One charge made against ballet that simply will not die is the idea that it is "elitist" and consequently (by implication) to be avoided.

Dirac has a LINK today that expresses this view succinctly. The surprise, however, is to find one of our finest (former) ballet dancers expressing it!! (Even though the quote is out of context.)

Here's the way it's presented on our LINKS page:
______________________________________________________
QUOTE: Preview of Ballet NY by Donna Hartman for The Bradenton Herald.

Ballet NY: More than just tutus and tiaras

QUOTE
Ballet doesn't have to be boring, stuffy or elitist.

It doesn't have to be stiff tutus, classical music and by-the-book classical movement.

Dance for Ballet NY is quite the opposite, said Judith Fugate, founder of Ballet NY and former New York City Ballet principal ballerina.

"Ballet can be all kinds of different things," Fugate said in a telephone interview from her office in New York. "Sometimes, the public thinks of ballet as snobby with its tutus and tiaras.
___________________________________________________________

I can think of other adjectives besides "boring," "stuffy" and "elitist" that I've heard applied to ballet in the past year or so. "Irrelevant." "Escapist." "Limited." "Old-fashioned.".

Oddly, BALLET people who are pushing their own contemporary alternatives often seem to be the ones most anxious to perpetuate this image, if only to assure potential audiences that this is NOT what WE are.

Any thoughts about this?

For instance, how or why does this impression of ballet persist? Is there any justice to it? What can be done to challenge it or at least provide a counter-weight?

The relevant LINKS page is located at: http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=21543 Scroll down to the 4th article.

Yes.

I find it ironic and appalling that elite is considered a four-letter word when applied to the arts or education, but not when applied to sports. "Elite athlete" is a very positive thing to be.

In today's links, there was an article about Craig Hall, a student at the PNB school whose SAB audition was scheduled for the same time as the upcoming Super Bowl. (Seattle vs. Pittsburgh).

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca..._ballet27m.html

Stuart Eskenazi writes:



He later goes on to write,



We discussed the ballet dancer as athlete issue before on Ballet Talk, but the tone of the article suggests that ballet should be given the same respect as professional sports. Until Bruce Wells is quoted at the end, when asked if he'd be watching the Super Bowl:



There go those elitists again, lording it over the rest of us with their superiority.

"My tastes are very simple: Only the best will do." - Sir Winston Churchill

There’s a distinction between “elite” and “elitist” in common usage, I think. “Elite” is often (though not always) used in a neutral or positive context, but “elitist” rarely is. The latter word carries an implication of entitlement.

I don’t think Fugate was suggesting, even when you take the quote by itself, that Ballet BC supplies a non-snobby version of ballet in contrast to the customary snobby one or that she was trying to perpetuate said snobby stereotype. She intended to say that many people have a negative image of ballet that follows this line of thought, and that it’s wrong.

I'll be watching the game, myself.

IMHO it's just another case of people bashing something that they don't want to take the time to understand. Anything that pushes the limit of creativity is obviously going to be challenging for the audience as well as to the artists (rock musician Robert Fripp says that his definition of good music is music that takes almost as much skill to listen to as to perform). If having to use your own intelligence to appreciate someone else's performance is "elitist", so be it.

Not me (sniff, and come to think of it, in all mock elitist silliness, a sniff that sounds just like Balanchine's). I'll be watching the Ballet Russes movie. (And taping the game!)

Stiff tutus, classical music and by-the-book classical movement = boring, stuffy or elitist? Are there really many people who would be attracted to the ballet under any circumstances who make so facile an equation? If so, I wonder if the blame doesn't lie in part on both sides of the culture war divide, with those who equate any distinctions of merit in regards to culture with bigotry, and with those who turn their noses up at any critique of populist aesthetics.

There is no question that ballet is strongly rooted in elitist tradition. It was court entertainment and not generally enjoyed by the masses in the way that, say, Shakespeare was. But that does not make it difficult to enjoy. Pretty girls in tutus or leotards, handsome men in tights. Who has a problem with that? And the athleticism? And the theatricality? Go back a few times and you begin to develop an appreciation for what's really going on, whether or not you know it.

carbro, I think you put your finger on it, except that I'd say that the tradition isn't elitist ("we're better than you") but, rather, has elite roots, i.e., in its origins only the elite could even experience it. But it's not Schoenberg. It's an art form and a tradition that people of all classes and backgrounds can potentially enjoy, and whether that's for the beautiful music or the beautiful bodies or the breathtakingly athletic movement, there is something to appeal to everyone.

Still, practically speaking, the handsome men in tights do pose a problem for many men in that the tights and the ballet vocabulary read, at first sight, as effeminate. To such men, "pretty girls in leotards" is just my line -- don't you like pretty girls; don't you love to watch them move?

Well, the tradition is split --

TO simplify grossly, ballet is rooted in folk dance, since it's rooted in court dancing, which was rooted in folk dancing. The people who're NOT to the manner born are the bourgeoisie, the middle class.

The aristocracy was in feudal times the military class -- peasants farmed and raised the food the people needed, the aristocracy defended the country. Ballet rose out of their horse-training -- cabrioles are jumps that HORSES do in battle -- and military dances (sword dances, etc), and of coursetheir own social dancing (which as Thoinet Arbeau pointed out, was an excellent way to find out the strengths and charms of a marriageable mate). The peasantry, meantime, also danced at festival time and eventually formed the core of professional dancers who lived at court, trained heavily, and swelled the ranks of court entertainments and did all the spectacular dancing (the "anti-masques' in Ben Jonson's time).

Royalty found ballet useful in presenting court propaganda -- Louis XIV found it very helpful to appear as the all-conquering sun in front of his courtiers, since he'd almost been killed in a rebellion as a child and needed to impress upon all of France that he was not just the king, he was "the state" itself and ruled by divine right. It was also very useful, in preventing civil war, to bring all the aristocracy away from their power bases in the provinces and make them live and dance attendance on him at Versailles and spend half the day perfectng their dance technique and rehearsing the roles they'd perform in the perpetual round of court entertainments devised by lully.

Centuries later, Stalin found it almost equally useful to present Soviet propaganda in the form of Socialist-realist ballet.

Ballet: The opiate of the rebels.

Coincidentally, I just received an email from Ballet Florida, a company which does mostly ballet-based contemporary works, and which recently has begun a long-needed expansion of its marketing and p.r. efforts. (I have to say that I enjoy this company a lot and am a supporter.)

Here's the text:
------------------------------------------
QUOTE: "Whose Ballet Is it Anyway?

"There's a rumor floating around Ballet Florida that 'we are not your grandmother's ballet." The truth is, that in the traditional sense, we are in fact NOT 'your grandmother's ballet' but then again -- OUR 'GRANDMOTHERS' AREN'T TRADITIONAL EITHER."

"They know that ballet does not have to be bland and boring. It is vibrant, exciting, athletic and at times, down right sexy!

"While on occasion the Company does present incredible classical and neo-classical works, Ballet Florida audiences expect to see new and cutting edge dance created by world-class choreographers, performed by exciting and talented dancers that love to show off their stuff!!"
-------------------------------------------

I detect the same put-down quality that I found in the article on Ballet NY. It's rather like those individuals whose favorite method of building themselves up is taking swipes at others.

I've seen many ads and press releases using this approach from many other companies. In their attempt to attract new audiences, they perhaps unintentionally hammer home the idea that classical ballet is old-fashioned and that the public is right in avoiding it.

Whatever the intention, ballet people themselves are increasingly pandering to -- and perhaps even stimulating the growth of -- prejudices that alienate potential audiences from traditional ballet. (Trusted old brand names like Nutcracker excepted, of course.)

When "traditional" becomes a bad word among the practioners of an art, something very significant has occurred.

It occurred to me that all these defensive sounding pitches are merely recognizing the persistence of a stereotype. It's easier to say "We aren't like that" than "Ballet isn't like that."

On the other hand, contemporary art is often considered to be "elitist" (and it often is "unaccessible" to people without a strong interest in the art form), so to be "cutting edge" may get an arts organization a reputation as being "elitist" even if they are "contemporary".

Ballet has multiple images in popular culture.

It signals a refined elite with classical music with tiaras, tutus, tights, and toe shoes. In contrast, ballet also indicates a childly innocence for young girls. Something common and trivial. Ballet is a respectful modifier for descriptions of operations involving intricate coordination, such as space travel and military operations. Nobody every mocked a paratrooper landing by calling it a ballet. I'd like to see a Swan Lake review claim that the 101st Airborne couldn't have done it better.

I personally believe, the perception (real or otherwise) of ballet (or any other form of dance, art, music, or sport) is more often than not verbalised most loudly by those whom have never tried to appreciate the work that goes into such endeavours. I also believe that people are more than ever afraid of not being accepted, fitting in or liking what everyone else does (Tall Poppy Syndrome), therefore if it is not everyday it must be ridiculed and branded elitist or pointles.

Another factor perhaps in the "elitist" attitude to ballet is perpetuated by the "management" (for want of another word) of companies. I'm not too sure how ticket pricing goes in the US but in Australia more often than not tickets are priced such that to become an avid follower of a Company or even just Ballet one must be of a certain socio-economic status. It is cheaper to get season tickets to the footbal than the the Australian Ballet. Finer margins and "more bums in seats" doesn't seem register. One wonders if by design or by force??

Perhaps the most overlooked reason is society as whole these days. People (again all of my comments are merely my thoughts on th matter and by no means definative) seem to derive more pleasure these days and only seem to be able to make themselves feel better when they are putting someone else down for any reason they can find. One can hardly scream at a soloist to "get a move on" like at the football, or cricket for example, whilst eating a pie and drinking a beer. Ballet requires discipline not do, to watch and from that comes enjoyment (for the dancer and the audience). The irony is whilst the "older" population becomes more and more undisciplined and young girls are often criticised for not being disciplined and having no direction, in a small regional area of tasmania there are more than five ballet schools all full with young girls wanting to learn the art of ballet.

I know I like to think of myself as achieving something that not everyone else can, but then, I also see my husband achieving something that I can't do in his rockclimbing endeavours (rockclimbing also appears to me to have the same perceptions as ballet in regard to elitisim). At the end of the day he appreciates the work and skill that goes into my dancing and I appreciate the work and skill that goes into his rockclimbing. I think they call that one respect.

Art imitates life or life imitates art, a case of the chicken and the egg.

Just my thoughts.

Thanks, Bluenightdipper, for your thoughtful comments.

Ticket pricing is problem here, too, and I don't think companies address it very well or consistently. As someone who has been convinced that only by paying full price can I truly be "supporting the arts," I admit to feeling somewhat annoyed to find seats being filled by last-minute giveaways and by papering the house.



It's sad whent he requiement to sit quietly and pay attention becomes a deterrent to attending any performance. But I think you're right. There are so many "audience participation" spectator sports -- movie attendance being one of the most prominent nowadays -- that people may have to feel the it's downright odd to take part in what is seen as ancient and out-of-date 19th-century audience rituals.

Phew! Thank you Bart for your response. I thought I may have been a little to deep and meaningful with my previous post.

It's funny I have been thinking more about this issue and I am begining to wonder is the "elitist" perception (real or otherwise) forged, partly from simple misunderstanding, lack of knowledge, and a case of "couldn't be bothered to taking the time to understand."

For example waaaaaaaay back when I was at school (that what it feels like sometimes) part of our curriculum in English was to study some of Shakespeares works and part of the Music curriculum was classical "ancient and out-of-date 19th-century " pieces.

I used to do some volunter work with high school aged children and most if not all had no idea who Shakespeare was and as for the 1812 Overture never heard of it, but then when you told them that Shakespeare wrote the original Romeo and Juliet (like the movie with Leonardo Di Caprio) and the 1812 Overture (like the music for the Army recruiting advertisement on TV) there was a feint, slight glimmer of recognition.

As humans we tend to denegrate that which we fear most, that which we do not know or understand, hence the "elitist" perception and associated behaviours. Perhaps all that is needed on all sides is a little bit of "education" and by that I don't mean making ballet compulsory, but rather getting "it out there more."

By "getting it out there more" I also don't mean "seats being filled by last-minute giveaways and by papering the house " (that is boarderline patronisation) but rather a simple matter of making people aware that ballet whilst it may be an "ancient and out-of-date 19th-century " art, it does exist and it has many great aesthetic, physical, musical, dramatic characteristics which not only make dance what it is but may also add character to a person to enable them to achieve an elite level in whatever they choose to do.

Arts organizations are often criticized for their ticket prices, and I think often unfairly. While it's true that the cost prices out lower income people, at least in Denver the cost of tickets to (at least) professional basketball, football, and hockey also prices out these groups, yet they don't receive the same criticism. I would guess that the average price of a pro football or hockey ticket exceeds the average price of a Colorado Ballet or Colorado Symphony ticket. It unfortunately requires a significant amount of money to stage a ballet and that money has to come from somewhere. The dancers are, IMHO, already severely underpaid.

There is one glaring omission from this debate around which the elitism of ballet and opera is unequivocal and why despite tickets being expensive sports events are uncomparable to ballet in terms of elitism and that is simply - race.

High art is overwhelmingly white, and any form of art or entertainment which is situated within society as we know and live it today and does not reflect the multi-culturalism of society and the attendent issues thereof cannot be seen as anything other than divorced from society. Apart from it, elitist.

Sadly the occasional Accosta, Anderson come across as nothing more than nods towards tokenism when the sole black face is surrounded by a field of white faces.

Sports, popular culture, music culture give multi-cultural role models and stars for children, young people and adults to aspire to. The ascension from unknown to MBA, NFL or MTV star is one wholly recognisable, the struggle to achieve relevant to the fan. There is nothing of this within ballet and sadly very little done to address this.

The black dancers who were chosen to enter the halcyon major companies, such as Ashe, Long, Douglas all had tales of frustrated ambition before leaving to join environments where race was not an issue but talent was.

Not one poster here mentioned race, because I hazzard a guess not one poster who contributed to this thread is black? (Please correct me if wrong) And until ballet addresses this it cannot be anything other than elitist.

YouOver there, I totally agree with you in that dancers are severely underpaid.

This is where I face a connundrum. With the income from ticket sales, Government grants, benefactors, philanthripists etc. Where does is all go?? Like you say, not to the dancers. A bit like companies posting billion dollar profits and laying off thousands of workers, whilst increasing the cost of their product.

One begins to wonder if some ventures are never meant to be commercial enterprises and by trying to make them such we are destroying them?

Kate,

You are correcct in guessing that I am not black.

I would perhaps beg to differ on a few points made by yourself.



I know here in Australia that race is also an issue when it comes to football, cricket (hardly any aboriginals), soccer (hardly any Australians) and just about any other sport at an elite level. Why? I have no idea. Perhaps certain races are attracted to certain activities due to their heritage and culture and therefore seen to be elitist by other races and cultures. I will probably be crucified for what I am about to say by it is only my opinion based on personal experience. We all (regardless of race) like to embrace the philosophy of multi-culturalisim, but when it comes to the doing, human nature prevails. Therefore, is elitisim mearly reflecting the subconscious of society?


I'm not really into pop culture, music culture and the like, but when I do watch Rage (a bit like MTV I suppose), HIP Hop seems to be very black to me, Punk/Techno seems to be very UK, does that then makes these elitist? Perhaps it does to thoes not involved in those styles.


Any woman trying to compete in a male dominated work force of any male for that matter trying to compete in a female dominated work force would relate to this.

Does the US have an all black dance company? We have an all aboriginal dance company here in Australia and from what I have heard and read they are highly talented, skilled and yes elite dancers. Like I mentioned in the Australian Ballet forum, trying to see the aboriginal company is just as difficult as it is to see the Australian Ballet if you don't live in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane or Canberra.

I'd better get back on track for this forum,

Perhaps Ballet is elitist, but then is it really so bad? We all like to be part of something special that reflects our cultural and artistic heritage. Be it black, white, asian, whatever. It is a shame I think when we can't accept that each race/religion will have it's own elite form of dance, music, communication. Perhaps we should be celebrating this elitisim, for each race, because isn't that what the philosophy of multi-culturalism is all about, not a common denominator?

Like all good art, ballet is rooted primarily in particular aesthetic and cultural traditions, not political agendas, however important. What art or work of art can speak to or for everyone? And why should it have to? Western society is multi-cultural precisely because it is made up of specific cultures, and a society that truly "celebrates multi-culturalism" allows all of its cultures to thrive. It doesn't subject them to political tests.

I think you're both misinterpreting my points. No one is saying that ballet must be inclusory, however, the fact that it isn't means it cannot defend itself effectively against allegations of elitism when juxtaposed against the majority of cultural and sporting pursuits which on face value are.

There is a very great difference between elitism and "elite" as has been pointed out here before. A ballet dancer within a top company is indeed an "elite" athlete in much the same way an Olympian is, however the Olympian is an aspirational commodity the dancer not. Yes, indeed certain sports, music genres are exclusory to the a "typical" ballet audience, but what these art forms/sporting forms have is that they speak directly to a huge cross section of society; not least because within a black context many of the musicians and athletes came from crippling poverty and by dint of talent and hard work became successful and create a product which speaks directly to achievement. Rooted within culture.

The fact is that an aboriginal company, the now sadly defunct DTH and modern dance taken as proof of a non-elitist inclusive face of dance is a non-starter as an argument. Two swallows do not a summer make.

Ballet rooted within the confines of an opera house, presenting an overwhelmingly caucasian face and due to cost relying on a handfull of 19th century works (NYCB excepted, of course) can never be argued as being progressive and all-inclusive.

The fact that I post here I would hope be proof positive that I love ballet as an art form, passionately. But certain aspects, the arguments of regressive politicised femininity, institutionalised rascism are hard to make arguments against. And if one does wish to tackle the allegations of elitism one has to truly look at these aspects and not become defensive, but acknowledge them head on for what they are. Very real criticisms by ballet's harshest detractors.

On another ballet site I read recently a poster commenting on POB's Le Parc saying that it struck her that the choreography of the gardeners would not work on dancers of "color" because they work black sweaters with the arms rolled up and black gloved hands which were placed on their white forearms. That such an inane comment was seen as being worthy of being shared is saddening, what was moreso was that not a single respondent to the thread saw fit to criticise this comment. That is was seen as being valid.

Does "non-Caucasian" mean just black or does it include Asian and Oriental dancers? Ballet has taken off big time in Japan and is now booming in China with the result that these dancers are represented in just about every company you care to name.

I'm not certain that "grinding poverty" exists in the UK, poverty exists almost everywhere though and if you're poor than you've no chance in classsical ballet as classes cost money and few working class dancers make it anywhere regardless of their colour. The exception was the old Soviet Union, but that no longer exists and it will be interesting to see how the demise of the old system will impact upon future generations of dancers.

I've first hand experience of attitudes towards black dancers as I worked as an assistant/administrator to the black dancer William Louther for a number of years: he found working in Europe was more congenial than in the US as he'd experienced serious racism when dancing with a white partner in the southern states. One of the dancers in his company, James Lammy, who now works in Austria, told me of his disappointment at not being accepted as a classical dancer, but I've a feeling that things have moved on today and that there is more acceptance of non-white dancers. I once raised a question with an RB teacher at one of those Q & A sessions arranged by one of the ballet clubs, about the scarcity of black dancers in the company. He didn't like the question at all and looked plainly embarrassed to be asked. Audience reaction was somewhat different as all had something to say on the subject and that totally white, middle-aged, middle class audience made it perfectly clear that they had no objections to non-whites in their favourite art form at all.

I have to say that opera is generally accepted as being just as elitist as ballet, but black singers, from Jessye Norman down, don't seem to face these barriers.

In the context of this argument I totally concede that non-caucasian includes Asian, Eurasian and Oriental and these dancers are poorly represented within the context of major companies. Moreover, this argument of elitism is taken in the context of Western perception of ballet. Yes, the ballet boom within Asia is happening but until these companies tour extensively with a classical repertoire within the West one cannot make a case for the Western perception of ballet being multi-national in terms of skin colour within companies.

Moreover the cause and effect of racism is most clearly seen and the battle most purely fought on the subject of black skin. Unapologetically, dark black.


Mashinska, grinding poverty does exist within the UK and it's naive to think not. However, yes you're right regarding the cost of becoming a dancer and a pursuit which is so resolutely middle-class especially in regards to being a pre-requisite for achievement can not claim to be anything other than elitist. The interesting thing in regards to the post Soviet ballet is the plethora of small-scale touring Russian companies whose incessant itinerary of small venues and regional towns probably does more to dispel the "elitist" tag for classical ballet than anything else.


Louther was a miraculous modern dancer, yes, but his inclusion does take the argument away from the arena that this question must be tackled - the opera house, its patrons and the make-up of the company.

Progress isn't found in off-shoot all black companies forming because the incredible dancers are horrendously underused within the mainstream. Progess comes from a line up of swans in the corps whose dancers contain black, asian, Oriental dancers the focus not being on ethnicity but meritocracy.

I think too, that the problem of elitism and racism was highlighted by your questioning of that rather reactionary teacher from the "Old school", the majority of the great ballet institutions are composed of stars, teachers, ballet masters etc whose formative careers took place in the not too distant past when such segregations were still sanctioned by society. When racism was de riguer and acceptable on a deep societal level, (though it is naive to suggest it still isn't, but now it's gone underground to a greater extent). But these divisions still exist and whilst society may have progressed like the audience at the event, the institution hasn't caught up yet. And perhaps this is the problem as a whole - ballet is still in an adolescent state of mind.

Opera is indeed as elitist if not more so, but then again black vocal art is an accepted part of black cultural heritage and the technique of opera is centered around the voice, of course. The cross over seems more "organic" if you will.

Thanks, kfw, for the simple way you expressed something very profoundly true.

My own idea of multiculturalism is that access to all sorts of culture should be available to everyone. Eductation and training in a variety of art forms -- including those considered "traditional" or Euro-centeric or even elitist -- ditto.

Multiculturalism should also, I think, include a deep respect for a variety of forms. And awe for those who create them.

There is too much building up of "my" art form by putting down yours, in my opinion. And ballet is too often on the receiving end of this unfair and -- when you think of it -- undemocratic way of thinking.

One of the nice things about being involved in Ballet Talk is that I am exposed --regardless of the color, gender or national origin of the posters -- to a great variety of interests and an astonishing range of expertise. Not just ballet. Not by a long shot. Though it is a common interest in and love of this one art form that brings us together.

Which companies, exactly, rely on a handful of 19th century works? Every ballet company brochure I see seems to have a contortionist in pointe shoes suspended in an odd pose on the cover, while the text talks about all the new, "revolutionary" choreography being performed with almost no mention of the classics.



NYCB barely tours at all (only to the Kennedy Center) whereas the National Ballet of China and the Universal Ballet have come to the US on several occasions. (They are both excellent, IMO.)

I second Hans's two points.



Definitely !! We've discussed this in reference to the Russian National Ballet and other similar troups. Here's a link to one such disscussion:

http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=13667

We've also had a number of threads about the issue of race and ballet (and the other classical arats). Here's just one of them;

http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=16581

I hope we'll have further discussion of these interesting topics here.

I don't have much to say mainly because I feel like I'd be best off keeping my mouth shut right now.



I don't think we can call DTH aboriginal - indigenous.



I was that poster, as you well know. And my point was that the costuming affect of only seeing faces in the dark light would not work, and thus limit casting and further perhaps limit which companies would take this on. Should you have found the comment as inane or saddening, I do feel that there are, perhaps, more tactful ways in which it could be said.

I wonder what obstacles are faced by non-coloured dancers in say, Cuba, Colombia... wherever.

I have never ever felt the need to fully, purposefully introduce myself 'ethnically'. How odd that I almost feel I need to in the virtual world.

It seemed to me, on their last visit to New York just a couple of years ago, that Ballet Nacional de Cuba was strikingly less multiethnic -- i.e., more white -- than it was a generation ago. This is just a casual observation, but an observation nonetheless.

Hi Bluenightdipper!

Forgive me if I'm a 'budinsky' in this excellent thread. The U.S. does (did) have the Dance Theatre of Harlem. It also has the Alvin Ailey Dance Co. (which
is predominantly Black but a modern dance company). DTH's ballet school is still open (last I heard), but the company has suffered financial distress in recent years, and has had to cease and desist performances. Here in Los Angeles,
there is the Debbie Allen Dance School as well as the Lula Washington Dance Theatre, which are avidly supported by the Black community. Also, on a different note, opera is supported as well. Socio-economic status is a big factor in what young Blacks pursue, and on how the community's families spend their discretionary funds. But we will make time for, and spend money on those companies which celebrate and uplift our culture and experience. IMO the hip-hop 'culture' does NOT do that, but ethnic and modern dance, jazz, and yes, ballet does!

I think the real issues are exposure, access and awareness on both sides. Once performing arts centers and opera houses are aware of interest, they will market to that community. For example, this past Christmas, an organization I'm a member of has a sub-committee called "Live Theatre for Children." We escorted Los Angeles inner-city children (ie. Black and Latino), to their first live theatre experience: "The Nutcracker." Once the Long Beach Ballet found out that the children were from South Central L.A., they donated the tickets gratis. It was a multi-racial cast and ballet company. I think that it meant ALOT for these kids to see other kids and professionals onstage who looked just like them . They wouldn't have known they have the option, if they didn't see that it was possible. I think that's what the arts are all about - infinite possibilities .

Firstly ami I didn't know it was you who made that remark, however, I stand by the statement. The contention here is the use of the word "colour", if blacks are colored what are we "colourless"? The very use of the word is regressive, the notion that the choreography diminished by the mere use of ethnicity inane.

I didn't say DTH were aborignal. I was talking about marginalised black dance troupes, of which DTH despite their mainstream profile, was always sadly counted as being. That two of their principals had to transfer there from NYCB where they were told they would not progress beyond corps is sad, but a perrenial problem amongst black dancers within the main companies.

Acosta, whilst trotted out as being example of a black man's ascension within the white ballet world is a poor one. Would he have risen to the top had he not been actively recruited from the slums of Cuba by Alonso? One would hope, but I wouldn't bet on it.

It is a nonsense to argue that art is part of a multi-cultural tapestry if it is apart from society's culture as a whole. And yes, ballet has every right to be what it is, to be institutionalised within an opera house, to be what it is, to be elitist. However, what it then does not have the right to do is demand that society as a whole take notice of it, fund it, support it. Especially if great sections of that society feel there is absolutely nothing there which speaks to or recognises them.

The problem here is of course choreographically rooted, as new choreography is the lifeblood of dance and that is not being served or nurtured in any actively purposeful way that addresses society and as such would go far to dispel the elitist culture of ballet. As we all know the great Classics were politcally motivated. Agon pas de deux in its original chronological context of black Arther Mitchell and American goddess Diana Adams had a HUGE politcal impact. It was every WASP's parents' worst nightmare, yet at the same time it was high art. It can be done and should be done.

This thread was started ostensibly to discuss elitism within the public's perception, society's perception of ballet. An honest, valid and vital topic. But it's not fair then to shy away from the ugliness of the truth which lies beneath the subject matter.

A culture of elitism is fed on money, class, exclusion, racism and I suppose fear. Very different concepts from an elite athlete, musician, actor etc or dancer. Judith Jamieson, William Louther two of the most elite were at all times creating for and performing in society as a whole. Ethnicity was secondary to creativity and artistry. In the swarthes of white-faced swans ethnicity is irrelevant because it is completely unserved. But if it is unserved how then can it serve society?

That's multi-culturalism, not a notion that there is something for everyone. That's ghettoisation.

A series of thoughts,

Mel Tomlinson wasn't my favorite dancer at New York City Ballet, but I remember looking at the roles in which he was cast -- the Arthur Mitchell roles in Agon and 4 T's, death or underworld figures in La Valse, Orpheus, and the closing piece in the Tchaikovsky Festival -- there seemed to me a line between the types of roles in which he was cast and those in which he wasn't that transcended ability or body type. Albert Evans has said that he's not interested in the classical prince/cavalier roles, but it would have been interesting to see if he had wanted these roles to see how frequently he would have been first cast as Siegfried or in Diamonds.

Opera provides more variety for both men and women -- by definition, they are stories -- but it still is uncommon for a black opera singer to play a romantic lead other than Aida, who's supposed to be Ethiopian, or Carmen, who can be cast "exotic," at least in the US. (Not counting Porgy and Bess or Margaret Garner.) Vinson Cole is, in my opinion, one of the finest tenors on the planet, but he's not touted as a "hot" romantic lead, despite being cast in the standard rep in Seattle, and I've never seen Thomas Young, a great Elijah Mohammed in X and Aron in Moses und Aron cast as Cavaradossi, Don Ottavio, or any other standard heroic role of any tenor genre.

I saw a documentary a few years ago at the Seattle International Film Festival, whose main topic was the schism between popular dance among the poorer, more African-based community in Cuba, and the lighter-skinned elite. A woman from a flamenco-based company gave her spiel about how the art form was European, and implied that this was somehow superior, and only light-skinned people moving in light-skinned ways would do. I thought this was ironic, because the National Ballet of Cuba is the most integrated-looking ballet company I've ever seen, with the widest color range of people. (Apparently, Alicia Alonso doesn't subscribe to this woman's view.)

Are the dancers in National Ballet of Cuba considered elite in Cuba? I would think so, given the number of fathers who are happy to push their sons into a field that gives them as much recognition and respect as baseball, although not nearly the same potential financial rewards outside Cuba. Dancing is perceived as opportunity, a way to gain respect in the community, and this appears to have transcended race, I believe, because training is subsidized and is available to the gifted, not just to the middle class to wealthy -- what's more "elitist" than that? -- and the evidence that it is possible to succeed regardless of skin tone is right on stage.

Until fifty years or so ago, professional sports in the US was all-white or nearly all-white. That didn't make baseball or basketball elitist, even among the black community. The black community had the Negro Leagues and equivalents, and kids of all races played those sports at an early age. Participation wasn't limited to a specific body type or skin color, and there were local, community forms of the sport beside the major leagues. It was just a matter of time before professional sports, and popular music for that matter, would become integrated, even if sports and music management has not: they are commercial ventures, and the pressure of the marketplace demanded the best players over time, since "winning," not form or style is the object. It's ironic that we see the effects of "the market" on programming that seem to dumb down the rep, but for all of the supposed "hipness" of Draculas and hip-hop- and pop-based "products," they are still being danced by beneficiaries of a tradition that has been handed down for centuries and which limits participation not only to specific range of body types, but seemingly to a specific range of skin tone, with few exceptions.

Watching the Olympics, I also find it interesting that the "X" sports -- moguls, aerial skiing, halfpipe -- are as lily-white as downhill skiing, figure skating, or any of the other sports that are considered elitist, and for which training is also limited by the ratio of income to geography, are hugely popular and considered populist. The hip young former inline skaters -- a generally popular and affordable sport; add skates to asphalt and stir -- who've converted to long and short track speed skating are white as they come, yet are not considered elitist. I think this is because there is a connection between participation in the "building blocks" of the sport -- rollerblading, skateboarding -- and the elite participants, and, again, it's conceivable that it's only a matter of time before they are integrated, because some kids on a skate board can envision him or herself "doing that." Those who stumble on the sidewalk, just like I used to flub my way through tendu at the barre during adult classes, still feel a connection to the activity itself.

This discussion has expanded from the original topic, which can be quite a refreshing thing.

Let's just be aware, however, that there are no universally accepted definitions of terms like "multiculturalism," "racism," "ghettoization," "poverty", or even "elitism."

Each of us surrounds our own usage of these labels with slightly different intellectual and emotional connotations, often rooted in personal experience.

Kate, has anyone ever thought that DTH (or many other U.S. companies) had the top talent to compare with NYCB? In other words, how many white NYCB dancers were told the same thing?


Great sections of society (like the slums where Acosta grew up?), or many people in society? By your logic we should then defund just about every art. Few taxpayers are going to like everything, but if inner city kids can learn to love Shakespeare, they can (and when given a chance often do) learn to love ballet. Far fewer will get the chance if we defund and let companies die or retrench.


Impact and intention are two different things. Of course Balanchine could predict the impact, but that doesn't mean he cast the dancers to make a statement. Likewise, I'm curious about whatyou think were the political motivations (vs. cultural ramifications) of the 19th century classics.

Thanks for your response. I don’t think it’s correct to look at racial and ethnic makeup alone and then speak of inclusivity or exclusivity. Those terms suggest intention, but surely the proper operating intention in the ballet world is to serve the art, not to represent the larger population? For that reason, I don’t think a ballet company is the place for affirmative action.

Likewise, if good ballet is “progressive” according to cultural-political standards, fine. But why should it have to be? Why should it have to reflect societal concerns? Why can't it just bring us joy?

When you say that the cost of training to become a dancer makes the sport elitist, what’s the import of applying that term? Do you mean that the cost is somehow unfair to people who can’t afford it? I lacked the coordination to have become a dancer – does that make the art elitist? Are people who do succeed in becoming dancers not just elites as you properly distinguish the term, but elitist? I don’t mean to be sarcastic. What I’m trying to ask is, of what use is the term “elitist”? Is it only useful because it describes how non-balletomanes feel? As with inclusivity and exclusivity, “elitist” implies an attitude. Plausible incidents of intentional racism aside, do you see that attitude anywhere else in the ballet world?

I'm fascinated by the divergent views of multiculturalism showing up here.

Here's Kate Lennard's take on it:



And here's kfw's:



The first position seems to set a standard requiring all art forms to reflect the demographic/class/race/gender/makeup of the society. There are without a doubt many things that ballet and other art forms could be doing to increase inclusion. But the logical implication of this point of view, it seems to me, is that inclusion is not enough -- the art form must actually mirror the society to have legitimacy. I cannot think of a single cultural activity -- not jazz, not hip hop, not films, not basketball -- that could pass this rigorous test. A great deal of value in our culture(s) will have to be tossed out if we follow this position to its logical conclusion.

The second position views culture as something of a mosaic, with many different interrelating parts, some more inclusive and some less so. I like this position better. I think it more accurately reflects what is actually going on in the culture. Some parts of the mosaic grow, change, and reinvent themselves easily; others less so. Classically based arts -- which do indeed tend to be supported more by economic and social elites -- are among those which are the most resistant to change.

My own feeling is that the "elitist" image of ballet has relatively little to do with racial composition (unfortunate though that may be) and a great deal more to do with socioeconomic class. Ballet is to an extent defined and delimited by the extremely rigorous, demanding and narrowly focused training required for dancers, and by the relatively high level of sophistication required of audience members before they are able to get the most out of what they see.

This has little to do with the multiculturalism as usually defined, which, though interesting in itself, has a way of leading us towards a variety of dead ends when carried to its more extreme conclusions.

On a tangent, this is actually a very interesting question. In retrospect, dance scholars and historians have interpreted the work of this period in many ways that have both political and cultural connections. The clear hierarchical structure of the ballet companies at this time, with their specific categories for performers and their roles, does appear to mirror the Byzantine complexity of the Tsarist monarchy. Both of these institutions are products of a long process of development, and each reached a kind of organizational apex at this time. Whether this is the end result of intentional actions, or just a happy accident is an arguable point, but it's a fascinating comparison.

On a smaller scale, "Sleeping Beauty" is often held up as an hommage to the tsarist court, its "happily ever after" ending seen as either a justification of the current situation, or as a kind of Platonic ideal of monarchy.

Petipa was very aware of his role as an employee of the Imperial family, and did indeed make artistic decisions (especially casting) based on his understanding of what might please his employers. While those choices had motives of self-preservation, they were political in nature.

Yes. And quoting Paul Parish from earlier in this thread:

Thanks for those interesting points Sandik, and dirac/Paul. Still, ballet reflecting the social hierarchy as it evolved, the court knowing (naturally) how to make use of a popular art and pastime, and the artist knowing where his bread was buttered . . . in my opinion these don’t come near to defining the classics, even Sleeping Beauty, as politically motivated. Certainly Petipa’s political convictions were not what made his art great. But opinions do vary.

Dear Bart and KFW et al

I was going to reply at length to the posts, however I truly think there is little or no point in pursuing this thread any longer.

My views have been misinterpreted and "logical" conclusions drawn by others which I feel have misrepresented the issues and which I myself would not have drawn.

One question where other than in race, poverty and affluence is the battle of socioeconomic cause/effect and outcome most clearly and passionately fought?

But I digress. I would however suggest that in future when a valid and powerful issue such as elitism is raised then perhaps it would be best to ignore it completely if the darker and most distressing subtexts are to be ignored so completely or cause such rancour.

KL.

Kate, despite disagreeing with your views, I enjoyed reading them. It's always good to have one's own view challenged.

I very much agree with kfw on that.

I feel the same, although I know how time-consuming and difficult it is to respond to so many posts!

This is not a serious topic. Ballet is a art form which requires enormous discipline. It is esoteric and like much of art requires a decent amount of commitment even as a viewer.

We can all walk past the master pieces in the Louvre or the Met and see the same painting as someone who has studied art and art history and even history. The more educated and experienced person will take more away from the experience.

I am a naive consumer of the arts... but I have been at it for 4 decades since I began architecture school. I am in awe of the talent, skill, vision, dedicationand creativity of these artists... all of them.

Ballet is something which takes enormous amount of time to perfect... first to train the dancers and then to get them choreographed together into a ballet. It is not the least bit elitest. But appreciation and consumption of art is for those who have or make time for it. Obviously, workers who do 3 jobs just to stay alive cannot go to the met. In that sense, the cost of viewing is obscene and troubling.

I would give up lots of things to be able to see the ballet and attend the opera... and I do. These are special and unique moments and anyone who experiences them cannot help to sit in awe. I do.

I especially agree with the following:



I'm one who benefited from the very low price of tickets at City Center, where New York City Ballet and NYC Opera performed. Our small suburban town had an amateur symphony that actually played Wagner and Mozart, and not so far away there were theater groups that did plausible Ibsen and light Shakespeare. Commercial TV featured excerpts from ballet and opera, as well as serious plays, on a regular basis, right into the early 70s.

My heart goes out to those young dancers who rarely or never get the chance to be exposed to performances at a high professional level. A certain amount of free- or cut-rate tickets are offered to schools, but there doesn't seem to be a thought-out program, at least around here.

Exposure to a single fine performance -- like the once-a-year Swan Lake, Sleeping Beauty, or Corsaire, on public TV -- can be stiumulating. But it seems to me that only multiple exposures, to a broad range of ballet, some great, some not so great, classical, neo-classical, and contemporary, can really help a young artist grow. Or a future adult supporter of the art, for that matter.

I went back and asked myself one of the original questions for this thread -- is ballet elitist?

Well, yes, it is, in the same way that baseball is elitist -- as far as the performers/players go, it is supposed to be a meritocracy -- the best people rise to the top.

As far as the audience is concerned, you can be an elitist (knowledgeable about the skills, history, arcana of the activity) or a curious amateur. I am, I suppose, a part of the elite audience for dance, and the amateur audience for baseball. As an observer, the experiences are very different, but the people that promote baseball don't try and dumb it down to get me in the door. They don't feel obliged to apologize for the complexity of their sport.

Today I received a brochure in the mail for the Vancouver Recital Society's summer chamber music series called "Combustion." In their "Frequently Avoided Questions" page, one of the FAQ Q&As was:

Do only music snobs go to these concerts?
No. We don't discriminate. We have all kinds of snobs coming to these concerts. Coffee snobs, art snobs, chocolate snobs, snowboard snobs, hockey snobs. Everyone is welcome.

Oh, I like this very, very much! Many thanks for posting it!!

A great way to handle the S-word. Thanks, helene.