Doug, Wow! Thanks so much for thinking so hard about this. I was half asleep and somewhat annoyed when I was writing my post, so I'm glad you really took off on it and thought things through more fully.

It really bothers me that ballet is still considered to be "elitist", and someone criticized me on my blog for reviewing rather "elitist" pieces, which I thought was strange since a good 3/4 of what I write about is ballroom and social Latin dance. I've been told I have a "breezy" relatable style in writing about my experiences in ballroom and social, so I'm now re-looking at my write-ups of the modern and ballet performances I attended to see if they were too intellectualized. I thought I used the same voice in talking about concert dance and ballroom, but perhaps I don't. Maybe, as you suggest, that's possibly a lesson to others who write about dance as well.

In general, I do think that unfortunately there is this (completely wrong) perception that all of those involved in the ballet world -- from the fans, the writers, the managers and directors, and even the dancers -- are all rich and white. This is ridiculous given that two of the currently most famous dancers -- Carlos Acosta and Jose Manuel Carreno are most definitely not from white upscale backgrounds. And there are many more; look at how racially diverse ABT is. Yes, as one of the articles you point to discusses, ballet may have that originated that way centuries ago, but, come on, we're living in the 21st Century right now and the ballet world is hardly what it was then.

John Rockwell wrote an article months ago surmising that perhaps the opera was doing better than ballet at drawing larger audiences because it was more "star driven." I think he has a point. When I try to point out what I said above to my ballroom and social dance friends, they've never heard of the people I'm talking about so it makes no sense to them.

I do think that some modern and contemporary ballets don't make a lot of sense to some people, but certainly the traditional story ballets that most large companies put on must not be over anyone's head. How could anyone not understand Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty? And, for me, for the ballets that don't have linear narratives (or that have narratives that I don't understand) I still enjoy watching the beauty of pure movement. It's not like the dancing on DWTS has a 'narrative' that people understand. I think spectators who enjoy the show are appreciating the movement, the way people relate to each other through dance, and the way the dancers express their personality both through their dancing and in the footage shown of the contestants off the dance floor. I know this is a poppy TV show, but I believe that these are all things that could be used to draw audiences to concert dance as well. I heard one woman in the ABT subscriber exchange line on Sunday complaining that she got great seats but her granddaughter insisted they all be changed so she could see her favorite dancers. I'm happy to see anyone perform at ABT or NYCB, but I too prefer to see my favorites if at all possible. You don't have to understand ballet technique in order to enjoy ballet; people are attracted to personalities.

Also, I definitely agree with your remark about Boehm -- Teachout was criticized by several fans of ethnic dance for doing the same thing in his piece that you and I link to. I think writers have to specify which kind of dance they're talking about and not assume that Dance is all one thing. Dance is many different things to many different people and if you say the word and you really mean ballet, it angers those who like other forms of dance because it sounds like the writer is invalidating those other forms, it distances them from you and perpetuates the 'us / them' mentality. We should be striving for the opposite in my opinion. Maybe I'm naive, but I do think these gaps can be bridged...

Anyway, I probably have to say, but have to get back to work now! Thanks for providing food for thought!

I'll write more later, but I wanted to reply to one thing in your comment, Tonya, " It's not like the dancing on DWTS has a 'narrative' that people understand."

I think it's exactly the oposite. DWTS has a very clear narative: They start with celebrities who are generally non-dancers (I think that fish-out-of-water-ness make the celebrities seem suddenly more like "normal people, which is appealing in it's own right.) and instead of just showing the end performances, they show the working, the rehearsing, etc that go into that end performance. The narative arc continues the entire season, as we watch the celebrities start out as normal, bungling people, and as they work hard and develop their skills, they end up transformed into glamorous dancers. The real story, and I think the real appeal of the show, is not in the end performances but in the processes of personal transformation.

For example, in the current season, Heather Mills danced quite nicely, but the story behind it that makes the television show fun to watch is when they show things like the rehersal where her prosthetic leg falls off. Or last season when Jerry Springer was so anxious to get as far as the waltz because he wanted to dance well at his daughter's wedding. Those stories are the heart of the show, the dancing provides the context.

I agree with you, Natalia. I guess I expressed myself badly (I'm trying to write fast since I'm at work!). I meant each individual dance has no 'narrative' -- it's more the pretty movement that people like -- not that the show itself doesn't have a story. It definitely does, like you say. I think that is why people tune in -- because of some of that background footage and how it sheds light on what goes on on the dance floor. And, I wrote to the America's Ballroom Challenge producers telling them I thought they should provide more of that on the individual dancers so as to make people better identify with them. I think we were talking about how they do this for the Olympic broadcasts and it works quite well. You only see the Olympic champions once in a blue moon, yet everyone is familiar with them. That's why I think the public needs a way of getting to know professional dancers -- both ballet and other kinds of dance -- better. John Rockwell had suggested one way for the big ballet and modern dance companies to promote its dancers (having one dancer 'star' in a role, like the Met Opera has one singer in a role) -- an idea that may or may not be do-able but is interesting. And the Winger promotes dance as well by allowing the public to get to know the dancers. I'm babbling again, but in general, I do agree that people connect with personalities and people's struggle to get where they are, to overcome obstacles, and be the best they can be, etc. -- all of which that show aims to be about.

The idea that ballroom dancing (or even social partner dancing) is 'popular' in this country is really quite humorous to me, to tell you the truth - far, far more people in America have had a ballet lesson than have had a partner-dancing lesson, I would hazard to guess. Far more. And there's more: ballroom competitions (of which there are many all over the country) are woefully under-attended and attract almost exclusively the "in-group" of family and groupies. Even in the "partner dancing" world, the strictly "ballroom types" (competitive dancers in Latin and Standard styles) are seen as "elitist" compared to the social partner dancers (salsa, hustle, swing, Argentine tango, etc.) That's not to say there are hordes of these people, by the way. There was insufficient interest amongst sponsors to keep ballroom on PBS until the recent resurgence, which was spearheaded by a fake, reality-TV inspired cross-style challenge which is embarassing for many of us in the ballroom world.

Dance has always been, except for spurts of interest such as the craze for Russian defectors, etc, the least endowed/celebrated fine art in this country, it seems to me. But even if I can't support grandiose claims like that one (which I can't - it's just a feeling) I would certainly never say ballroom or even social dancing is that popular here. (Versus some other countries, where it's a popular and populist activity for children and adults.) Hustle was the last great popular moment for partner dancing in the US - rock music has, for the most part, turned us all into freestylers, and hip-hop has certainly kept that direction in place.

Every time I go to a wedding, I notice the difference in casual partner-dancing ability that exists from generation to generation. Today's couples flock to private coaches (at significant expense) two months before their wedding to try and quickly learn how to do a single step in closed hold before their big day - they have no idea how to even hold each other in dance position. Their grandparents probably can - they can probably fake their way through a couple different dances - but they themselves are more likely to have no idea.

I was a frustrated balletomane who never had a class as a child. Now as an adult, with disposable income, I find myself a ballroom dancer seriously hampered by my lack of childhood ballet training. Despite years of ballroom classes, going to a beginner ballet class is a fresh exercise in humiliation and regret every single time. The unattainability of ballet technique as an adult beginner isn't really the same isssue as why people don't like to WATCH ballet (versus partner dancing) but I do wonder if the hint of "you can do this" in partner dancing makes it a little more accessible as a spectator sport. Americans, after all, like to do it themselves.

Sorry, I just now saw this comment. Well, I think that the show DWTS, as cheesy as we serious fans and students of ballroom dance know it is, it has increased the popularity of ballroom and social dancing in this country. Studios are producing statistics that show enrollment has nearly doubled since the show began, and now ballroom is back on PBS, as Michele said. So, I definitely don't think ballroom dancing has always been taken seriously in this country, especially as compared to Europe and more recently Asian countries, but I think there has been a sudden increase, propelled in large part by that show.

I do think Michele has a good point about ballet versus ballroom / social dance lessons and the "you too can do this" hint with regard to the latter. I agree that Americans have more appreciation as spectators for something they too can do. With ballet, you're constantly bombarded with the idea that if you didn't start at 2 years old, you're never ever gonna do it. That is discouraging and perhaps is partly responsible for people's notions that ballet is elitist. Add to that, as Michele says, the so-called beginner ballet classes and you do come away thinking, ugh, I'm so fat and ugly and stupid and I can't do anything and I suck and always will, etc. etc. No one wants to feel that way... Ballet classes at the adult level are downright demeaning -- there's just no one who will teach from the very beginning -- that's the problem, I think -- you're made to feel like an embicile in those classes because no one will start from scratch. And then you're distanced from the art form as a viewer... Anyway, I am going off on a rampage so I'll stop. But Michele's comment did make me think ... I may have to think more about it and blog on it myself...

What about the new ballet company Ballet Deviare...they are totally bringing ballet to the masses by being on MTV2. They have many fans and have incited many more through their TV exposure.....