Santa Claus is Comin to Town

Trey McIntyre, the former choreographer in residence of The Washington Ballet is coming to town with his company for one night only – November 5th. He will be at the Harman Center. Click here for more information.

Trey’s company went full-time a few months ago. This is a big, big deal. Having a company is one thing. Having that company grow to become full time work for a core of dancers, and staff, is really rare. Trey has made it because he is extrordinarily talented.

In ballet it’s hard to create organic things. Ballet is so extreme, much of what is done fails to look human. In ballet it’s also hard to bring the funk. Shockingly, Trey succeeds in those areas, and others.

I am pasting below three videos. The first is a video-dance named ‘Hymn’, which is just gorgeous. The tall guy dancing is actually Trey.

Trey is like Christopher Wheeldon – one of the new generation of (male) dancers who quit performing before he had to because there was so much demand for his choreography.
This next video is a small pas from the piece “The Reassuring Effects of Form and Poetry.” The performer is Michelle Jimenez.

So: Trey is coming to town. Tickets are still available. I don’t have the funds to spend $70 bucks for a ticket – anyone out there willing to share a ticket I’m prepared to provide erudite commentary following the show.

Trey’s got a great website, too. Worth checking out more of the videos, pictures, and you-tube favorites.

This is his company’s first visit to DC as a full-time company. Don’t miss it. One night only – November 5th.

On and on, and on and on (race, gender and the arts revisited)

In the last printed issue of Bourgeon, I commissioned a young woman (Heather Risley) to write an article on gender in dance. The article was based on a study that DanceUSA produced in 2003, which found that 86 percent of the countrys 43 ballet companies with budgets of $2 million or more are run by men. In a world so dominated by women, this seemed data worth investigating. Heather contacted a number of local artistic directors, and got a few responses. Here is an excerpt from Heathers piece:

“Gender disparity in leadership is noticed by female artistic directors working in the D.C. area. Gesel Mason, Artistic Director of Gesel Mason Performance Projects, observed the intensity of male-female inequity in the dance world. Ms. Mason stated that in a female dominated industry the existence of a small minority having significant power over the majority resembles “a kind of apartheid.”

Another female artistic director (who asked to remain anonymous) said she has regularly faced challenges because of her gender. She believes that men get preferential treatment when it comes to bookings, grants, and publicity. “I think female directors have to work much harder and be much better than a man to achieve the same respect and admiration,” she wrote.”

Simply considering the data, it’s clear that however it is explained the phenomena experienced by those two artistic directors is real. This business is wickedly tough. And tougher for women.

This has been on my mind – again – because of several articles I read recently. I am a fan of a UK dance magazine named Article 19. They are independently funded, and produce really great work. Love em. I got an update on facebook from them regarding an article on a UK-based funder, which is clearly giving opportunities to women over men. This from the article:

During the week we, here in TheLabâ„¢, received a brochure from Dance East listing their up and coming programmes one of which stemmed from the Rural Retreats project. The grandiosely titled “International Placements for Artistic Leaders of the Future” places seven dance makers with dance companies/organisations around the world so they can learn about running an organisation.

Of those seven placements just one, Tamara Rojo, is a woman, the rest, predictably, are all men. When asked why there was such a disparity in the numbers considering women outnumber men in dance by a considerable percentage (80% estimated by DanceUK) Assis Carreiro, Dance East’s Artistic Director/CEO told us;

“Because only two women applied for the placements, so we took one of those two women. We couldn’t take both because we had to go on the strength of the applications and we had concerns too but we can’t, for the retreats we had seventy five people apply and very few were women from around the globe to attend the retreat and for the placements only two of the twenty seven who took part in the retreat applied so we took one of them.”

According to Dance East’s own report of the 2008 retreat, which took place in January this year, just 8 of the participants were women compared to 19 men. Applications to the retreats are not open, you have to be invited to apply by the NDA.

When asked why Dance East could not open the leadership programme to more people Ms Carreiro responded;

“… that was the criteria for which we put it out and we had the funding for it. We can’t just open it up to everyone and these are the people we thought would be appropriate because they attended the retreat and there was quite a rigorous selection process to attend the retreat so it wouldn’t be appropriate to open it up around the world. The people who attended the retreat and we thought had the potential to go on so from them we selected the ones going on [to the leadership programme].”

When Article19 stated that the retreats were heavily focused on Ballet (nearly all ballet companies are run by male directors), Ms Carreiro responded bluntly;

“No they are not!”

Clearly that program director is lying. The only question is whether or not she knows it.

I was just reading on ArtsJournal (another personal favorite) and saw this recent piece from the New York Times, by Patricia Cohen, about women in theater. Here is an excerpt:

Frustrated by what they describe as difficulty in getting their work produced, enough female playwrights to make a standing-room-only crowd are planning to attend a town hall meeting on Monday night to air their grievances with representatives of New Yorks leading Off Broadway and nonprofit theaters……

Its harder for women playwrights and directors,” said Oskar Eustis, artistic director at the nonprofit Public Theater, because “its harder for professional women in the United States.”

This season the Public is putting on six new plays by men and one by a woman. Since Mr. Eustis arrived in 2005, the count of new plays has been 19 plays by men and 9 by women (with one by a male/female team). It is a record that Mr. Eustis labeled as “pretty good but not great.”

“The issue is best dealt with by consistent consciousness-raising rather than a specific program,” he added, saying the same approach applies to minority playwrights.

Now, Im a guy, but not a jerk. So I don’t want unfair advantages. I believe in open competition. Perhaps thats cause Im arrogant. Perhaps its something nobler. But for whatever reason, I know it’s just not cricket to pick leaders from only a certain sect of people.

Interesting how our society – how we, how I – change our minds about these things over time. I grew up with Affirmative Action, which is now looking more and more dubious. Is it? When I was growing up I was totally convinced that because of all the unfair practices today and in the past, if we are really interested in fairness for people of all colors, we need to do extra things to ‘encourage’ their success (which was affirmative action.)

I reallllly need support. For making dances, and for editing/writing (Bourgeon.) Bourgeon stopped being printed for lack of funding, and I’m wondering how long I’ll be able to keep investing in it online. Anyway — I want the support, and I’m a guy. So why bring this stuff up? My experience is only a tiny sliver of the experience had by thousands across this country. I believe that process (in art and politics) is as important as product.

I hope that we’re about to elect a black president. Somehow that didn’t hit me as a big thing until someone pointed it out to me recently – how important examples are. I really appreciate what Mr. Eustis said in the Times piece. That the issue is best dealt with by consistent consciousness-raising rather than a specific program.” Whether it’s support of a ‘leadership program’, funding, awards, fellowships, contracts, or jobs, these issues are so complex, and so personal that the only good way to deal with them may be as individuals. Which is what the whole fight is about anyway.

And by the way – if you like this kind of thing being available: do feel free to hop on over to the day eight website and donate. It would be deeply appreciated.

“Earn up to 10K a month, guaranteed!”

Carmel Morgan and I have been working an article looking at the effects of reduced support for arts critics. One of the issues we face in producing a worthwhile piece of journalism is documenting the impact that critics have on the success or failure of art/artists. We cant report on the negative impact of loss of support without documenting the importance of critics to the public/the arts.

One way I am looking into documenting the impact of critics is looking at how their words are protected. The fact that critic’s words are protected does make clear the importance of their words to the entertainment industry.

The European Union passed a Council Directive last year(EU Council Directive 84/450/EEC )that regulates misleading and comparative advertising in the European Union.

Reporting on the new law, the UK based Independent stated,

“The curtain is about to come down on theatres that misquote reviewers on billboards or in other advertising, thanks to an EU directive which will outlaw misleading publicity.

The legislation, which will come into force in December, will make it illegal to extract a positive word or phrase from a theatre review if that paints a misleading picture of the article as a whole. Lawyers are already warning that producers will have to be more careful in the future when using selective quotes in publicity material.”

You can read the whole article here.

According to a Hong Kong Trade Union Report about the new regulation,

“Misleading advertising is conceived as any advertising which, in any way, either in its wording or presentation deceives or is likely to deceive the persons to whom it is addressed or whom it reaches, which by reason of its deceptive nature, is likely to affect their economic behaviour..”

The Uk-Based Telegraph noted in a story about the regulation,

“Critics say the practice of placing selective quotes from reviews outside venues or in programmes is “a running joke” within the industry. They say such misquoting is common, and cited several examples of quotes being cherry-picked to turn a critical savaging into the highest accolade. [one] famous example includes Sinatra, which claimed Sean O’Hagan at The Observer had praised it for its “energy, razzmatazz and technical wizardry”. In fact, the reviewer wrote: “I couldn’t help feeling for all the energy, razzmatazz and technical wizardry, the audience had been short-changed. It was the longest three hours I had spent in a theatre.”

Regulating this kind of false advertising is one way that industry protects itself from losing its audience. Critics are valued eyes, and when their words are perverted to trick potential audience, it does not serve the industry. Nevertheless, not everyone is happy about the EU’s new regulation. As documented (again) by the Telegraph,

“Richard Pulford, the chief executive of the Society of London Theatre, claims to have received only two complaints from reviewers in the past five years. Mr Spencer, who is also chairman of the drama section of the Critics’ Circle, admitted that misquoting is much less of a problem now than it used to be. “We’ve had meetings about this subject and it’s a bit of a running joke,” he said. “I suppose I ought to be cheering, but it seems to me to be absolutely ridiculous that British theatre producers should be told what they can or can’t do with quotes by an EU directive. “It is something that could be sorted out on a purely local level.”

While I was researching online I saw a pop-up ad that said: “Earn up to 10k a month, guaranteed!”. That kind of lying is still allowed with the new law. Earning UP TO 10k a month is certainly something anyone can guarantee. What the eu law highlights is that critics are not simply a resource to the public anytime the public reads an article.

Critics are a resource to the public whenever the public encounters their words, including when they are quoted in advertising. Critics (and their association to smart corporations – nytimes, village voice, washington post, etc.) possess a strong authority and power to endorse. If that power is perverted through false advertising, or inappropriately doled out, over time the public loses its ability to trust critic’s words, and the industry has lost a resource in building audience.