Jump to content


This site uses cookies. By using this site, you agree to accept cookies, unless you've opted out. (US government web page with instructions to opt out: http://www.usa.gov/optout-instructions.shtml)

A questionextensions and arabesques


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 floss

floss

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 05 May 2003 - 04:56 PM

Ms Leigh placed a link on the young dancers page about arabesques. I would like to know why incorrect technique (sometimes) seems to be promoted even by professional dancers. Is technique losing out to appearance? Do others have a problem with this aspect of dance? Is it just that the audience member's eye is drawn to something that is off kilter in a momentary lapse by the dancer or the camera just happens to click then. The teachers know it is wrong, the dancers know it is wrong so why does it seem to be on the increase?:)

#2 Victoria Leigh

Victoria Leigh

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 603 posts

Posted 05 May 2003 - 06:03 PM

One of the reasons is that extension has become the main focus. People are not seeing the lack of alignment, placement, position of the leg, rotation, LINE, or anything else, as long as the leg is whacked up as high as it can go. Those two photos illustrate rather clearly the difference. One has LINE, the other does not. The one in the tutu has a supporting leg that is not turned out, she is not all the way over the foot, the "arabesque" leg is not even close to being behind her, so it is more of an "alabesque", and it has no line. The whole position has no line. But even the students are not seeing this. They see the hip, but they still, at the least the ones who have responded so far, are not really seeing the back leg way out, nor noticing the supporting leg, nor seeing the overall lack of line. Very depressing. If the students don't see it, how is the audience supposed to see it?

#3 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Board Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,271 posts

Posted 05 May 2003 - 06:43 PM

Line is so, like, yesterday. ;)

(I hope it's clear that I agree with Victoria completely and am grateful to her for pointing this out!)

#4 floss

floss

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 05 May 2003 - 07:28 PM

Yes, i could see that the leg wasn't turned out and i would rather see line, placement, etc rather than toes pointing to the sky. Do you think that higher extensions without correct technique is seen as "better" by many people? I just can't understand it, my daughters' teachers insist on correct placement and technique and also dirrect their attention ( the students, I mean) to examples of incorrect technique so these students theoretically know what is right and wrong. Do some of the students just go away later and throw that away just to be able to do " tricks" and think that because they can get their leg higher (for an example) they are a better dancer than others who don't have that ability? Or, is it that they are trying to emulate dancers who do have that ability? One of my concerns is that ballet may be over- run by people who have the opinion that bigger or higher is better and that technique is being eroded. If I want to see acrobats I'll go to the circus!

#5 Victoria Leigh

Victoria Leigh

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 603 posts

Posted 05 May 2003 - 07:35 PM

Floss, your fear is not without justification, I'm afraid. The bigger, higher, better mentality exists out there in a lot of places, and it's fostered, at least in part, and also IMO, by placing ballet in the arena of competitive events. However, there are also some styles of training which do not seem to believe that having the leg in the back, as opposed to partially out to the side, is necessary. I guess they have a totally different sense of line than most of us have been taught to recognize. :(

#6 floss

floss

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 05 May 2003 - 07:52 PM

Ah, different styles of teaching. Do you mean styles as in RAD, Vaganova, Checchetti etc or the teacher's personal style?

#7 Victoria Leigh

Victoria Leigh

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 603 posts

Posted 05 May 2003 - 07:58 PM

RAD, Vaganova and Cecchetti are methods. I was talking styles. ;) There are a lot of different company styles and choreographer styles out there. Many variations on the theme of what some of us think is classical technique.

#8 floss

floss

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 05 May 2003 - 08:12 PM

Thanks for clearing that up:) And what do you think about not using turnout correctly and other technique issues, are companies and choreographers putting the dancers at risk physically by requesting this style of dance, and what does it mean for the rest us who don't believe that this is the best way for our children to learn ballet, or can these styles exist side by side without detrimental effects on each other. Sorry if I'm being a bit of a pain about this. I learnt ballet many many years ago when a child and teenager, my teacher was very strict and demanded correct technique. Maybe I'm still in that world. Haha;)

#9 Victoria Leigh

Victoria Leigh

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 603 posts

Posted 05 May 2003 - 08:16 PM

The styles are existing side by side. Whether they are putting the dancers at higher risk or not has not been proven, although there is a lot of speculation that the very acrobatic work of some of the choreographers could be causing more injuries. I don't believe any data exists on this however, and I would like to hope that at least most of the schools are still teaching essentially correct technique.

#10 Ed Waffle

Ed Waffle

    Bronze Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 493 posts

Posted 05 May 2003 - 10:05 PM

Originally posted by Victoria Leigh
[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.

#11 floss

floss

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 06 May 2003 - 04:42 AM

I couldn't sing to save my life but I can hear a bad note. I can see bad positions in dance but that's probably because I was taught ballet. What about people who haven't had dance training can they see how awkward the dancer is or does that come with watching and comparing various dancers over the years? Another thought. Do many young dancers get "rewarded" ( by being placed or winning in competitions for example) for incorrect line, technique, little or no turnout or losing their turnout when they do a particular step. For this I mean older students, adolescents. I'm interested because it seems that those high extensions are what many people are aiming for and I feel that there is more to ballet than how high you can lift your leg. I also recognise that many art forms are evolving but that doesn't mean that the old way has to be discarded or that the new way is some new fangled thing that old fogeys are afraid of. I just feel that technique is the base to work from. I suppose that technique means different things to different people.

#12 Victoria Leigh

Victoria Leigh

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 603 posts

Posted 06 May 2003 - 05:08 AM

Sometimes they do, floss. It depends on the judges and their values. If they are looking for schooling and artistry, those who just get their legs up and pull off the tricks don't win, but it seems to me that it is usually the "whiz bangs" who win. I find this especially troubling in the younger teens, as it promotes the development of very young dancers ripping through classical variations which are intended for principal dancers, or soloists at the very least. The difficulty of these variations, which were not intended for children, forces them to focus on things which, IMO, are not the important things at that stage of their development. It can push them into too much too soon, and, with those who do have the physical facility to do it, develops prodigies. I find this potentially dangerous, and just not the best way to develop a dancer/artist. (I'm not talking about 17-18-19 year olds here, but the younger teens and pre-teens who are involved in competitive dance. The older teens should be working on these variations, and if the competitions can help them to get jobs, then I can accept that, as of course dancers getting jobs in companies is kind of important ;) However, I still would prefer to think that dancers get jobs through auditions rather than winning competitions. I may be old-fashioned in this thinking, but I still prefer to see dancers develop through the ranks. Sometimes they become "stars" before they become dancers, or at least well before they become young artists.

#13 floss

floss

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 06 May 2003 - 05:21 AM

I hope I'm not dragging out this thread, forgive me if I am, i'm still new here. But, what you say about young teens attempting variations beyond there physical, emotional and technical development touches a chord with me. i have seen a number of young dancers in competitions here who try very hard to dance variations that IMO are beyond those capabilities so it comes down to tricks. Then other dancers who perform something less taxing and sometimes beautifully are not recognised.

#14 floss

floss

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 06 May 2003 - 05:22 AM

If any other people have opinions on this subjects I would be interested in hearing/reading them

#15 Hans

Hans

    Sapphire Circle

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,104 posts

Posted 06 May 2003 - 11:37 AM

I agree with all that has been written here. I'd also like to point out that many people state that ballet is becoming more "technical," which in my opinion is not true. A high extension is not a display of technique; it is a display of natural (sometimes unnatural) flexibility. Dancers now seem to focus less on good technique (ie moving properly) and more on extreme physical features, such as very arched or pronated feet or high extensions or hyperextended knees. The sooner people realize that dancing on their knuckles and kicking themselves in the head is not technique of any sort--except "bad"--the better.

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

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases (adblockers may block display):