A questionextensions and arabesques
Posted 05 May 2003 - 04:56 PM
Posted 05 May 2003 - 06:03 PM
Posted 05 May 2003 - 06:43 PM
(I hope it's clear that I agree with Victoria completely and am grateful to her for pointing this out!)
Posted 05 May 2003 - 07:28 PM
Posted 05 May 2003 - 07:35 PM
Posted 05 May 2003 - 07:52 PM
Posted 05 May 2003 - 07:58 PM
Posted 05 May 2003 - 08:12 PM
Posted 05 May 2003 - 08:16 PM
Posted 05 May 2003 - 10:05 PM
[there is a lot of speculation that the very acrobatic work of some of the choreographers could be causing more injuries.
It certainly is causing injuries to the art form.
This is a most intriguing thread, even to one who has a hard time putting names to steps. Victoria Leigh gives a very clear description of the lack of line and, most importantly to this reader, exactly why there is no discernable line in the arabesque. One phrase that jumped off the page is "The one in the tutu has a supporting leg that is not turned out". Turnout is so basic--it is like saying that a singer can't sing a diatonic scale.
Posted 06 May 2003 - 04:42 AM
Posted 06 May 2003 - 05:08 AM
Posted 06 May 2003 - 05:21 AM
Posted 06 May 2003 - 05:22 AM
Posted 06 May 2003 - 11:37 AM
It is very interesting to read through "Basic Principles of Classical Ballet" and note that when Vaganova was writing it, a low arch was considered far more suitable for pointe work than a high arch, as the low-arched foot tends to be stronger. The focus wasn't so much on the aesthetic properties of the foot as it was on the strength and suitability of the foot for dancing. Same with extensions. While 90-degree extensions were common, 135 degrees was considered high. "A la seconde" was a position; "battement developpé" was a movement.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
members, guests, anonymous users
Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases: