Is ballet an art or an entertainment?

[Meliss]

Actually, both, but in Russia it's more art, and in the USA it's more entertainment. Do you agree?

[Mashinka]

More the other way around.

[volcanohunter]

No, just the opposite. Ballet companies in the United States are committed to developing the art form and moving it forward. Russian audiences treat ballet like a circus, always hollering and applauding, even in the most inappropriate places, which they could only do if they failed to appreciate the emotional atmosphere of the ballet they are watching and the music to which it is being danced.

Edited October 5 by volcanohunter
typo

[Meliss]

16 hours ago, Mashinka said:

More the other way around.

Why? I saw Godunov's death certificate. It says: occupation - actor, ballet dancer, business - entertainment.  It is impossible to see in our official documents that ballet dancers work in the field of entertainment.

Edited October 5 by Meliss

[Meliss]

16 hours ago, volcanohunter said:

No, just the opposite. Ballet companies in the United States are committed to developing the art form and moving it forward. Russian audiences treat ballet like a circus, always hollering and applauding, even in the most inappropriate places, which they could only do if they failed to appreciate the emotional atmosphere of the ballet they are watching and the music to which it is being danced.

One can argue about whether it is good when the audience interrupts the ballet with applause. Perhaps it is better when the audience reacts to what they admire or get excited about during the performance than when they sit as if they are not touched by what is happening on stage.

Edited October 5 by Meliss

[volcanohunter]

On the contrary. When audiences watch choreography so attentively and quietly that you could hear the proverbial pin drop, it indicates great concentration, respect and even absorption on their part. It means they are watching the choreography and performances as a work of art, not as a succession of technical feats.

When a Russian female dancer performs 32 (or so) fouettés in the finale of a grand pas de deux, and the music stops mid-coda so that she can take a bow, this has nothing to do with art. The choreography has been reduced to a circus trick.

When Russian audiences applaud the "tabletop" lifts in the second act of Giselle, they are not looking at them as though the title character were hovering high in the air like a ghost. They are reacting to them as a gymnastic stunt and completely destroying the scene's mood of unearthly longing.

When they repeatedly interrupt the entrance of the Shades in La Bayadère, they are likewise disrupting the scene's magical atmosphere. 

And when they applauded the entrance of the ballerina in the second movement of Symphony in C, it indicated that not only were they insensitive to the rapt atmosphere of the choreography, they weren't listening to Bizet's ravishing music either. If they had been, they wouldn't have smothered it with pointless noise.

No, I think it's far better to watch in rapt silence and reward the dancers with thunderous applause when the music ends.

Edited October 5 by volcanohunter

[Fraildove]

He did work in the entertainment industry… Hollywood. Since acting was his primary profession before his death it would make since. 

[Meliss]

41 minutes ago, Fraildove said:

He did work in the entertainment industry… Hollywood. Since acting was his primary profession before his death it would make since. 

Is cinema not considered art in the USA?

[Meliss]

4 hours ago, volcanohunter said:

On the contrary. When audiences watch choreography so attentively and quietly that you could hear the proverbial pin drop, it indicates great concentration, attentiveness and respect on their part. It means they are watching the choreography and performances as a work of art, not as a succession of technical feats.

 

And why applaud a succession of technical feats? They applaud the brilliant performance, its most exciting moments.

It also seems to me that government support is important. It is unlikely that the government will spend a lot of money to support the entertainment industry. But for art, yes.

Edited October 5 by Meliss

[Helene]

19 minutes ago, Meliss said:

Is cinema not considered art in the USA?

No.  Film is considered part of the entertainment industry.  
 

That doesn’t mean there aren’t film-makers who aspire to making films that are art and others who are decidedly non-commercial.  Not all films are made by Hollywood, but the industry as a whole is categorized as entertainment.  And, as Fraildove wrote, the latest industry in which Godunov worked was film, and it was certainly the career for which he is best known in the US, between Witness and Die Hard, especially Die Hard.

[Petra]

1 hour ago, Meliss said:

It also seems to me that government support is important. It is unlikely that the government will spend a lot of money to support the entertainment industry. But for art, yes.

Not in the USA. The system of government is very different, and the arts in the USA rely on private philanthropy much more than they do in most other countries with strong artistic institutions. I am sure that most Americans on this board donate or volunteer to their favourite ballet companies as a matter of course.  I'm not sure that most middle-class Euopeans do this because in their countries it's expected that the government funds the arts. This is also supported by the system of taxation in the USA which is different from most European countries, and encourages donating to non-profit organizations.

By the way, there are disadvantages to government funding for the arts as the government can change funding based on its preferences. For instance, the government in my country has become more populist over the years and one of the previous Ministers of Culture was very proud that she had never read Chekhov, didn't want to fund opera, etc.

[Meliss]

1 hour ago, Helene said:

No.  Film is considered part of the entertainment industry.  
 

That doesn’t mean there aren’t film-makers who aspire to making films that are art and others who are decidedly non-commercial.  Not all films are made by Hollywood, but the industry as a whole is categorized as entertainment.  And, as Fraildove wrote, the latest industry in which Godunov worked was film, and it was certainly the career for which he is best known in the US, between Witness and Die Hard, especially Die Hard.

Thanks for the explanation. Cinema is considered entertainment, and ballet is considered art, right?

[Meliss]

39 minutes ago, Petra said:

Not in the USA. The system of government is very different, and the arts in the USA rely on private philanthropy much more than they do in most other countries with strong artistic institutions.

It is strange that the state does not consider it necessary to financially support art.

[Helene]

Not at all strange for a country that never had a monarchy or court and whose Church traditions were more austere than decorative, in general.

[California]

1 hour ago, Petra said:

Not in the USA. The system of government is very different, and the arts in the USA rely on private philanthropy much more than they do in most other countries with strong artistic institutions. I am sure that most Americans on this board donate or volunteer to their favourite ballet companies as a matter of course.  I'm not sure that most middle-class Euopeans do this because in their countries it's expected that the government funds the arts. This is also supported by the system of taxation in the USA which is different from most European countries, and encourages donating to non-profit organizations.

By the way, there are disadvantages to government funding for the arts as the government can change funding based on its preferences. For instance, the government in my country has become more populist over the years and one of the previous Ministers of Culture was very proud that she had never read Chekhov, didn't want to fund opera, etc.

The Federal government supports the arts through the National Endowment for the Arts  and education programs at the Department of Education. All state governments support the arts through their state arts councils.  Many cities have cultural support through grants and special taxation plans. Please also note that the US provides for tax-deductible donations to arts organizations which have 501(c)(3) status, something not found in most countries.  We all wish more funds were provided, but it's simply not true that there is no government support of the arts in the US. 

[Petra]

9 minutes ago, California said:

Please also note that the US provides for tax-deductible donations to arts organizations which have 501(c)(3) status, something not found in most countries.  We all wish more funds were provided, but it's simply not true that there is no government support of the arts in the US. 

No one wrote there is no government support of the arts in the USA. I stated that the arts in the USA rely on private philanthropy much more than in other countries, and that the USA incentivizes donations through the tax structure. 

43 minutes ago, Meliss said:

It is strange that the state does not consider it necessary to financially support art.

No. I'm generalizing but one of the concepts that the USA is based on is the idea of limited government. The idea is that the state regulates social life as little as possible so that each individual can make decisions for him/herself as much as possible. A good example is the right to free speech. In the USA, individuals are guaranteed a right to free speech which is much greater than in most other Western countries, certainly much greater than in Russia and previously the USSR. 

Also, the division of power between the Federal government and the States is specific to the USA. As California said, the states support the arts. Obviously some States support more than others.

[On Pointe]

Didn't Balanchine observe about Bournonville's choreography,  "he entertains with steps"?  Very high praise from choreographer to another.

To me,  nothing is more dispiriting than some turgid piece of art without an ounce of entertainment value,  like today's new operas,  and most contemporary jazz.  Dance has the capacity to thrill and uplift its audiences.  I hate when it settles for boring us,  in the quest for some supposed profundity.  Entertainment is not a dirty word.

[On Pointe]

6 hours ago, Meliss said:

It is strange that the state does not consider it necessary to financially support art.

It would be strange if it was true,  but it isn't.  State goverments all over the US give film production companies generous tax breaks if they film in their state.  Some cities and states maintain public schools dedicated to the development of fine artists,  musicians and performers.  During the depression,  the Federal government employed thousands of artists who would have been unemployed,  and during the cold war,  the US State Department sponsored international tours of American theater and dance companies.  I have friends who spent a decade or more of their lives performing just Porgy and Bess in Europe.

But the US tax system is probably the greatest "back door" method of government support.  Money donated by taxpayers to legitimate arts organizations is money that gets directed to companies and causes the taxpayer cares about,  instead of being spent on weaponry and "highways to nowhere".  And the taxpayer gets a deduction of their taxable income.  Mackenzie Scott,  the ex-wife of Jeff Bezos,  gave the Dance Theatre of Harlem $10,000,000,  a transformative sum the company would never have gotten directly from the government.

[Helene]

What neither the state nor the federal nor local government does is subsidize a major national/local or showcase company with its full or close-to-full operating budget, like the Mariinsky, until the Russian government had financial difficulties and couldn't, and Gergiev became a full-time development manager in addition to his other full-time jobs, or Paris Opera Ballet, Staatsoper Berlin, La Scala, etc. There are smaller companies with smaller budgets that might be subsidized at a greater percentage from local and state governments, but none of the major companies.  The same is true for opera, art museums, non-commercial theater, and what's considered high arts.

The amount that film companies get in tax breaks is usually as a for-profit business and is a drop in the bucket compared to the tax breaks given to the usual suspect business corporations, like Boeing, Microsoft, and amazon in my neck of the woods.

It's far more likely for taxpayers to vote to spend hundreds of millions on sports stadiums that benefit private, for-profit owners and corporations.

[volcanohunter]

I wouldn't put too much stock in how the government classifies various industries for statistical purposes, because that's all it is. It's nothing so profound as a philosophical assessment of profession A, B or C.

[Meliss]

13 hours ago, On Pointe said:

It would be strange if it was true,  but it isn't.  State goverments all over the US give film production companies generous tax breaks if they film in their state.  Some cities and states maintain public schools dedicated to the development of fine artists,  musicians and performers.  During the depression,  the Federal government employed thousands of artists who would have been unemployed,  and during the cold war,  the US State Department sponsored international tours of American theater and dance companies.  I have friends who spent a decade or more of their lives performing just Porgy and Bess in Europe.

But the US tax system is probably the greatest "back door" method of government support.  Money donated by taxpayers to legitimate arts organizations is money that gets directed to companies and causes the taxpayer cares about,  instead of being spent on weaponry and "highways to nowhere".  And the taxpayer gets a deduction of their taxable income.  Mackenzie Scott,  the ex-wife of Jeff Bezos,  gave the Dance Theatre of Harlem $10,000,000,  a transformative sum the company would never have gotten directly from the government.

February 20, 2009. 

Quote

About ten American theaters have recently closed or reported bankruptcy. Among them is the major American musical theater of San Jose, which announced its bankruptcy last December. 

It's just random.

[On Pointe]

3 hours ago, Meliss said:

February 20, 2009. 

It's just random.

No,  it's the direct result of the pandemic.  Many organizations are still struggling to recover,  not just theater companies.

[Helene]

There are tax incentive to donate, although these have change significantly since tax legislation during the Trump administration made raised the standard deduction by about 300% and limited the amount of local and sales taxes that could be itemized.  For smaller donors, especially renters and people who own their own homes outright or at the end of their mortgages, where they’re paying mostly principal, many get no tax benefit whether they donate or the don’t.For quite wealthy people who are subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax, there is bigger incentive, because charitable contributions are one of the few types left that are deductible.

Also, the quite wealthy through the billionaire class who are on the Board of arts organizations — as opposed to celebrities who are lending their names to be catnip and artist members, usually advisory — they are obligated to give themselves and their main job is to raise money from their own contacts, personal and business.  Some Boards are very prestigious to be on socially, and people audition their money, cultivating connections until they are finally accepted. For example,  Ann and Sid Bass came to NYC from Texas and immediately started to make major donations to many institutions and were asked to join Boards together, and then post-divorce, separately (Ann) and together with an already socially established next wife (Sid). Some, especially in smaller markets, are part of a group of affluent locals who want to have a kind of culture in their city that they don’t have.  In all markets, some Boards are supporters of a founders or a specific cause, usually to be able to preserve a collection or allow an artist or performer to hire company members and to be able to give up their days jobs., and to grow into a sustainable organization.

I don’t know if Scott gave the money herself or through a private/family foundation, where there are minimum distribution requirements and limits on deductibility that are lower than for foundations — public? — like the Ford Foundation that have specific missions, even if broad, where their distributions are restricted.  There are also companies that designate a percentage of profits to charitable organizations or fixed amounts of yearly budgets.  Some are companies and foundations that are sponsors with specific obligations, like for many years Texaco and the Toll Brothers, who sponsored the Metropolitan Opera Saturday Broadcasts, which are currently sponsored by a foundation for a fixed time period.

But the bottom line is that, unlike government subsidies to specific organization, charitable donations, as On Pointe describes, are donors choice, the amount to give and to whom entirely up to the donor, with the exception of restricted mission foundations (legal) — example, The Seattle  Public Library Foundation can only fund the Seattle Public Library and its programs  opand the Hospital X Foundation can only fund Hospital X — and Board members, where I don’t know if this is contractual or an understanding.

 That means every arts institution is fighting for the total amount of individual and non-restricted institutional donor dollars along with other arts institutions, religious institutions — which may still be the largest overall recipients —, hospitals, disaster funds, disease-specific organizations (research and helping sufferers), rescue and support organizations, youth organizations, organizations that support youth and/or the homeless, alumni associations, animal shelters, universities, scholarship funds, veterans causes, food banks, social organizations, and every other (501) (c) (3j organization, if people care about the tax status. Fighting for the same donations as well are non-tax-exempt causes, like political campaign contributions, Go-Fund-Me campaigns, Patreons, Kickstarter campaigns, non-charitable arms of fraternities, sororities, and private clubs and schools, individual small businesses asking for shop supporters to help them through shop moves and hurricanes, drives for new clothing, holiday gifts, and back-to-school supplies drives for people who need them, raffle ticket fundraisers, Girl Scout Cookie sales, and class trip fundraisers, just to name some.  Plus many discussion boards like Ballet Alert.  

Just like for-profit business that spend more than they bring in and either don’t have the savings to subsidize the loss —  endowments for non-profits — or can’t borrow to pay their bills, and/or find advantages/incentives in bankruptcy legislation, non-profit organizations declare bankruptcy, sometimes in order to re-organize on sound(er) financial footing.

 Specifically, there was a worldwide financial crisis in 2008, and donations went down significantly at the same time the ability to borrow was severely impacted, and that broke some non-profits of all kinds along with the for-profit world circa 2009. A dozen years later a pandemic broke others, and it is the rare arts organization that has recovered fully. Local events, like when a major employer closes, moves, has substantial layoffs in a “one-company town”, or there is a natural or industrial disaster, impact local companies as much as a worldwide event.

So nothing random about any of it.

[Meliss]

3 hours ago, On Pointe said:

No,  it's the direct result of the pandemic.  Many organizations are still struggling to recover,  not just theater companies.

February 20, 2009. 

[Helene]

And there was a world-wide financial crisis in 2008.