Ordinary talent

Every generation will not produce geniuses in ballet. Of course, there will always be dancers and choreographers who will be declared the best ever, but that doesn't make them geniuses, especially if the proclaimer hasn't actually observed the best in dance over multiple generations. 

In ballet, the current tendency is to proclaim, out of desperation, that every fresh choreographic face is a new genius, and then ride down the long hill of disappointment when that choreographer turns out to be an ordinary talent who doesn't produce art that even comes close to that of past true geniuses. For a couple of decades now, "ordinary talent" has proliferated the choreographic scene. "Ordinary talent" may seem a contradiction in terms, but what it conveys is that there are a lot of people around who are creating dances that are perhaps watchable once, perhaps not, but don't measure up to the standard of being sustainable art that bears repeated viewings over time.

It's not a problem just in dance. Go into Barnes and Noble and survey the first two tables by the front door.  "Wow, there are so many new books published, and so many brilliant new authors to experience," one thinks. The reality is that much of it is crap cleverly packaged. But it gets written, it gets published, and it gets on the front table at Barnes and Noble – at least for a day or two – and it gets some people's money, which is the whole point.

Most likely in a hundred years, symphonies will still be playing more Tchaikovsky than Adams. Theaters will still be producing more Shakespeare than Albee. Ballet companies will still be staging more Petipa classics than works by anyone else. The ordinary talents will continue to rise to a low or middle point with their art, will get their few minutes of fame and a few lines of drivel in the New York Times, and will be forgotten by all but the online archives. 

It just doesn't make very colorful copy for a newspaper to proclaim that there's a new "ordinary talent" in town that perhaps we should see. So we continue to get all of the hyperbolic nonsense like so-and-so is one of the best two choreographers to come out of New York in the past five New York minutes. Public expectations continue to rise on a bubble of overblown media, and we become hardened from the disappointment of reality when that bubble bursts.

Last weekend's New York Times is a good example. Alastair Macaulay, rather than sticking to performance critiquing, routinely leverages his employer's influence to promote dancers or choreographers who serve his personal view of how the world should be – kind of like David Koch throwing his weight and father's fortune behind Joe Lhota or Michele Bachman. In Sunday's paper, he declared that the enormously talented NYCB principal Sara Mearns "is changing our idea of how a ballerina looks and projects" and as Odette/Odile "she’s the world’s foremost interpreter of the double role this century."  Is Macaulay kidding or does he just really need to get out more and see how the authentic classical world treats that iconic role? 

When Macaulay references "our idea," it's not clear who he thinks "our" is, but it's certainly not widely inclusive. Sara Mearns' physique is tolerated in ballet because its adverse effects on performance are outweighed by aspects of her talent. Her physique is not embraced as being how a ballerina should look nor is any company likely intentionally to assemble its roster with dancers of her physical proportions. Emotionally self-indulgent to the same extreme in most roles on stage – she certainly is.  But unmeasured, unrestrained emotional output on stage can be as tiring to an audience as no output at all.  It's never the dancer's job to feel strong emotions while on stage.  It is the dancer's job to make the audience feel those emotions. 

Macaulay's statement which places Ms. Mearns' portrayal as Odette/Odile above those of Ulyana Lopatkina, Veronika Part, Viktoria Tereshkina, or Yekaterina Kondaurova is as absurd as suggesting Andrea Bocelli sings classical opera better than Jonas Kaufmann or Juan Diego Florez.

Those who have never seen Ms. Mearns in Swan Lake may want to take a look at the Flash Footage clip posted by NYCB on its FB page and try not to tear your hair out while screaming What is she doing?  That Macaulay makes such a proclamation about Mearns' Odette/Odile when she has never performed in a truly legitimate full-length production of Swan Lake has Haglund wondering if maybe Macaulay's conviction is based on some type of spectral evidence. (Don't miss Spectral Evidence at NYCB on Oct. 3, 5, 8, 10, 12)

Macaulay's other weekend promotion was ABT's soloist James Whiteside, an unappealing regional dancer from Boston Ballet who has yet to bring anything to the ABT stage that hasn't been done better by any number of ABT soloists and corpsmen. He proudly brought with him to ABT a side-career of offensive smut videos and a proclivity for bending his bare ass over so that a camera can focus on his rectum. He freely and publicly cross-references his three careers – ABT, JbDubs, and The Dairy Queens to insure that his ABT audience finds the other two. In Whiteside, Macaulay has found not only someone who he can study as a ballet dancer but also someone who will nourish his prurient interests. But Whiteside also promotes the unfortunate stereotype that unrestrained public sexually-provocative behavior, relentless attention-seeking, and perpetual adolescence are part and parcel of being gay. He is the one step backward after the two hard fought-for steps forward.

It is truly unfortunate that ABT doesn't have a social media policy that prohibits employees from posting content that compromises the company's integrity and reputation, because Whiteside is nothing short of a public relations time bomb. What do you suppose the company's response would be if any of ABT's women bent over, invited someone to video their rectums, and then published it online? Maybe we should be fearful of the answer.

Well, my goodness, haven't we covered a lot of material in this blog post?

Comments

[angelica]

This had to be said, Haglund, and thank you for having the--um, er, uh--yes! the COURAGE to say it out loud. You are my voice in the public arena and I'm grateful that you provide an antidote to the toxic lack of knowledge that Alastair Macaulay brings to his drivel in The New York Times.

[Diana]

I've become increasingly dismayed at MacAulay's endless, fulsome praise of Mearns. Look, I think she's a good, talented, hardworking dancer, but the things he says about her are ridiculous. I fear that this will ultimately have a bad effect on Sara. She's a very young woman still, and eventually she'll crash to earth. As we all do.

[Kit]

"she’s the world’s foremost interpreter of the double role this century"

This kind of statement makes me cringe. Not even a qualifier. Not even "she's *one* of the world's foremost interpreters of the double role this century". I am fine with "is changing our idea of how a ballerina looks and projects", but certain roles in certain productions need pure classicism. And to sweep all those other Odette/Odiles is just unacceptable for a 'critic'.

[Sophie]

It is worth noting that Alastair Macaulay gave a very lukewarm review of Kondaurova is Swan Lake this year. This situation is similar to Clement Crisp reviewing both Marianela Nunez and Natalia Osipova is Swan Lake and giving Osipova a rave review and Nunez a poor one. Such blind admiration is irresponsible.
There are other dancers at NYCB who I would prefer to see dance Swan Lake over Mearns- Scheller first among them!

[Koji Attwood]

The NYtimes (not to single them out, a lot of critics are guilty of this) seem to have a singular talent for making these broad, ridiculous proclamations of "best ever", and people lap it up, because well, if the NYtimes says it's so, it must be so. Lack of critical thought seems to be a real systemic problem across all the arts, and indeed in society as a whole because people don't take the time to develop their own aesthetic, and just swallow what it served up them wholesale. An excellent entry, Haglund--

[Haglund]

True, Sophie. I was hoping to see Scheller as well. She and Kowroski were the only ones who were going to get me back into the theater to see that production. The good news is that over the summer Scheller seems to have made some very good connections while participating in galas: Lopatkina and Rojo. If either of those ladies were to take Scheller under her wing, we would receive a windfall of artistic blessings.

[Haglund]

Thanks, Koji.

These types of proclamations in the NYT arts section often make us the laughing-stock of the international arts world. Maybe Mayor Bloomberg will buy the paper after he leaves office and restore some of its integrity.

[Haglund]

I just saw that Alexei Ratmansky is among this year's recipients of MacArthur "genius" Grants. Let's hope that he'll now slow down and concentrate more on quality than on output quantity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApP35zSFiE8

[Laurel]

I couldn't agree with you more, Hagland. I looked up the article.

Macauley also had this to say about the world's foremost interpreter of this role. (in his opinion)

"Her shoulders are high, even tense"

I dunno...back in my day, I always got yelled at when my shoulders were up.

Wasn't he the pompous p. who was all over Jenifer Ringer trying to be cute (or something. I say something.) with his one-too-many sugar plums absurdity? Now, we have another ballerina in the same company who because of her fuller figure is changing the face of ballet? So, from now on...its tense shoulders and thicker torsos? Clearly, he gets off on his own power; he knows just enough to be a danger to the dancers that he seems to take pleasure in either glorifying or decimating, but not nearly enough to qualify him for the position that he has. He reminds me of those dudes at the Bolshoi who get paid to yell out BRAVO, BRAVO (after a mediocre performance). Claquers, I think they're called? That's what he is.

[Haglund]

Thanks, Laurel. I think most people understand that Macaulay's ballet literacy level is quite low. But the NYT isn't going to spend any money to put a qualified ballet critic on its staff. Ballet companies do have the option, however, of not extending press passes to him.