City ballet under fire. (Attitudes).

HAVE YOU EVER GONE TO A PERFORMANCE, THEN READ A REVIEW OF IT THE NEXT DAY AND WONDERED WHETHER THE CRITIC WAS AT THE SAME PERFORMANCE AS YOU--OR EVEN IN THE SAME theater? Opinions vary, of course. And usually there are certain indications that the reviewer was present--there are no egregious errors of fact, only those seemingly of opinion or, more subtly, taste. What may appear "stylish" to one person may certainly not appear "stylish" to you. And after all, "stylish" is a tricky word, isn't it?

Recently I have had the oddest experience of reading articles and occasional comments about Peter Martins's New York City Ballet--sometimes merely a snide phrase--that made me wonder whether I was living at the same time in the same town, or even in the same country, as these commentators. These articles proclaimed that what was once, in the golden days of its cofounder George Balanchine, probably the greatest creative dance company in the twentieth century had become dreary, provincial, and, worst of all, had totally squandered its Balanchine heritage and lost the precious Balanchine style. And at fault was that archvillain, careless curator, and all-round bad guy, that far-from-great-Dane, Peter Martins.

Right from the start let me make my position clear. I have been intently watching New York City Ballet--and writing about it--since 1950. I suspect I might have seen more performances by City Ballet than anyone else alive; certainly I am up there with the first half-dozen or so. I have been watching theatrical dance for sixty years and writing about it for nearly as long, and I suggest that I am not a complete fool about ballet matters. Now, I believe that City Ballet has survived the death of its two great founding choreographers, Balanchine and Jerome Robbins, as well as that of its guiding spirit, Lincoln Kirstein, in exceptional fashion. In fact, not only is the company dancing as well now as at any time since 1950 (in some ways better), but Martins has maintained the company's heritage and its heritage spirit in the most exemplary fashion. When Balanchine and Kirstein chose Martins to lead the company into its future they acted with canny prescience. That is my opinion. And opinions in the arts are only as good as the people making them. There is no right or wrong here. If you are seeking guidance, all you can hope for is an opinion that is unbiased, well expressed, and well informed.

The attack on Martins's City Ballet that made me say, "Enough already!" was in The New York Times on Sunday, May 26, 2002. It was a long article headed "Where Is the Heartbeat in the Balanchine Legacy?" and it was written by a woman I had never heard of, Jennifer Homans. Apparently she writes about dance for The New Republic, trained at the School of American Ballet, and later danced with Pacific Northwest Ballet.

I would have thought that over the years The New York Times might have become less naive about the arts, but it seems to have become more pretentious and downscale. Yet it also appears more certain that the opinions in its own hallowed pages have special value literally because of the paper they are printed on. So its opinions are presented as facts, and its opinion-givers as, ipso facto, authorities. Not always true, I would say.

Besides being the most pointed attack yet on City Ballet and its current artistic management, the Homans article ran counter to the views of the Times's current chief dance critic, the brilliant, knowledgeable, and experienced Anna Kisselgoff. Perhaps the Times, in an unwonted display of fairness, wanted to expose its readers to an opposing view--but I suspect it was some dim, dance-illiterate editor listening to idle cultural chatter and deciding, in a manner typical of the paper's current roguish, voguish view of the arts, to offer a cult/fashion view rather than a truly critical opinion.

Homans continually falls into the common trap of tyro critics of expressing her personal opinions as unassailable facts. She complains, for instance, that Martins has not called upon the full experience of other Balanchaine dancers, forgetting perhaps that teaching and coaching cannot be by committee, so choices must be made and practicalities considered. Her whole tirade about "style" and "musicality" is based on the shaky premise that she knows what is what. She writes of City Ballet: "Now the unthinkable has happened: At City Ballet, Balanchine ballets have become boring, pompous, and pass& Since Balanchine's death, what was once so vital has become dull and `established': A lifeless orthodoxy reigns."

Say you so, Ms. Homans? And I say: "Spinach." And, "Double spinach" to the benighted, foolish editor who either commissioned you or accepted you. Dance history will see you both out, unnoticed.

Senior Consulting Editor Clive Barnes, who covers dance and theater for the New York Post, has contributed to Dance Magazine since 1956.