Stuart is back, after retiring for several years to be a pastor for The Church Of The Holy Ghost of Balanchine. I’m sure that The Holy Ghost of Balanchine is watching this drama unfold with bated breath, since Stuart apparently plans to use his spoils to build a new 25-million dollar Balanchine Church with marble floors and a helicopter landing on the roof. If there’s one thing that The Holy Ghost of Balanchine loves, it’s humanity building lavish monuments in order to get closer to him. You know what else he loves? Young women wearing shiny red miniskirts
Maria wrote: "I just don’t think you’d understand it."
Stuart wrote: Thank you so much, Maria. No one could ever accuse you of modesty.
And Balanchine, forcing the girl-child Gelsey Kirkland to undress in front of a group of inanely laughing men (as she describes in her biography), was showing more modesty? Whatever... doing something like this to a kid at a balletschool is nowadays classified as sexual harassment. I am simply giving the genius misogynist Balanchine the reception that I think he deserves. I also think he would have been good friends with Michael Jackson (could teach him some kewl new dance steps too - I mean Wacko teaching Balanchine, had B. still been alive).
Basically, the allegation that I am being immodest here is an imaginary and arbitrary distinction between critique that you can condescend to directly and critique that you can condescend to indirectly.
I simply do not like writing belletristic hagiographies *at all*, on Balanchine or anyone else for that matter. I want critical analysis, not critical inflation. You have made it clear that you are only willing to accept the type criticism on Balanchine that first acknowledges his "genius": "Balanchine is a genius, but he just happens to have a few human flaws that have no bearing on his works anyway etc. etc."
The idea that someone might critique Balanchine outright without first accepting his genius is unacceptable to you, because you feel that someone has to acknowledge the "Status Quo" before being allowed to criticize it. I simply don't feel the need to acknowledge the Status Quo in oder to be "granted the right" to criticize Balanchine.
It's sort of like saying that I have to acknowledge the existence of Gawd before writing an atheist analysis, whereas the whole point of atheism is that your start off from the premise that there is no Gawd (even if nearly everyone else believes there is), regardless of what the Status Quo dictates.
Likewise, in my critique I depart from the premise that there is no such thing as a "genius artist".
You respond to me as if you can't believe that someone would have the nerve to claim that Balanchine (or anyone else for that matter) might not be a genius.
Hence my comment about you not understanding my analysis. I really don’t believe that you can understand my analysis, because you cannot accept its underlying premise: the fact that a critic might *not* want to look at works in terms of excellence or quality or genius.
You are a belletrist, and I am a critic. I don't see the point of doing belletrism, and you cannot accept the fact that I reject Balanchine without first paying lip service to the Status Quo that calls him a genius.
Indeed, you just *cannot* understand it - nor, I do suspect, do you want to understand it.
Sycophantic belletristic hagiographies are the polar opposite of what I am interested in, yet it seems to be the only thing you are willing to accept when it comes to Balanchine. Everything else you consider too "gawdless". Well, I don't do belletrism, I consider it too *gutless*.
And as for that frankly ridiculous quote about not touching the bread dough: you actually have to punch down the risen dough to release the carbon dioxide: http://www.baking911.com/bread101_rise.htm
But Balanchine apparently knew as much about bread-preparation as he did about feminism.
Tex. I think it takes a pretty blind state of euphoric identification to enjoy another's power to exclude you.
- Allan McCollum[/QB][/QUOTE]