Lucy, your story reminded me of a friend of mine who attended the National Ballet School until Grade 11. She hates to tell people that she trained there because then they feel sorry for her when they find out she didn't make it all the way through (I think she started in the professional school at about age 10). It's not that *she* feels badly about it, she enjoyed the time she was at the NBS and she moved on to contemporary dance and is quite happy even though she's not a supermodel either, LOL!<P>

marie and basheva, i like your sensible posts; and it's excellent to get a more informative perspective from lucy 'on the ground there', as it were....<P>this echoes what i have read at other boards where people had seen video footage of the child on TV. i agree that this mother has done no service to this child, no matter what her talent and no matter what the outcome.

Letters attacking Octavio Roca's defence of SFB in the SF Chronicle:<P><B><A HREF="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/12/19/DD124635.DTL" TARGET=_blank>Dance Critic's Stand Stirs More Comment</A></B><BR>SF Chronicle<P>including this excerpt:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>There's no better way to summon the snobs out of the woodwork than to question the strange cult of anorexo-mysticism, which clings to the practice of modern ballet like a tutu cinching a skeletal waist. Question the rightness of Balanchine's starved aesthetic, and suddenly you're painted as an art bolshevik, militating for the advent of ballet welfare.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't help wondering why it is only ballet that is considered the "home" of this aesthetic? Look at modeling, actresses, gymnastics......why just dancers?

The Christian Science Monitor reports on the Keefer case.<BR> <A HREF="http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/12/18/fp1s4-csm.shtml" TARGET=_blank>http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/12/18/fp1s4-csm.shtml</A>

An interesting take by Michael Scott Moore:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>The Hard Nut <BR>Or, Cracking the San Francisco Ballet</B><BR>By Michael Scott Moore, SF Weekly<BR> <BR>The girl -- let's call her Clara, although some versions call her Marie -- wanted to be a ballerina. Her mother asked the people at San Francisco Ballet if Clara could audition for the school, which is prestigious, and the ballet people, who knew the girl from their Outreach Program (where Clara had a full scholarship), said no.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><B><A HREF="http://www.sfweekly.com/issues/2000-12-20/stage.html" TARGET=_blank>More</A></B>

I find Michael Scott Moore's opinions bandwagon-jumping and misguided. I can hardly believe Morris would want his work to be held up as an attack on San Francisco Ballet--after all, he does choreograph regularly for the company!!!<P>Scanning through the letters in the Chronicle, I found points in each that I agreed with. But Moore offers no true analysis of the case and wears his bias on his sleeve.

I wanted to address some of the outrage about "tax dollars".<P>First of all, government funding could be coming from many different levels of funding: federal, state, city, county, municipality.<P>Sometimes government funding is mingled in with with other sorts of money, such as private foundation, for programs. For instance, a program I deal with regularily, that provides funding, is a mixture state money and private foundations, some of which I believe receive federal support.<P>And, whether the funding is for specific project support, or operating, or capital improvements/expenses (new building, construction, equipment, etc) there are many ways money makes it way in, and all comes together to allow for the operation of the organization.<P>I cringe a bit (okay, a lot) when people say they don't support their tax dollars being used to support Nameless Company. The next step to that, in my mind, is "Since Nameless Company is supported by Government Program Alpha, I therefore don't support Government Program Alpha receiving government funding."<P>Next step is a popular campaign mounted to cut "wasting" money on such things...followed by the decrease of the annual budget of the Government Program Alpha...followed by the cutting back of arts funding throughout the country (because less money is available)...followed by the closure of companies, some of which were just squeaking by, and the loss of even a small amount of annual money is a huge problem.<P>Note: All names have been changed to protect the innocent

Well Basheva, at least the Moore article mentioned this:<P>"You have the fashion industry and the ballet and Hollywood all mirroring each other as to what an attractive woman is, and an attractive woman is someone with zero body fat." <BR>

You are right, Priscilla - he did mention those other fields...I wish more people would.<P>I wonder what Rafael, Michelangelo and DaVinci would think of this? How differently they painted women. Were they representing the aestethic of their day? And, why is the body shape of the female subject to the changes of fashion? Are we fighting an asthetic that will not move - or tilting at a windmill that will only change, with any luck, only very slowly?<P>It does seem to be pervasive. There are many stereotypes that are used to define people. On TV commercials, if the advertiser wants to convey the idea of a sort of "smart aleck", "nerdy-smart" person, an "egg-head elitist" - then the actor wears glasses. This despite that probably over half the population wears glasses, for one reason or another. And, yet we accept this stereotype.<P> And, apparently the advertising whether depicting a pole shaped woman or a nerdy kid in glasses, works.

Gee I wonder how this would have played out in the press if SFB had just been honest and said the child is not good enough to be in this program? They taught her in the outreach program, so they already knew her work. They only needed to see her skip around the room as a courtesy. Would the Mother from Hell still have a case?

I've read through this emotionally-charged thread this a.m. and the aftermath" one as well, where I posted a reply that is germane to either thread. Have a feeling the jury will be out on this one for some time to come.

More letters to the editor, halfway down this page:<P><B><A HREF="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/12/26/DD160246.DTL" TARGET=_blank>Letters to SF Chronicle Datebook</A></B><P>

Yet another opinion:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Stepping on toe shoes<BR></B><BR>A body battle with the S.F. Ballet opens up old dance wounds. <P>By Sima Belmar<P>NOBODY COULD USE a vacation more than Terpsichore. After a year of struggling to stay alive in the face of a crisis in affordable arts spaces, the muse is hit with an attack on her very identity. In filing a complaint with the city Human Rights Commission against the San Francisco Ballet School on Nov. 15, choreographer-activist Krissy Keefer has challenged the dance world's patriarchal head: the ballet. In the words of local dancer-choreographer Dana Lawton, "This obsession with thin, nubile dancers started with one man, Balanchine, and far be it from me to say that it couldn't change because of one woman, Krissy." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><B><A HREF="http://www.sfbg.com/AandE/35/13/stepping.html" TARGET=_blank>More</A></B>

there is a new thread on this subject, following on. it's called Pride and Prejudice - please can we keep talking over there? i think that was the intention....

here's the link to

Pride and Prejudice at the Barre

- still can't get over that great title, basheva....! <img src="http://www.criticaldance.com/ubb/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Ed: This topic continues in the Keefer Aftermath thread

<font size = -2><center>(Edited by salzberg to fix link)</center></font>
[This message has been edited by Azlan (edited January 01, 2001).]

<small>[ 08-11-2002, 11:36: Message edited by: salzberg ]</small>