INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9’ black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with with permission permission of the of copyright the copyright owner. owner.Further reproduction Further reproduction prohibited without prohibited permission. without permission. BALLET COMPANIES IN THE UNITED STATES:
ANALYSIS OF PARTNERSHIPS, 1995 - 2000
by
Meghan Karleen McLyman
submitted to the
Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences
o f American University
in Partial Fulfillment o f
the Requirements of the Degree
of Masters of Arts
in
Performing Arts: Dance
Chair:
Donahue
Robert Goler
Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences
Date 2000
American University
Washington, D.C. 20016
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number 1401039
___ __ UMI
UMI Microform 1401039 Copyright 2000 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. © COPYRIGHT
by
Meghan Karleen McLyman
2000
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BALLET COMPANIES IN THE UNITED STATED:
ANALYSIS OF PARTNERSHIPS, 1995 - 2000
by
Meghan Karleen McLyman
ABSTRACT
The hypothesis o f this thesis is that there is a growing interest among ballet
companies in the United States to engage in artistic partnership agreements. There are
many issues that have arisen when these partnerships take place, and these will be
analyzed, along with a brief historical background for the participating companies. The
following partnerships will be analyzed: Houston Ballet and Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre for
Ben Stevenson’sDracula, premiering in 1997; American Repertory Theatre, Atlanta
Ballet, Dayton Ballet, and Kansas City Ballet (at that time The State Ballet o f Missouri)
for a joint commission by choreographer Lila York to createG loria in 1998. This thesis
found that partnerships are a way for companies to commission new works from major
choreographers or create more elaborate ballets for a lesser cost, and this is important for
creative vitality and survival in the ballet world.
ii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank each o f the ballet companies and individuals involved in
completing this thesis. To Dr. Naima Prevots, Committee Chair, for her encouragement,
guidance and valuable knowledge o f the dance field. To Ann Halligan Donahue and
Robert Goler for their interest and support. To each o f the individuals who so willingly
offered their views and time in personal interviews. And a special thanks to my family and
friends for their love and support.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT...... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... iii
Chapter
I. OVERVIEW: FEDERAL AND PRIVATE FUNDING, 1965 - 2000 ...... 1
The National Endowment for the Arts
State Arts Councils/Agencies
Private Giving
II. CURRENT FUNDING ISSUES FOR DANCE COMPANIES...... 17
III. HISTORY OF THE SIX PARTNERSHIP BALLET COMPANIES...... 24
Atlanta Ballet
Dayton Ballet
Kansas City Ballet
American Repertory Ballet
Houston Ballet
Pittsburgh Ballet Theater
Dance/USA
IV. A PARTNERSHIP PROJECT: BEN STEVENSON’S DRACULA 38
iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. V. A PARTNERSHIP PROJECT: LILA YORK’S GLORIA...... 49
VI. ANALYSIS...... 61
BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 69
v
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER I
OVERVIEW: FEDERAL AND PRIVATE FUNDING, 1965 - 2000
The National Endowment for the Arts
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) was founded in 1965, and over the
next two decades funding from this new government entity significantly affected the
growth and stability o f professional dance companies in America. The organizational
structure of the NEA during this period entailed:
provid[ing] matching grants to States, to non-profit or public groups, and grants in the creative and performing arts for the whole range of artistic activity.. .A major objective of this legislation is to stimulate private philanthropy for cultural endeavors and State activities to benefit the arts.. .The term “the arts” includes, but not limited to, music (instrumental and vocal), dance, drama, folk art, creative writing, architecture and allied fields, painting, sculpture, photography, graphic and craft arts, industrial design, costume and fashion design, motion pictures, television, radio, tape and sound recording, and the arts related to the presentation, performance, execution, and exhibition of such major art forms.1
Grant money was awarded through discipline-specific programs. Grants to
organizations had to be matched with private funds dollar for dollar; individual awards did
not require a match. Congress allotted government funds to the NEA through three
categories: The National Program Fund awarded grants directly to artists and
1 Joseph Wesley Zeigler. Arts in Crisis. Chicago: A Cappella Book, 1994: 16.
I
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2
organizations; The Federal-State Partnership Fund went to official state arts councils; and
The Treasury Fund only awarded money when private donations to the fund were
received. The U.S. Treasury matched donations one to one and awarded money in the
same manner as the National Program Funds.2
A chairman and an advisory board, the National Council on the Arts, was
established to make granting and policy decisions. The Council consisted of twenty-six
private citizens with exceptional artistic knowledge, who served six year terms and were
appointed by the president. Outside panels of specific art forms and NEA staff also aided
in grant making decisions. The NEA began with a total o f $4 million and in the beginning
years, 15 percent of grant money went to individual artists. Little money was awarded to
support opera, museums or orchestras.
The Dance Program was formed on the notion to directly assist individual dance
artists and companies through funding touring, individual commissions, institutions that
present dance, filming and workshop programs. The NEA awarded its first grant of
$100,000 in 1965, to help stabilize the American Ballet Theatre. The Joffrey Ballet
received an award o f equal value in 1967, and smaller grants went to Alvin Ailey’s
American Dance Theatre.3 Between Fiscal 1966 and Fiscal 1969 twenty-two fellowships
were awarded to individual choreographers and four grants awarded to companies to
create new work. Along with those grants, the Regional Dance Development Project was
awarded a total of $44,730 to help establish companies outside o f New York City. Money
2 National Endowment for the Arts Memorandum. “Background: National Council on the Arts, National Endowment for the Arts.” December 1970: 1-2. 3Joseph Wesley Zeigler, 20.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3
also supported the National Association for Regional Ballet and Regional Choreographer
Workshops.4
In 1969 Production Challenge Grants were established for large companies to
extend their repertory by matching NEA monies with three times that of new private
donors. Prior to this, giving from the private sector to dance companies had been low. The
following year, two awards were given to support development directors as another way
to promote fond raising.
In 1967 the Coordinated Residency Touring Program began as a pilot project in
Illinois. In 1970 the program was expanded, and the following year it supported twenty-
two companies who toured to thirty-five states. The Endowment gave sponsors a third o f
the cost to bring in one or two dance companies for a least three days. The companies
would perform as well as hold master classes, lecture demonstrations and workshops in
the community. Additional grants went to sustain company summer dance programs and
critics workshops, develop company administration and strengthen dance institutions.3
The Touring Program ended in the 1980s and a new program, Dance on Tour,
emerged in the 1990s. The program was a collaboration with the Presenting and
Commissioning Program and the State and Regional Program as a partnership between
arts organizations and state arts agencies. In the Special Projects category grants were
4National Endowment for the Arts Annual Report, General Collections, NEA Library: 1968, 26- 29. sNational Endowment for the Arts Annual Report, General Collections, NEA Library: 1970, 14- 17.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4
awarded to the Dance Theatre Workshop’s National Performance Network, which
supported twenty-two artists and companies in one to two week residencies.6
Dance had been a late bloomer amongst the arts in America. With the NEA’s
assistance, dance quickly became the fastest growing art form in America; twenty-three
professional companies existed in 1965 and grew to 157 ten years latter. The NEA
continued to flourish through the 1970s and 1980s; the 1989 budget was up to $169
million. Congress, however, did not always agree with the Endowment’s choices o f grant
recipients, and controversies erupted.
It was in 1989 that the controversies culminated into the culture wars. “Piss
Christ,” a photograph by Andres Serrano of a crucifix immersed in the artist's urine;
Robert Mapplethorpe’s photography, featured in The Perfect Moment exhibit, containing
some pictures o f gay men involved in sexual activity; and at the end o f the year, David
Wojnarowicz’s homoerotic work, all led to heated debates over the policies and existence
o f the NEA.
Beginning in April 1989, Senators Jesse Helms (R-NC), Alphonse D'Amato (TI
NY), and Richard Armey (R-TX) were the leading voices against government funding in
the arts. One hundred and five members of the House addressed their concerns in a letter
to the NEA:
We realize that the interpretation of art is a subjective evaluation, but there is a very clear and unambiguous line that exists between what can be classified as art and what must be called morally reprehensible trash. We want to know what steps you and the NEA will be taking to...put an end to this horrible abuse o f tax dollars. If
'’National Endowment for the Arts Annual Report, General Collections, NEA Library: 1991, 15- 17.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5
the NEA has enough money to fund this type of projects, then perhaps the NEA has too much money to handle responsibly.7
A reaction also swept through some American religious groups such as the
Christian Coalition, American Family Association, Moral Majority, Eagle Forum, Focus
on the Family, and Concerned Women for America. The organizations formed a massive
advertising campaign against the NEA and went as for as demanding that John
Frohnmayer, the Chairman, be fired for his poor granting choices in funding obscene
work.
In September 1989, Congress allotted $171 million to the NEA for FY 1990, but
placed restrictions as to how the Endowment could spend the money. Public Law 101-
121, reprinted in the NEA’s guidelines for grant recipients, states:
None of the funds...may be used to promote, disseminate, or produce materials which...may be considered obscene, including but not limited to, depictions o f sadomasochism, homoeroticism, the sexual exploitation o f children, or individuals engaging in sex acts and which, when taken as a whole, do not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.®
Eventually, this law was ruled unconstitutional according to freedom of speech
laws stated in the First Amendment; as a result, the NEA reinitiated grant money to the
artists affected by this law.9
A reevaluation process began at the beginning o f 1990. In March an amendment
submitted to the House called for the elimination of the NEA. Helms and D’Amato
7Joseph Wesley Ziegler, 75. 8Ibid., 81. 9 An drew Buchwalter, ed. Culture and Democracy: Social and Ethical Issues in Public Support for the Arts and Humanities. Boulder: Westview, 1992: 1-6.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6
proposed the demise to the Senate and suggested that the NEA be told specifically
what it can and cannot fund. Democrats Edward Kennedy and Claiborne Pell, along with
Republicans Orrin Hatch and Nancy Kassebaum, came to the NEA’s rescue, but not
without stipulations. They instituted the “decency clause,” which called for “general
standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values o f the American
people.. .Obscenity is without artistic merit, is not protected speech and shall not be
funded.”10
In October 1990, along with the “decency clause” legislation was passed so that
the NEA:
would be reautherized for another three years. Grants shall have no content restrictions. Questions of obscenity must be determined by the courts. Artists whose work is found to be obscene by the courts must return the funding to the Endowment. NEA panels must be opened up to more diverse and conflict-free. There must be expanded reporting requirements for all grants. The chair must be given more authority in grant making. Funds to State Arts Agencies must be increased to 30 percent of NEA funds in FY 1991, and 35 percent in FY 1993. Half of all NEA funds over $175 million must go to efforts in arts education."
The reallocation o f money to state agencies would cut NEA programs by $12
million. Congress required 5 percent of the budget go to the Expansion Arts Program to
provide arts education to undeserved and rural areas. The Dance Program was faced with
a loss o f 10.5 percent; Program Funds were reduced to $7,777,672 and Treasury Funds to
$700,000. Choreographer Fellowships actually increased by $25,000 to $841,000 from the
10Jane Alexander. “Arts Lessons.” The Washington Post Magazine. 14 May 2000: 10. "Joseph Wesley Zeigler, 129.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7
1990 allotment. In the category o f Dance Company Grants, 104 were awarded, with a loss
of $356,900, and Presenters received fifty-eight grants, a total loss o f $114,500.
Dance/Film/Video was reduced by $24,000, General Service to the Field lost $98,000 and
the Special Projects category received the largest cut of $568,380. A large amount of
touring programs received grants through the Special Project category and suffered as a
result of the reduction. The shifts in funding however, did not affect individual artists
support.
Funding for the Agency remained at the same level through FY 1993, while
funding for the National Endowment for Humanities (NEH) increased as much as 6
percent per year from 1990. Arts education became a major concern for the government.
In 1993, $600,000 was awarded to the NEA, the NEH and the National Department of
Education in order to develop educational standards in various arts disciplines based on
three areas: history, creation and performance, and analysis.12
In October 1993 actress Jane Alexander became the new chairman o f the NEA.
Her battles to save the Endowment came quickly in the summer o f 1994. As a result of
additional conflict, a bill was passed that cut the NEA’s $170.2 million budget by 2.5
percent.13 The $4.2 million loss cut into thirteen of the agencies seventeen programs. The
dance, theater, visual arts, music, museums, and presenting and commissioning programs
12 Ed ward Roth stein. “The ABC’s of Music-And How!” The New York Times. 15 August 1993: 27. 13Jane Alexander, 13.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8
were the hardest hit. By 1994 the Endowment’s budget cuts over its total years in
existence equaled 46 percent.14
In 1994 the Dance Program awarded 201 grants to artists and organizations
totaling $7,283,593. They continued to support individual choreographers through forty-
eight grants, including Master Teachers/Mentors Fellowships. There were 122 dance
companies which received money to assist in “creation and repertory enrichment, rehearsal
time, home seasons, choreographic workshops, documentation, administrative support,
touring and other activities that advance public understanding o f dance.” 15 The remaining
thirty-one grants were awarded in the Service to the Field and Special Project categories.
The Dance Heritage Initiative, a Special Projects Program to document and preserve
dance, was eliminated.
Alexander began a campaign to promote the Endowment in 1995. Using her
connections in Hollywood and on Broadway, she called on the stars to speak in
Washington on the NEA’s behalf. Talks were particularly aimed towards negating the
views of Republican Newt Gingrich, who wanted the arts agency privatized. The artists
told of beginning their careers with arts institutions and programs that depended on NEA
support. A letter campaign was also begun by arts lobbyists and service organizations.
President Clinton proposed the 1996 budget be increased by $5.1 million to $172
million. Many Republicans wanted to eliminate the NEA, but Gingrich “prevailed upon the
Republican right to accept a stay of execution for the Endowment of two years, with
14Jacqueline Trescott. “Arts Cuts Hurt, Says Alexander.” The Washington Post. 11 January 1994: B7. lsNational Endowment for the Arts Annual Report, General Collections, NEA Library: 1994, 26.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9
certain death in 1997. He reasoned that it would be unfair and difficult for arts
organizations nationwide to be cut off cokl turkey, and that two years would give them
time to prepare.”16
The Fiscal 1996 budget was reduced to $99.5 million and remained level through
FY 1997. Alexander was forced to lay off eighty-nine o f the NEA’s staff. She recalls:
The NEA could no longer give significant grants for seasonal support to all the worthy arts institutions nationwide. The Endowment would have needed a budget of at least $350 million per year...The NEA could still help in specific circumstances, like long term planning and stabilization of an organization, but communities nationwide would now bear the burden of, and the commitment to, their own cultural institutions’ maintenance and overall seasonal support. The NEA’s focus was now on the public and the communities they lived in, as well as on the artists.17
In 1996, the NEA changed its structure so that, regardless o f artistic genre, all
Grants to Organizations were determined according to four categories: Heritage and
Preservation, Creation and Presentation, Planning and Stabilization, and Education and
Access. Previously money was allotted to specific programs, for example the Dance
Program. Furthermore, organizations could only apply for one grant each fiscal year.
Grants to Individuals were eliminated, except for the Literature Fellowships, and
individuals could also be nominated for a National Heritage Fellowship in the Folk and
Traditional Arts and the American Jazz Masters Fellowship.
Forty percent of the budget had to go directly to public art agencies or councils
through Partnership Agreements. State and regional arts agencies assist artists and arts
organizations in arts education, arts in underserved areas, and presenting and touring
l6Jane Alexander, 24. 17Ibid.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10
programs. Leadership Initiatives were also introduced that sponsored projects o f national
impact or significance, and served as models in a specific field.18
NEA supporters promoted the Agency by increasing awareness o f the arts
education programs, diverting attention away from the controversies. A study, “Creative
America: A Report to the President,” was conducted that found “the arts and humanities is
as vital a linchpin in the country’s well-being as education.”19 The report made strong
recommendations for the arts to become available to every grade of schooling. Mr. and
Mrs. Clinton also signed a new effort, the Millennium Initiative, to encourage the health of
cultural institutions and increase the value of the arts among the public. The initiative
would consist of cultural events in 2000 and 2001.
Clinton asked for a 37 percent increase of NEA funding for 1998. Many
Republicans wanted to proceed with ending the Endowment. Senator Armey (R-TX) felt
that “It would be fiscally irresponsible to continue this program, which robs the poor to
entertain the rich, when other programs have a much greater claim to both need and
effectiveness.”20 The Republicans did not have the full 218 votes needed to end the NEA
and the budget was approved for $98 million; it remained level through FY 1999. This
was a small, but reassuring victory that the NEA would remain intact.
Alexander announced she was stepping down as chairman in the summer o f 1998.
i 8 “A New Look: Guide to the National Endowment of the Arts." National Endowment Guidelines. 1996,4-22. 19Jacqueline Trescott. “Presidential Panel Calls for Doubled Cultural Funding Report also Recommends Private Sector Initiatives.” The Washington Post 26 February 1997: Dl. 20Ibid...
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11
William J. Ivey, head of Nashville’s nonprofit Country Music Foundation for twenty-seven
years, took her place. Ivey, a folk musician himself, stated that the NEA “wants to get
back to the business of supporting individual artists.” Ivey’s plan for the NEA was to
make “the arts.. .the center of community life.”21 He also explained that the NEA is
changing “gradually from a kind o f entitlement model of how the arts should be funded to
more of a citizen service model.”22
In FY 1999 seventy-nine Dance Grants to Organizations totaling $2,120,000 were
awarded in Creation and Presentation; forty-one grants equaling $736,000 went towards
Education and Access; sixteen organizations received money for Heritage and
Preservation, which amounted to $227,000; eight grants supported Planning and
Stabilization totaling $443,000. A Leadership Initiative o f $500,000 to support the
National Dance Project, which supports touring, was given to the New England
Foundation for the Arts. Thirty-eight additional grants from various categories totaled
$1,104,000. The total sum of all Dance Grants in FY 1999 was $5,130,000, a reduction of
$4,484,738 since FY 1990.23
The NEA changed its structure slightly for the year 2000. Grants to Organizations
revised their granting areas to: Creativity; Organizational Capacity to develop strength and
effectiveness within an organization; Access; Education; and Heritage/Preservation. The
Endowment also offered assistance through the Positive Alternatives for Youth Program,
2lJacqueline Trescott. “Picturing Better Days Ahead: Slowly but Surely, the NEA’s Bill Ivey Seeks a Comeback for Grants to Artist.” The Washington Post. 18 February 1999: Cl. 22Steve Proffitt. “Country Musician Promises End to an Arts Agency’s Hard Times.” Los Angeles Times. 22 August 1999: 3. 23“Pance Grants” National Endowment for the Arts. Fiscal Year 1999: 1-30.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12
ArtsREACH, Resources for Change: Technology, The Arts on Radio and Television, The
New Public Works, The Mayors’ Institute on City Design, and The Arts and Artifacts
Indemnity Program.24
Ivey is promoting Challenge America, an initiative beginning in 1998 that never
took off due to funding constraints; $52 million is needed for the program:
The partnerships that Ivey envisions under the umbrella Challenge America would include arts education programs, incorporating arts programs into youth-at-risk programs, preservation of the country’s living heritage and culture, and arts outreach for undeserved communities. A second phase.. .would focus in helping arts organizations achieve financial stability. In the third year, the questions around individual artists would be addressed.25
The Fiscal 2000 budget was set at $97.6 million, a slight drop in funding, but still
not a threat to the Endowment’s existence. Of this, $79.6 million is designated as grant
money, and as o f April a portion has been awarded, $2.5 million was given to Leadership
Initiatives, $3.8 million to Heritage and Preservation, $4.4 million to Access, and the
majority of the allotment to Education at $6.2 million. $31.8 million with go to state arts
councils and agencies in Partnership Agreements.26
State Arts Councils/Agencies
State arts councils origins go back to the National Endowment’s beginnings in
1965. The NEA granted money to any state, territory, or region wanting to establish a
council; in FY 1966 the NEA’s total program funds given to agencies was $2,664,640.
24National Endowment for the Arts Web Site, 6 June 2000.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13
Agencies grew quickly; FY 1986 marked the first time state appropriations o f $ 195.6
million surpassed the federal allotment of $158.8 million. By 1990, the state support
exceeded the NEA by 70 percent and 3,800 agencies existed in 1995.27 Ivey described the
status of arts funding as:
The state governments invest a total of about $370 million in 1998. Almost twice that, about $700 million, came from cities and countries. But private sources* individuals, foundations, corporations-invest about $10 billion annually in the arts. So when you look at the total, the NEA, whether we’re at $100 million or a more appropriate level, say, $300-$400 million, we’re still a small part o f the total fUnding picture. Our role has to be defined along the lines of leadership, continuity and creating the sense of a national arts scene.28
Private Giving
Private giving began to rise in America during the same time as the establishment
and growth of the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the
Humanities. Giving USA, a philanthropic annual report administered by the American
Association of Fund-Raising Counsel, found that private giving to the arts increased 24
percent between 1989 and 1993. Donations to arts, cultural and humanities groups
reached $9.3 billion in 1992.29 In 1999 private foundations alone granted $18 billion to
nonprofit organizations, including the arts.
In the past, arts organizations have depended on foundations, corporations and
individuals to fill the federal funding gap. As the NEA’s budget decreased and the funding
27Joseph Wesley Zeigler, 97. 28Steve Proffitt. 29Jacqueline Trescott. “The Art of Spending Less.” The Washington Post. 26 December 1993: G8.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14
gap increased cultural organizations, as well as foundations grew concerned that Congress
placed too much responsibility on the private sector. Catharine Stimpson, director of the
fellowship program at the M ac Arthur Foundation, said it was “dangerous wishful thinking
to believe that private hinds were ready to replace government dollars.”30
The Lila Wallace-Reader ’ s Digest Fund, one o f the largest private giving
institutions to the arts, granted $43.4 million to the arts in 1994. However, the Fund
continually receives an excess o f thousands of applications from organizations and artists
in need, but do not have enough money to support each worthy project.31
The arts are also competing for dollars with other charity groups that provide
services to the homeless, health issues, housing needs, undeserved communities and the
unemployed. Timothy McClimon, previously the director o f the arts and cultural program
at the AT&T Foundation, feels that “there is no question that competition is out there for
the available philanthropic resources. There is no question that has had a negative impact
on the dollars available for the arts.”32
Independent choreographer Lila York explained that private giving trends have
followed government giving. “When the government was in the arts, the foundations were
in the arts and when the government pulled out so did the foundations. They shifted their
priorities.” The government set a precedent for the arts, with the idea that culture
was important to our country. York also said that NEA grants “educated the
30Jacqueline Trescott. “Private Sector’s Shortfall Specter if Endowments Vanish, Donors Say They Can’t Fill the Gap.” The Washington Post. 26 February 1995: G2. 3'ibid. 32 Jacqueline Trescott. “The Art of Spending Less.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15
audience...when the government said the NEA was giving a grant to this company
because we think they are worthy o f national merit. It told the audience and funders that
they had a gem there and they should value it. It is like the Good Housekeeping seal of
approval.”33
The NEA took on a leadership role, as well as that o f follower. Every NEA award
has to be matched with a grant from the private sector. Unlike government support, grants
from individuals, corporations, or foundations are able to place restrictions on their gifts
according to how and what they want done with the funding. Assistant professor Peter
Frumkin at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy
School of Government saw a trend among donors in 1999:
Philanthropy has become a controversial matter these days, particularly when donors make their own decisions about how and when to spend their money rather than leaving those details to professionals... Donors o f large amounts are beginning to assert themselves as never before. When donors choose a direction or a cause and define a particular private vision of the public good, they can at times challenge wisdom built up through years o f public-sector priority setting and spending.34
Mindy Levine, consultant for New York Grantmakers in the Arts, researched the
present state of the dance environment in New York City. She identified three trends
occurring in the private sector that closely followed those of the NEA: “Increased support
to education, community outreach and audience development; issues of special project
support versus general operating support; and concerns surrounding support to presenters
versus companies and individual artists.”35
33Ula York, Choreographer. Telephone interview by author 18 May 2000. 34Peter Frumkin. “He Who’s Got It Gets to Give It.” The Washington Post. 3 October 1999: Bl. 35Mindy Levine, 17.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16
It is not until an arts organization secures a private grant that the NEA will release
its own award. Jane Alexander, the previous NEA chairman, explained that the “private
grantees are required to conform to the NEA’s specifications. We’re the driving force.”36
Ideally companies would prefer private funders grant unrestricted gifts. The company’s
administration can then determine where their funding needs are, not the public. Fewer
dance companies are getting big grants, restricted or unrestricted, and therefore are more
willing to accept any funds they are awarded regardless o f purpose.37
36Jan Breslauer. “The NEA’s Real Offense, Agency Pigeonholes Artists by Ethnicity.” The Washington Post. 16 March 1997: Gl. 3 ?Mindy Levine, 18.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER II
CURRENT FUNDING ISSUES FOR DANCE COMPANIES
Over the years federal and private funding for the arts, including dance, has
changed greatly. The NEA has fewer dollars to award to a greater number of arts
organizations; by 1996 over 400 professional dance companies existed.1 Dance companies
are competing not only with each other, but with the arts as a whole because of the
current granting structure.
Both federal and private funds have shifted their focus towards education and the
community. Dance companies understand the benefits of involving and educating the
public, but artists and managers have concerns about creating outreach programs at the
expense of developing artistic creation. Allison O’Brian, Communications Associate at
Dance/USA, feels that:
These companies are not doing these programs in lieu of anything, they are the expansion programs. [The companies] always say that if the budget were to get cut stuff like this would be the first to go and not the world premier by [a top choreographer] over their education programs in the school. All o f our members are thrilled at this point with having any potential increase in money.. .even if the programs are going to educational projects. Our members’ philosophy on that is that if we eventually get more money, eventually that could lead back to creation and presentation. But to be fair we asked the director of education or development
'National Endowment Guidelines. “A New Look: Guide to the National Endowment for the Arts.” 1996: 7.
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18
department not the artistic directors.2
A dance company manager is concerned “that we’re going to be in a situation in
five years where there is no concert dance.” He views the jump to education and outreach
as a “strike.. .at the heart of the creative process and what companies are all about.. .How
can you present brilliant work if you don’t have money to rehearse and create and
costume? It’s becoming a sideline for companies.”3
Granters have also become more interested in supporting specific dance projects,
either educational or performance-related, than assisting in general operating costs.
Companies often find themselves accepting money for projects they may not be ready
technically, administratively or financially to take on. Companies have been operating with
a funding shortage for years. Ticket sales alone can not cover production costs plus
general operating expenses.
York has dubbed this the “Dumbo on ice” phenomenon. “Because there is no
NE A, there is no funding, so [companies] rely totally on ticket sales and that means it is
you and Dumbo on ice.. .It’s not that there is not an audience for [serious art], there is, it
is just smaller.”4
Dance companies and artists are competing for the same support as presenting
organizations, who are now receiving a majority of the funding. Presenting organizations
offer a variety o f performing arts to the public. It is true that they commission
2AUison O’Brian, Communications Associate, Dance/USA. Telephone interview by author 19 May 2000. JMindy Levine, “Local Issues, National Trends.” Dance/USA. Fall 1998/Winter 1999 Vol. 16, No. 2: 17. 4Lila York, Choreographer. Telephone interview by author 18 May 2000.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19
choreographers to create works for them and hire dance companies, paying them a fee to
cover travel and dancers’ salaries. The presenter provides stagehands, an orchestra (if
needed), marketing, an audience, sometimes community outreach residencies, and possibly
additional corporate support.
However, the presenter’s fee hardly ever covers all company expenses, and the
company must raise funds on its own as well. A portion, sometimes all, of box office
revenue is directed back to the presenter. Funds, filtered through presenters to companies
o f their choice, simply cannot replace grant money intended for a specific company to
fulfill a specific need. A company manager from Levine’s studies stated that “no one can
understand and articulate the needs of a dance company better than the leadership o f that
company. Artists get in a position where they feel less empowered, even though they are
the ones with the product.”5
Instead of funds going directly to a company or artist, granters and donors feel that
when they give to a presenter they give to the community and the arts on a broader level.
The problems lie in giving the presenter too much responsibility in the community. A study
conducted by Dance/USA 1989 - 1992 found that a majority of presenters’ bookings
consist of only a few of our country’s dance companies and artists. Only twenty-five dance
companies maintained a significant portion of bookings; twenty-two of those companies
were modem dance. Culturally specific and foreign company bookings have also
increased. Presenters are more apt to book companies within their own region; finding that
5Mindy Levine, 18.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20
hiring local companies and artists once or twice a year reduces the financial burdens of
only hiring national touring companies.6
In Washington, D.C., the Kennedy Center’s ballet program has been under
controversy. The president o f the Center, Lawrence J. WDker, stated that “in general,
dance is a hard sell unless it’s a well-known story ballet.” Four years ago the Kennedy
Center cut the ballet program down to five weeks with companies performing between
one week and two day periods. In the past, the ballet series consisted of fourteen weeks
with residences up to two weeks. His reasoning behind the cutbacks are “high production
costs, decreasing audiences and increasing demands by other art forms for the use o f the
Opera House.”7
Lou Spisto, executive director of American Ballet Theatre, disagrees with Wilker,
and sees dance making a slow come back. New York City’s Metropolitan Opera House
has experienced a 20 percent increase in audience attendance over the past seven years.
The dance market “is delicate. It’s not a question of being a tougher sell, but you need to
do more work in building a relationship between the dance organization and the
community.”8
The community’s knowledge and support of dance depends greatly on the
commissioning and booking choices o f a presenter. A company administrator stated that
“it’s good to bring presenters into the mix, but they often have their own agendas, which
6 “Domestic Dance Presenting: Challenges and Change.” by William Keens/Keens Company and John R. Munger, project consultant. Washington, D.C.: Dance/USA, 1994: x-xrv. 1 Sarah Kaufman. “The Point of Low Return.” The Washington Post 21 May 2000: G8. 8 Sarah Kaufman, G9.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21
don’t necessarily coincide with those of creative artists.”9 The public may perceive dance
to be an inferior art form because presenters are incorporating fewer dance performances
into their seasons. The audience becomes less interested because the service is no longer
present. Their monetary support is then directed only to support those companies the
presenters support or to art forms other than dance.10
Touring companies feel an even greater loss if they only perform one week or
weekend every couple of years, without developing a relationship with the presenter and
audience. Touring is fundamental to advance the dance field. It allows for artistic
development among the audience and the dancers. Many dance companies lack the
affiliation with a home theater, unlike opera, theater companies or orchestras. It is
important that dance companies are able to share their talents with as large an audience as
possible and build a relationship with them. In the past, companies made most of their
annual revenue on touring engagements. Costs have increased and income declined,
presenters’ commissions have decreased as well as NEA funding. Companies are
competing for fewer engagements with shorter residencies to build a following.11
Companies have turned to new strategies for presenting work. Dancers with
company affiliation are teaching outside o f their residence to promote a larger following or
bringing the company into the new area. More companies are creating schools and
educational outreach programs in order to have a presence in their community.
9 Mindy Levine, 18. 10 .,., Ibid. 11 “Domestic Dance Touring.” By William Keens/Keens Company and John R. Munger, project consultants. Washington, D.C.: Dance/USA, 1992: 1-8.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22
Partnerships and co-commissioning agreements are forming. Companies are creating
second homes in other locations across the country. Ballet companies have turned to
partnership agreements to sustain a high level o f artistic productions. A restructuring is
occurring and as O’Brian commented:
I think the dance field in general is looking forward to the day when there is more money [for] choreographer fellowships and individual artist. But I think they have also learned to adapt to the feet that they can’t totally rely on the NEA as much as they used to 10 years ago. They have barely any money and they are doing the best they can to serve the field and also keep Congress happy. I think companies have done a good job at adapting. Companies are turning to other sources. [The NEA] is defiantly not a priority anymore. You have to twist [companies] arms to [lobby for the NEA] because it is not as much o f a benefit to them as it was a couple years ago.12
The arts are existing in a period of transition. Monetary cutbacks and structural
changes within the National Endowment for the Arts have had a direct affect on private
philanthropy. Individual, corporate and foundation giving has shifted to support arts
presenting organizations more than companies and individual artists themselves. Touring
constraints are leaving companies ho me bound. Companies are seeking new models and
strategies to secure economic health, audience visibility and artistic advancement.
The following chapters will examine two partnership agreements among ballet
companies as a means to expand their repertory and advance the art form, while existing in
a changing environment. In 1997 the Houston Ballet and Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre formed
an agreement to pool resources for the production of Ben Stevenson’s full-length, story-
ballet Dracula. The following year four companies; American Repertory Ballet, Atlanta
12 Allison O’Brian.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23
Ballet, Dayton Ballet and Kansas City Ballet, agreed to share the production costs of Lila
York’s one act, contemporary balletGloria.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER HI
HISTORY OF THE SIX PARTNERSHIP
BALLET COMPANIES
Atlanta Ballet
One of the oldest ballet companies in the United States is the Atlanta Ballet
founded by Dorothy Alexander. As a dance student, Dorothy Alexander realized the
cultural limitations in her hometown. New York City was where dancers and audiences
flocked to experience professional dance. Alexander made it her personal mission to make
dance an integral part o f her community. In 1921 she opened a dance school, the Atlanta
School of Ballet, and continued overseeing its operations through her professional career.
Her commitment to the community continued through a Dance Enrichment
Program she established within the public schools in 1927. This was years before dance
companies created outreach and residency programs. Two years later the Dorothy
Alexander Dance Concert Group was formed. The Concert Group changed its name to the
Atlanta Civic Ballet in 1940.1
Alexander danced the principal roles in the Company until she retired from
‘Jeanne Selman Cohen, ed. International Encyclopedia of Dance. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998 Vol. 1:39.
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25
performing in 1947. That same year she was awarded Atlanta’s Woman o f the Year in
Arts Award. Alexander continued to choreograph in her romantic lyrical style, utilizing the
company’s signature port de bras. She created over eighty ballets for the Company.
Alexander became an accomplished administrator, applying innovative fund-raising
concepts along with resourceful board and company policies. The Georgia Power and
Light Company sponsored the Company’s first state-wide tour in 1955. Years later, as a
gift to the city, Atlanta Civic Ballet gave a free performance o f the Nutcracker for the
general public. This entailed donations from major businesses and city figures, including
permission from the mayor to use the Municipal Auditorium at no cost. 5,000 people
received complementary tickets. A donor exclaimed it was “one o f the really great cultural
triumphs of the town.”2
Dance artists began to follow Alexander’s initiative; by the 1950s thirty
regional ballet companies existed. In 1956 Alexander founded the National Association of
Regional Ballet (NARB), renamed in 1988 Regional Dance America. In order to operate
efficiently the NARB divided the United States and Canada into five areas: the Northeast,
Southeast, Southwest, Pacific and the MidStates. Each region held an annual festival.
Atlanta hosted the first, where dues paying members took dance classes from a variety of
teachers in various aspects of dance. Choreography and administrative workshops were
offered, as well as participation in an adjudication process followed by a gala performance.
The companies also built valuable relationships amongst themselves.3
2Doris Hering. “Tickets for the Bug Man.” Dance Magazine. February 1963: 53. 3Shannon Vance. “Programming and Publicity.” Master of Arts Thesis. Washington, D.C.: American University, 2000: 4-6.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26
Dorothy Alexander retired 1963, but continued to provide advisement to her
Company and NARB. She received numerous honors for her achievements. She was
awarded the Dance Magazine Award (1959), Association of American Dance Companies
award (1971), a citation from the National Endowment for the Arts (1973), the Georgia
Governor's Award in the Arts (1976), the Capezio Award (1981), and an honorary
doctorate from Emory University in humane letters (1986).
Associate director, Robert Barnett, replaced Alexander as artistic director. Barnett
came to dance with the Company as principal in 1958 from the New York City Ballet.
Barnett’s greatest achievement entailed adding Balanchine works and full-length ballets as
part of the repertory. In 1967 the Atlanta Civic Ballet gained professional status and was
renamed Atlanta Ballet.4 According to NARB professional status5 entailed: operating with
a minimum budget o f $120,000; employing at least three people annually; employing
twelve dancers for thirty weeks; and giving ten to twenty performances per year.6
Atlanta Ballet’s new status only lasted seven months. Atlanta Ballet had
contributed $10,000 to the Municipal Theater. The theater closed after one month in
operation due to a poorly financed production of King Arthur. With its collapse, the Ballet
was in financial straits and unable to exist on the professional level.
4Jeanne Selman Cohen, Vol. 1: 39. sJchn M unger of Dance/USA explained that professional status for companies is now attained when an organization’s annual budget reachs $1 million. In 1999 there were 40 to SO ballet companies operating with budgets between $1 million and $5 million and 16 companies operating over $5 million. Ellen Futterman. “A City without a Ballet; Why is St. Louis Out of Step?” S t Louis Post-Di snatch. 28 November 1999: FI. 6Shannon Vance.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27
By 1979 the Company had regained professional status. Atlanta Ballet’s artistic
quality was at its height and the annual budget had increased to one million dollars.7
Barnett retired in 1994, but remained the head of Atlanta’s School of Ballet. John McFall,
previously the artistic director o f BalletMet in Columbus, Ohio, was Barnett’s successor.
For almost twenty years, McFall danced professionally with the San Francisco Ballet and
had set his choreography on various companies. He added contemporary and modem
dance to Atlanta’s repertory, as well as new full length ballets and world premieres.
McFall trained his ballet dancers to become versatile and diverse in their ability to work in
different dance styles.
In 1996 the Company expanded its commitment to the community by opening the
Centre for Dance Education. It is “dedicated to nurturing young dancers while providing
an outlet for adults to express their creativity through the school’s Open Division
program.”8 Additional programs include a young professionalperforming company,
educational performances and classes in the community’s schools, and an intense summer
program held at Georgia College, State University and Western Carolina University.
With the help o f Executive Director Robert Chumbley, the budget almost doubled
from $3.1 million in 1994/95 to $5.9 million in 1997/98 and its endowment rose to $1.4
million. The Company also moved into a 30,000-square-foot building with five studios,
offices, costume shop, boutique, and box office.9
7Helen C. Smith. “The Atlanta Ballet: Fifty Golden Years.” Dance Magazine. November 1979: 89-94. 8Atlanta Ballet Web Page, 30 May 2000.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28
Davton Ballet
The second oldest regional ballet company is the Dayton Ballet. Josephine and
Hermene Schwarz opened the Schwarz School of the Dance in 1927, and it would
eventually be named the Dayton Ballet SchooL The sisters both studied with Mary
Wigman in Germany. Josephine performed with the Adolph Bolm’s Ballet Imperial and
Ruth Page’s Ravinia Park Ballet as well as with Doris Humphrey and Charles Weidman.
At the end of Josephine’s performing career in 1937, the Experimental Group for
Young Dancers was formed. The group performed works with equal attention to ballet
and modem mostly by Josephine. In 1941 the company changed its name to the Dayton
Civic Ballet. Eighteen years later the Company became a charter member of the Northeast
Regional Ballet Association, a region o f NARB, and in 1974 would host the annual
festival.
In 1978 the Dayton Civic Ballet was renamed the Dayton Ballet. Josephine
Schwarz stepped down as artistic director in 1981. As the new artistic director Stuart
Sebastian created a number o f original ballets for the company until his death in 1990.
James Clouser acted as director for 1990 to 1992 seasons. Finally, in 1992 Dermot Burke
took the position as artistic and executive director. Burke had danced with the JofFery
Ballet and was then artistic director of the American Repertory Ballet in 1980.
His first accomplishment for Dayton was to raise funds for, and set a new
production of The Nutcracker.10 They have a public schools program that is comprised o f
10Jeanne Selma Cohen, Vol. 2:357.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29
nineteen performances and 165 workshops for the children. Dayton Ballet operates on a
$1.92 million budget; has a $400,000 endowment; employs twenty dancers for thirty-three
weeks; and has performed throughout Ohio, Nebraska, Pennsylvania and Canada.11
Kansas Citv Ballet
In the early 1960s Tatiana Dokoudovska began a student company named the
Kansas City Civic Ballet. In 1978 Ron Sequoio became the artistic director and the
Company was renamed the Kansas City Ballet. The organization was soon faced with a
five-figure debt, no school, dropping subscriptions and weak artistic direction. Their name
would change once again to the State Ballet of Missouri under the direction of Todd
Bo lender, who arrived in 1981 to save the group from its demise.
Bo lender danced with Ballet Caravan, Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo, New York
City Ballet and American Ballet Theatre. He created a repertory full of Balanchine's works
along with those by Robbins, d'Amboise and Dollar, as well as his own. Bo lender
established a company school, and in 1991 signed twenty-two dancers to a thirty-five
week contract.12 In 1995 Bolender, retired leaving the Company with a $2.5 million
budget.13
1 'Dermot Burke, Artistic Director, Dayton Ballet. Telephone interview by author, 10 March 2000. I2Marian Horosko. "Kansas City Ballet and the Balanchine Bond, But..." Dance Magazine. October 1991: 69-70. I3Scott Cantrell. "An Uncertain Succession in Kansas City." Dance Magazine. May 1995: 30.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30
Recently, the ballet company returned to its original name, the Kansas City Ballet.
William Whitener is the artistic director and Jeffery J. Bentley executive director. As a
performer, Whitener danced with the Joflrey Ballet, Twyla Tharp and in several Broadway
productions. Before coming to Kansas City Ballet he was the artistic director o f Ballet
Jazz de Montreal and the Royal Winnipeg Ballet. Currently, the Company runs on a $3.1
million annual budget with a $3.4 million endowment. There are twenty-four dancers
working under twenty-five week contracts.14
American Repertory Ballet
Audree Estey founded the Princeton Ballet School (PBS) in 1954 in New
Brunswick, New Jersey. To date it is one of largest nonprofit dance schools in the United
States, serving over 1,200 students beginning at age four. The school, currently under the
direction of Mary Pat Robertson, has studios in Princeton, New Brunswick and Cranbury.
Princeton Ballet II offers performing opportunities for young dancers. Their Career Track,
PLUS Program, and the Professional Training Program offer career guidance and
apprenticeships to American Repertory Ballet. A Cooperative Program with Rider
University and PBS offers students classes for academic credit towards a minor in dance
or to be used as electives.
In 1963 Estey established the Princeton Regional Ballet Company, and they
became members of NARB. Judith Leviton became the company’s executive director,
14Kevin Aemy, General Manager, Kansas City Ballet. Telephone interview by author, 4 April 2000.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31
succeeding Estey. The Company and the School are supported by the Princeton Ballet
Society. After fifteen years in existence, the Company become professional, dropping the
word “regional” from the name. It was not until 1991 that the name American Repertory
Ballet Company (ARB) was adapted, to better identify their artistic image. They produce
work that set them apart, giving them a reputation as non-conformist. They also rarely
restage full length ballets because of their proximity to New York City. ARB’s repertory
includes a mixture o f contemporary and classical works from Balanchine, Tudor, Ailey,
and Parsons.
Dermot Burke was hired as associate director and ballet master in 1980. He
eventually became artistic director, but left in 1992 to go to Dayton Ballet. Marjorie
Mussman replaced him until Septime Webre took her place at the end of 1993.15 A
graduate of the University of Texas, Webre danced with Ballet Austin, ARB and was an
apprentice of the Merce Cunningham Company. He choreographed seventeen ballets for
ARB in a quick, physical style. Webre also oversaw a merger with the Garden State
Ballet; increased the budget to $2.7 million with an endowment under $1 million and the
number of dancers; and expanded the Princeton Ballet School.16
Since 1999 ARB has been under the artistic leadership o f Graham Lustig and
management of Oceola Bragg, managing director. Lustig was a principal dancer with the
Dutch National Ballet and the Birmingham Royal Ballet. He has won numerous awards for
his choreography, and was choreographer-in-resident at the Washington Ballet.
15Barbara Figge Fox. “New Directors in New Jersey.” Dance Magazine. September 1993: 26-27. l6Sarah Kaufman. “Jumping Right In.” The Washington Post 5 May 1999: C l.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32
ARB is the resident dance company at the New Brunswick Cultural Center and
McCarter Theatre in Princeton. It is also the Principal Affiliate o f the New Jersey
Performing Arts Center in Newark. ARB began Dance Power in 1986 as a partnership
agreement with the New Brunswick Board of Education, to offer tuition free movement
classes for public schools beginning in third grade. In 1987 the New Jersey State Council
on the Arts/Department of State named the Company as a Major Arts Institution and gave
them a Citation of Excellence for 1998/2000. They employ twenty-one dancers and tour
extensively throughout the Northeastern states. They have performed internationally,
including a tour to Portugal.17
Houston Ballet
A group of wealthy Houston arts patrons, headed by Mrs. Henry Gates Safford
and Mr. and Mrs. Whitfield Marshall, founded the Houston Ballet Foundation in 1955.
That same year Tatiana Semenova from the Ballet Russe was hired to establish a school
that would train dancers for the Foundation’s professional ballet company. By 1964 school
enrollment was dropping, a company was not yet established and community relations
were unpleasant.
Unsatisfied with Semenova’s progress, the Foundation replaced her with Nina
Popova in 1967. Popova also had a Ballet Russe background and had taught at the New
York School for the Performing Arts. Holgar Linden, assistant artistic director, and
Arnold Mercado, managing director, assisted Popova in building a company,
17American Repertory Ballet Web Page, 30 May 2000.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33
strengthening the school and establishing public relations. By 1969 the Houston Ballet was
established.18
1972 is marked as Houston Ballet's take off year, under the guidance of general
manager Henery Holth. Through .an aggressive advertising campaign, Holth doubled the
budget to $661,000, added a full orchestra for performances and placed each of the
company's twenty-eight dancers on a thirty-two week union contract. The company
thrived artistically as well. James Clouser was named choreographer in-residance, creating
ballets based on the individual talents of the dancers. Nicholas Polajenko developed the
dancers technique when he became ballet master in 1969.19
In 1977 Popova retired as artistic director and Ben Stevenson took the position.
Stevenson trained at the Arts Educational School in London and went on to perform with
Sadler’s Wells Royal Ballet and London Festival Ballet. He came to Houston after serving
as co-director of the National Ballet in Washington, D.C. with Frederic Franklin since
1971. Stevenson mixed British classicism and American modernism in the company, and is
known for his full-length story ballets. In 1989 he brought Sir Kenneth MacMillan to the
company as artistic associate, and Christopher Bruce was titled resident choreographer.
Cecil C. Conner, Jr. joined the Company as managing director in 1995, coming from The
Joffrey Ballet.
According to the budget, the Houston Ballet is the fifth largest company in the
United States. It currently operates on a $9.5 million budget and has a $17.7 million
I8Doris Hering. "What Next, Houston?" Dance Magazine. Febuary 1968:40. >9Suzanne Shelton. "Houston Ballet: Brainchild of a Community." Dance Magazine. 48, 53.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34
endowment, the second largest endowment o f any American ballet company. Due to the
Company’s wealth it is able to employ its forty-seven dancers for forty-four weeks on a
guaranteed contract; 85 percent o f the Ballet's dancers come from the Houston Ballet
Academy. Houston Ballet tours extensively through the United States, United Kingdom,
the Orient, Canada and the Republic of China.20
Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre
Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre grew out of a school, as did most regional ballet
companies. What makes this company unique is that the school was Point Park College.
Nicolas Petrov, founder and faculty member, approached the President of Point Park,
Arthur Blum, as well as arts patron Loti Falk, to help fund his idea. A company comprised
of college students began performing at the school's theater, the Pittsburgh Playhouse,
even before Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre's incorporation in 1969.
Falk was named chairman and Blum vice-chairman o f the Ballet’s board. The
Company rehearsed in the College’s studios, and Company members took courses through
their academic program. Many o f the Company's performances used the musical
accompaniment of The Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra; there was also participation of
guest artist such as Edward Villella, Violette Verdy, Natalia Makarova and Ted Kivitt.
The repertory included works by the Fokine, Massine and Ruth Page.21
In 1974 Petrov asked Frederic Franklin to work with him as co-artistic director.
“ Houston Ballet Web Site, 30 May 2000.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35
Three years later the Company lost its support from the college. Falk kept the Company
alive, until John Gilpin o f London Festival Ballet took over in 1978; he only stayed for a
short period and Patrick Frantz o f Tucson Ballet took his place. Unfortunately, Frantz’s
choreography was not well received by Pittsburgh audiences.22
In 1982 Patricia Wilde became artistic director. Once principal dancer with the
New York City Ballet, director of the Harkness Ballet School and the American Ballet
Theatre School, she brought with her a wealth of knowledge and talent. She quickly
replaced the old dancers and hired new ones to achieve a higher level of artistry. She
added Balanchine ballets to the repertory. Bruce Wells was hired as resident
choreographer/ballet master in 1989, leaving in 1997. The Ballet grew to thirty-six dancers
with an annual budget o f $7 million in 1998.
In 1989 PBT established an educational outreach program, serving 200 school
districts in the Pennsylvania area. The Company holds classes, performances and lecture
demonstrations for the students. The Pittsburgh Ballet School enrolls 300 students,
offering 12 levels of dance instruction. The PBT School/Schenley High School Program,
makes it possible for talented students to continue high academic study while following an
intensive, professional training program.
Wilde retired and Terrence S. Orr became the new artistic director in 1997. On-
danced with the San Francisco Ballet and American Ballet Theatre. Steven B. Libman has
been the managing director since 1991, after working as the Company's development
220gla Maynard. “Art and Academe the Pittsburgh Ballet and Point Park College.” Dance Magazine. April 1972: 79.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36
director since 1987. The Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre tours extensively throughout western
Pennsylvania, past engagements include performances in Canada, Colorado, Louisiana,
Michigan. North Carolina, and Japan.23
Dance/USA
All six companies are members of Dance/USA, a non-profit national service
organization located in Washington, D.C. Dance/USA was founded in 1982 to serve
ballet, modem, jazz, tap, and ethnic companies, as well as dance presenters, educational
institutions, individuals and other dance affiliated organizations across the country. Their
mission is to “advance the artform of dance by addressing the needs, concerns and
interests o f professional dance. To fulfill this mission, Dance/USA offers a variety o f
programs for its membership and the dance field, as well as works with organizations
within and outside the arts field with whom common goals are shared.'’'24
One of Dance/USA’s goals is to “provide forums for the discussion o f significant
artistic, administrative, governance, educational, audience and funding issues in dance.”
Another is to “promote more effective sharing of information within the field and broader
communication with allied disciplines and professionals.”25 The organization holds two
conferences, the Biennial National Roundtable and Dance Forum. These meetings enable
professionals in the dance field to share their concerns and ideas, and build valuable
relationships.
23 Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre Web Site, 30 May 2000.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37
The existing relationships between the directors involved in each partnership
fostered a trusting environment for the projects to take place. The directors valued the
meetings in which they discussed the planning and implementation of the agreement in
person.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER IV
A PARTNERSHIP PROJECT: BEN STEVENSON’S
DRACULA
Houston Ballet faced its first deficit, an accumulation o f $1 million, in 1993. The
organization instituted financial cutbacks by streamlining production budgets. They
canceled their City Center performances in New York City for two years, along with the
Houston Cullen Contemporary Series for a number o f seasons. The board and
management also began an ambitious private giving campaign that eventually ended the
deficit in 1998. That same year, the Company completed a $2 million challenge grant from
the Brown Foundation and raised $8 million for their endowment.1
When planning for the 1997/98 season in 1995, Stevenson, inspired by the 1931
Bela Lugosi film, suggested a full-length ballet called Dracula. Stevenson initially thought
of creating the ballet years ago for American Ballet Theatre dancer Kevin McKenzie, but
McKenzie’s retirement from the stage put the ballet on hold. Tim O’Keefe, one of
Houston’s own dancers, inspired Stevenson to finally create the production. “He had the
chutzpah needed for the part,”2 Stevenson said. The hundredth anniversary o f Bram
Stroker’s novel was in 1997, and the ballet used this additional press coverage to
'Marene Gust in. “Houston Ballet Creates Endowment for Touring.” Dance Magazine. October 1998:32. 2Deborah Knox. “Grave Dancers Reunion.” City Paper. October 1997.
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39
its advantage.
It was also in 1995 that Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre (PBT) was facing financial issues
which culminated in 1996 during their twenty-fifth anniversary season. The Company’s
performance season consisted of mostly restaging past repertoire because they could only
afford one or two new works per season.
At a 1995 Dance/USA convention Cecil C. Conner, Houston Ballet’s managing
director, discussed the Dracula concept with Steven Libman, the managing director of
PBT. This was the first step in seeing how the two companies could form a partnership to
produce and perform this proposed ballet. A personal relationship existed between the
directors of the two companies, and was strengthened when Stevenson set his version of
Cinderella on PBT in 1996. The next step was for each company to see how they could
share in the finances needed to createDracula. Libman explained that the “foundation of
forming the partnership was the trust that existed between the managing and artistic
directors of the two organizations, the personal trust. From a qualitative standpoint, the
quality of the dancers was quite similar.”3
Neither o f the companies had ever participated in a partnership agreement before.
Erica Tollefson, the assistant to the managing director for Houston, explained that by
doing the partnership the “two companies were able to pool their resources to make a
production more grandiose because the budget was larger. They were able to spend more
[money] on the costumes and sets and more time on the choreography. More publicity
3Seven Libman, Executive Director, Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre. Telephone interview by author: 20 March 2000.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40
was generated because the production was performed in two cities with essentially two
premieres.”4
It was agreed that Stevenson was the main artistic visionary of the project; PBT
supported his vision, but did not contribute to the creative process. Stevenson created the
story line and choreography. He also hired the conductor to arrange the musical score, as
well as the costume, set and lighting designers. PBT was instrumental in financing a
portion of the production, taking on a role equivalent to that of private funder. Each
Company evenly shared the $600,000 in production costs: ballet licensing, costume
construction and designer fee, scenery, musical arrangement, and lighting designer fee.
Dracula cost a total o f $1 million and Houston covered all of the cost overruns because
the ballet was created and premiered in Houston.5
Initially both companies experienced difficulty in generating sponsorship from new
funders for the project. Libman explains that they were receptive to the partnership
concept, but attributes the lack of giving to the restricted funding pool. “National funders
are interested in a major bang for their buck. You can only do that with a huge National
tour or with television and movies. It is hard to do with a limited run in two cities.”6 It was
not until after Houston toured Dracula that Houston received additional monetary
support.
Stevenson choreographed the ballet based on the Bela Lugosi film. Act I begins
with Count Dracula and eighteen of his possessed brides dancing and flying about
4Erica Tollefcon, Assistant to the Managing Director, Houston Ballet. Telephone interview by author: 15 March 2000. sIbid. 6Ibid.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41
Dracula’s castle. Dracula’s henchman, Renfieki, has captured Flora, a village girl, to
satisfy Dracula’s thirst for blood. Under Dracula’s powers Flora is transformed into one of
his brides. Act II takes place in the village where the townspeople are celebrating with folk
dances the marriage o f the innkeeper’s daughter, Svetlana, to Fredrick, a young
townsperson. Dracula rides into town in his horse drawn coach, captures Svetlana and
takes her to his castle. The townspeople plot an attack on Dracula. During Act III, in the
evil depths of the Count’s bedroom, Svetlana foils in and out o f a trance that Dracula
created. Eventually, the townspeople storm the castle, killing Dracula and destroying his
evil empire; Svetlana and Fredrick are together once again.7
John Lanchberry was hired to arrange the musical score. He used Franz Liszt’s
Dance of Death variations to create the mood and tone of the ballet. Lanchberry said “this
leads to an unearthly quality useful for my purpose in piecing together the score. Listz’s
earlier, simpler romantic music was perfect for the [village scenes].”* Lanchberry had been
the conductor for the Sadler’s Wells Theatre Ballet, The Royal Ballet and American Ballet
Theatre; his work included compositions for various ballets, television programs and films
such as Turning Point. Lanchberry had arranged other scores for the Houston Ballet.
Judanna Lynn, previously a San Francisco Opera Ballet dancer, designed the
costumes for the forty-eight cast members; including Dracula’s elaborate bat winged cape.
Her past experience included costume designs for ballet companies throughout the United
States, including Don Quixote for Houston Ballet. As a painter, her works have been
7 The Kennedy Center.“D racula” The Kennedy Center Staeebill. Washington, D.C.: Fred B. Tarter, March 2000, 19A. 'Deborah Knox.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42
displayed in New York City’s Rizzoli and Miniatura Galleries, and at the Philadelphia
Museum of Fine Art. With an extensive background in art history, Lynn researched the
works of German Romanticist Caspar David Friedrich, and late nineteenth-century
painters Burne-Jones and Puvis de Chavannes, along with Art Nouveau and Symbolist
artists. These investigations formed the basis for her designs.
A majority of the costumes were constructed by a team of seventeen in London
under the supervision o f Carol Lingwood.9 They arrived in Houston 95 percent finished
for minor adjustments. The elaborate costumes used a variety o f fabrics, costing as much
as $100 per yard. Costumes were made to fit the Houston dancers, and additional
costumes were made for PBT when needed.
The scenic designer was Houston’s own production manager Thomas Boyd, who
has held the position since 1985. Boyd designed an eerie bat-winged scrim surrounded by
bare, twisted trees and dark shadows. Dracula’s coffin floats across the stage through
dense fog, until it transforms into a staircase for the Brides to enter. The village scene in
Act II is set in the valley against a backdrop of mountains and Dracula’s castle. Traditional
European houses lined the perimeter of the stage, and gnarled trees reached over the top.
Dracula’s coach, a four-wheeled hearse, was drawn by two grayish, skeleton horses. The
scene in Dracula’s bedroom contained a moving canopy bed. Boyd said the room was
“reminiscent of a decaying bordello, with opulent, tattered crimson drapes and a dripping,
9The Kennedy Center, 29C-30A.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43
gilded chandelier, this is a kind o f vampire Purgatory.”10 Dancers flew and levitated
through the air with the assistance of Flying by Foy, a company bases in Los Angeles.
Stevenson hired Timothy Hunter to design the lighting for the ballet. For twelve
years Hunter was the resident designer for Alvin Ailey American Dance Theatre; he has
also worked on Broadway shows and with a number o f dance, opera and theater
companies. He had been the lighting designer for two o f Houston Ballet’s past
productions. Hunter wanted to give the audience the “sense that the picture is turned a
little to the side, that there is a perspective shift...it’s about what lurks in the shadows.”11
He used dark blues and purples for shadows contrasted with piercing yellow candlelight.
Houston Ballet premiered Dracula on March 13, 1997 in the Brown Theater at
The Wortham Center in Houston, Texas. A review inD^nre Magazinedescribed the
production as the “last word on magnificent spectacle.”
Most o f Stevenson’s choreography is fresh and imaginative, particularly the increasingly ecstatic pas de deux, Dracula’s feverish solos, and the manic forays by Renfield across the floor. Less successful are the village dances (obviously meant to recall a Giselle-like pastoral wholesomeness, but which are rather ordinary) and the set pieces for the brides. These last are fascinating for their characterization of the brides...but the set pieces are too long and foil to advance the action. Adding to the splendor are wonderfully atmospheric costumes, sets, and lighting.12
Houston’s ticket sales doubled their projected income and performances were
added in Houston. In July 1997 a national tour began with performances of Dracula at the
Los Angeles Music Center. The tour continued in Washington, D.C., at the Kennedy
Center in October, and in November they went to Durham, North Carolina, and Columbia
10Amy L Siingerland. ‘Dance Macabre, Houston Ballet presents The Voluptuous Horror of Dracula.” TCI New York. April 1997: 28-31. "Ibid. 12 Margaret Putnam. “National Reviews: Houston Ballet.” Dance Magazine. July 1997: 62.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44
and Charleston, South Carolina.13 The 1998/99 touring season consisted of engagements
to Minneapolis, Minnesota; Amarillo, Texas; Tucson and Phoenix, Arizona; Toronto,
Canada; and Iowa City, Iowa.14 The Company performed Dracula in the Sha Tin Town
Hall Auditorium in Hong Kong, as well as returning visits to the Kennedy Center and The
Bass Concert Hall in Austin and a new engagement in Fort Lauderdale, Florida for the
1999/2000 season.15
Houston's 1993 deficit reduced their touring schedule; an extensive national tour
including a number o f cities had not occurred since 1989.16 In 1991 a performance was
held at the Kennedy Center followed by a residency in Los Angles the next year. The
Company engaged in an international tour to China in 1995.17 Houston sawD raculathe
production as a spectacular vehicle for a new touring initiative. The 1997/98 tour was the
first extensive one in eight years. Conner explained that they “budgeted $675,000 for
touring expenses and $640,000 in [touring] income for 1997/98. We made up the shortfall
through donations.”18
Houston spent $400,000 for the engagement in Los Angeles, but the sold out
performances generated national grant money and they were able to add other cities. As a
result of the 1997/98 touring success o f Dracula. Houston introduced a new concept for
covering touring expenses. A lead gift of $500,000 from Texan Fayez Sarofim established
l3Paul Ben-Itzak, ed. “Hotline.” Dance Magazine. October 1997: 33. u Marene Gustin. ‘Touring.” 15Houston Ballet Web Site, 30 May 2000.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45
a touring endowment for the organization that would generate additional touring income
from the endowment’s interest.19
PBT premiered Dracula in Pittsburgh on October 3, 1997 at the Benedum Center,
followed by six sold out performances, with people continuing to wait in line at the box
office. The Dracula partnership became extremely important to PBT in fulfilling one o f the
requirements to develop alliances within Pittsburgh, and the national dance community as
stated in their strategic plan.Dracula was the only new ballet for the Company in the
1997/98 season. If the partnership had not occurred, PBT would not have been able to
afford the production.20
The Company performed the ballet again in Pittsburgh during October 1999.
Libman explained that “many people thought it was a Broadway show because it was so
big. [The partnership] allowed us to create a product we would not have been able to
afford ourselves; except for Nutcracker there has not been a ballet that has sold as well as
Dracula.”21
Jane Vranish from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described Stevenson as a “master
of marketable balletic concepts.” She commented on the impressive sets and costumes, but
explained that the longevity of a production is determined by the choreography.
“Stevenson’s choreography all looks vaguely familiar and decidedly formulaic...The [third
19 Marene Gustin. “Touring.” 20 Jane Varnish. “At Pittsburgh Ballet, Money is the Trump Card When Finance Battles Dance.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 23 September 1998. 21 Steven Libman.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46
act] is the only act that maintains a cohesive dramatic flow that is not interrupted by long
passages of unrelated choreography.”22
The greatest downside to the agreement was that PBT lost the momentum to
extensively tour the production. In the agreement, PBT and Houston geographically
sectioned off the Country into touring areas. Touring venues were also determined based
on exclusivity. For example, Houston had an existing relationship with the Kennedy
Center and therefore they performed there as opposed to the closer PBT. Libman
attributes the problem to “presenters being able to come in and see the first company
doing [the production] and then it is very difficult for one to tour the production until you
have actually done it in your own theater.”23
Presenters were able to view Dracula in Houston seven months before the
Pittsburgh premier. Houston Ballet utilized the time and initial excitement to its advantage.
By the time PBT opened Dracula some of the excitement had ceased, and competition for
presenters' commissions had increased due to other companies presenting their own
version of Dracula.24
Stevenson has continued to create elaborate evening-length ballets through
partnership agreements. In March 1998 the Russian fairy tale Snow Maiden opened in
Houston, and American Ballet Theatre25 (ABT) staged the production in May. Prima
22 Jane Varnish. “Hot-Blooded Special Effects Put Some Bite inDracula .” Pittsburgh Post- Gazette. 8 October 1999: A-3. ^Steven Libman. 24By 1999, sixteen different versions of Dracula had been presented by at least twenty ballet companies in Northern America and Europe. Doris Perlman. “Coffins Can Fill Company Offers.” Dance Magazine. October 1999: 86. 25ABT had also participated in a partnership with San Francisco Ballet onOthello in 1997. Marene Gustin. “Spring Thaw: ABT, Houston Ballet to BuildSnow a Maiden.” Dance Magazine. March 1997:33.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47
ballerina o f the Bolshoi Ballet, Nina Anaiashivlli, starred in the lead role for both
Companies.26 The $1.2 million production o fSnow Maiden was created in three acts with
music composed by Tchaikovsky and arranged by John Lanchbery. Tony award winning
designer Desmond Heeley created the sets and costumes, and Duane Schuler was the
lighting designer.27
The story of Cleopatra was Stevenson’s next joint-production, this time between
PBT and Boston Ballet. The three companies paid a third of the $700,000 in accumulated
production costs, a total cost of $1.2 million. The production team that worked on
Dracula (Lanchbery, Boyd and Lynn) reunited for Cleopatra. For this partnership, Libman
said that they “learned how to control some of the expenses and both PBT and Boston
Ballet became involved in constructing the costumes.”28 Houston premiered the
production in March 2000, PBT in October, and Boston in May of the same year.29
Libman believes that this partnership “allowed [the] ballet companies [involved] to
develop concepts that touch a chord within each o f our communities. I think if ballet
wants to survive, a new product must be developed with some ring o f familiarity to it. Our
audiences in surveys viewDracula as a contemporary work even though it is a story
ballet. It advances the art form because it exposes a whole new audience to ballet.”30
Houston Ballet and Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre encourage ballet companies to create new
work under partnership agreements; Houston describes it as a “win, win situation.”31
26Ibid. 27 Margaret Putnam. “Fire and Ice.” Dance Magazine. July 1998: 70. 28 Steven Libman. 29Clive Barnes. “Stevenson’sCleo Sails.” Dance Magazine. June 2000: 66. 30Steven Libman. 3'Erica Tollefeon.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48
Operating in the midst of a deficit, Houston Ballet benefited from the Dracula
partnership by having the additional financial backing of PBT to create a more elaborate
production that was more attractive to the public, presenters and funders. Houston did,
however, incur additional production costs in setting and rehearsal fees, but the impetus
generated from the ballet increased ticket sales and revived the Company’s touring
schedule. The success of Hoston’s touring season gave reason for the administration to
establish a touring endowment to generate additional support.
Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre added to their repertoire a ballet o f grand scale, during a
period when new commissions were scarce for the Company. The complex sets, costumes
and technical aspectsof Dracula made the production a success. PBT was ecstatic with
the amount of revenue generated in their home theater’s box office. As a result of
presenting the production after Houston, PBT did face problems in securing touring
engagements for Dracula. PBT and Houston plan to continue commission new works
through partnership agreements.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER V
A PARTNERSHIP PROJECT: LILA YORK’S
GLORIA
Lila York began a career as a freelance choreographer for ballet companies in the
mid-1980’s. She comes from a modem dance background, but prefers to work with ballet
companies because she feels they are more established, have a greater number o f dancers
and larger audiences than modem companies. York’s style blends the two disciplines
together; her works have been performed by the American Repertory Ballet, Atlanta
Ballet, Boston Ballet, Connecticut Ballet Theatre, Houston Ballet, Pacific Northwest
Ballet, San Francisco Ballet and various European ballet companies, as well as colleges
and universities.1
York was raised in upstate New York and began training in ballet at the age of
thirteen. She graduated from Skidmore College with a degree in literature while studying
modem dance with Paul Sanasardo, the director of the School of Modem Dance in
Saratoga Springs. She studied at the Martha Graham and Alvin Ailey schools in New
York City after graduation. In 1972, York became an understudy dancer o f the Paul
Taylor Dance Company and a company member the succeeding year. She danced in many
of Taylor’s most significant works until she left the company in 1985. York then appeared
'Elizabeth Zimmer. “Lila York: Barnstorming.” Dance Magazine. July 1996: 56-58.
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50
in two of Martha Clarke’s works, Vienna: Lusthaus and The Garden o f Earthly Delights.
York staged Taylor’s works for the San Francisco Ballet, Pittsburgh Ballet
Theatre, and American Ballet Theatre. In 1990 she was the director of a choreographers’
showcase called the Pacific Northwest Ballet Ofistage. York has taught at New York
University and the Juilliard School.
In 1995, York was considered one o f American’s most promising choreographers
alter the premier o f Rapture by the Juilliard Dance Ensemble, that same year she created
Strays and Windhover. In 1996 she created Celts for the Boston Ballet and The American
Variations for the New World School of the Arts in Miami while continuing to stage her
previous works on ballet companies.2
It was also in winter of 1996 that artistic directors William Whitener from the
Kansas City Ballet (KCB, at that time called the State Ballet o f Missouri), Dermot Burke
from Dayton Ballet, Atlanta Ballet’s John McFall, Stoner Winslett o f the Richmond Ballet,
and Kirk Peterson o f the Hartford Ballet were all interested in commissioning York to
create new works for their companies.3 Burke and McFall began discussing the idea of a
partnership agreement amongst the companies. Burke recalls adapting the idea from opera
companies, which have been engaging in partnerships since the mid-sixties.4 While large
ballet companies had been commissioning new work under a partnership agreement, this
2Taryn Benbow-Pfalzgraf, ed. International Dictionary of modem Dance. Detroit: St. James Press, 1998, 844-847. 3Kevin Aemy, General Manager, Kansas City Ballet. Telephone interview by author, 4 April 2000. 4Dermot Burke, Artistic Director, Dayton Ballet. Telephone interview by author, 10 March 2000.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51
was one of the first for mid-sized dance companies.5 Martin Cohen, then executive
director of KCB, explained that:
many repertory companies are committed to creating new work, but they have difficulty in being able to afford an ongoing influx o f new work into their repertory, particularly the commissioning of new work. The costs of choreographers’ fee, scenery, costumes, and the lighting all add up, so it becomes difficult to do that on a regular basis. Being able to spread those costs among a number o f companies can be extremely helpful.6
It was not until the 1996 Dance/USA conference in Los Angeles that the directors
were able to meet face to face to discuss the partnership agreement. York spoke to
Septime Weber, at that time the artistic director o f the American Repertory Ballet (ARB),
about the partnership idea. Weber, who was interested in commissioning her as well,
explained that York is a “good friend and colleague o f mine and to all of the partners
involved. We found that we were all talking to Lila about works for the upcoming year.
Lila could not take on all the work and she suggested she do one work for all o f [the
companies]. We knew that some o f the big ballet companies had been doing this.”7
A correspondence slowly began between the companies through 1997. Cohen tried
to steer the project. Richmond Ballet never really became a part of the partnership and
Hartford Ballet eventually dropped out due to financial issues. Dayton and ARB both felt
sIn 1992 the Atlanta Ballet and Cleveland San Jose Ballet collaborated on several productions in which the companies' dancers were exchanged. In 1993, forSwan Lake, sets and costumes were shared as well. Dayton Ballet and ARB have also exchanged costumed and sets for various productions. Janet Greenhill. “Atlanta Ballet and Cleveland San Jose Ballet Join Forces.” Dance Magazine. April 1993: SI- 53. 6Martin Cohen, Executive Director, Washington Ballet. Telephone interview by author, 12 May 2000. 7Septime Weber, Artistic Director, Washington Ballet. Telephone interview by author, IS June 2000.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. they could not have afforded the commission without the financial backing from the other
companies. Atlanta and KCB would have probably paid for the commission on their own,
but saw the cost effectiveness o f doing the partnership as a bonus. A rough framework of
the agreement was established by the time Cohen announced his departure from KCB.
By May 1998, it was decided that the project would be done during the 1998/99
season. The companies had planned when York would set the piece, and when they would
perform the work, but the actual terms of the partnership were not determined until the
Summer 1998 Dance/USA conference in Charleston, South Carolina. York and the
directors of each company involved discussed the project in detail. Those directors
involved were McFall from Atlanta Ballet, Burke from Dayton Ballet, and ARB’s Weber
and managing director Harry Ferris, along with Whitener and general manager Kevin
Amey from KCB.
In the months that followed the meeting, Amey took on the administrative
leadership of the project. He placed numerous phone calls, ironing out the logistics with
the approval of York and the directors.8 On September 1, 1998, almost two years after the
initial idea, the contract was signed. York signed the contract nine days later when she
was creating the piece on Atlanta Ballet.
She created a piece for fourteen dancers, inspired by her mother Nema Geer, titled
Gloria. York said she “wanted to do a sacred piece but in a more contemporary way, a
way that’s more relevant to real life.. .My mother, the thread o f the piece, is this central
®Kevin Amey, Interview.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53
figure who is sort o f larger than life... the eye of the hurricane.”9 York used Francis
Poulenc's musical score, also titled Gloria.
York, as stated in the contract, created the work on the Atlanta Ballet with
assistant Andrea Weber from September 8 - 27. McFall insisted that the ballet be created
on the Atlanta Ballet for personal reasons. The company was the largest of the four with a
$5.9 million annual budget, so they were able to account for any cost overruns. Andrea
then set the work on ARB, October 4 - 23, and premiered the work on October 24.
Assistant Nancy Jordan set the work on KCB, November2-15, for their premier on
February 18, 1999. Andrea returned to Atlanta on March 20 to stage the ballet for their
premiere five days later. Jordan set York’s work on Dayton Ballet for their May 2000
premiere.10 The companies and York agreed that she would:
grant the right to each company to perform the work for a period of five years from the date o f the first public performance by each company. During the first three years o f this five-year period, the choreographer shall not license the work to any other company other than the companies without written permission from all the companies.11
York was paid a total of $16,000 ($4,000 by each company) for her services. One-
third of $4,000 was paid when each company signed the contract, another third after the
rehearsals of the work were completed for each company, and a final third after the first
performance by each company. The companies agreed to pay a $100 fee in performance
royalties to York after the second year of the first performance. The contract also
9Karyn D. Collins. “American Rep: a Troupe in Transition.” Asburv Park Press. 18 October 1998. l0Kevin Amey. Schedule A - to Agreement for Lila York Project 1998-99 & 1999-2000. Kansas City: Kansas City Ballet, 27 August 1998. 1 ‘Kevin Amey. Choreographer’s Contract: Lila York Project. Kansas City: Kansas City Ballet, 27 August 1998.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54
explained that:
The companies shall split evenly all costs associated with the original setting o f the ballet by choreographer, at first sight, Atlanta Ballet, which appear in Schedule B of this Agreement. The costs include round-trip coach airfare (or other mode o f round-trip transportation) from choreographer’s place of residence to Atlanta, and all hotel accommodations. Companies also agrees to provide for the choreographer’s expenses as follows: per diem o f $30 per day including travel days, and reimbursement of transportation costs to and from the airport and studio. Costs other than fees for the stagers at each company will be the sole responsibility o f each company.'2
York’s travel, hotel, per diem and miscellaneous costs accumulated in Atlanta
equaled $3,070. Costume and lighting designer fees and expenses were split among the
four companies as well. The costume designer fee was a total o f $3,000, and expenses
accrued in Atlanta equaled $ 1,445. The costs for the lighting designer in New Jersey at
ARB were a $4,825 fee and $1,445 in expenses. York’s ballet did not call for a set, so no
designer fees were incurred.
Additional shared fees included the payment o f each o f York’s assistants, the
stagers. Andrea was paid $2,000 for her work with Atlanta Ballet and $2,250 for setting
the piece on ARB. Jordan was paid for setting the work on KCB and Dayton, a total of
$3,000 each time.
A joint bank account was established, to be managed by Amey and KCB, for
paying all of the fees. By September 8, 1999, each partner deposited $8,518.75 into the
State Ballet of Missouri Special Project Production Account. A written request was
required for the amount o f the shared expense(s) due from the individual company to be
l2Ibid.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55
paid to the artist(s). Expenses that were not shared under the partnership agreement
included the:
individual responsibility for all costs o f stagers, other than fees, as well as, all expenses in connection with the normal preparation and presentation of the work, including but not limited to: music license(s) and royalties, music production expenses, fees and expenses for settings, costumes, and any other costs incurred in this production.13
According to the 1998 estimated project budget, which did not account for in-kind
gifts, Atlanta Ballet paid an additional $4,360 and ARB $3,960 for Andrea’s travel, hotel,
per diem and miscellaneous costs. KCB’s estimated expenses equaled $3,520 and Dayton
$3,120 for Jordan’s accommodations. The costs o f music licensing and royalties varied
between each company. KCB and Atlanta accrued an average of $2,050 because they
performed to live music with a chorus, both ARB and Dayton danced to taped music. Two
sets of costumes were constructed, dubbed the “short set” by ARB and the “tall” set by
Atlanta. ARB and Atlanta paid $1,500 each to make and own a set. KCB rented the
costumes from ARB for half their cost, and Dayton rented from Atlanta.
The total shared costs for the ballet were $40,035, each company paid $10,008.75.
The total for each company, not including the music licensing, equaled $15,900 for
Atlanta, $15,500 for ARB, $14,300 for KCB, and $13,900 for Dayton; a total of
$59,600.14 The savings for each company were not as enormous as originally expected,
due to the additional expenses for travel in staging the work. Instead of paying only a
quarter of the costs the companies spent about half of what a sole production would cost,
l3Ibid. uKevin Amey. Schedule B - to Agreement for Lila York Project 1998-99&. 1999-2000. Kansas City: Kansas City Ballet, 27 August 1998.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56
an expense between $27,000 to $30,000. Ultimately, however, the agreement was
beneficial.
The possibility of applying for funding together was discussed, but never followed
through. Burke feels that the time constraints during the planning period led to the missed
opportunity.15 Robert Chumbley, the executive director from Atlanta, feels that funders
are interested in the idea because a partnership relates to the business practices that
corporations are more accustomed to dealing with. Separately, Atlanta applied for NEA
funding, but was not granted an award.16 Weber explained that after the project each of
the companies were able to use the partnership as a granting tool. “ARB went to new and
regular funders and talked about ARB’s position in the dance world as being a visionary.
We cited that we ganged together with these other ballet companies to commission this
work from Lila, as a part o f the collaborative efforts we were pursuing.”17
The reviews after ARB performed the first premier o f York’s work were positive.
A New Jersey paper said that “the work’s formal composition reached exceptional heights
of sensitivity, and York blended her corps passages with great skill. The work should
make a fine addition to the repertories of the four companies that have co-commissioned
it.” The review described the works meaning as “pain and redemption. The atmosphere for
the most part, remained lachrymose, with figures tensed and bodies curled in beds of
l5Dermot Burke. 16Robert Chumbley, Executive Director, Atlanta Ballet. Telephone interview by author, 7 March 2000. l7Septime Weber.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57
anguish on the floor. In their midst, a female figure elevated by the use of point shoes
stretched out her arms, offering hope to struggling humanity.”18
The companies envisioned touring issues as a potential problem, but it was
understood that each company would respect the other’s home city and touring territory.
None of the partners’ past touring locations had crossed paths, so it was not a problem.
The companies did not extensively tour Gloria. KCB performed it at a couple locations in
Missouri, including two area colleges where they collaborated with the music department
for live accompaniment. Out of ARB’s eight-week touring schedule, Gloria was
performed in three or four cities. Atlanta’s most recent performance of York’s work was
January 29 - 30, 2000, at Kennesaw State University. Other performances have occurred
around the Atlanta area. Chumbley commented that by doing a partnership with many
companies, the work does essentially tour as it is performed by each company.19
Burke also sees the benefits of doing a partnership project as going beyond the
initial financial savings. He feels that:
The opportunity to do top tier work gives the company credibility. In order to advance the art form a company must have a repertory o f its time and the past to set standards o f good art in their community. Communities and dancers are missing out on pieces that are too expensive. As a young dancer I toured all over the country, but now ballet companies are not touring due to financial restraints and are getting settled in their communities. Ballet companies are doing series performances o f five or six shows to save money, and not touring. The general public has no idea of what they are missing, as the art form evolves the public needs to see the work. Lila saw the partnership as an opportunity to get her work out to larger audience.20
,8Robert Johnson.“Billy the K id Rides Tall as Troupe Opens Season.” The Star-Ledeer. 25 October 1998:27. 1’Robert Chumbley, Kevin Amey, Martin Cohen, Septime Weber, Interviews. 20Dermot Burke.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58
Cohen believes that:
What makes it more successful is the choreography itself, the life beyond one company. It is extremely important to the dance world that these artist have their work seen by a number of audiences. The choreographer had a work created for many companies at once, exposed it to audiences across the country and had a life beyond only that of the repertory evening. Sure a work can be successful if commissioned by one company, but it would not have the life it would have and it would cost someone a great deal more money to do it. Each company was able to create and commission a new work that had a broad impact for a significantly less cost than if they did it themselves.21
York was able to take advantage of having her piece performed by four companies
across the country. Her main priority is in getting her work out, but she felt that “it was a
bigger advantage for the companies than it was for me. My work gets licensed to a
number of companies anyway; Rapture has been licensed out with nine companies now. I
kind o f gave them a deal, instead of being paid the four times I was paid once. I just like to
make it possible for companies to do my work and this was a situation where they really
could benefit from that.”22
Overall the agreement was a positive experience and each of the companies plans
to pursue partnership projects in the future. The directors did feel the planning process
was more complex than they had anticipated. Cohen explained “we had to create the
process as we went along.”23 Amey felt the “project came together haphazardly because
Martin’s focus had been pulled away from this project and no one really picked up the ball
when he left. I naively volunteered and slammed it together.”24 Burke describes the poor
planning as a nightmare and suggests moving the pre-planning process up six to nine
21 Martin Cohen. ^Lila York, Choreographer. Telephone interview by author, 18 May, 2000. ^Martin Cohen. 24 Kevin Amey, Interview.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59
months.25 Chumbley, in order to minimize communication problems, would decrease the
number of partners.26
York also found difficulties in creating a new work for four companies with
different technical abilities and styles. York is accustomed to creating pieces for specific
dancers within a specific company, utilizing their individual talents. When she licenses out
a work, she is able to custom fit a part for a dancer during the restaging process. ‘It is not
that other dancers can’t do the movement, but it is not going to be a hand in glove fit the
way it was on the person I made it for.”27 When creating Gloria she had to keep in mind
the differences o f the dancers in the four companies:
With Gloria it was a big group, so the movement was more generic. I had to make movement that I felt a lot o f them could do, that was in my head as I was making it. This had to go on a lot o f different bodies. I did it in soft shoes, except for the lead woman I had on point. The lead guy had to do some pretty heavy duty contemporary stuff and you can usually find one guy that has some experience with it. It pretty much worked and I was happy overall.28
Regardless o f difficulties, Chumbley would like to see Atlanta Ballet involved in a
partnership for a full length ballet.29 Cohen and Weber, who are now directors at the
Washington Ballet in Washington, D.C., are involved in three partnerships that will
premiere in 2001: Peter Pan a full length children’s ballet choreographed by Weber in
partnership with the Cincinnati Ballet, a work by Australian choreographer Stanton Welsh
that includes Cincinnati Ballet, Fort Worth Ballet, Tulsa Ballet Theater, and another large
25Dermot Burke. 26Robert Chumbley. 27Lila York. 28Ibid. 29Robert Chumbley.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60
scale work by Weber, which is still in negotiations, as a partnership between the
Washington Ballet, Fort Worth Ballet, Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre, and Ballet Memphis/0
30Septime Weber.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER VI
ANALYSIS
Ballet companies are using partnerships as a solution to the growing costs of
commissioning, performing and touring new work during a climate o f funding changes.
Partnership agreements allow companies to continue presenting new work by acclaimed
choreographers, while reducing financial costs. Weber believes that the strain on company
resources has led them to form these alliances:
Partnerships have formed in response to many fiscal crises experienced by ballet companies all around the country particularly in the early nineties, which were very difficult years for a lot o f ballet companies: the NEA in crises, corporations downsizing and completely rethinking how they were dealing with philanthropic dollars and a downward shift in individual giving. We are still facing philanthropic dollars going away, as well as kind o f the end o f the dance boom o f the 1970’s and 1980’s. The dance boom dwindled and as a result ballet companies have had to become a lot more entrepreneurial. Partnerships are a way that ballet directors can commission new work and ensure the viability of the art form by contributing to a growth in repertory for half the price.1
Company directors realized that they were all dealing with similar challenges.
Although each ballet company is unique in itself, they are all presenting ballet productions.
By joining together in sponsoring a new work, they advance the art form throughout the
1 Septime Weber. Artistic Director, Washington Ballet. Telephone interview by author. 15 June 2000.
61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62
entire country.2 Cohen believes that partnerships “are more than a trend, they are a shift in
how companies are operating.”3
Many opera companies have been producing works under joint agreements since
the 1960s, but have experienced problems with artistic differences and difficulties in
sustaining a company’s individual identity. Joan Jeffri, in her book Arts Money, discusses
the problems that coincide with partnerships among opera companies:
The difficulty in a company developing a personal style, using sets and concepts originally designed to accommodate a number o f different theaters,.. .competition, local pride, problems o f making financial commitments more than a year ahead and of production ownership and maintenance. [The] financial considerations often leave the company no choice to share a production o f a specific work or not to perform the work at all.4
Opera companies have found that by bring in different partners for each production
their identity can remain intact. Amey commented that the threat of an identity crises for
ballet companies is minimal, explaining that:
The dance world is different than the opera and theater world. The theater world is about uniqueness; I don’t know that the dance world is. Dance is not unique by company necessarily, but by choreographer. If you are doing Balanchine’s Serenade, then you are doing Balanchine’s Serenade, you are not doing the Kansas City Ballet’s version of Serenade. It is not permissible. I think because o f the nature of dance and what dance is, it is the center of the choreographer not the company, that which everything revolves around.5
Weber agrees with Amey in that the loss of autonomy should not be a concern for
2Dermot Burke, Artistic Director, Dayton Ballet. Telephone interview by author, 10 March 2000. JMartin Cohen. Executive Director, Washington Ballet. Telephone interview by author, 12 May 2000. 4 Joan Jeffri. Arts Money: Raising It. Saving It. and Earning It. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983: 194. 5Kevin Amey, General Manager, Kansas City Ballet. Telephone interview by author, 4 April 2000.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63
directors. “My biggest concern is the Washington, D.C. market. Wonderful works like
Balanchine’s Serenade or Petipa’s Swan Lake can be performed all over the world and
remain fresh. Generally these [partnership] agreements include clauses to exclusivity in
home markets, so that answers that potential concern.”6
Touring concerns were addressed through these exclusivity clauses, each company
agreeing to perform in certain cities based on past touring history and geographical
location. In then ra c n lapartnership, it was found that the first company to perform the
work gained a time advantage in booking national touring engagements later. Although
companies are not touring as much as in the past, partnerships have provided the
opportunity for the work to tour.
Hartford Ballet did encounter problems with investing $8,500 in the Lila York
project early in the planning stages, and eventually had to drop out of the project. PBT
also saw this as a major difference in participating in partnerships as opposed to a sole
company commission. Companies that are dealing with moderate financial concerns during
the time of the initial agreement can in fact prosper from the total dollars saved, if the high
starting costs are manageable for the organization. Companies that are facing critical
financial issues may not be able to work under partnership agreements due to the funds
needed up front.
Chumbley cautions companies to be aware o f the big financial picture. Additional
expenses incurred in doing the partnership such as the travel expenses for obtaining the
6Septime Weber.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64
costumes, sets and choreography for each company, could destroy a project budget.7 The
company that performs the work first, incurs additional production costs for extra
rehearsal and theater time. Cohen advises companies entering into a partnership to ‘"ask
questions and understand ownership issues. How are setting costs and design and
construction costs being shared? Who gets the original opportunity to have the work
created on the company and which companies is it set on? One company will take the lead.
g These issues have to be worked out and communication is the key.”
Amey stresses the importance of forming an administrative commitment early in
the planning stages, and the value o f face to face meetings. “Dance/USA provided
opportunities for those meeting and they were important.” Libman feels that a successful
agreement results from the “absolute trust and development o f a close relationship with
your partners. You must decide from the beginning that there is one artistic vision for a
project, every partner cannot have an artistic vision. They can share in the vision, but you
cannot have three choreographers on one show.”10
York found it difficult to oversee her work when it was dispersed among many
companies, and assistants were involved. She was unable to set the work on each
company and see each company premiere because of time constraints. When creating the
7 Robert Chumbley, Executive Director, Atlanta Ballet. Telephone interview by author, 7 March 2000. g Martin Cohen. 9Kevin Amey. <0Steven Libman, Executive Director, Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre. Telephone interview by author. 20 March 2000.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65
work, York had to take into consideration the dancers’ differences and could not
choreograph movement for a particular individual.11
There are also differences in forming a partnership to commission a full-length
work or a one-act ballet, as well as commissioning an independent choreographer or
having an artistic director create the work. Weber, who has commissioned both one act
and full-length works as joint-productions, feels that foil length ballets are created on a
'"greater scale, with more complicated scenic elements and a much larger budget, so it
makes it more challenging to negotiate.”12
The negotiations may be more of a challenge, but the savings for a foil length
ballets are also greater. York feels that:
in a situation where the costs of mounting a foil length ballet are so high partnerships are beneficial, but for a one act ballet, big companies really don’t need to do that. What it means for the choreographer, for me, is that I get paid once instead of getting paid twice, or as in [the Gloria partnership] four times. I think it is something you only do if the circumstances and the costs of the project are warranted, that is the prime motivation. If you are looking at doing a very expensive project you probably need a collaborator, to make that work. If I had an idea for a full length I might approach more than one company, but ordinarily not.13
Having the artistic director of one of the partnership companies create the work
makes a difference as well. Artistic directors are paid a salary for their services to their
company, which includes creating new works. In a partnership agreement, the
choreographic fee for the artistic director of the company is waived and the other
1 !Lila York, Choreographer. Telephone interview by author, 18 May 2000. 12Septime Weber. 13Lila York.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66
partner(s) pay only a percentage. Weber explained that for Peter Pan his fee was “figured
separately into the agreement. Essentially, the Washington Ballet receives the work for
free and Cincinnati Ballet is paying half the rate. It is cheaper and makes all the difference
in the world.”14 In this case, Weber received half of his customary choreographic fee, but
still earned his artistic director salary.
For independent choreographers, a partnership agreement means they are paid only
once to create a work for several companies, which equals a reduction in their total
potential earnings if each company had hired them individually. According to York, a
major choreographer’s fee runs between $20,000 and $30,000 for a one-act ballet. A new,
up and coming choreographer will create a one act piece for only $3,000. Most ballet
companies can afford this and, therefore, do not need to form a partnership for the
commission, but run the risk o f owning a limited repertory. York, whose total fee between
the four companies was $16,000 for Gloria, does not think that many top choreographers
would be interested in a joint commission:
You can do it with a full length because the choreographer is still earning $100,000 dollars out of a million dollar production. If you are not talking about a foil length, with most choreographers you have to make it worth their while. You can’t just say we are going to split your fee, we are going to divide your fee by five, instead o f being paid five times what you should get. I probably would have made $100,000 dollars onGloria had they all been separate contracts.15
When commissioned to create a one act ballet, independent choreographers need
to weigh the benefits o f having their work shown by many companies in different cities for
a lesser fee, or earning a greater sum, but for fewer commissions. Ballet companies are
14 Septime Weber. *5Lila York.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67
resorting to partnership agreements partly because a performance of one-act, mixed
repertory works, generally breaks even or results in a loss of income. With the added
changes in federal and private funding, the number o f commissions has decreased.
Independent choreographers have also experienced a challenge in getting exposure and
becoming established, due to the reduction in company touring. The willingness to
participate in a partnered commission will depend on the goals and needs of the
choreographer.
Difficulties were also seen in the number o f partners involved in a single-
partnership project. Chumbley felt that four partners was too many, and this led to
communication and organizational issues. Weber believes that the complexity of the
partnership is in the number of partners, as opposed to whether the production is a foil
length or a one act. “When it is two companies involved it is much simpler and a stronger
relationship is formed. Four companies is about as many as I would want to pursue, its
more o f a function o f time.” 16 For the choreographer though, additional companies
investing in a joint commission could result in increased earnings. York explained that
when Hartford Ballet exited the agreement, her fee was reduced.17
Weber believes that “partnerships are the future. It is one o f the ways in which
artistic directors can be entrepreneurial, and find ways to achieve our goals when faced
with the reality o f diminishing development or growth with rising costs.”18 There are many
16Septime Weber. I7Lila York. 18 Ibid.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68
complexities; planning, number of partners, touring, up front investments, additional
production expenses that otherwise would be non-existent, cuts in choreographers’ fees,
and owning a product created for a number o f companies instead o f utilizing the unique
qualities o f a company.
Although the future o f the art form and the environment in which it exists is
unpredictable, partnerships are a workable solution for creating new works. This study has
shown that amidst the structural and funding changes of the NEA, along with the shifts in
private giving, midsize companies are able to enhance their repertories by commissioning
top choreographers for a lower cost. Larger ballet companies are able to appeal to
audiences by creating works that contain extravagant costumes, scenery and technical
aspects.
Partnerships are advancing the art from in that they provide a larger potential
audience in various venues for a single ballet production at a more affordable price, during
a short period o f time. New and/or lavish works have the potential to serve the existing
audience, as well as cultivate new members. Even though a reduced fee is earned, a
choreographer gains greater exposure and credibility, which may be a benefit o f equal
value that could generate future commissions; company commissions would increase due
to the decrease in production costs. Partnership agreements are recommended for
companies in search o f new strategies to secure economic health, audience visibility and
artistic advancement.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Interviews
Aemy, Kevin, General Manager, Kansas City Ballet. Telephone interview by author, 4 April 2000.
Burke, Dermot, Artistic Director, Dayton Ballet. Telephone interview by author, 10 March 2000.
Chumbley, Robert, Executive Director, Atlanta Ballet. Telephone interview by author, 7 March 2000.
Cohen, Martin, Executive Director, The Washington Ballet. Telephone interview by author, 12 May 2000.
Libman, Steven, Executive Director, Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre. Telephone interview by author, 20 March 2000.
O'Brian, Allison, Communications Associate, Dance/USA. Telephone interview by author, 19 May 2000.
Toilefson, Erica, Assistant to the Managing Director, Houston Ballet. Telephone interview by author, 15 March 2000.
Weber, Andrea, Choreographer Assistant. Telephone interview by author, 21 May 2000.
Weber, Septime, Artistic Director, The Washington Ballet. Telephone interview by author. 15 June 2000.
York, Lila, Choreographer. Telephone interview by author, 18 May 2000.
69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70
Dance Archives
Aemy, Kevin. Schedule A - To Agreement for Lila York Project 1998-99& 1999-2000. Kansas City: Kansas City Ballet, 27 August 1998.
. Schedule B - to Agreement for Lila York Project 1998-99 & 1999-2000. Kansas City: Kansas City Ballet, 27 August 1998.
. Choreographer’s Contract: Lila York Project. Kansas City: Kansas City Ballet, 27 August 1998.
American Repertory Ballet. News Release. Kansas City: Kansas City Ballet, 1998-99 Season.
Dance/USA. Dance/USA Summary o f Purpose and Activities. Washington, D.C. 1999.
Dance/USA. Dance/USA Member Directory. Washington, D.C. 1999.
The Kennedy Center.Dracula “ .” The Kennedy Center Stagebill. Washington, D.C.: Fred B. Tarter, March 2000.
Keyserling, Judith. Season Brochure. Washington, D.C.: The Washington Ballet, 2000/ 01 .
Vance, Shannon. “Programming and Publicity: The Relationship Illustrated by Three Ballet Companies.” Master o f Arts Thesis. Washington, DC: American University, 2000.
Weber, Septime. Memorandum. Kansas City: Kansas City Ballet, 15 September 1997.
NEA Archives
“Dance Grants in Creation & Presentation and Planning& Stabilization.” National Endowment for the Arts. Fiscal Year 2000.
“Dance Grants” National Endowment for the Arts. Fiscal Year 1999.
Grauer, Rhoda and Nello McDaniel. “Dance Touring Program.” NEA Memorandum. 16 November 1979.
Lowe, Florence. “Dance Touring Program for 1973-74.” NEA News Memorandum. 23 October 1973.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71
National Endowment for the Arts Annual Report: 1964, 31.
National Endowment for the Arts Annual Report: 1968, 26-29.
National Endowment for the Arts Annual Report: 1970, 14-17.
National Endowment for the Arts Annual Report: 1971, 18-24.
National Endowment for the Arts Annual Report: 1972,4-6.
National Endowment for the Arts Annual Report: 1980.
National Endowment for the Arts Annual Report: 1990, 32-52.
National Endowment for the Arts Annual Report: 1991, 15-29.
National Endowment for the Arts Annual Report: 1992, 14-16.
National Endowment for the Arts Annual Report: 1993, 18-29.
National Endowment for the Arts Annual Report: 1994, 24-27.
National Endowment for the Arts Annual Report: 1999, 11-13.
National Endowment for the Arts Coordinated Residency Touring Program Brochure: 1972.
National Endowment for the Arts Coordinated Residency Touring Program Brochure: 1974.
National Endowment for the Arts Memorandum. “Background: National Council on the Arts, National Endowment for the Arts.” December 1970.
“A New Look: Guide to the National Endowment of the Arts.” National Endowment for the Arts Guidelines. 1996.
Dance/USA Field Studies
“A Comparison of American and Canadian Ballet Companies.” by Genovese Vanderhoof & Associates. Toronto, Ontario: 1995.
“A Program Review o f the American Dance Touring Initiative.” by Michele Rudnick and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72
The Lila Wallace-Reader’s Digest Fund. Washington, D.C.: Dance/USA, 1996.
“Domestic Dance Presenting: Challenges and Change.” by William Keens/Keens Company and John R. Munger, project consultants. Washington, D.C.: Dance/USA, 1994.
“Domestic Dance Touring: A Study with Recommendations For Private-Sector Support.” by William Keens/Keens Company and John R. Munger, project consultants.Washington, D.C.: Dance/USA, 1992.
“Moving Around: Partnerships at Work in Dance On Tour.” edited by Robert Yesselam for the National Endowment for the Arts. Washington, D.C.: Dance/USA, 1993.
Articles
American Repertory Ballet Web Page, 30 May 2000.
Alexander, Jane. “Arts Lessons.” The Washington Post Magazine. 14 May 2000: 8-25.
Anthony, William. “Regional Dance America: A Personal Odyssey.” The Dancing Times. March 1999: 535-539.
Atlanta Ballet Web Site, 30 May 2000.
Barnes, Clive. “Stevenson’sCleo Sails.” Dance Magazine. June 2000: 66.
Barzei, Ann. “Todd Bolender: A Decade in Kansas City.” Dance Maparine October 1991:36-37.
Ben-Itzak, Paul, ed. “Hotline.” Dance Magazine. October 1997: 33.
Blews-Wilson, Gladys. “Drac is Back.” The Times. 6 October 1999: C8.
Blunden, Jeraldyn. “Remembering the Membership Evaluation.” Dance Magazine. October 1994: 60-61.
Bonbright, Jane M. “Dance and the Federal Government.” Dance Teacher. July/August 1999: 49-50.
Breslauer, Jan. “The NEA’s Real Offense, Agency Pigeonholes Artists by Ethnicity.” The Washington Post. 16 March 1997: G l.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73
Brooks, Bonnie. “A Clouded Crystal Ball.” Dance Magazine September 1997: 58.
Cantrell, Scott. "An Uncertain Succession in Kansas City." Dance Magazine. May 1995: 30.
Collins, Karyn D. “American Rep: A Troupe in Transition-” Asburv Park Press. 18 October 1998.
Como, William. “Editor’s Log.” Dance Magazine. November 1978: 25.
Dacko, Karen. “Dancing on the Wild Side.” Dance Magazine. August 1986: 52-54.
Dunning, Jennifer.Dracula “ , Beyond Bram Stoker’s Darkest Dreams.” New York Times. 17 March 1997: C14.
Fox, Barbara Figge. “New Directors in New Jersey.” DanceMagazine. September 1993: 26-28.
Freund, Charles Paul. “Who Killed Culture? Budget Slashing’s Negative Effect on the National Endowment for the Arts.” Reason. 1998.
Frumkin, Peter. “He Who’s Got It Gets to Give It.” The Washington Post. 3 October 1999: Bl. Gentry, Anna Wheeler. “A Premiere Fit for a King.” www.pitch.com. 18-24 February 1999.
Gibson, Eric. “Bleak Portrait of NEA, Bankrupt Public-Funding Policy.” The Washington Times. 21 May 1995: B8.
Gladstone, Valerie. “Houston Ballet: Dance in the Heart of Texas.” Dance Magazine. November 1994: 55-58.
. “ABT Opens Spring Season at the Met.” DanceMagazine, May 1998: 22.
GreenhilL, Janet. “Atlanta Ballet and Cleveland San Jose Ballet Join Forces.” Dance Magazine. April 1993: 51-53.
Gustin, Marene. “Houston’s Stevenson Deckles to let the Blood Run forD racula." Dance Magazine. March 1997: 33.
. “Spring Thaw: ABT, Houston Ballet to Build aSnow Maiden.” Dance Magazine. March 1997: 33.
. “Houston Ballet Creates Endowment for Touring.” Dance Magazine.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74
October 1998: 32.
Halverson, Megan. “Dancing in the Dark.” Houston Press. 20 March 1997.
Hering, Doris. "New Roots for American Ballet.” Dance Magazine. September 1958: 27-29.
. ‘Tickets for the Bug Man.” Dance Magazine.February 1963: 53.
. “Regional Ballet- USA.” DanceMagazine, December 1963: 6-7.
. “Regional Ballet: What’s it all About?” Dance Magazine September 1966: 49- 59.
. “What Next, Houston?” Dance Magazine. February 1968:40, 94.
. “The Sweet Smell of Money.” Dance Magazine. May 1970: 72-78.
. “A Kind of Oneness: Regional Ballet and its Festivals, What Do They Mean to American Dance?”Dance Magazine.October 1970: 49-61.
. “Why Ohio?” Dance Magazine. September 1971: 48-62.
. “Where the Action is?” Arts in Society: Growth of Dance in America. Summer/Fall 1976: 298-300.
. “America Dancing.”Dance Magazine.October 1994: 54-57.
. “Robert Barmett Resigns from Atlanta Ballet.”Dance Magazine.July 1994.
. “Ballet Today and Tomorrow.” The World & I. 1 June 2000: 100.
Holland, Bernard. “A Heady Mix of Beethoven And Business” The New York Times. 4 January 1998: Art and Leisure, 30.
Holtmeier, Liza. “Ballet Omaha Closing Leaves Culture Gap.” University Wire. 9 September 1998. Horosko, Marian and Richard Philp. “Regional Dance America’s New York Office Closed.” DanceM agazine. November 1987: 8-9.
. “Reviews: Princeton Ballet.” Dance Magazine. August 1985: 68.
. "Kansas City Ballet and the Balanchine Bond, But..." Dance Magazine. October 1991:69-70.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75
Houston Ballet Web Site, 30 May 2000.
Hunt, Marilyn. “Reviews: Princeton Ballet.”Dance Magazine.August 1982: 20.
Johnson, Robert.“Billy the K id Rides Tall as Troupe Opens Season.” The Star-Ledger. 26 October 1998: 27-28.
Kastor, Elizabeth. “Bush Plan Holds Down NEA Budget.” The Washington Post. 30 January 1992: C2.
Kaufman, Sarah. “The Point of Low Return.” The Washington Post. 21 May 2000: G l, G8-G9.
. “Jumping Right In.” The Washington Post. 5 May 1999: C l.
KisselgofT Anna. “The Man Behind the Much-in-DemandCinderella .” The New York Times. 19 May 1996: 26.
Kline, Elizabeth. “Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre Forges Ahead: The Future Is Now.” Dance Magazine. October 1989: 36-42.
Knight, Christopher. “Cultural Warfare; Is Support for the Arts Just an Example o f Big- Govemment Excess?” The Los Angeles Times. 11 June 1995: 3.
Knox, Deborah. “Grave Dancers Reunion.” Citv Paper. October 1997.
Levine, Mindy. “Invitation to the Dance: Audience Development for the next Century.” Washington, D.C.: Dance/USA, 1997.
. “Local Issues, National Trends.” Dance/USA Journal. Fall 1998/Winter 1999 Vol. 16, No. 2: 16-19, 26.
Marene, Gust in. “Houston’s Stevenson decides to let the blood runDracula for .” Dance Magazine. March 1997: 33.
Masters, Kim. “Clinton and the Challenges of the Arts Endowment.” The Washington Post. 27 December 1992: G7.
Mattngly, Kate. “Money Managers.”The Village Voice. 4 May 1999: 130-131.
Maynard, Olga. “Art and Academe: The Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre and Point Park College.” Dance Magazine.April 1972: 74-81.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76
Morin, Richard. “The Ideas Industry: A Leftward Tilt in Corporate Giving?-’ The Washington Post. 29 February 2000: A17.
National Endowment for the Arts Web Site, 6 June 2000.
Newman, Arielle Thomas. “From Chairs to Classics: State Ballet o f Missouri Offers Program that Includes Modernism, Formalism.” The Kansas City Star. 14 February 1999.
. “From Chairs to Classics.” The Kansas City Star. 14 February 1999: K-3.
. “State Ballet Does Justice to Premieres.” The Kansas City Star. 19 February 1999: B-4.
Oreck, Barry. “Dance and Community Outreach.” Dance Teacher. July/August 1999: 54-55.
Patrick, K.C. “Dance DollarS: Millions to be Matched.”Dance Magazine August 1998: 38-40.
Parks, Gary. “Review: American Repertory Ballet.”Dance Magazine April 1998.
Perlman, Doris. “Coffins Can Fill Company Offers.” Dance Magazine. October 1999: 86.
Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre Web Site, 30 May 2000.
Proffitt, Steve. “Country Musician Promises End to an Arts Agency's Hard Times.” Los Angeles Times. 22 August 1999: Opinion, 3.
Putnam, Margaret. “National Reviews: Houston Ballet.”Dance Magarine.July 1997: 62.
. “Fire and Ice.” Dance Magazine. July 1998: 70.
Rice, William Craig. “The End o f the NEA Won’t be the End o f the Arts.” The Washington Post. 23 February 1997: C2.
Richards, David. “Dispatch from the Cultural War in Gingrich Country, Government Spends Zilch on the Arts. Is this the Nation’s Future?” The Washington Post. 29 January 1995: G l.
Rothstein, Edward. “The ABC’s of Music-And How!” The New York Times. 15 August 1993: Arts and Leisure, 27.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77
Scheff. Joanne and Philip Kotler. “Crisis in the Arts: The Marketing Response.” California Management Review. Fall 1996: Vol. 39, No. 1, 28-33.
Shelton, Suzanne. “Houston Ballet: Brainchild o f a Community.” Dance Magazine. February 1975: 48-53.
Sherman, Robert. “Survey Finds Support for the Arts.” The New York Times. 24 May 1992: CN14.
Simon, Cherie. “New 200 Arts Endowment Grants Support the Arts with $50.2 Million Nationwide.” 19 April 2000.
Slingerland, Amy L. “Dance Macabre Houston Ballet Presents The Voluptuous Horror of Dracula.” TCI New York. April 1997: 28-31.
Smith, Helen. “The Atlanta Ballet: Fifty Golden Years.” Dance Magazine. November 1979: 88-89.
Steams, David Patrick. “Tapping Pop Culture May be Dancing with the Devil, Companies Risk Becoming Beholden to Big-ticket, Bass-appeal Events.” USA Today. 28 April 1997: D9.
Stuart, Otis. “Reviews National: Princeton, New Jersey. Dance Magazine. 1987: 29, 78.
Sucato, Steve. “PBT’s 30th.” Showcase. 7 October 1999.
Tomalonis, Alexandra. “Washington Ballet Hires New Director.” Dance Magazine. November 1998: 37.
Topaz, Muriel. “RDA Goes National.” DanceM agazine, April 1997: 94-95.
. “Regional Dance Series, Part I America Dancing.” Dance Magazine. July 1997: 42-44.
Trescott, Jacqueline. “The Art of Spending Less.” The Washington Post. 26 December 1993: G8.
. “Arts Cuts Hurt, Says Alexander.” The Washington Post. 11 January 1994: B7.
. “Clinton Plan Would Hike Arts Budget Proposal A ‘Vote of Confidence’ in Agencies Under Hill Scrutiny.” The Washington Post. 7 February 1995: B l.
. “Private Sector’s Shortfall Specter if Endowments Vanish, Donors Say They
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78
Can’t Fill the Gap.” The Washington Post. 26 February 1995: G2.
. “Budget Supports Arts; Clinton Request Seeks More For Endowments.” The Washington Post. 7 February 1997: D7.
. “Presidential Panel Calls for Doubled Cultural Funding Report also Recommends Private Sector Initiatives.” The Washington Post. 26 February 1997: D l.
. “The Arts Turn on the Star Power; Actors, Advocates push Congress to Preserve Funding.” The Washington Post. 12 March 1997: Dl.
. “GOP Efforts to Kill Art Endowment Loses Momentum in House.” The Washington Post. 14 March 1997: Al.
. “Arts Agencies Reexamined; Senate Debates Funding, Mission of NEA, NEH.” The Washington Post. 30 April 1997: D2.
. “NEA Revamp Advances; House Proposal Would Replace Arts Agency.” The Washington Post. 10 July 1997: B7.
. “Arts Termed Elitist NEA’sAmerican Canvas: A Gloomy Picture.” The Washington Post. 14 October 1997: E4.
. “Picturing Better Days Ahead: Slowly but Surely, the NEA’s Bill Ivey Seeks a Comeback for Grants to Artists.” The Washington Post. 18 February 1999: C l.
. “An Ear for the Arts; What William Ivey Learned in Nashville may be the Key to Saving a Troubled Agency.” The Washington Post. 4 April 1998: Cl
. “Arts Agency Grants Emphasize Education; Fairfax Schools, Wolf Trap Among Recipients.” The Washington Post. 21 April 1999: C3.
. “NEA Grants Focus on Education.” The Washington Post. 19 April 2000: C9.
Varnish, Jane. “Three Dancers Enter PBT Stage as Eight Exit.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 20 August 1998.
. “At Pittsburgh Ballet, Money is the Trump Card When Finance Battles Dance.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 23 September 1998.
. “PBT’s Look-alike Dancers Stake Claim to Dracula.” Pittsburgh Post- Gazette. 3 October 1999.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79
. “Hot-Blooded Special Effects Put Some Bite inDracula .” Pittsburgh Post- Gazette. 8 October 1999: A-3.
. “PBT’s New Season to Continue Houston Partnership.” Pittsburgh Post- Gazette. 13 February 2000.
Verhovek, Sam Howe. “Houston Ballet Knows How To Use a Vampire Wisely.” New York Times. 13 March 1997: C13.
Wallac, Hank. “Free For All Trust the People Who Know Beat.” The Washington Post. 30 March 1991: A15.
Williams, Jan. “Buying Club Commissions York Premiere.”Dance Magazine January 1999: 35.
Williamson, Jolle. “Transfyxed:Dracula Returns to Again Enthrall Fans o f the Ballet.” PittsburghT ribune-R eview. 3 October 1999: HI.
Zimmer, Elizabeth. “Lila York: Barnstorming.” Dance Magazine July 1996: 56-58.
.“Follow The Money.” The Village Voice. 4 May 1999: 129, 134.
Books
Clarke, Mary and David Vaughan, ed. The Encyclopedia of Dance and Ballet. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1977.
Cohen, Jeanne Selma, ed. International Encyclopedia o f Dance. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998 Vol. 1, 2, 3, 5.
Benbow-Pfalzgraf, Taryn, ed. International Dictionary o f Modem Dance. Detroit: St. James Press, 1998.
Buchwalter, Andrew, ed. Culture and Democracy: Social and Ethical Issues in Public Support for the Arts andHumanities. Boulder: West view, 1992.
Jeflri, Joan. Arts Money: Raising It. Saving It. and Earning It. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.
Katz, Jonathan, ed. Presenting. Touring and the State Arts Agencies. Washington, D.C.: National Assembly o f State Arts Agencies, 1992.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80
Larson, Gary O. American Canvas. Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts 1997.
Prevots, Naima. Dance for Export: Cultural Diplomacy and the Cold War. Hanover: University Press o f New England, 1998.
Rhodes, Naomi. 21 Voices: The Art of Presenting the Performing Arts. Washington, D.C.: The Association of Performing Arts Presenters, 1990.
White, David R., Lise Friedman, and Tia Tibbitts Levinson, eds. Poor Dancers Almanac: Managing Life and Work in the performing Arts. Durham: Duke University Press, 1993.
Zeigler, Joseph Wesley. Arts in Crisis. Chicago: A Cappella Book, 1994.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.