The Art of Putting Yourself Out There

An image of me up on the Steps on Broadway board (Photo: Shalem Photography)

I've been enjoying my time teaching at Steps on Broadway the past few weeks. I've had professionals in my classes from big companies to freelancers, received positive feedback from my peers and pianists, and felt a sense of fulfillment in my career that I've been lacking for some time. (Side note: I'm also guest teaching Intermediate Contemporary at Broadway Dance Center the next two Sundays, August 7 & 14,  from 7:30-9 PM. Come join me)  Recently, an old acquaintance offered me their compliments expressing how difficult it can be to break into an established institution like this great school. This got me thinking. While I still have a lot to do in order to get to where I want to be, it took a lot of hard, strategic work to gain the positions and experience I have had in my career. It has been a combination of effort, luck, and timing. But none of this stuff would have ever been possible if I hadn't figured out how and when to put my information out there most effectively.

There are a handful of challenges when it comes to putting yourself out there. First off, are you properly prepared to put out your best product? Also, are you following the appropriate channels of communication to get an "in" with a choreographer or director? Other things to consider include whether offering yourself up with less experience will invalidate future attempts to obtain work, if you have enough time to put true effort into your endeavors if the opportunity materializes, and whether the timing is right for you to push yourself out and forward in your career field. When thrusting oneself out of their comfort zone, all of these things need to be taken into consideration in order to build or better one's career and life.

The first thing to consider when pushing yourself in a new direction is whether you are properly prepared to accept the position if it actually offered it; whether it be trying out for that big Broadway show, seeking out a company class audition, or applying for that prestigious teaching position. We all have big dreams and career hopes. But if you aren't in a place to fully commit to and appropriately handle the work stresses that come with a specific job, it may not be the best time for you to apply for that position or audition for a new company or show. Especially for dancers, this can be a challenging one since you don't always know what you're getting yourself into until you're in the studio or on the stage. It is important to consider your training, attitude, mindset, and commitment abilities when putting oneself out there. You don't want to get the job before you're mentally or physically ready and fall apart. But at the same time, you don't want to hold yourself back if you are lacking confidence. It's a tricky line to consider.

Walking into Broadway Dance Center to teach my first Contemporary class at this amazing school

You also don't want to apply for a position that you probably can't fit into your schedule due to previous commitments. This can be especially tricky because dancers should constantly be auditioning to fine-tune their audition skills, to connect with those hiring, and to get an idea of whether they are ready to take on certain posts. Don't be afraid to attend a cattle call.  But if you really don't feel prepared for a specific position, it may be better to wait until you can show yourself at your best. Especially if you are very out of shape after an injury or time off, consider whether the chance to gain opportunity may risk further injury. Sometimes, people will remember you from application to application. So, be sure to keep in mind that auditioning for a gig completely unprepared may leave a lasting impression.

A misstep that a handful of dancers, choreographers, and instructors make is trying to use an acquaintance that is already involved in an organization to help you gain easier access to the people making decisions. This is a tricky one, as it sometimes works. But some of my most embarrassing memories are when I have tried to take the easy road and reached out to somebody I met once or twice. In trying to get an insider's advantage in my applications/auditions, I have overstepped social boundaries. If this way of putting yourself out there doesn't work to your favor, the next time you see this contact may be quite awkward.

If you barely know somebody and you want them to put in a good word for you or to forward your information to the person in charge, it could be seen as shady or show a general lack of awareness for the structure and culture of an organization. Sometimes, companies are very disjointed with a clear delineation between positions. For instance, a ballet master may be higher up in the system than a dancer and closer to the Artistic Director of a company. But they still answer to the director as their boss. So, it may not be appropriate (or even possibly offensive) for them to offer their advice on items including hiring, choreographic opportunities, and more. Again, this way of putting oneself out there has worked for me in the past. Just understand that you are taking a hearty risk by reaching out to someone for help that you barely know.

As for offering yourself up for a position that you appear to be under-qualified for, it is a different story. I learned from a good friend that applying for positions you don't feel ready for can act as great practice for when you actually have the experience to back up your application. And, sometimes, you're actually exactly what they are looking for. In these situations, it really comes down to the amount of effort you can put into preparing your materials. I know, for me, I'm tempted to apply for every inspiring position that becomes available. But I am so busy all the time, it isn't always practical to apply for jobs I am nearly positive I won't get. In building my knowledge of creating a cover letter and proper CV (aka resumé), I've applied for Artistic Director positions, Ballet Master jobs, and School Director opportunities. While the closest I've come was 2nd place to direct Rochester City Ballet, I know that I can still use a great deal of growth before I may be right to lead the size and quality establishment I dream of directing. So, when I feel that I have some free time or that a position is really important to me, I apply. And if I'm overwhelmed with work and a position pops up that sounds nice but is likely out of my league, I save my time and wait for the next practice session.

The biggest item out of your control when putting yourself out there is timing. It is true. Timing is everything. Sometimes, it is calculated and other times you have no idea that now is the right time. This is what is most difficult about making decisions pertaining to your career and seeking success. An artist may not feel ready for something they are more than prepared to take on. Or, on the other hand, they may feel that they are the one and only fit for a position that will end up being far out of their reach. This is the one factor you can count on being confusing and out of your control. But don't let the idea of proper timing deter you from trying to reach your dreams. The timing factor almost invalidates many of the points I wrote above. If you put yourself out there with the right timing (even if you aren't prepared, don't have the time, or more), you can get a dream job and prove all of these factors inconsequential.

Dancers, choreographers, instructors, and most artists have a tendency to listen to the nag of never-ending feelings of inadequacy. This can often push their art to new heights as they try to make up for this faux perception. But if your gauge and perception of true self-worth is off, you may be stifling opportunity. I suggest taking a deep, lengthy look at yourself. Then see your reflection in friends, colleagues, and peers reactions to your work. In the end, I always say artists should continuously put themselves out there. So, don't read this post and feel like you should be holding back. I hope you read this and look at it as a tool to help you make better, more informed decisions. Cheers!

The Principal Problem

Don't get me wrong, I love Principal dancers - one of my favorites - Carrie Imler in Apollo (Photo: Angela Sterling)

I was making over $60,000 a year, dancing world-famous ballets with a world-class orchestra, and surrounded by exceptional dancers most of my waking hours. Why oh why would I ever pack my bags and leave the Pacific Northwest Ballet? I am not posting this to dwell on regrets from my past. In fact, I don't regret leaving Seattle at all. But what led me to feel stagnant and unhappy, eventually seeking to leave this life? It was highly unlikely that I was ever going to be promoted beyond the senior Corps de Ballet position that I held, even though I often performed principal and soloist roles.  And while this wasn't a bad position to be in, it isn't uncommon for the ballet world to overlook dancers that are in the same position.

It is nearly every ballet student's dream to join one of the big, prestigious companies in the country. Very few get the opportunity to experience such a thing. Once a dancer joins one of these companies, their trajectory either speeds forward, as is common to big-company-bound dancers during their training years, or slows down fiercely. This meteoric rise only happens to about 5% of the dancers that enter a large company, if that. If you aren't one of those dancers that we have all heard glamorized stories about, then you are likely to experience a slow crawl to the top or a slow realization that there will eventually be a ceiling.

Even dancers that are chosen by an artistic director to have a limited trajectory can enjoy a comfortable lifestyle, periodic plum roles, and less pressure than those at the top. What in this could be so bad that a dancer feels the need to jump ship? Aside from limited chances to gain experience in this short career, it is what I call the "Principal Problem" that causes lower ranked dancers to move on from cushy company positions. And in no way do I say this to defame any dancers at this rank. I have the utmost respect for Principals and call many my friends. In fact, it has nothing to do with Principal dancers and everything to do with people's perception of artists who are not top ranked.

Principal dancers are the face of dance organizations. They perform leading roles that the audience falls in love with, their faces are all over marketing materials, and they are most likely to share their story while being interviewed for press. Why wouldn't a dancer want to hold this position? When a company wants to woo new donors, it isn't uncommon to have a principal dancer around to sweeten the pot. Most likely, these dancers have earned their positions, and, sometimes, they fall upon luck and timing to push forth. Either way, their status earns them public accolades and respect. All of a sudden, distant audiences, directors, coaches, teachers, administrators, and board members unrelated to the organization begin to think that these superhuman dancers have other marketable super powers. From there on out, as is often said, "it is all in the name."

Where am I going with this? Let's start here. Looking back at the last ten or so years, how many Principal dancers with the top 6 U.S. companies have been hired as Artistic Directors to take over medium to large sized ballet companies?

Vladimir Malakhov - Staatsballett Berlin - former Principal ABT
Nikolaj Hubbe - Royal Danish Ballet - former Principal NYCB
Peter Boal - Pacific Northwest Ballet - former Principal NYCB
Ethan Stiefel - Royal New Zealand Ballet - former Principal ABT
Ashley Wheater - Joffrey Ballet - former Principal SFB (among others)
Christopher Stowell - former Oregon Ballet Theatre - former Principal SFB
Angel Corella - Corella/Barcelona Ballet - former Principal ABT
Gil Boggs - Colorado Ballet - former Principal ABT
Benjamin Millipied - Paris Opera Ballet - former Principal NYCB
Jose Manuel Carreno - Ballet San Jose - former Principal ABT
Mikko Nissinen - Boston Ballet - former Principal SFB (among others)

Take a peek at this short list of newer artistic directors and it is clear to see that many recent company appointments are male and former principal dancers with American Ballet Theatre, New York City Ballet, or San Francisco Ballet. Looking beyond this list to most of the other ballet companies across the U.S., it is clear to see that most directors were Principal dancers with these companies as well (a handful were leading old-school Joffrey dancers, but the company is unranked). Who is missing from this list? Female principal dancers and lesser ranked dancers. Let's look into this.

The only female directors of mid to large sized U.S. ballet companies are Lourdes Lopez of Miami City Ballet (former Principal NYCB), Victoria Morgan of Cincinnati Ballet (former Principal SFB), Patricia Barker of Grand Rapids Ballet (former Principal PNB), and Colleen Neary who is co-director of Los Angeles Ballet (former Principal PNB). It is almost impossible to find any director of a company that has only held the rank of Soloist or Corps de Ballet with one of the top six companies, let alone smaller sized companies. Stanton Welch of Houston Ballet and, recently hired, Edwaard Liang of Ballet Met are among the only state-side directors that didn't reach the rank of Principal in their respective companies (both obtaining the rank of Soloist). They were likely scouted for their choreographic achievements beyond their rank. There are a few other female and non-former principal dancers that are Artistic Directors across the country, but most are not in what I would consider a medium to large sized company.

Looking at this information, it would appear that it is practically impossible to become an Artistic Director without a large company, Principal credential attached to your name. Beyond that, if you look at company artistic staff or directors of respected schools with professional training programs, a majority of these people were upper ranked (soloist or principal) dancers with major companies.

This is where this subject can get touchy. Does the rank of principal dancer automatically assume that this person will make a great director? Although one achieves this status, does it mean that they must be a fantastic teacher? Do public accolades for a performance in a role automatically mean that a dancer will be a great vessel to continue the life of a work? No. But it seems to be quite accurate that Principal dancers have the greatest number of options to continue in the professional dance world beyond their performing careers, solely on their name.

Another favorite Principal, Maria Chapman - Chair of Second Stage

Is this right or fair? It is impossible to give a yes or no answer to this question, as it is purely opinion. As I noticed during my time taking college courses through PNB's Second Stage program, a greater number of students taking these classes were lower ranked dancers. I took a handful of business and marketing courses on my path to getting my AA degree from Seattle Central Community College. More often than not, dancers with a faster career trajectory have great facility and natural ability. I have seen a handful of these dancers who don't have to think about certain steps because they come so naturally. Principal dancers don't usually spend as much time communicating within a corps of dancers; discussing unison, helping others pick up choreography, or learning how to stand up in a
community atmosphere without appearing to be an asshole. Having post-secondary education, exploring how to properly execute a step that doesn't initially work on one's own body, and learning how to communicate are integral skills in being successful at these hard-to-get dance careers. It may be true that a lower ranked dancer has refined these skills, yet a Principal is more likely to be singled out as a candidate with these qualities.

All of the above leads me to believe that hiring committees and administrations are likely falling in love with the future leaders of the dance world for their dancing and names prior to evaluating their skill set. For this reason alone, it is no wonder that lower ranked dancers start to get antsy when they feel that their progress is being stunted by one director with one opinion. Effectually, these search committees are hoping that these Principal dancers naturally have the tools to run a company or are assuming that they can hone their skills at lightening speed.  Lower ranked dancers have been switching companies for years, trying to find a place that will raise their profile, gain them the greatest experience, and potentially launch a renowned career that gives them a name.

There has been buzz in recent press about leading dancers, even, having less commitment to old-style company life. In my opinion, it is becoming especially hard for dancers to make a name for themselves staying in one place and they recognize this. Directors tend to fall in love with one dancer, a la Balanchine and Farrell, and all of the other dancers become secondary. Due to this, leading dancers are jumping ship to find the best way to gain the greatest reputation in a short five to twenty years. If this is achieved, a dancer can appropriately have a dance career, performance and non-performance, that lasts as long as any regular non-dance career.

While most dancers start training at a young age, the actual length of their time connected to dance can be short lived. In the end, it is up to each individual dancer to take their career into their own hands. If a dancer needs to move elsewhere to achieve the alias "Principal Dancer," many, like me, will leave behind somewhat gratifying and comfortable positions in companies. Aside from the desire to perform great roles and gain as much experience as possible in such a short career, this is the principal reason that I believe dancers burn out and have less commitment to companies today than ever.

Do you agree with this view? Share your opinion in the comments section.

Dancers and decisions in their dancing

Performing my work, "Gated Lies," in the Philly Fringe festival (Photo: Bill Hebert)

Have you ever gone to a performance and seen a dancer perform a piece that you are familiar with and thought to yourself, "What were they thinking?" I recently came across a video that a friend had posted on Facebook of Paris Opera Ballet dancer Dorothee Gilbert performing the solo and coda from Balanchine's Tchaikovsky Pas de Deux (click the link to watch, Blogger's Youtube feature decided it didn't want to find this video). Any knowledgeable Balanchine dancer or balletomane would watch this video and cringe. The solo is completed, for the most part, as it is typically executed. But when you start to watch the coda, you become acutely aware that Dorothee made some horrible decisions in dancing this piece. For instance, she is trying to be cheeky with the movement of her hips. While Balanchine dancers do lean into their hips to create a falling into the next movement motion, it is not executed with such vulgarity. She also exits in pique arabesques, which is not proper, and she changes the way that the fouettes are typically executed. While most classical pas de deux can be altered to highlight a dancer's strengths, this isn't the case for any Balanchine ballet. All Balanchine ballets are governed by the Balanchine Trust. If you want to alter the choreography, you must get the permission of the Trust or one of their associates. Why did Ms. Gilbert take the liberty to make these unacceptable changes? Lets discuss.

When I first entered the professional ballet world, I pretty much did whatever I was told. I was late to the game with my ballet technique and I had to make up a great amount of time in my final two years of training. I would only do what I was told to do, never rebelling or questioning. I never made any choices about my dancing and I was afraid that my intuition was wrong. As my career grew, I realized that, at times, I had a little more leeway in making a few decisions. Perhaps, I chose to execute a step with a certain accent or I emoted a little differently than I was told. But when it came to steps, I didn't feel like I had the privilege of taking even minor artistic liberty. When I entered the contemporary dance world, my mind was blown when I was told that I should do it my own way. I wanted to be told exactly what to do since that was all I knew. It took me well over a year to adjust to this difference. It was difficult for me to pick up choreography because I was so stressed about perfectly replicating the execution of a movement that had no name or clearly defined position. I was eventually told that there was no perfect and that I should decide how it would look. If the choreographer didn't like the decision that I made, they would tell me and I would find a new way to execute. In the end, I ultimately had more leverage in deciding how I would perform a piece. With all of this in mind, as I started to watch other dancers perform, I began to be a little more lenient in my judgement of their decisions, especially on a ballet stage.

Dancing Balanchine's "Rubies" w/Leah Merchant (Photo:Angela Sterling)

With all of this knowledge and experience existing in multiple facets of the dance world, I find that it is hard to put blame solely on dancers for making poor choices in their performances. If I'm in the studio every day and get to see why a dancer makes the decisions that they do, then I feel I have more of a right to be judgemental. For instance, looking at the video of Dorothee Gilbert that I posted above. Did Dorothee teach herself that pas de deux? Did she learn it from a video and change the things she didn't like? Maybe a Balanchine repetiteur set the piece on her and changed the choreography to suit her. Or even, perhaps, after that repetiteur left, Ms. Gilbert's coach felt that they could change the steps. There are so many possibilities that could have influenced the alterations and stylistic choices within the choreography. But in the end, the performance is judged as if she was the only one involved in creating her performance. It is true, she is the one dancing the piece. All of this criticism appears to be a reflection of her and the quality of her dancing.

Unfortunately, for dancers, we are thrown onstage without any of the support that created our performance. Company class teachers, ballet masters/mistresses, artistic directors, stagers, colleagues, and anybody else that influences technique and the performance that happens onstage are largely left uncredited aside from a name and title in a program. When the reviews come out, a critic may say, "Stevie danced an unmusical, mannered performance that lacked emotion and spark. She seemed nervous and had multiple missteps." While the dancer receives and consumes the criticism, nobody points out that the artistic director didn't leave enough time for rehearsals and Stevie, being the 2nd cast, only had one run-through of the piece prior to performing. It wasn't mentioned that her coach told her that her character is generally unemotional or that the conductor played a completely different tempo than what was rehearsed. It is a great stress to dancers who are being told exactly how to perform to make their own decisions, even if they disagree with their instruction. Not only is their reputation on the line, it is also possible that their job may be on the line.

Why am I pondering all of this on a blog about freelance dancing?As a freelancer, aside from having leeway to make decisions about where you work, you have much more freedom to make your own choices within your dancing. Outside of class, most of the work that freelancers perform is fast-paced and transient. There generally isn't enough time to develop the typical submissive relationship between those in charge and yourself that is ever-prevalent in the dance world. It seems to me that there is somewhere around a month-long grace period where everybody is on their best behavior when entering a new workplace. Those in charge are less aggressive during this time and those subordinate are less likely to rebel. For this reason, corrections and style tend to be suggestions, instead of demands. This grace period allows for a dancer to explore their own decision making and to truly dance as they would choose to do so. This means that dancers take greater responsibility for their decisions. It also means that one has the opportunity to truly dance as the artist that they are.

"My version" of the "Nutcracker" variation (Photo: Ruth Judson)

While freelancing allows one to make more choices in their dancing, it can also be frustrating when you feel that you aren't ever getting any coaching. Working for multiple employers doesn't really give enough time for artistic staff to identify the areas of your dancing that need more work. This is why it becomes important to self-regulate and keep up-to-date by doing your homework. I regularly read reviews, see performances, discuss technique with friends, and watch Youtube videos. Dance is founded on replicating movements that are shown to you. Use your best judgement and be vigilant with self-correcting. I would even suggest recording yourself dancing a piece you are working on or performing class work.

It is very freeing to be in charge of what choices you make while rehearsing and performing. Sometimes, a dancer can develop a relationship with a coach that brings out the best in that artist. At other times, an aggressive coach that has too little time with a dancer or is more interested in their own ego than developing an intelligent, confident artist can leave dancers suffering from decisions that weren't even their own. The next time you see a performance that leaves you befuddled, take a moment to think about the whole picture before laying all of the blame on the dancer for their performance. We exist in such a hard career. The more that artistic staff and critics can empower dancers to step out of the eternal student role, the better off the dance world will be as a whole.