QUOTE (bart @ Nov 21 2008, 05:35 PM)

Things certainly are changing very drastically in the performing arts, even at the mammoth institutions like the Met and the Royal. I agree with dirac: t's a shame that some of the innovators cannot resist hawking their own visions by putting down the vision of others. Perhaps countries with state theaters need TWO of them: one for the traditional arts and those who are willing and able to work within that tradition; and one for the self-conscious innovators. There's room for both in Britain as elsewhere. My bet is that, by the end of a 20 year period, the works of Petipa, Ashton, and even Cranko and MacMillan will still be around.
Firstly, although from outside it may look so, we do not have a single state theatre in the UK. The Royal Opera House which may appear to be a state theatre, but it has to raise the greatest proportion of its finance through, the sale of tickets, ancillary activities and most importantly donations and sponsorship which far outweighs the funding that comes from the taxpayer via the Arts Council of Great Britain.
The Sadler’s Wells Theatre provides a venue for modern and classical ballet companies from the UK and especially from around the world. If there is a second ‘dance’ house this is it. Like the Opera House, its finances have to be acquired in the same manner.
I do not know why the Royal Ballet appears to be losing faith in its own tradition in not commissioning works by only ‘classical choreographers’, as we know that the canon of the Royal Ballet, has always had a very wide reading of ‘classical’, having been originally inspired by 19th century classical ballets and Diaghilev’s Ballet Russe style of ballets.
If you look at the one act ballets of MacMillan, works by Helpmann and even Ashton, there are works that are not all tutu ballets and many still remain modern in concept.
What makes them different from the work of Wayne McGregor, is the balletic and aesthetic tradition of the mentioned choreographers (and others) in sustaining a healthy and wide view of what classical ballet dancers can and should perform and yet still break earlier perceived boundaries in the process.
Why Mr McGregor would want to work with classical ballet dancers from a company seemingly diametrically opposed to his own aesthetic, is as unfathomable as is the Royal Ballet wanting to employ him?
There is nothing old-fashioned about classical ballet as there is nothing old fashioned about 18th and 19th century opera or 16th century drama. I can say with all certainty that English audiences retain a respect for tradition, not for its own sake for many works have come and gone, but for that which sustains their concept of what is art and what sustains the genre they most admire. The Royal Opera House audience is I would say solid in their judgement as to what they want to see, yet most frequently open to the new when they consider it to be both right and good for themselves and the company.
The current programme with Wayne McGregor’s “Infra” which gets a terrific performance by the RB dancers but does not attract audiences and undermines the ballet as a lesser contributor to the Opera House financial pot as a result. If this does not indicate a perceived division by audiences, what louder voice could there be.
The Royal Opera House contains a second auditorium called the Linbury and I think “Infra” would have looked better there, the McGregor audience (?) might have preferred its ambience and turned up in numbers to be a sell out.
To exist for the performance of works other than large classical ballet ballets, was I thought a function of having the Linbury Theatre. It is potentially a third if not the a second London home for dance.