CriticalDance Forum

if you are going to advertise a post here, 10-14 is a bit on the short side, but certainly not unheard of.

And yes, it's quite common for a company/business/government agency to know who they want, indeed even to have them lined up, before announcing the parting of company with the incumbant. Of course, they don't have to advertise. There is no legal requirement to do so. Writing job ads with a specific person in mind is also very common. Doesn't always happen like that, of course. The Royal Ballet recently went through a very lengthy process before appointing Kevin O'Hare.

Given the widespread rumours about Rojo's forthcoming appointment at ENB, and her publically stated wish to direct, it would be fascinating to know if they actually had any other applicants. I know I wouldn't have been wasting my time even if I had the qualifications and wanted the job. I don't expect to be told, by the way!

In my experience, what really annoys people is when it's really obvious that a company is just going through the motions for the sake of 'good form'. I certainly got annoyed when it happened to me many years ago. I was interviewed and turned down for an internal post. I was told very soon afterwards that I stood virtually no chance of getting the job because the manager concerned only ever wanted one person. Mind you, watching him wriggle very uncomfortably when I asked for face to face feedback and reasons for rejection (which company policy said he had to give) was very entertaining.

Yes, I have heard about the Mikhailovsky's dire financial straits too. And remember that with all the Arts Council cuts, ENB are not exactly flush with cash either. Actually, I see this as potentially a far graver long term concern than recent events. ENB's extensive touring of expensive to stage programmes means they are likely to feel the effects of the cuts more than any of the other major ballet companies. And if the money situation wasn't bad enough, the government then starts making noises about restricting tax relief on charitable giving. So much for the "big society" and joined up thinking.

There's no legal requirement? I guess my experience is mostly with government agencies, quasi governmental organizations and universities, but I think they have an absolute legal requirement to advertise jobs. Certainly, some jobs may be advertised internally only (at least at first), but they have certain obligations about fairness in hiring. I'd think, in the case of ENB, if they are receiving significant government funding, that they would have some obligation to follow fair hiring procedures including advertisement of the job in some public fashion.



Sometimes though, I think companies get forced into this when they are required to advertise jobs. I think this happens most obvious in governmental positions where they all but know who they want to hire - they need specific skills and know the people in the field. But are forced to go through the hiring process, which often includes a civil service test and multiple rounds of interviews. Frankly, the sooner you can get to interviews the better, because my (limited) experience is that you can quickly tell that a good proportion of applicants won't work simply from their applications, but many good-on-paper applicants are less appealing after an interview.

Recipients of ACE funding must be equal opps employers and this applies to appointments of course. If it proved that the appointment was pre-arranged it could have have serious ramifications for ENB funding. However, it looks unlikely that the ACE management will wish to lift the rock to look underneath.

Frankly it all stinks.

Stuart is absolutely right on both counts.

The problem with the Arts Council as I see it, is that it basically only has one weapon - to withdraw funding. Somehere here there is a debate waiting to be had about accountability, how arts organisations in receipt of major public funding are run, and who, if anyone, should regulate them. They may be private bodies, but after all, so are telecomms, water etc., and we manage to regulate them (albeit some better than others).

And whatever one thinks of the rights and wrongs of it all (and there are an awful lot of the latter), it all rather smacks of appalling bad management all round. Things like this tend to be symptomatic of deeper problems. Makes you wonder what else what might be lurking under the surface.

My point re advertising jobs is that they don't have to advertise. That is one way of meeting legal obligations (and the most overt and clear way) but it is far from the only way. And after all, companies here do not as rule advertise for dancers (at any level), for example, or go through extensive open or closed audition/interview processes.

What is the point of ENB?

With so many foreign artists in ENB it's very name makes it a joke - giving it a taxpayer funded grant doesn't support British jobs.

It doesn't tour extensively or go anywhere in Britain a foreign company would not go at no cost to the taxpayer.

With a limited interest in ballet that ENB visit a city means that they take away a audience which might go to a non-subsidised or foreign company.

Outside London there is not enough of an audience for new choreography-in London their productions are not as good as the Royal Ballet or other visiting companies.

Why should it get any money from the taxpayer?

A very good point, Sarah. Yes you are quite right, films of this nature are always edited in such a way as to emphasize any perceived negatives and with his somewhat shambolic methods of working I'm afraid Wayne Eagling walked straight into a trap. The fact that many artistic people work in a disorganized fashion meant that for most of us discovering that Eagling does too accounts for very little but his less than impressive showing in the film did give the ENB board a stick to beat him with.

Some people will remember an earlier ballet documentary about Christopher Wheeldon's experiences of choreographing in Russia where the Bolshoi dancers and Nikolai Tsiskaridze in particular came across in a poor light. That too was all down to selective editing and there was another side to that story: the viewers however never got to discover that other side.

I am very surprised by your post drdance, I don’t wish to be rude but you seem to display a shocking ignorance of the UK Ballet scene.



What is the point of any ballet company? Either you accept ballet as a valid art form or you do not. Do you also not see the point of English National Opera or the London Symphony orchestra or the Tate Gallery?


I was very unhappy about the company’s change of name, I prefer its original name London Festival Ballet but apparently in some parts of the world people were unaware of the company’s history and thought its name indicated an ad hoc group so it was changed.

The company has a great many foreign artists but so too does the Royal Ballet, the difference between the two is that since its inception Festival Ballet/ENB was always able to offer an international prospective on the ballet scene with the company playing host to a wealth of foreign stars together with such home grown stars as Alicia Markova, the company’s co-founder and John Gilpin, still the finest male dancer Britain ever produced. It is the Royal Ballet that has changed significantly as it used to comprise UK and commonwealth dancers to the exclusion of all others and the change in policy has led to the loss of the once admired English Style. As to the company being funded by the tax payer, so much the better, doesn’t a healthy arts scene funded by its citizens indicate a cultured, civilized nation?



ENB does tour extensively and I’ve posted reviews of ENB performances outside of London in the past. Foreign companies, with a few honourable exceptions, are an embarrassing joke and do the art of ballet no favours with their shoddy productions and bored indifferent dancers. Within ENB standards remain high wherever they happen to be dancing



With your first point I have to agree – persuading provincial audiences to see something other than Swan Lake is an up-hill struggle but all companies experience that problem and it isn’t just a headache for ENB. The Bolshoi Ballet has danced to near empty house outside of London but at least ENB has built up over half a century a fan base that remains loyal making such catastrophic empty houses a rarity.

As a Londoner I have great concerns with the falling standards of the Royal Ballet, both with the poor quality of new productions and inconsistent standards of performance but since Wayne Eagling took over the leadership of ENB the standards have flourished there whilst the standards at the RB have continued to decline. The ENB Petit programme was simply superb as were the recent Beyond Diaghilev programmes. Those Diaghilev performances were vastly superior to the Eifman Ballet that performed the following week at the Coliseum. Remember also that the ENB’s Elena Glurjidze is one of the finest ballerinas anywhere and certainly the Royal Ballet has no one to compare with her. The Royal Ballet also has a poor record of holding onto talent as under the present director the services of both the world’s foremost superstar Sylvie Guillem have been dispensed with and their great white hope for the future, Sergei Polunin slipped through their fingers: not a good record is it?



As someone who earns more than the national average and therefore pays more tax than the average UK worker, I would love to dictate to the government how the money they take off me is spend (certainly not on armed intervention in the middle east) but that’s not how it works. Anything spent on the arts however is fine by me.

Thanks for your response Cassandra.

A justification for spending taxpayers money on ENB would be to support British jobs and British talent – but that is no longer be the case with ENB.

Another reason for a grant would be that it enables the creation of new work which would otherwise not happen - but there is little demand for this and the choreographers can be given support elsewhere it doesn’t need the millions ENB gets.

Another reason would be to give access to ballet – but visiting companies can do this at no cost to UK taxpayers.

ENB does not have a huge audience even though it has a subsidy it has to discount its tickets and even then fails to fill a big venue such as the London Coliseum. There is no demand for it’s performances to be filmed and shown in cinemas or on DVDs it is not in huge demand for international tours.

So what is the point of it?

It is not a driving force for new creative choreography, does not provide jobs for many British dancers and does not fill theatres.

As a seperate matter under 200 people have supported the e petition - not enought to fill the stalls in a big theatre. This also shows a lack of interest in issues about the company.

I have already replied to many of the points you make here, but regarding the discounting of tickets at the Coliseum, I bought discounted tickets for Birmingham Royal Ballet and Eifman Ballet that played the Coliseum immediately before and immediately after ENB. The house was virtually empty for the BRB performance I went to and the Eifman performance had an audience almost entirely made up of Russian ex-pats. BRB is also a recipient of tax payer’s money by the way. Dance companies are feeling the pinch right now as British households find their incomes reduced due to government policies to reduce the UK deficit. Box office receipts are therefore taking a tumble all round

Regarding the petition, it isn't easy to draw attention to the fact that it exists. ENB is hardly likely to give us access to its supporters data base (the numbers would increase tenfold if they did) so mainly people are being informed by word of mouth. Despite your ideas to the contrary ENB has a high reputation abroad as does Wayne Eagling who is probably better known as a choreographer outside the UK, but unfortunately only UK nationals/residents are able to sign the petition.

In answer to drdance, we would mention the following very good reasons why ENB should exist and continue to thrive:
1) of late it has become a showcase for excellence at all levels within its ranks
2) it provides access to 'big ballets' produced to a very high standard for the regions (which visiting foreign companies often do not; and the Royal Ballet does not tour) and offers educational programmes in areas which other companies do not reach
3) It represents quality competition to the Royal Ballet which could otherwise become even more complacent about standards, particularly within the corps
4) it performs in London at a venue with which many people feel more at ease than they appear to do about going to the Royal Opera House
5) it has been brave in diversifying and thereby showing works which might otherwise not see the light of day - the Roland Petit and Ballet Russes programmes are examples
6) it visits a range of venues (e.g. Tate Gallery, St Paul's Cathedral this year) which reaches out physically to new audiences and engages with them directly, not just on a big screen or in a cinema
7) it produces shows specifically to interest very young audiences in ballet - currently 'My First Sleeping Beauty'
it enters into partnerships (currently with Flawless) in order to combine ballet with other dance forms, thereby, again reaching out to new audiences
9) it provides employment for British dancers, including ones trained at the Royal Ballet School who do not get taken into that company; and it nurtures their talents in a way which the RB arguably does not achieve with its younger members
10) it employs a mainly British full-sized, full-time orchestra, British teachers and repetiteurs, and around 80 admin staff, again mainly British

We could go on but have decided to stop at 10.

We wonder why you have chosen to take a side-swipe at ENB at this moment in time? In the interest of the art form contributors to this site profess to care about, the Company needs balletomanes' support as it faces new challenges, including ones related to reduced funding.

I don't understand the need to take swipes at ANY company, UK or 'foreign'. There are brilliant companies and brilliant dancers all around the globe, regardless of their ethnic/citizenship make-ups - and I think it's the very rare company that doesn't get at least some government funding.. Up in here in Alberta, the company has dancers from across Canada, the US, Europe and even Cuba - and we're the better for it.

When I go to the ballet I want to see the best dancing - I don't care where the dancers come from. Just like when I go to work, I would hope that my employer hires based on skills, not citizenship (barring restrictions for government jobs). As an immigrant myself, I've beaten out citizens for jobs, and I have no qualms about that.

For that matter, there are restrictions on hiring non-EU citizens in the UK, so every non-EU citizen in a UK company has had to jump hurdles. Generally they've had to show their ability by quantifiable measures such as previous employment in a company, placement at ballet competitions and/or earning scholarships etc. And the same goes for the US or just about any other country. Trust me, whatever your profession, getting hired in another country takes talent, patience and perseverance. You are stronger because of us immigrants, not weaker.

And if we limited ballet companies to hiring only from within their own country, then we'd see most of the world's companies crumbling. Outside of Australia and Russia, it's rare to see a company that doesn't have quite a few dancers who came from other countries. NYCB and ABT both have many non-Americans, whether they were hired from other countries or came from abroad whilst they were still students.

I definitely share the attitude taken by Cassandra, Cabrioles and Ksneds.
What worries me, Drdance, in your postings is your apparent lack of love for ballet. You ask questions, which ballet lovers don’t usually ask:
“What is the point of ENB?” “Why should it get any money from the taxpayer?”
I don’t remember any similar sentiments expressed on ballet forums.
Ballet lovers can not fail to notice the ENB’s achievements, they appreciate its special programmes and the technical and artistic progress made by its dancers. I don’t know any ballet fan who would object like you to spending the taxpayers’ money on a company like ENB.

You are in favour of “supporting British jobs and British talent” and regret “that is no longer be the case with ENB”. I completely agree with the first sentence but why should the ENB be blamed for not doing that? In order to achieve high standards in the company the artistic directors always try to employ the best offer on the market. If the best offer happened to be a Latin American or a Tartar, why not to take them for the benefit of ballet-goers who are most probably taxpayers as well?
Your posting revealed that you are more in favour of the Royal Ballet. Look closely at what has been happening there for years. Even de Valois, who was very much focused on preserving ‘Englishness’ of the Royal Ballet, was happy to invite talented foreigners into the company: Beriosova, Prokhorova-Elvin, Nureyev. Look at the principals of the Royal Ballet today: Cojocaru, Galleazzi, Marquez, Morera, Nuñez, Rojo, Yanowsky, Bonelli, Acosta, Cobborg, Soares. Can the Royal Ballet be blamed for employing them?
Perhaps I should stop writing now before extending this discussion into survival of NHS.

FWIW I am a ballet fan and it is precisely because I am a ballet fan that I object to taxpayers' money being spent on a company like ENB (or any area of the arts for that matter).

I have come to object to it after deciding to approach the whole subject from the perspective of reason and evidence (rather than like a starving beggar with outstretched hand, grateful for any donation - no matter where it comes from).

Firstly, let's call a spade a spade. Government arts funding is welfare for art. By definition it already indicates a failure and a crisis - rather than being an acceptable, or viable, long term strategy.

Those organisations that choose to accept this welfare, celebrate it and rely on it are as hopelessly trapped as your stereotypical dysfunctional family living on the dole and unable or unwilling to get out of this meagre and demeaning existence. And those who support this relationship of dependency from afar are also helping to keep all parties trapped in this most unhealthy and unproductive (and ultimately doomed) relationship by endorsing it (by making it socially acceptable).

That is NOT to say arts organisation and other 'scroungers' don't deserve our sympathy or support. Government welfare is a trap, after all, and likely one which arts organisations have inherited - just as poor young people often inherit a life on the dole in a community which (again, not unlike the arts community) shares its knowledge about how best to exploit the system to secure maximum funding. (note: I use the provocative term 'scroungers' deliberately for its shock value! I am trying to make everyone feel uncomfortable here)

In any case, the plight of arts organisations scrounging a meagre existence 'on the dole' (so to speak) is our plight too, as supporters of arts. But alongside our sympathy they/ we deserve to be reminded of the hard truths and encouraged to break free of this relationship of dependance - at least to break free in our thinking if nothing else!

Confronting the reality of a bad situation, and trying to understand it, is the first step to getting out of it.

I am not suggesting breaking free of this arts welfare is going to be easy or going to happen overnight. Although if (when?) the economy really starts to tank and the government's debts become completely unsustainable, circumstance might demand we break free of government funding sooner rather than later ........ if only because the puddle has already dried up! So rather than delay, why not at least start thinking about where we are, how on earth we got here and what better alternatives we might be able to create for ourselves. Thinking costs nothing, after all... it's one thing we can still afford to do.

I am assuming we all agree that successfully breaking free of the reliance on (the always insufficient and now rapidly dwindling supply of) government welfare for the arts would be the ideal scenario in an ideal world......all agreed?

If so, here are a few points which I think are worth considering.

The government has no incentive to provide a 'cure' for arts welfare (or any other kind of welfare for that matter). This is because if society could adequately organise and fund itself there would be no need for that part of government which secures and distributes funding. Those who provide remedies for colds have no incentive to provide a cure for colds or to promote ways to prevent catching colds in the first place. This is just the basic law of incentives.

Also if it didn't provide some degree of welfare to the arts (or to the unemployed and so on) the government would have less justification for its taxation of the public, which it needs to pay for all of its other (typically less popular and less morally justifiable) endeavours. Taxation is a government's only income. If our tax money was used ONLY to fund bankster bailouts, illegal wars, unpopular political unions and MP's lavish expense accounts we may not be so accepting and compliant with respect to being taxed, especially during this time of economic collapse.

To put it bluntly, the idea (if not the disappointing reality) that 'taxes provide us with all the nice things we want like the hospitals and the arts' is the primary method used to justify taxation. It is how taxation is explained and justified to us, both morally and practically, when we are children (in government run schools, I hasten add).

The logic we are all taught as children is as follows:

Government taxation is used to provide public service (or public funding) 'X'
Therefore without government taxation, public service (or public funding) 'X' could not be provided.
In other words: governments reflect the will of the people, yet they must use force against the people (threat of fines or even imprisonment for non payment of taxes) otherwise the people would never choose to adequately provide (pay for) the things they wanted for themselves voluntarily.

This is (to put it politely) is not very logical at all.

For a start it automatically implies governments actually do provide (adequate) public service and public funding, yet for the arts the issue has always been that they don't, and recent cuts in subsidy would seem to support this accusation! It also implies government taxation is the most sensible and efficient way to fund and generally support the arts. But is it? Is it even remotely sensible or efficient?

It also implies that without government taxation (which, remember, is based on extracting money by force) the public would not be willing to support the arts voluntarily (ie without force being used against them). If that is true then it would imply we actually don't want to support the arts after all, in which case everyone is happy!

But let's stick with this argument for a moment.... if forced taxation was abolished I wonder what else we might choose to not fund voluntarily? How about bailouts to criminal banking corporations? Genocidal illegal wars? Wasteful government quangos, ridiculous expenses, membership of unwanted political unions, endless wasteful, bloated and unnecessary (or even destructive) 'initiatives' and 'schemes'....?

Would we really refuse to voluntarily fund the arts - of all things! - if taxation by force was actually abolished? Or, might we instead choose to not pay for a whole bunch of other stuff we don't care for, allowing us to then transfer all that saved money onto the stuff we actually do care about and value such as the arts (or scuba diving centres, or youth and community centres, local parks, an even better standard of healthcare, or exploring space and generally improving our quality of life/ standard of living the world over)?

How would we choose to direct our productivity and spend our wealth, both individually and collectively, if the right to choose for ourselves (as responsible grown ups) was ever given back to us (or simply reasserted)?

It's a 'dangerous', but exciting question isn't it?

Imagine a list of all the things payed for by taxation in order of cost and then imagine comparing it with a list of what people would actually choose to spend their money on, if they had the choice. I bet for just about everyone, supporting the arts would rank far higher as a priority, given the choice, than it currently does right now in the hands of the state. This would indicate the government is acting against the will of the public, using the threat and use of force/ violence. That's something to ponder the next time you praise government funding....

This brings me onto my last point. Does the government even care about the arts? And doesn't this question matters rather a lot, given the huge effect it has on the arts?! It is generally assumed that because the government throws some money at the arts it must therefore 'care about the arts' and 'support the arts'. Yet we all know the argument which says that by throwing a fiver at the helpless homeless alcoholic as you walk by him everyday you're actually helping to keep him perpetually trapped in that powerless and dependent state of existence.

Hypothetically speaking, if some agency with a penchant for social control wanted to (a) gain some control over the arts and (b) prevent the arts from really evolving and thriving to a point where they are beyond your control, I can't think of a better way of doing that than enticing them with gifts of 'free money' to eventually become dependent on you for funding, and then to keep giving them just about enough funding to exist on (enough to keep them dependent on you anyway), but never quite enough to that they can truly prosper and grow and perhaps one day become self sufficient. Perhaps this is all just a coincidence though - it's probably just my over imaginative mind!

But in many ways ulterior motives and odious agendas don't really matter that much anyway. We don't need to guess at how much 'the government' does or doesn't care about the arts because we can test how much 'the government' actually values the arts empirically. Here are two quick tests:

1. Compare the amount of tax money they allocate to the arts relative to the amount of tax money they allocate to military weapons, wars, bankster bailouts, membership of political unions, high speed railways, subsidising failed 'green' schemes like wind energy, belonging to the organisations like the IMF and endless 'initiatives' and 'schemes' all of which costs millions and millions (or billions) of pounds. Many of these other schemes get a virtual blank cheque (of our money). How many times do you read headlines such as "ill conceived city centre tram scheme is already running 5 years late, public outraged as the cost to taxpayer triples to a staggering £8 billion"?

Are these dodgy 'no bid' contractors, agencies, corporations or bureaucratic institutions forced to work 7 days a week and sweat it out trying to produce excellence with meagre and finite allocated taxpayer funds, like most people in the arts world have to? No way! The government let's them get away with blue murder and willingly pays for all of their costly mistakes, cock ups and 'budget miscalculations' - no questions asked - The government says "Don't worry, here have some more money!!! It's not ours anyway!!" ..... Meanwhile, the major and minor arts organisation of the nation dare not go one penny over their relative shoestring budgets. No slack is given. And hardly any funds either. Just a tiny drop in the ocean.

2. This is perhaps the most clear measure of the government's true attitudes towards the arts: government education.

Government education is not just inadequate in terms of educating (inspiring) children about the arts, government education actually suppresses our natural artistic, creative, receptive, imaginative, artistic sides. Schools actually damage that side of our brain by suppressing its development. Schools focus on and feed the non creative, non artistic, linear thinking, competitive, rigid and inflexible, compartmentalising side of the brain. And this devastating imbalance is no accident. Anyone who researches where the current system of education actually comes from will soon come to the conclusion that this is all by design. Our education system is actually based on the Prussian system - a system which we are now seeing has exactly the same devastating effect on the population wherever it is implemented.

A brief overview of the Prussian system of schooling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okPnDZ1Txlo

The very agency which deliberately destroys artistic development in children is the same agency we go to, and rely on, to support and nurture the arts in society? Hello? Could this just maybe be the root cause of the perpetual crisis and demoralising lack of adequate support facing the arts?

In summation.

Government welfare for the arts ensures that the arts are always starving .... and begging. This keeps the arts world in a permanently demoralised state which is inevitably reflected in the art we see all around us. Ironically, only those who have completely sold out and lost all integrity and vision can work freely in this environment of subsidy - because only they are willing to make the kind of meaningless, crowd pleasing, social event, touchy-feely, soulless, dehumanising, anti intellectual art most favoured by the state. Anyone with genuine integrity and their own vision must accept being harnessed up and half starved like a horse working the fields.

Government welfare for the arts also ensures the public remains unwilling to directly support the arts. You see, that's not their business - that's what they pay taxes for after all! Why should they pay twice?! Government funding trains the public to feel absolutely no responsibility whatsoever for the state of the arts and their 'culture'. They are trained to see it as none of their business, when it should be their freedom and responsibility. The general public's complete lack of interest in the (dire state of the) arts then becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.

Government welfare for the arts drives a wedge between the public and the arts (socially, economically and psychologically), it then moves in and assumes responsibility for looking after the arts on the public's behalf, but then consistently fails to provide adequate support for the arts and instead keeps the major (and minor) arts organisations on a leash and permanently starving. One could also use the word: enslaved.

These are just a few of the reasons why I object to government funding of the ENB, or any other arts organisation for that matter.

I have not even touched on the moral issue of organisations using threats of violence to fund themselves, which we all (I assume) would find objectionable if the ENB did it directly (ie approached members of the public and forced them to cough up funding or else get thrown in a cage).... but which we seem to find perfectly acceptable, just as long as they use a third party to make the threats and collect the money (that third party being the state of course). Something else to ponder when you cheer government funding of the arts....

I do apologise for the mega post, it's impossible to make any of these points without including a fair bit of explanation. If anyone wishes to discuss any of this further (or argue vehemently against me) feel free to start up a new thread.

This thread appears to have gone in a direction not appropriate the focus of this board - dance. As the posts here have provided an excellent discussion of the issues regard Wayne Eagling and the ENB, we would like to keep the thread on track. As such, I have removed all posts after the point at which the focus became politics (mine included).

We welcome further posts as long as they are topic.

As a reminder, if you feel that a post is inappropriate, please notify one of the moderators rather than responding on the topic itself.

ksneds (as moderator)

Thank you for your responses.

I still believe that the taxpayers money currently spent on ENB could be better spent in other ways within the UK ballet world which would give a better outcome and more value for the art of ballet, ballet lovers and taxpayers.

We will all also soon see what the new director makes of her opportunity.

As there were few comments and some were emotional this forum seems to have view visitors from the professional world of ballet and dance so I will now leave you to it .