly thoughts, whereas the anonymity of online communication allows people to simply type and type

2. It's not every day that an African American dancer is promoted to principal (and thus possibly "passes over" another preferred dancer)

And by the way I'm not giving myself a pass that I'm entirely free of those prejudices/biases/assumptions. I once happened to teach a Jamaican 8th grade girl and expressed surprise when she told me that she was studying the score of The Magic Flute because that was her favorite opera. Then I had to ask myself why I was surprised that she loved The Magic Flute. But to pretend these biases don't exist in Misty's discussions is being ingenuous.

AND this discussion reminds me a lot of the Arlene Croce "Discussing the Undiscussable" article. I think the outrage at that article was the perception that Arlene Croce was letting her well-known political views affect her thinking and that the non-review was really a thinly disguised rant at the gay community which happened at that time to be going through an AIDS epidemic AND prejudice that would be inconceivable to today's NY'ers. Croce had made multiple reviews (negative) against "multicultural" dances and programming but it wasn't until that article that people really called her out on it. And I'm saying this as someone who views the Croce volumes as one of my most prized dance books.

[nanushka]

I don't know, it might actually lead to self-awareness that many people hold prejudices and biases that would never come out in "normal" life because:

1. In real life social factors and the awareness that NYC is a very diverse city makes you more careful about expressing these ugly thoughts, whereas the anonymity of online communication allows people to simply type and type

...

But to pretend these biases don't exist in Misty's discussions is being ingenuous.

If this is why you're here, that's certainly your prerogative. I don't engage in these discussions because I need to uncover the prejudices/biases/assumptions that I readily agree I have (as do we all). I engage in these discussions because I want to understand the world of ballet better, not because I want to achieve self-awareness. To that end, I want to understand what other people think and what support they have for those opinions. And careful attention to the words they use is essential to that. I find it's best not to assume I know why someone says what they say and not to assume they really mean something more or other than what their words say. It's true they might mean more, or have problematic motivations. But I think it's better to discover that by engaging, levelheadedly, with their actual words.

As for "pretend[ing] these biases don't exist in Misty's discussions" -- I have said repeatedly that I agree with you on this, and I haven't heard anyone here say they don't exist.

[Helene]

McKenzie would be motivated to cast Misty multiple times in a week because the demand for tickets exceeds the supply, since her shows sell out quickly. There are clearly more people who want to see her perform than there are available tickets for those performances. There is no "assumption of bad faith/ignorance on the part of the audience" in questioning whether McKenzie intends to give her a lot of performances to sell out the house. Your interpretation is unfounded.

Maybe that's why when he had a chance, he cast Seo prominently this season.

Copeland could also be cast prominently because Ratmansky casts her in his ballet(s), outside stagers cast her in their ballets, and because she's appropriate for a role and may even have learned it in the past without performing it.