Whether I was on champagne. Just a question from an acquaintance in the dance world. The occasion was the notice of Nederlands Dans Theater that it does not want to continue with top choreographer Marco Goecke again until he truly apologises for his assault on dance critic Wiebke Hüster of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
Indeed, the company had earlier pulled off the mantle of love, despite the fact that the associate choreographer of the party did not apologise at all, but instead blamed the victim for his crime.
Open letter
As regular readers of this site already know, the dismay was great that NDT, nota bene led by a female board, was content with this extreme form of toxic masculinity. That bewilderment compelled the Circle of Dutch Theatre Critics to publish an open letter, signed by 53 theatre critics, from almost all serious media in the Netherlands. In that letter, the reviewers stated:
"Wiebke Hüster has stated that she will no longer look at Marco Goecke's work and therefore will no longer review it. If Goecke does not come up with serious apologies without any victim blaming, it is reasonable for us to follow her example."
Boycott
That is a threat of a boycott, an unprecedentedly severe means of pressure that as far as we know has never been used in Dutch journalism. The demands did not lie either: "From NDT, we expect you to make every effort to persuade your associate choreographer to issue such a heartfelt apology without reservation. We also expect you to take responsibility yourself by unequivocally standing up for the freedom of art criticism. This is not only a matter of statements and words, but also of deeds. We count on you to guarantee around your performances a working environment that is safe for all professionals involved, including our profession."
Meanwhile, NDT has let it be known that it will meet the demands. Nice of course, but why was it necessary to wait for the critics to come up with a boycott? As stated on this site last week, there would have been little to worry about if NDT had followed the line of Hanover Ballet back then. That it did not do so may have had to do with fear. Not of the wrath of Marco Goecke, even if he were to stand at the door of Amare, NDT's home, with a truck full of dachshund poo, but of unrest within the ensemble.
Border crossing is norm
As became clear earlier around artists like Jan Fabre (Troubleyn) and Marcus Azzini (Oostpool): idiosyncrasy and non-conformism adorn the artist, as does pushing boundaries, or hiding insecurity behind a wall of narcissism, but that doesn't always mesh nicely with a managerial role.
Border crossing is more common than thought. So much more common that workers take it for granted. Sex within the payroll between male (or female) executives and their subordinates does not appear to have disappeared after a few high-profile cases, we know from reliable sources. Performers like dancers and actors live in a dependency situation 24/7, and the greater the successes you achieve in those tough circumstances, the more you accept. The lower down the ladder, say as an intern, the greater the pressure to give in to advances from executives, especially if your colleagues look away.
Fair Practice
What kind of corporate culture prevails at NDT, I do not know, but the reluctance of the management to stand up to the misconduct of the successful associate choreographer turn around, suggests that even with the ensemble, his successes outweighed his crime against a sour German critic.
Fair practice thus becomes quite complicated to implement, after ticking the box in the grant application.
And I don't like champagne.
English (UK) 
Nederlands 
Français 
