Questions - classical ballet training - Column

Dance Magazine, March, 1998 by Richard Philp

Just a year ago, I gave a paper at a Swiss symposium in defense of classical ballet training for all dancers. I was quite surprised when I was later attacked in the pages of a German dance publication because I had defended the financial necessity of seasonal productions of The Nutcracker by American dance companies. My critics, German and Swiss writers with a passion for pop avant-garde dance, clearly regarded Nutcracker (and other audience favorites, such as Giselle) with contempt, in part because of the nineteenth-century middle-class origins of these works, but also because they play to the well-known tastes (judging by ticket sales) of American audiences for story ballets.

Since many European dance companies had until recently large state subsidies and were, frankly, not compellingly concerned with box-office returns, these myopic remarks are at least understandable, if a bit naive. (I refer you to Clive Barnes's column. "Backward with the Avant-garde," page 138, in which he explores the "arid world of so-called postmodern dance," which he finds "limited," "gymnastic," "alienated," and "outdated.") Perhaps in America we are, out of financial necessity, more sensitive to making the arts -- dance -- attractive and accessible to our audiences. But are we doing enough to create a broader, friendlier, more inclusive environment for dance? Is what we're doing effective enough?

Two recent publications say that it isn't. And that we'd better change our ways.

The first report was published by the National Endowment for the Arts. American Canvas: An Arts Legacy for Our Communities is based on "dialogues" with hundreds of participants across the country, and was written by Gary O. Larson with an introduction by former NEA chairman Jane Alexander. (For information about getting a copy, call 202-682-5400.) This publication was needlessly controversial when it first appeared last fall, having been misrepresented in the press as grimly negative about the state of American culture. It was used as a political football both for and against the already battered NEA. It's worth reading, as an admonition and for its information. And the fact is, a majority of Americans supports the NEA despite attacks by congressional conservatives, and the NEA is widely regarded as one of the few successful solutions to the current "cultural malaise."

But many Americans, the report warns, still fail to recognize the relevance of art in their daily lives. The world of art remains an alien place for most of them. Part of the problem is due to the "generally poor job that the mass media have done in covering the arts," but another cause of the problem lies with the artists themselves. They need to be more visible in their communities. But getting comfortable with the concept of a "whole community" is not as easy in the traditionally isolated and overworked world of dance as it may sound. Breaching old barriers requires radical thinking. But what kind of radical thinking? How do we become more whole?

The second publication, Invitation to the Dance: Audience Development for the Next Century, comes from Dance/USA, a national service organization for professional dance, and is the product of a think-tank-type task force launched in 1996. (More information on getting a copy: 202-833-1717.) Difficult questions are raised. Why isn't the audience for dance larger than it is? How do we make the most of admittedly limited resources?

While telling us that exposure to dance at an early age increases the likelihood of later participation as adults, or that finding new venues for our performances may draw new audiences, the report also sharply criticizes the continuing failure of the press to provide adequate or accurate coverage: "Scant print and media coverage for dance, coupled with the paucity of knowledgeable dance critics employed by newspapers, render it difficult for companies and presenters to engage in both promotional and educational activities with the public at large." We need more dance writers who are better informed, who are passionate advocates for the field. Why else would someone want to write about dance if he or she weren't an advocate or wasn't comfortable with the subject?

An image problem exists, according to Dance/USA: Dance is regarded in some communities as "elitist, contrived, pretentious, boring, irrelevant, and Anglo-Eurocentric." Well, well, well! There are those who would defend the elitist portion of this by pointing out that dance has always been an elitist art form, and that the problems described exist across the board in all the so-called classical arts. Historically, as we know, the arts have never been self-supporting; if it weren't for patronage, some of the greatest works of human civilization would not exist. But both reports come to a similar conclusion: In these days dominated by democratic principles, the arts must address the needs of new audiences in order to survive.

Former Dance/USA executive director Bonnie Brooks points out that large efforts do not necessarily result in big changes, and that small efforts can sometimes generate enormous impact. It's timing, wisdom, creativity, willingness to risk -- all things that artists can be really good at. Some of us have already begun and are doing well. But for others, the old machinery is running out of fuel and we have to mine new resources -- a process that involves us all.