My subject is a misquote of CC, lambasting a young choreographer for his opinions.

For somebody who has read CC's reviews for a good 25 years (I remember still his Mayerling reviews to which he refers) I thought this was a fascinating interview - but must say I no longer find the same erudition in his reviews which seem now to have lapsed into self-parody. Sad as I would be to see CC retire maybe it's time for him to go - or for him to be as candid (without continuing to be as baroque as he has become) as he is in his views here.

Q. What's the difference between Clement Crisp and God?

A. God doesn't think he's Clement Crisp.

I have rather enjoyed the interview... CC is telling a lot of truth and Ismene Brown has navigated this interview in an excellent way.
More, I was surprised to hear no cautious talk about the situation of "handing over the art' "and .... that he mentioned "the school" ! And I have no problems with his prejudices : ".... very beautiful Russian-trained dancing, for New York speed, for French temperamental virtuosity and physical virtuosity - their need to show who they are"
I don't pay much attention towards his ideas about 'stars'...(I'm stil waiting for a reply of *one biased* fan of Sylvie... )
And I don't want to make a fuss over CC's thoughts about Kylian, Mats Ek and de Keersmaeker.... that's because of his age..?
Although..... I don't like (most of) de Keersmaeker either (something of a mortal sin in Belgium !).
We do have a lot of readers on this board who don't like dancers in swimsuits
Wished he wasn't so mysterious about Forsythe...but we can guess !?
And don't blame him for loving the 'older' ballerina's !
On the other hand, calling Jean-Christophe Maillot : 'that man in Monte Carlo' ...that's what I call arrogance...or was he only careless ?

Hmm...I always feel respect for 'all those years of knowledge'...but I'm not that familiar with C.Crisp... so, I'm waiting for more substantial comments !

I also think its impossible to debate with those who have seen dancers that you haven't about relative merits. No amount of words on Crisps part will substantiate or convince somebody of the greatness of a dancer in the past - its an impossible task. I don' think videos count in this either. One can though debate the past to some degree because of received wisdom from multiple sources.

What I look for is attitude, constructive argument around current or recent past issues/dancers and ultimately a set of prejudices I find interesting and worth listing to. I very much agree that critism is about prejudices and for critics to pretend otherwise seems pretty disingenuous. This I find in spades with Crisp. Its a splendid interview which you can disagree with or not, but the man has seen very much, draws conclusions and presents them entertainingly. Ismene Brown did a lovely job in 'releasing' this. There are other stories to tell and I hope we can cover those too.

Needless to say I don't subscribe to the view that Crisp should retire - there is room for many shades of dance critism and his is just one. He still has much to remind us of. Ballet is both old and new and we need people with conscience to push on both axis.

I often, though now less often, agree with him. What am suggesting is that despite learning enormously from CC over many years, I find that his reviews now show far less insight and good sense then they used to. I think this interview reveals him as knowledgeable and candid - but too often such rigour in his opinions, as now expressed in his reviews, become predictable, overblown whimsy.

Other FT critics are similar in this respect - though for me it is still the best arts page.

Interesting too that you single out two of few critics with rigour. I do share Ismene Brown's championing of Mark Baldwin - as if I remember correctly does CC. So I guess that makes me hopelessly deluded to use your word!

Fundamentally I do find the British obsession to revere the past at the expense of celebrating the best (note the distinction - not all) of the new to be debilitating - hence my increasing impatience with CC.

LAST EDITED ON 11-01-02 AT 01:45 PM (GMT)

Can you substantiate the claim that Clement Crisp and other FT critics lack insight?

I may be partial as I work in the newspaper business, but I have always found the FT critics to offer substantiated, enlightened, well argued, thoughtful opinion.

Note the word opinion: no arts page is designed merely to be an unbiased reporting of the facts, which is why they appear in the comments and analysis section of all newspapers not the news section!

I have read extensively the back catalogue of Clement Crisp's work on FT.com (alas, I am not old enough to have read his early reviews) and I find a consistency in style and erudition, with no falling off of standard. Mr Crisp undoubtedly has a certain flair to his writing, but I find this is part of the enjoyment. Surely a critic is there to entertain as well as to inform?

All critics are themselves criticised: not least because of the old adage that you can not please all of the people all of the time. Critism of an art form such as ballet is particularly prone to disagreement, as it is based on aesthetics. I would refer others to the works of Plato inter alia on the difficulties of founding all-encompassing theories on aesthetics, and indeed of providing foundations for one's aesthetic judgements.

I think Mr Crisp should not be criticised, but rather saluted for his unabashed and unashamed views and his bravery in entering them into the public domain. Boris Johnson, when asked why he decided to run for Parliament, is reputed to have said "Because they don't make statues of the critics". Perhaps it is time to prove him wrong? Z.

Firstly Zarafa how many of Crisp's claims did he substantiate? Having rubbished artists the stature of Guillem, Kirkland, Nureyev with a handful of disparaging words, having rudely refused to accept others refutations of his assertions (the response to a Guillem supporter, being the most odious.) Crisp seems to want us to accept his view of greatness in a dancer as being the sole truth, without substantiating his claims with any other evidence other than the anecdotal.
>
I have always found the FT critics to offer substantiated, enlightened, well argued, thoughtful opinion. Note the word opinion:

Opinion Zarafa, yes I agree, however the short shrift Crisp gives to others opinions (Note the word opinion) is the biggest bone of critical contention to Crisps interview. As it happens I actually agree with much of what Crisp had to say, it was the way he put forward his views as being the sine qua non of dance appreciation that I find odious. You speak Zarafa of the evanescence of art and its criticism, yet you find nothing wrong with the judgement in stone mentality of Crisp. A way of thinking that in fact does serious harm to novices developing an interest in any art form. An inability to accept alternative view points is the antithesis of art or art which has any relevance to the world. A criticism "High art" forms constantly have levied against them, and which the attitude of Crisp does little to dispel.
>
Mr Crisp undoubtedly has a certain flair to his writing, but
I find this is part of the enjoyment. Surely a critic is there to entertain as well as to inform?

Flair? Yes, however this "flair" constantly verges on the bitchy and insulting and often tips into the offensive. A critic is there to put forward as impartial a view of the form and performance as possible championing what he believes is excellent, yet being as constructive about what he finds to be poor as possible. Note his dismissal of contemporary dance, fine he may not be a fan, but dance is a huge topic which exists outside the opera house, if Crisp is unable to accept this or comment on it in any other way than a few words, perhaps he should not be a critic. Oh yes, if I want to be entertained (strange choice of words) I'll go to a comedy club. A review is not a try out for material for a stand up.
>
>
>All critics are themselves criticised:

True, just such a pity they are so patently unable to accept or listen to that criticism, otherwise we may have had a far more interesting interview than Clement Crisp's balletic take on "Mein Kampf"

I would refer others to the works of Plato inter alia on
the difficulties of founding all-encompassing theories on aesthetics, and indeed of providing foundations for one's
aesthetic judgements.

Cut the pretentious crap Zarafa, it's a poor mind that hides behind the works of a dead genius to substantiate claims and theories he is unable himself to express with any true eloquence or poignancy. In fact a lot like Crisp shouting down his critics. What do you think about aesthetics Zarafa? Is not your rubbishing of Crisp's critics, and your bringing up the name of Plato as much an example of the narrow-minded, elitist, aesthetic mindset you accuse Crisp's critics of adopting?
>
I think Mr Crisp should not be criticised, but rather saluted
for his unabashed and unashamed views and his bravery in
entering them into the public domain.

You know, Crisp has never had a problem with voicing his views loudly and at length. Bravery? Perhaps. Obnoxious? Could be, in his inabilty to accept discord with his views. What is they say? The empty vessel makes the most noise.

Boris Johnson, when asked why he decided to run for Parliament, is reputed to have said "Because they don't make statues of the
critics". Perhaps it is time to prove him wrong?

And here Zarafa you make your whole thesis bathetic and laughable, oh my God a country in which gurus such as Boris Johnson and Clement Crisp are immortalised in marble. Their benign wisdom a testament for future generations to pay wisdom to and ask their elders "What did you do in the great culture wars grandpa" Perhaps my Mein Kampf joke wasn't so far off the mark in this last most pretentious view of Zarafa's.

We have had C.Crisp and God, poor oppressed Sylvie, Plato, Adolph Hitler and Mien Kamph and now my MP Boris Johnson, he is a happy soul, leave him alone!
Surely CC is not as bad as Isabel suggests; he is only a critic.

PS Paul, I wrote a bit deluded, not hopelessly!

There is no need for this to descend into a slanging match, but I would just like to make one very short reply to Isobel and one very long one:

Firstly: my final paragraph: three little words:

deliberate satirical exaggeration

I thought the satire in the last comment would be obvious and that the exaggeration for effect would be recognised. Sorry to those of you who missed it: even sorrier for any stonemason out there who has started chipping away at the marble already!!

Next, I don't think it is fair to say that my reply was a 'most arrogant of postings, so typical of the journalistic mindset, unable to withstand criticism of their criticisms'.. I was not saying that those criticisms are not valid: I was trying to make a wider point about the difficulties of artistic criticism as a whole. Which is a fundamental philosophical question about, (and here I must, alas, steal the words of another 'dead genius': apologies for those who it offends), "the standard of taste" (Hume). I was making the point that Clement is no different from any other critic (or theatre goer) in being criticised for his views, because it is not possible to have all encompassing viewpoint or indeed an objective external foundations for aesthetic judgement. The vilification of Mr Crisp is unfair: for he is no better nor no worse than any other critic caught in the subjective/objective abyss.

What I was asking for was substantiation of those criticisms in order to obtain a truly informed debate. Also, by asking those critics of Mr Crisp for a further elucidation of their views, I think the point is made about how difficult it is to found one's own opinions. Which is not to say that those opinions are incorrect, but brings into question the subjective/objective divide on (specifically aesthetic) judgement. The shortness of Mr Crisp's dismissals of certain forms/dancers does seem breathtaking: but for those with a recognition that there is no universalist foundation of aesthetic judgement, what matter that that opinion takes the form of three words or three thousand? Would any Guillem fan have protested less to a ten thousand word discussion, than to Mr Crisp's comments? Surely not, for it is the fundamental difference of judgement that is (or should be) at the heart of their disagreement. How we express or justify that judgement (or that difference) is immaterial, because it does not change the fundamental disagreement.

Isobel states that criticism should be impartial. This suggests that there is an impartial view to take. For those who do not follow the objectivist views of values existent in the world, this very approach is risible. For those, who follow a subjectivist line (that values lie not in the world but in our response to the world), it would appear to be impossible to be impartial: for if one take's away one's own self then there is no opinion.

As for my views on aesthetics, I take a normative dispositional approach, i.e. that the world is devoid of value, but that it contains things which have the power to effect us in a certain way within a normative framework, i.e. in a framework where we postulate values outside ourselves but not in the world, and not external to human thought (i.e. open to debate). Therefore x is beautiful iff (if and only if) x gives rise to a sentiment of approbation in a competent judge, where the definition of a competent judge involves the concept of them making correct judgements.

As to quoting dead guys: I think it is neither elitist nor narrow minded. Philosophical works and commentaries on them are widely and freely available on the web, and therefore access at all levels is freely open to all. Surely this exactly counters the kind of criticism that high art has had thrown at it? Equally, it is more narrow minded to think that some of the world's greatest thinkers don't have something to say on this: more snobbish to think that if one points others to the works of Kant on aesthetic judgement, Plato's Gorgias, and Hume on the standard of taste, that one is pretensiously hiding behind great thinkers, instead of extending and enlivening the debate. I refuse to apologise for being interested in philosophy and the arts: and can see no reason not to widen the scope of what we discuss if it is relevant to the topic. I referred to it only by Plato's name because that was all time allowed.

I think Isobel, that it would be better for any critic, rather
than attempting to be seen to be impartial, to recognise the intrinsic subjectivism of his viewpoint. I think the perceived failure to do so by Mr Crisp is what prompted this barrage in the first place. If Mr Crisp is trying to be the "sine qua non" of ballet critism and to allow no other opinion, then I too have an objection (albeit on philosophical grounds) and would agree with you Isobel. But I think this is have seen him talking with John Percival enough to know that he is at least aware of the existence of others! Perhaps he thinks he is the mythical competent judge?!?!?

Apologies for the long post. This is indeed only a partial defence... but time and space allow only this much. In all seriousness, though, I am pleased that my post invoked a thought-ut response, even if it was a hostile one!

But he is also a creature of prejudice and his writing can lapse into self-caricature. He has disturbing certainties, and I am not sure this is completely right for a critic. To be a good dance critic is, in part, to articulate in print form something that is essentially visual. Crisp does that. A critics is also to some extent a partner in the creative process, and should attempt to engage, even with that which is not instantly palatable. Crisp doesn't. Critics can be hideously hurtful (I speak from experience of a very wounding review when I was a young radio producer): sometimes harshness can be deserved - but I don't know if Crisp has any sense of when he should soften his words. And he dos not seem prone to self-questioning, as the following exchange shows:

Question: Can that get in the way, though, of allowing times to change?

Answer: No, because we have changed with time too.

He is not always rigorous. Last week he finished a review of the Moscow Stanislavsky Ballet's Swan Lake as follows: "Too much for my rising gorge: I had to miss the fourth act". It's not necessarily unprofessional - just something that most journalists would feel intensely uncomfortable about doing.

Crisp is a wonderful stylist, he's opinionated and he's a ballet mystic. Perhaps we should read him as a mystic and a polemicist rather than always as a critic.

When in an Attack Mode (I must admit to preferring Clement in an Attack Mode), he is unbeatable. In fact, I've even filed away some of his more rambunctious pieces, such as the following (extracts, from a piece he did for the FT on October 5th, 2001), to read over when gloom threatens:

"The Barbican management very kindly placed notices outside its theatre warning patrons of the noise levels in Tuesday night's appearance by the Batsheva Dance troupe from Tel-Aviv. They would have done better to alert us to the appalling nature of the evening's offering - Ohad Naharin's Sabotage Baby. The "music" was actually very jolly. It was provided by Orkater, a Dutch ensemble which manufactures din from a complex of machines and gizmos that lurk at the back of the stage. Peter Zegveld and Thijs van der Poll (the musician/ machinists) busy themselves furiously amid this deranged gamelan, which is a cross between the Titfield Thunderbolt and Da Vinci's prototype for a Teasmade. Crazed tootlings, fearful borborygms, the occasional twang, fill the air, while Naharin's hapless cast lumber about, by turns lethargic or frenetic.

"The staging is, of course, both incomprehensible and regrettable. The cast wears dun-coloured outfits that hang depressingly to the ground - the dancers look like the Sodom and Gomorrah League of Health and Beauty, and behave in suitable fashion. ....The choreography - such a big word for such a tiny effect - is predictably anxious and unrewarding. As the evening wears suicidally on, four figures on stilts, sporting teeny feathered knapsacks and expressions of direst menace, totter above the common herd (and few herds have looked more common than these straining performers). I hoped they might have come from some pest-control agency."

Great stuff. And I fear it was all too true !

A critic is there to entertain!

And Clement does brighten up those pink pages!

Many jounalists might well feel a little uncomfortable, but some would not mention it in their final piece. It's typical that Clement does - he is truthfall to himself and calls things exactly as he sees them. He has a passion that the politically correct are unlikely to get. There is much I don't agree with but I still see Crisp as the best and when he finally hangs his slippers up we will have lost much.

I really don't see what is pretentious about quoting philosophers in a philosophical discussion!
I may be wrong but I had thought that aesthetics was one of the 5 main branches of philosophy, and what better place than a ballet discussion board to talk about aesthetics. The subject comes up time and time again with differences of opinion about ballets/dancers/choreographers.
I agree too about the impossibility of impartiality. We are all critics and none of us is impartial. Passion doesn't allow it.( and vice versa )

As to Clement Crisp's interview. I enjoyed it.
I was personally delighted with his response to my own question about Scottish Ballet and his thoughts about ADs. He apparently chose not to offer anything constructive at all but merely observed that in his opinion Peter Darrell should never have gone to Scotland in the first place. - A lovely seeing-the-wood-rather-than-the-trees opinion if ever I saw one!

He also specifically rejects any impartiality on his own part:-

"no unprejudiced criticism is worth reading. Or worth writing. Prejudice is what makes a critic interesting."

Anyway as John Lennon said
"It's better to be controversial than boring"
( Hope it's not too pretentious to quote a dead pop star!)

In 1998 the Swedish anthropologist Helena Wulff published a study of ballet cultures. She differentiated between older critics who relied on having watched or seen vast numbers of performances of the classical repertoire, and younger critics with a tendency to prefer contemporary work. Wullf interviewed Mary Clarke, who argued that reviewing classical ballets was more demanding than reviewing contemporary dance. The critic needed to know the classical ballets very well, Clarke argued, and this knowledge could only be gained by watching a ballet many many times.

Another of Wulff's interviewees, Sally Banes, a former critic and now a dance scholar, argued that since classical choreography is already known, classical ballet criticism is more evaluative than criticism of contemporary dance, which tends to be characterised by description.

There is I think a clear fault-line between Clement Crisp and Judith Mackrell. An interesting question is whether this is generational in the wider sense, and whether it is possible to draw clear distinctions between the sensibilities of all of the younger critics and those of their seniors.