Are there ballets that should no longer be staged?

[l'histoire]

On 1/4/2018 at 5:20 PM, pherank said:

Do you mean to say that the motivations of individual artists in (any) Asian culture are somehow different from the motivations of artists in St. Petersburg, Russia? Scranton, Pennsylvania?  Paris? What is the nature of this "inflection" that you mention? Naturally a ballet project such as Bugaku differs in many, many ways from a certain Japanese poet getting drunk on wine and taking yet another stab at his own 'version' of a favorite Li Bai poem - that could called be an "apples to oranges" comparison, though.
 

 

Well, no, that's not precisely what I'm saying. But the issue of transfer from, say, China to Korea or Korea to Japan circa (pick an ancient century: 3rd c. AD, 7th c. AD) is fundamentally different that Balanchine being saddled with a Japanese score & having to do "something" with it. We're talking a very different flow when it comes to Japanese court writers in the 8th c AD, HAVING to borrow from China because 'oh hello we have a very minor tradition of written language - which is YOURS to begin with' versus Petipa in St. P, creating Raymonda. There are 8 billion reasons for this. I will not bore with you talk on Chinese literary forms & how that was THE accepted form in China, Korea, AND Japan for many centuries (classical Chinese was THE literary language in China, Japan & Korea well into the 19th century), but I will say it's not really "borrowing," not the way we're talking about here.   

Same thing with Japan (or China or Korea) "borrowing" from the West in the late 19th/20th c. (artistically speaking). Yes, it's quite true they took on forms from the West. But it was most often to make a comment on domestic society (I would add a few paragraphs here, but everyone has been delightfully patient with me & I don't want to wear out my welcome!). They're not "borrowing" from the West to reinvent the West, or provide some vision of the West. They take the form (something new to East Asian culture) for the purposes of dealing with the East Asian present (the Japanese "I" novel would be a splendid example: borrowed from the West but reinvented for Japanese purposes - and has now become a Japanese "thing").  FYI, I'm just as agog at Chinese dramas, c. 1955, that feature people in whiteface (yes, such a thing exists) as I am at Bugaku. And at least Bugaku has lasting artistic value. 

Whether we like it or not, there's a very serious power dynamic in place when in comes to "the West" (I realize Balanchine once characterized himself as "an Oriental," and bluntly - you're welcome to disagree with me - it's one of the few, possibly the only, Balanchine quotes that makes me roll my eyes and go 'Oh come ON.' I'm familiar with "Russians that are Russians but don't live in St P or Moscow," and revisiting that quote hurt me). This is what concerns me (not the ballet, but the idea that some cultural production couldn't reinforce already problematic ideas). It presents a certain view of "the Orient" & that ought to be complicated. As a related, but different, example, I love - LOVE! - Orientalist European art from the 19th century. I also recognize that it's incredibly problematic. I hang it in my house (via exhibition posters) with impunity, but would NEVER show it to my students without a serious discussion attending it. Obviously, people who spend even a small portion of their free time on Ballet Alert are not the kind of people I would feel anxious about looking at these things. But they ARE problematic. I think this is the discussion we're ultimately having? We're not talking "to each other" in the sense that someone who spends time on Ballet Alert will need to be convinced Orientalist art is potentially problematic. But what does it mean for people who don't spend their time on a ballet board? 

Ultimately, I'm a cultural historian - that most hated breed of historian, at least in the current academic climate - so I DO take culture seriously. Even, as someone said earlier, a rarely seen ballet (so who cares, right? I do agree that Bugaku "isn't important" vs. any popularly viewed TV show, or even versus Balanchine's great, famous ballets) . But it all matters. I'm not saying Bugaku needs to be taken off stages in any respect, just that - we need to think about it in its context. It is by far not the most problematic ballet (to me) that has been brought up in this thread, but we can't just think about it as pretty tutus, drink umbrellas, flowered bikinis, and nice choreography. I give Balanchine way more of a pass than I do contemporary stagings of various classics featuring blackface in Russia (!). It's true that ballet goers are, in general, a lot more sophisticated than the students I teach; I probably wouldn't have to say to anyone on this board, for example, that the shorthand "Japs" for "Japanese" is  rather problematic (something I dealt with last semester, so - not far off). But Bugaku is interesting: it says something about a certain moment (its creation) about East-West interactions (interesting!), but it's still performed, however rarely. What does it say to contemporary audiences? How does it say it? Is that message problematic? So ... what do we do now? These are the things I'm interested in. 

[Birdsall]

13 hours ago, pherank said:

I don't think anyone has mentioned stereotypes of women WITHIN Japanese (or Asian) culture. The stereotypes didn't just come out of thin air the day a European artist decided to work with an Asian-ish subject - the stereotypes often have a long, long history.

I agree with that. Often stereotypes stem from a certain amount of truth. We all know the stereotype of the Asian men snapping photo after photo. Well, I never did that, but now with iPhones making it so convenient I tend to pull out my phone and snap anything that seems interesting. When I visited my German friends a year ago for Christmas they joked about how stereotypical I was acting.

Years of studying German Lit in college and discussing various views of a work makes me think this particular thread is actually important. I actually do not advocate shelving ballets or operas or literature, etc. that may offend. Even the chilling Leni Riefenstahl "Triumph of the Will" film (Hitler propaganda) is studied intensively by film students to learn how to create feeling and mood. So there is always something to learn from even works of art that offend us. But discussing and recognizing things as part of that time period and even being offended by a work are okay and important to discuss. I think "Triumph of the Will" is both horrifying (because we know what it helped) and beautiful at the same time. Things are not black and white. Madama Butterfly sort of makes me roll my eyes in a way but I still like it. Verdi's Violetta is one of the most human portraits in opera and one of my favorite soprano roles (which I think should be treated like Norma and not given to just any soprano, but then it would hardly ever be played). However, I have had many female friends who hate how it is that stereotypical "whore with the heart of gold" and the opera shows once again the beauty of a woman dying. So La Traviata offends some. I adore the opera. For me the world could lose almost all operas except Wagner, Norma, and La Traviata. All of those favorites of mine offend someone, but we like and dislike things for various reasons and that is okay, in my opinion. In contrast, in actual reality we should speak up when we are disgusted by what is going on in the world.

[mnacenani]

"What if, instead of plunging a dagger through her heart, Cio-Cio-San demanded alimony and child support from Pinkerton? And what if, instead of being murdered at the hands of Don José, Carmen turned the tables on her lover-cum-aggressor?"  Worth having a read imho :

https://www.wqxr.org/story/carmen-metoo-era-upgrade-florence-opera-house/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/02/italy-gives-world-famous-opera-carmen-defiant-new-ending-stand/

[MadameP]

Basically, so many operas/ballets/plays written before the last what? 50 years? less? can now  considered by SOME as sexist/racist/politically incorrect in some way.   We are all entitled to an opinion, so I will only say that personally, I think this is just getting ridiculous. 

[sandik]

Re appropriation.  I regret that I don't know enough about the tension between Japanese and Chinese art practices to make a full compare/contrast here, but many of the 19th c works that we are having trouble with right now (Raymonda, Bayadere, national dances ...) come from Romantic era forces.  The interest in the "other" (and the tendency to imbue it/them with all kinds of exciting and/or unusual qualities) created what I've often described as a travelogue function in ballet productions.  Bournonville's "Far From Denmark" wasn't the first example of this phenomenon, or the last, but is possibly one of the most straighforward in its attempts to show the audience what things are like "somewhere else." 

And since we have a tendency to repeat what has gone well in the past, these works have been maintained and used as models for new work.  So we have La Sylphide, where the exotic local is Scotland; La Bayadere, set in India; and Sacre du Printemps, where the exotic other is our ancestors.  

But our perspective on others (whether we're talking culture or gender or any other organizing label) changes over time -- what was acceptable in the past feels awkward in the present.  We can look at older work and appreciate it as an example of its time, but that doesn't mean that I want to repeat those practices or attitudes.

[pherank]

3 hours ago, mnacenani said:

"What if, instead of plunging a dagger through her heart, Cio-Cio-San demanded alimony and child support from Pinkerton? And what if, instead of being murdered at the hands of Don José, Carmen turned the tables on her lover-cum-aggressor?"  Worth having a read imho :

https://www.wqxr.org/story/carmen-metoo-era-upgrade-florence-opera-house/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/02/italy-gives-world-famous-opera-carmen-defiant-new-ending-stand/

From the Japan Times: Giving Cio-Cio San a better ending
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/culture/2017/08/03/stage/giving-cio-cio-san-better-ending/

I recommend reading the comments as well as the article. As one of the commentators puts it, "Madame Butterfly is a tragedy and with tragedies your[sic] not meant to like the ending!"

 

13 hours ago, l'histoire said:

Whether we like it or not, there's a very serious power dynamic in place when in comes to "the West" (I realize Balanchine once characterized himself as "an Oriental," and bluntly - you're welcome to disagree with me - it's one of the few, possibly the only, Balanchine quotes that makes me roll my eyes and go 'Oh come ON.' I'm familiar with "Russians that are Russians but don't live in St P or Moscow," and revisiting that quote hurt me). This is what concerns me (not the ballet, but the idea that some cultural production couldn't reinforce already problematic ideas). It presents a certain view of "the Orient" & that ought to be complicated. As a related, but different, example, I love - LOVE! - Orientalist European art from the 19th century. I also recognize that it's incredibly problematic. I hang it in my house (via exhibition posters) with impunity, but would NEVER show it to my students without a serious discussion attending it. Obviously, people who spend even a small portion of their free time on Ballet Alert are not the kind of people I would feel anxious about looking at these things. But they ARE problematic. I think this is the discussion we're ultimately having? We're not talking "to each other" in the sense that someone who spends time on Ballet Alert will need to be convinced Orientalist art is potentially problematic. But what does it mean for people who don't spend their time on a ballet board? 

But Bugaku is interesting: it says something about a certain moment (its creation) about East-West interactions (interesting!), but it's still performed, however rarely. What does it say to contemporary audiences? How does it say it? Is that message problematic? So ... what do we do now? These are the things I'm interested in. 

The Balanchivadze name is Georgian, and, even though he grew up in St. Petersburg (and Finland in the summers) I think Balanchine was simply making the point that his father's people were from the 'Middle East', and the ethnic groups from those countries don't necessarily see themselves as being European or Slavic (sometimes regardless of what the DNA might say). It's about feelings and interests.

"What does it say to contemporary audiences? How does it say it? Is that message problematic? So ... what do we do now?" Most ballet companies in the U.S. have not only program notes dealing with these questions, but also brief seminars with Q & A either before or after the performances to deal with just this kind of thing. It is of course up to the company to have someone knowledgeable on hand to run these sessions. It really helps further the art form to have these discussions.

Edited January 7, 2018 by pherank

[l'histoire]

On 1/6/2018 at 5:05 PM, pherank said:

I don't think anyone has mentioned stereotypes of women WITHIN Japanese (or Asian) culture. The stereotypes didn't just come out of thin air the day a European artist decided to work with an Asian-ish subject - the stereotypes often have a long, long history.

The theme of the "abandoned courtesan" has got to be one of, if not the MOST, popular theme in Japanese and Chinese literature and drama (and that can be an abandoned wife or young woman too). It's like singing the blues I suppose: there are male writers writing about the woman they've wronged, and either feeling guilty or 'casting them off like wilted flowers'; men writing from the point of view of the women; female writers deploring their sad state of affairs (and sometimes contemplating suicide); stories of women who get even and are often portrayed as murderous witches; and women who get even with their ex-lover/husband in an honorable/righteous way, which means to say. they end up killing themselves. It's endlessly morbid. And, there's great beauty in much of the writing, which gives it a different feel from Afro-American Blues lyrics.

The I Ching: "Great Righteousness is shown in that man and woman occupy their correct places; the relative positions of Heaven and Earth."

Here's two poems I really like by the Chinese proto-feminist and revolutionary Qiu Jin (Chinese: 秋瑾). You'll see how they both fit into the tradition I mention above, while also being 'modern', and purely autobiographical laments.
 

Hello again, sorry to pop my head up again at inopportune times (semester has started again & I have a lot of my own work I'm attending to, thus super interesting BA discussions are taking a back seat. I missed this discussion earlier).

1. We're not talking abandoned courtesans. And bluntly, the trope of "abandoned courtesan" has a COMPLETELY different inflection if we're talking Madame Butterfly (which is not about what's going in Asia, let's face it) vs. one of the great Ming-Qing (courtesan) poets, of which there are many. Dorothy Ko's _Teachers of the Inner Chambers_ is splendid in discussing this. If we're talking "lovesick young women," still different. My primary area of focus is ghost operas (guixi), the most of which focus on young women dying for various reasons & then returning in a ghostly form. Seriously, I've spent a lot of time looking at these things. They're not "Madame Butterfly" just written by Asian people, I promise. 

2. I'm not sure why we're quoting the Yijing. I can quote a number of quite famous poems from the Shijing that are - bluntly - about sexual desire and love - correct places be damned. And, a good whack of the Shijing is older the YIjing, so .... You also can't separate ANY of the Classics from Confucianism as a whole. I give a lecture entitled "From Romance to Bromance," which is on later Confucian & neo-confucian interpretations of "the classics." These things are old. They've been read & re-read many times, and reinterpreted many times. I can give you multiple examples of a poem that is _obviously_ a love poem being "reinterpreted" - and reinterpreted through the ages, century after century - as some claptrap about a ruler and his official. 

3. Qiu Jin is great (truly). I love her, I teach with her. Basically all my classes read her. I admit I have more fondness for her very good friend, Xu Zihua, who is the one who went to collect her beheaded body & bury Qiu Jin ("Who will come with me to bury Autumn?") & had to carry on (and did). But Qiu Jin was not an abandoned courtesan. She was a woman from an elite family who CHOSE to leave her family to go pursue other things. And she did. Don't trot out Qiu Jin to say something about "abandoned courtesans." She was neither abandoned, nor a courtesan. She was a HIGHLY literate woman from an elite family & made her own choices. The "don't tell me women are not heroes" poem is actually addressed to a Japanese man she met while traveling. She is 100% engaging with - for the time - current international relations via her poetry. She is not a weeping, lonely courtesan & to paint her as such is ... pretty absurd.

[pherank]

13 hours ago, l'histoire said:

Hello again, sorry to pop my head up again at inopportune times (semester has started again & I have a lot of my own work I'm attending to, thus super interesting BA discussions are taking a back seat. I missed this discussion earlier).

I believe you've misunderstood me - "Here's two poems … You'll see how they both fit into the tradition I mention above" does not refer to Qiu Jin as a 'courtesan', but rather her poems. I was referring to the way in which the poems echo the traditional themes and forms, but are also what many Westerners would refer to as 'modern'. 

[l'histoire]

9 hours ago, pherank said:

I believe you've misunderstood me - "Here's two poems … You'll see how they both fit into the tradition I mention above" does not refer to Qiu Jin as a 'courtesan', but rather her poems. I was referring to the way in which the poems echo the traditional themes and forms, but are also what many Westerners would refer to as 'modern'. 

Forgive me if I misunderstood your reason for quoting her; my assumption was that it was the "tradition [you] mentioned above" re: abandoned courtesans. 

Yes of course she echoes other things. She is a highly literate Chinese person c. late 19th/early 20th c. writing in classical Chinese, writing classical Chinese poetry (she's actually nothing special in many respects. We think she's special 'cause she got her head chopped off & was a woman. In fact, there were many women doing the exact same thing as her - who didn't get their heads chopped off. Xu Zihua, who I mentioned earlier, is a splendid example). There is nothing else to do in her literary tradition BUT echo things that have come before - that doesn't mean you can't do something interesting & new, but Qiu Jin is nothing "new" in most respects. She's doing what generations have done before her. If you're looking for "radical" in her poetry, well .... Maybe it looks radical in translation. 

Japanese intellectuals writing "kanshi" - Chinese-style poetry - c. the same period are doing THE SAME THING, even if they are men. Chinese men are doing the same thing. Many WOMEN are doing the same thing. 

Li Bai can look really modern. The Shijing can look really modern, too. So can Catullus, or Sappho (among others), for that matter. I teach Sei Shonagon (from the Hei'an period), and my students love her - she's a 10th century Tumblr! She's crazily "modern." And? So? She's still not. She was a Hei'an aristocrat. No matter how much her snarky commentary may read well to us, she's still not - will never be - one of us. She couldn't be. She's been dead over a thousand years. 

[dirac]

On 1/7/2018 at 6:16 AM, Birdsall said:

 Verdi's Violetta is one of the most human portraits in opera and one of my favorite soprano roles (which I think should be treated like Norma and not given to just any soprano, but then it would hardly ever be played). However, I have had many female friends who hate how it is that stereotypical "whore with the heart of gold" and the opera shows once again the beauty of a woman dying. So La Traviata offends some. I adore the opera. For me the world could lose almost all operas except Wagner, Norma, and La Traviata. All of those favorites of mine offend someone, but we like and dislike things for various reasons and that is okay, in my opinion. In contrast, in actual reality we should speak up when we are disgusted by what is going on in the world.

It isn't just the romanticizing of prostitution and female masochism and self-sacrifice, although I can understand that might be enough for some. Marguerite is systematically humiliated throughout the piece. I'll always love the music, but it is not easy to watch.

(This is particularly evident in the ballet versions, because we are constantly shown the ballerina flinging herself, or being flung down at, the feet of some man or other. At least Garbo mostly stayed upright.)

Quote

 (which I think should be treated like Norma and not given to just any soprano , but then it would hardly ever be played). .

Agreed.  And maybe that would work well - performances of the opera would be limited to special occasions for special singers. Everybody wins, including Verdi.

[pherank]

13 hours ago, l'histoire said:

Li Bai can look really modern. The Shijing can look really modern, too. So can Catullus, or Sappho (among others), for that matter. I teach Sei Shonagon (from the Hei'an period), and my students love her - she's a 10th century Tumblr! She's crazily "modern." And? So? She's still not. She was a Hei'an aristocrat. No matter how much her snarky commentary may read well to us, she's still not - will never be - one of us. She couldn't be. She's been dead over a thousand years. 

I've read the Pillow Book many times (in translation). It's a favorite of mine too.
As for, "she's still not - will never be - one of us": that's a narrower definition of "us" than I would use. It's all just one human to another for me. The rest is just musing of the human mind. Humans not only look for differences constantly, the mind actively manufactures differences. But until a biologist can identify the "Heian aristocrat" in the human organism, or a neurologist find the "modern nation state" in someone's brain tissue, it's all just abstract musings of the mind to me. I think it's a big deal that your students realize their closeness to Shonagon, Li Bai or Sappho (though there's not much text to work with there) and not get hung up on their distance in time.

Since we're a ways off topic, I'll just add that I'm not a fan of deliberately removing artworks from circulation (which is essentially censorship) just because they contain objectionable elements. If the issue is makeup (black face/red face, whatever), that can be rectified quite easily. Changing costume designs occurs so often in ballet that it shouldn't be a huge deal to at least try out a change on audiences - it's always possible to revert to the original costume designs. Objectionable 'vintage' choreography and music are going to be a different matter, certainly. There are always copyright issues to deal with there, if the ballet is a faithful reproduction (of say, Balanchine, which will involve approval from the Balanchine Trust). The ballet companies should mention the issues with a particular 'controversial' ballet up front, and use that as a means of audience engagement.

Edited January 14, 2018 by pherank

[sandik]

On 1/13/2018 at 1:26 AM, l'histoire said:

Hello again, sorry to pop my head up again at inopportune times (semester has started again & I have a lot of my own work I'm attending to, thus super interesting BA discussions are taking a back seat. I missed this discussion earlier).

Those pesky jobs!

[sandik]

59 minutes ago, pherank said:

Since we're a ways off topic, I'll just add that I'm not a fan of deliberately removing artworks from circulation (which is essentially censorship) just because they contain objectionable elements. If the issue is makeup (black face/red face, whatever), that can be rectified quite easily. Changing costume designs occurs so often in ballet that it shouldn't be a huge deal to at least try out a change on audiences - it's always possible to revert to the original costume designs. Objectionable 'vintage' choreography and music are going to be a different matter, certainly. There are always copyright issues to deal with there, if the ballet is a faithful reproduction (of say, Balanchine, which will involve approval from the Balanchine Trust). The ballet companies should mention the issues with a particular 'controversial' ballet up front, and use that as a means of audience engagement.

And here we are at a fundamental question.  Are these works being performed because they create a "teachable moment" (to use a term that parents get handed frequently), or are they performed because they are at heart significant and important works?

I'm sure there are examples where both descriptions apply, but I think it's important to recognize the distinction.

[pherank]

1 hour ago, sandik said:

And here we are at a fundamental question.  Are these works being performed because they create a "teachable moment" (to use a term that parents get handed frequently), or are they performed because they are at heart significant and important works?

I'm sure there are examples where both descriptions apply, but I think it's important to recognize the distinction.

The works that we've discussed so far do tend to fall into either category - depending on whom you talk to.  ;)
Petrushka is of historical, cultural and artistic significance, to me, but often the dancer performing the role of "the Moor" sports blackface makeup. Personally, I think going without the makeup is perfectly acceptable - the costume and curved scimitar provide more than enough visual clues about what this 'puppet' represents.

With a ballet like The Cage, I immediately wonder what people would think if there were no male dancers used in the production. What would the choreography represent then? And if the roles were flipped, so that there's a woman being 'sacrificed' by a group of men - what would that signify exactly? Those are the silly things I like to wonder about.

Edited January 15, 2018 by pherank

[pherank]

10 minutes ago, Quinten said:

I'm curious whether this evident comfort with the notion of censoring dance extends also to other art forms.  I guess opera has already been discussed and found by some to be a suitable target of censorship, but how many feel ok with this?  How about works of poetry and fiction?  Should books be banned or Bowdlerized if they have content that offends?  What about music composed by white men for the aristocracy?  What about figurative art showing women as objects or stereotypes?  How about sculptures of nude women in submissive poses?

If the answer is yes, censorship of art is necessary and appropriate, my next question is, who gets to decide and for whom?  The elite deciding for all? I seem to remember in Orwell's 1984 that only certain classes were allowed access to materials found to be too, well, subversive of good order among the hot polloi.  Would these decisions about suitability of works be appealable as tastes change?  How would ordinary people know enough about banned works to request they be allowed to see them? 

Slippery slope.  

And by the way, I really hate crotch ballets.  I will not pay to see them, but I have no problem with other people watching them.  What's so bad about live and let live?

I'm not going to ask which are the "crotch" ballets(!), but I also don't have much need to see ballets altered to appease certain people. I would like to think that the audience is intelligent enough to make decisions for themselves - but humans are always surprising me. Hee hee.
"What's so bad about live and let live?" That would be one of the crucial questions for the human species, and apparently, it matters very much who gets to do what, and when.

[pherank]

6 minutes ago, Quinten said:

Crotch ballets? Well, Possokhov's "Rite of Spring" for one.  I just checked and the SF Ballet youtube video

but it doesn't show what seemed like eternities of ballerinas upside down with their legs akimbo.  Self censoring by SFB? Perhaps.   

LOL. ;)

That's one Possokhov ballet I've missed - somewhat on purpose.

[Drew]

The Blackamoor in Petrouchka may not need to be in Blackface for the reasons Pherank points to (I imagine there may be Fokine/Benois purists who feel otherwise) but that, in and of itself, exposes the degree to which the makeup isn't the ultimate issue. The ballet works with broad types. And it does work--absolutely I think it should be revived. But getting rid of blackface make-up won't put an end to arguments about what is happening in it and what world view it reflects when it comes to a character like the Blackamoor.

3 hours ago, Quinten said:

I'm curious whether this evident comfort with the notion of censoring dance extends also to other art forms.  I guess opera has already been discussed and found by some to be a suitable target of censorship, but how many feel ok with this?  How about works of poetry and fiction?  Should books be banned or Bowdlerized if they have content that offends?  What about music composed by white men for the aristocracy?  What about figurative art showing women as objects or stereotypes?  How about sculptures of nude women in submissive poses?

 

I'm not in favor of censorship...but I think raising these issues doesn't necessarily mean censorship except insofar as every artistic decision is also censoring another possible decision. But I do think ballet also raises issues that are a little different from books or paintings, because it is a performing art and is always NEW at the same time it is old. The most pious reconstruction is still being embodied in the here and now. I'll add that one way or another ballet companies decide what ballets to put on...and will decide (intelligently or not) based on all kinds of considerations. And audiences will respond accordingly too. So the question can be asked without it automatically being a question of censorship. Does a company think ballet x is worth reviving? Why or why not? If it is worth reviving are there things that will be seen differently today than they were when the ballet premiered--should a company try to reckon with that difference? (Program notes, changed production details, cut a segment,  let the audience decide, etc.)

(But even nineteenth-century paintings, for example, might be displayed/labeled in different ways by curators whether for special exhibitions or for regular display. The text in recorded "tours" of the museum might be done differently. Of course no-one wants to be moralized at all the time, but I don't think museums simply ignore these issues. Their bookstores tend to have some of the most sophisticated collections of books on art history and art theory imaginable.)

In a more general way, nineteenth-century ballets were themselves constantly subject to revision--Petipa moved variations from one ballet to the next etc. and was himself revising and re-choreographing masterworks by St. Leon etc. that he staged, as well as his own works when he revived them. Bournonville's Sylphide is based on Taglioni's and also quite different too etc. etc. So some revision was built into the DNA of ballet history especially in eras with limited means of recording or notation. (Many 20th-century masterworks tend to be much more tightly constructed.) Moreover, since ballet is a performing art, it lives in live performances, even more than classical music does. Other performing arts do the same.  Broadway revivals as well as opera productions--change key aspects of staging all the time: the upcoming Carousel will have Peck's choreography, not Macmillan's not De Mille's. But we still call it Carousel. Maybe that IS a bad thing--wouldn't it be nice to see the others revived...but it's not exactly censorship; it's a different vision of what a revival of a musical should be.  Of what makes Carousel Carousel.

To get to particular issues closer to revision of "content that offends:" When West Side Story was revived recently, didn't the producers make a point of casting a Latina Maria? That wasn't censorship.  To me the issue is what constitutes the work "essentially." Not just can you revive Carousel without De Mille (which of course has been done), but can you revive it without somehow romanticizing domestic violence? Would THAT still be Carousel? How should directors approach that--Is it a bad thing even etc.?

 Ratmansky is on record as saying he no longer enjoys seeing Petipa danced with late 20th-21st-century technique. That's NOT Petipa for him. (I confess, with the right ballerina, I like my Petipa with the occasional high extension just fine.) For others getting rid of little blackface children in Bayadere is also NOT Petipa. It's not the Bayadere they believe in, it's fundamental censoring--very different from, say, redesigned costumes etc. For myself, I suspect ideas of racial hierarchy are baked into the cake of Bayadere, and just changing make-up doesn't get rid of them. I certainly think the full length Bayadere should be staged...but I also think there are ways one might address the issue rather than pretending it doesn't exist, and probably differently for different theatrical contexts etc. [By the way, how is it that my spellcheck still doesn't know Petipa is a proper name?]

In general, I think each case has to be looked at separately, but I do believe that having the discussion does matter. Not getting rid of great ballets, but discussing creatively and respectfully how to produce them in 2018. That's something different from censorship--call it not "live and let live" (a phrase Quinten used) but "live and discuss," "live and learn," "live and re-imagine" etc. 

(When I look at the world around me -- in the United States surely -- just plain live and let live about certain kinds of subjects is getting harder and harder to do, and it was never easy.)

Edited January 15, 2018 by Drew
add a phrase

[pherank]

Yes, case by case is the only way to proceed, but for me, "having the discussion does matter" is exactly right. Perhaps it's somewhat forgotten in the ballet world, but in the wider art world discussion is welcome and a big part of what make Art significant. If there's no reaction to, or discussion of, an art/literature/music piece - does the artwork matter?

[sandik]

3 hours ago, Drew said:

 Ratmansky is on record as saying he no longer enjoys seeing Petipa danced with late 20th-21st-century technique. That's NOT Petipa for him. (I confess, with the right ballerina, I like my Petipa with the occasional high extension just fine.) For others getting rid of little blackface children in Bayadere is also NOT Petipa. It's not the Bayadere they believe in, it's fundamental censoring--very different from, say, redesigned costumes etc. For myself, I suspect ideas of racial hierarchy are baked into the cake of Bayadere, and just changing make-up doesn't get rid of them. I certainly think the full length Bayadere should be staged...but I also think there are ways one might address the issue rather than pretending it doesn't exist, and probably differently for different theatrical contexts etc. [By the way, how is it that my spellcheck still doesn't know Petipa is a proper name?]

In general, I think each case has to be looked at separately, but I do believe that having the discussion does matter. Not getting rid of great ballets, but discussing creatively and respectfully how to produce them in 2018. That's something different from censorship--call it not "live and let live" (a phrase Quinten used) but "live and discuss," "live and learn," "live and re-imagine" etc.

And I'm thrilled at any chance I have to see the 19th c works performed as they were when they were first made, which I guess puts me in Ratmansky's column.  But really, I think I'm in the middle somewhere -- I'm fascinated by the compare/contrast programs that Doug Fullington does for PNB, setting the original choreography next to Balanchine's revisions.

I appreciate your description of some works having their problem elements "baked in the cake" -- this is, of course, the trickiest part.  I love Petrouchka, but I'm not sure that changing the make-up will manage the transformation here -- I'm afraid this is a cake.

[l'histoire]

13 hours ago, pherank said:

As for, "she's still not - will never be - one of us": that's a narrower definition of "us" than I would use. It's all just one human to another for me. The rest is just musing of the human mind. Humans not only look for differences constantly, the mind actively manufactures differences. But until a biologist can identify the "Heian aristocrat" in the human organism, or a neurologist find the "modern nation state" in someone's brain tissue, it's all just abstract musings of the mind to me. I think it's a big deal that your students realize their closeness to Shonagon, Li Bai or Sappho (though there's not much text to work with there) and not get hung up on their distance in time.

Truly, that's fine to say (I would say it's privilege to be able to say that - I don't have that privilege, because I'm an historian) - I agree "we're all humans." A lot of my teaching is "we're all humans." I try really hard to impress upon students, c. 2018, that someone who lived 2000, 3000 years before them was a human with emotions just like them. But at the same time (as I also impress upon my students), we must recognize that it means something radically different to exist in the US, c. 2018, vs. the PRC, c. 1958, vs. the Hei'an period, c. 1128, vs. the Song dynasty, c. 1028. These things are not all the same. They are simply not. As much as we might like them to be. You might treat them as though they're the same, because humans, but they are not to someone who has to sit down with sources, write this history. It's nice to say "oh we're all the same," but - we're not. We can't be. For a variety of political, cultural, and social reasons.

In any case, my original point was simply that yes, certain things are really problematic, no, that doesn't mean they should be taken of the stage, but they should be recognized as such.  It's not shaming the original production to go "Gee, I don't know, Allegra Kent in a flowered bikini in an Orientalist marriage night fantasy is kind of problematic here." (Really, if Bugaku was one of Balanchine's leotard ballets, I probably wouldn't even BE here talking). We can't just say "oh well we're all humans, ergo this has no power dynamic to it & thus is neutral." I can't figure out how to quote Drew here, but this gets to the heart of it for me: "discussing creatively and respectfully how to produce them in 2018. That's something different from censorship--call it not "live and let live" (a phrase Quinten used) but "live and discuss," "live and learn," "live and re-imagine" etc."

My entire academic career is built around talking about how people reimagine culture, both within a specific cultural context & also transnationally. Some of it IS censorship. A lot of it is not - just people trying to figure out how to reinterpret centuries-old things (much, much, much older & more ingrained than Bugaku) into THEIR context. Which is not ours. Just like the moment of creation of Bugaku is not OUR moment. I guess it looks old & dated at this point, but as someone who deals with old & dated things, they still have power. 

[cubanmiamiboy]

8 hours ago, Drew said:

 For others getting rid of little blackface children in Bayadere is also NOT Petipa. It's not the Bayadere they believe in, it's fundamental censoring--very different from, say, redesigned costumes etc. 

Well, if a XIX century carbon copy of Bayadere was to get staged, the blackface children wouldn't even be there, as this was a XX Century Soviet addittion. I believe Vikharev included it in his recon out of the great popularity the Golden Idol section has.

[Drew]

Well perhaps we shall get such a “carbon copy” one day or at least something closer to Petipa than what we have now or even Vikharev’s reconstruction.

 I don’t have expertise in exactly what these ballets looked like in the nineteenth century. I do remember the resistance in Paris to Millepied’s wish to dispense with the blackface children in Nureyev’s production of Bayadere — a defense of ‘tradition’ and tradition is not a trivial issue in classical ballet either. I believe in the value of performance traditions myself. Though honestly not this one...

The  issue of race in this and other ballets does however also extend beyond discussion of body and face make-up and speaks to world view. One can enjoy nineteenth-century conventions and believe, as I do, that the greatest nineteenth-century ballets transcend any narrow ideologies they partly embody and still believe one has to think critically about those ballets, especially when the ideologies are not entirely a thing of the past. What is troubling to people is never just an obsolete belief from the past that is really entirely past — the gods of Olympus or equivalent dead letter —at least I don’t think so.

 But to return to Petipa and blackface...The episodes of blackface — along with some other ethnic/religious caricatures — in Burlaka and Ratmansky’s  Corsaire do somewhat spoil my pleasure in their reconstruction. Do those go back to Petipa? I have been assuming so...I am thinking of the episode of the veiled black woman in the harem who is introduced taking a nap while the others dance and on to the “joke” scene of her excitement at being ‘chosen’, her unveiling and the Pasha’s disgust etc. shortly after followed by the little black boys in the enchanted garden— a juxtaposition that clarifies the degree of caricature and racism behind the little boys as well. 

It will certainly be interesting to see what Ratmansky’s reconstruction of (at least his reading of) the choreography and libretto of the pre-Soviet Bayadere turns up...though I probably will have to content myself with reading about it.

 

Edited January 15, 2018 by Drew

[dirac]

16 hours ago, Quinten said:

I'm curious whether this evident comfort with the notion of censoring dance extends also to other art forms.  I guess opera has already been discussed and found by some to be a suitable target of censorship, but how many feel ok with this?  How about works of poetry and fiction?  Should books be banned or Bowdlerized if they have content that offends?  What about music composed by white men for the aristocracy?  What about figurative art showing women as objects or stereotypes?  How about sculptures of nude women in submissive poses?

If the answer is yes, censorship of art is necessary and appropriate, my next question is, who gets to decide and for whom?  The elite deciding for all? I seem to remember in Orwell's 1984 that only certain classes were allowed access to materials found to be too, well, subversive of good order among the hot polloi.  Would these decisions about suitability of works be appealable as tastes change?  How would ordinary people know enough about banned works to request they be allowed to see them? 

Slippery slope.  

And by the way, I really hate crotch ballets.  I will not pay to see them, but I have no problem with other people watching them.  What's so bad about live and let live?

I share some of your concerns, but I question whether eliminating the distressing and retrograde spectacle of little children capering in blackface will slide us down that alleged slope that rapidly.  I do not know of anyone proposing to ban Mozart, for example.   And if it does come down to, "well, we just can't do X ballet any more in its entirety," some may choose to go that route. Others may choose to put the ballet on. This is in no way equivalent to state-sponsored censorship, it seems to me.

I also question respectfully the implication of transience or even frivolousness in references to "changing tastes," when discussing concerns and issues that are largely the result of momentous changes in our society such as the civil rights movement.

[dirac]

5 hours ago, Drew said:

It will certainly be interesting to see what Ratmansky’s reconstruction of (at least his reading of) the choreography and libretto of the pre-Soviet Bayadere turns up...though I probably will have to content myself with reading about it.

I'd like to think that Ratmansky has better things to do with his time, but it's his call.

[pherank]

14 hours ago, sandik said:

I appreciate your description of some works having their problem elements "baked in the cake" -- this is, of course, the trickiest part.  I love Petrouchka, but I'm not sure that changing the make-up will manage the transformation here -- I'm afraid this is a cake.

Indeed. It's relatively simple to alter visual elements, but if we are talking about themes of a ballet, which may be baked into the choreography, then we have what we have. In the case of Petrouchka, there is a great deal of emotional and physical violence which is objectionable to many people (though it would fit right in with prime-time American TV). Removing the physical violence from the choreography would necessitate a complete 're-visioning' of the ballet. And it wouldn't be Fokine anymore. Interestingly, Fokine was essentially following Stravinsky's lead since the composer envisioned a puppet come to life and the reaction to this aberration was 'violence' in the music itself.