Lewis Segal, The Los Angeles Times' dance critic has as his lead "A Delhi High Court shelves dancers over 45, ghettoizing a generation of India’s most fabled dancers."
Interesting article about how the courts in India are legislating specific age ranges in re the designation of "professional dnacers"... In this particular case, it's all about money - and not wanting to subsidize "older" dancers (those over 45).
Mr. Segal goes into quite a bit of detail about Indian dance forms which I found illuminating as I know almost nothing about this, and I enjoyed getting a glimmer of its style. He also touches on some of our past and present Western dancers... His final statement in which her writes:
seemed a pretty good ending to me.
"Stalinism in the arts is always bad news, and Stalinism coupled with ageism and the assumption that the classic dances of India ought to inspire body-worship rather than reverence is downright ridiculous. Hindus everywhere believe that the whole universe was created in a dance performance by the eternal, ever-potent god Shiva. If so, it's indeed a blessing for all of us that Sikri wasn't around at the time to check Shiva's ID."
I do think that he makes a valid point when he writes about the audience's reactions usually being the key to a dancer's retirement...but I was also wondering what you all might think about the article, the point of view, etc. Is the ballet world subject to its own form of Stalinism, or is this just hyperbole?