Search the Community

A few days ago we were asked whether the audience liked the works of McGregor , wheeldon and Scarlett. I think that it would be presumptuous to answer that question as if I was speaking for anyone except myself and before I set about answering that question I think that I need to acknowledge that it raises the question of what sort of new works we should expect to see on the Covent Garden stage ? I doubt that anyone would argue with the statement that ballet is an international art form but what does that mean in practice? Does that mean that the artistic management of a company like the Royal Ballet which was established as a creative company and not a dance museum should abandon its support of local choreographers in favour of pursuit of the latest fashionable international choreographer? If it should support the work of local choreographers or at least those with a connection with the company and the school at what point should it abandon its support of the individual? Should the artistic director take greater care with his commissions and exercise more oversight of what he his paying for ? Is it always better to commission new works from established choreographers, when you run the risk of acquiring a dud, rather than acquiring works which have been deemed successful ? I think that before management starts filling in the extensive gaps in the London audience's experience of late twentieth century choreography it needs to give careful consideration to what the balance of its repertory should be between the nineteenth century classics and the many masterpieces in its twentieth century repertory most of which have been subjected to appalling neglect in favour of the regular revival of a very limited number of MacMillan dramballets. Once it has got that balance right it can begin to think about new commissions and acquisitions. I think that we need to remember that the RB has a corporate habit of swimming against the fashionable artistic tide. It acquired nineteenth century ballets in its earliest years and its choreographers made narrative works when no one else was doing so and the fashion was for abstract ballets. I think that the point is that what the company was doing at that time was in pursuit of a well considered artistic policy of acquiring and performing the very best of the old and creating theatrically effective new works. It was not an exercise in throwing money at a project and hoping that it would achieve some sort of artistic effect which is often what it feels like now. I will answer the initial question after I have seen the second cast of Symphonic Dances. I should like to think that some others will say whether they think that by commissioning and supporting local choreographers the company is merely supporting the superficial, the second rate, colleagues and former colleagues or whether it is doing something more beneficial for the art form as a whole.