Dancers who may have been lacking in technique,

[bart]

There are so many excellent reviews on BT. Some writers focus on technique; others on characterization; others on that mysterious quality called "stage presence."

Here's atm711, writing in her marvellous Ballet Talk blog, about the early dancing days of Maria Tallchief:

It is easy to see why Balanchine singled her out so quickly. She often spoke despairingly of herself as a dancer in those days when comparing herself to Balanchine trained dancers Mary Ellen Moylan or Marie-Jeanne. Moylan, indeed, had beautiful legs and feet and Marie-Jeanne's sharp-footed technique was easy to appreciate---but Tallchief had something else---a commanding stage presence that could not be ignored. The finely honed technique would come.

She was an exciting dancer on stage, no matter how small or large the part. She came into her own with the soloist lead in "Ballet Imperial"---a performance hard to top, although I did see the same technical spark and attack in Monique Meunier's recent performance.

[ ... ]

It seems to me that nowadays when people write of upcoming 'corps' members or soloists they usually emphasize technical prowess--but that will take them only so far on the road to ballerina-status.

Who are some of the other dancers -- past or present -- who were (or are) exciting, eye-capturing dancers with a kind of star quality BEFORE they developed their technique?

Or, what about dancers who might never have achieved technical heights, but still commanded the stage and were able to carry off major roles?

And how did they do it?

[richard53dog]

Or, what about dancers who might never have achieved technical heights, but still commanded the stage and were able to carry off major roles?

And how did they do it?

Bart ,

Two that come to my mind are Marcia Haydee and Lynn Seymour. How did they do it? They chose their roles

very carefully, much as Alessandra Ferri does today

I did see Haydee dance Cranko's Swan Lake though, if my memory is still working.

Carla Fracci would be another from the same era that I think would go into this category.

Richard

[SandyMcKean]

It seems to me that nowadays when people write of upcoming 'corps' members or soloists they usually emphasize technical prowess--but that will take them only so far on the road to ballerina-status.

I guess I don't buy this premise. I'm no expert, but when I "spot" someone in the corps that captures my imagination, and who I then start tracking over the years, the process I go thru is far more complex than this stmt can do justice.

True, it may be "technical prowess" that first captures my eye, but equally important is that the reason I end up tracking them, and even becoming a fan, is what I guess here is being called "stage presence".

I see the concern of this stmt as an illusion created perhaps by the simple fact that it is easier to distinguish, and therefore to discuss, technique than it is to distinguish presence -- in much the same way that it is easier to expound on the "correctness" of science, than it is to expound on the "correctness" of art.

[Hans]

Tamara Karsavina was criticized for her "sloppy" technique, but according to contemporary reviews, no one commanded the stage better than she did, including Nijinsky.

[canbelto]

Gennady Smakov in his book on Russian dancers has some very harsh words for Galina Ulanova's technique, but obviously she triumphed despite her deficiencies.

In her day, Anna Pavlova was also criticized and ridiculed for her perceived lack of perfect technique, but her ethereal grace and delicacy obviously drove the audience wild.

[Hans]

I'm very surprised re: Ulanova, as in "Days with Ulanova" it appears that she worked obsessively, never missing a day of class.

[drb]

I'm very surprised re: Ulanova...

So, apparently, would be Maya Plisetskaya. Writing about her great "rival" in her autobiography:

What astonished me was the lines of her body. Here she had no equals. Her arabesques looked as if drawn by a finely sharpened pencil. She had remarkably educated feet. I saw it immediately. It was as if she were speaking quietly through her feet. Her beautiful arms made every pose complete. There was not a single sloppy step throughout the whole performance.

[Paul Parish]

I've reserved judgment on Smakov. I don't like what he says about Karsavina, but what do i know? on the other hand, what exactly does HE know.

Karsavina could do entrechat-huit. And she wrote two valuable books on technique.

I wish I could see her dance to know what I'd think.

Danilova didn't use her feet, in Gaite Parisienne (of which film exists) as well as the merest corps member of NYCB, BUT Massine wasn't asking for that, and she DID deliver what Massine's choreography needed.... the back-bends, the timing, the wit! and the fearless brio, and a personality strong enough to hold that mess together and take the climax over the top.

[bart]

... a personality strong enough to hold that mess together ...

Great phrase! Just think of how many millions of times in the history of human performance art this qualitiy has been called upon to win the day!

[omshanti]

I am really surprised about what was written about Ulanova too. I have seen a bronze statue of her in attitude position on point and it was the most perfect and beautifull attitude I have ever seen.

I think Nureyev is the most famous dancer in this category. He never had the technique, but he was captivating on stage.

[richard53dog]

I think Nureyev is the most famous dancer in this category. He never had the technique, but he was captivating on stage.

Really? I thought Nureyev had a tremendous technique. There were rough edges but still I don't see how he wouldn't be called a virtuoso. And he didn't avoid difficult roles like some of the other dancers mentioned.

Richard

[Mashinka]

Inconsistency was Nureyev's failing. He certainly had the technique, but couldn't/didn't always display it, which is why you still get so many people considering him over-rated as a technician. On top form he could compete with anyone.

[omshanti]

Forgive me for the misunderstanding. I just did not think having good technique equals virtuoso. I do not think having a good technique only means being able to do super hard steps. I think it is how you do even the easiest steps. Consistency is part of technique too. Also I think it depends who you compare to. Nureyev certainly had the technique compared to most male dancers of the west at that time(ofcourse there were few exeptions like Erik bruhn ) but he was from the Soviet Union. I was comparing him to dancers like Soloviev. I would say Nureyev was an unfinished material.

[papeetepatrick]

Forgive me for the misunderstanding. I just did not think having good technique equals virtuoso. I do not think having a good technique only means being able to do super hard steps. I think it is how you do even the easiest steps. Consistency is part of technique too. Also I think it depends who you compare to. Nureyev certainly had the technique compared to most male dancers of the west at that time(ofcourse there were few exeptions like Erik bruhn ) but he was from the Soviet Union. I was comparing him to dancers like Soloviev. I would say Nureyev was an unfinished material.

Once I had lunch with a dancer who quickly found out how much I admired Farrell. He promptly told me she 'has no technique.' I thought that was idiocy but hadn't the technical chops to properly refute it. Another told me Farrell was 'insipid' but this dancer only liked flamboyant types and had a tin ear. And then a musician who had not only told me about the 1980 Ballet at the Beacon where Farrell danced to Mejia's 'Romeo and Juliet' in a program also including Cynthia Gregory (that pianist's favourite; I like her too) and Patrick Dupond but had also led me to a large scholarship toward my 4th year at Juilliard tuition, said to me when I enthused about Farrell: 'Oh, I didn't like her at all. She didn't have any personality.' I just glared and stormed off in high dudgeon, because he was being a bore and I did know he didn't know what he was talking about.

Consistency is not necessarily a part of technique, although it can be. I am a pianist and such things apply just as much to musical virtuosity as they do to dance technique. Nureyev could do super hard steps and he could do the easiest steps too. Just watch the old movie of 'An Evening with the Royal Ballet' and look at 'Les Sylphides' and you'll see consummate gentleness and sensitivity. Of course, he was an exhibitionist (even Stravinsky used the word for Nureyev) and an incredibly flamboyant personality.

Everybody is 'an unfinished material.' I bet if you asked Farrell she'd even say she hadn't completed everything she might, and she even had the discipline to get to explore certain aspects of her potential further than almost anyone else. Now that the careers of Nureyev, McBride and Farrell as dancers are over due to death in the first case, and retirement to teaching, etc., in the 2nd and 3rd cases, I realize that Nureyev is my favourite dancer of all: He had everything as far as I'm concerned, and I couldn't care less that he wasn't always good, or that he let a lot of the glamour scene go to his head. This is not because I think any less of McBride and Farrell, but because now that they aren't dancing, I prefer the paganism of Nureyev to the more civilized religiosity of Farrell from time to time. When they're not dancing anymore, you are left with a whole body--an essence, as it were--of what they represented, and I think Rudy's well-known animalism has not exactly been duplicated by a single one of the more 'perfect' dancers. I don't know if Pat McBride is religious or not, but in the NYRBooks review of 'Holding on to the Air', Farrell said 'I dance for God.' The reviewer pointed out 'she also danced for Balanchine.' I was glad of that, and thought it was therefore terrific that she danced for God if she could come up with that sort of result. Someone said that Franz Liszt, both the most flamboyant and probably the greatest pianist ever to have lived 'loved God but worshipped the devil.' Not bad. Rudy may have just 'worshipped the devil,' I don't know. But he sure knew how to dance and he sure knew how to put on a good show--onstage and off.

Perfection and perfectionism aren't the same things. Perfectionism can even get in the way of perfection, but occasionally it doesn't, as in Farrell's case. But Nureyev's perfection was just as great as hers.

[dirac]

omshanti writes: I just did not think having good technique equals virtuoso.

Ninette de Valois felt the same way. Keith Money once quoted her in one of his Fonteyn books as saying that, although Fonteyn was not a virtuoso, she had a very sound technique, which was unconnected with being able to do ten thousand turns.

papeetepatrick writes:

When they're not dancing anymore, you are left with a whole body--an essence, as it were--of what they represented, and I think Rudy's well-known animalism has not exactly been duplicated by a single one of the more 'perfect' dancers.

Very well put.

[kfw]

I prefer the paganism of Nureyev to the more civilized religiosity of Farrell from time to time. When they're not dancing anymore, you are left with a whole body--an essence, as it were--of what they represented, and I think Rudy's well-known animalism has not exactly been duplicated by a single one of the more 'perfect' dancers. I don't know if Pat McBride is religious or not, but in the NYRBooks review of 'Holding on to the Air', Farrell said 'I dance for God.' The reviewer pointed out 'she also danced for Balanchine.' I was glad of that, and thought it was therefore terrific that she danced for God if she could come up with that sort of result. Someone said that Franz Liszt, both the most flamboyant and probably the greatest pianist ever to have lived 'loved God but worshipped the devil.' Not bad. Rudy may have just 'worshipped the devil,' I don't know. But he sure knew how to dance and he sure knew how to put on a good show--onstage and off.

Thank you for the interesting thoughts, Patrick. Farrell was a Catholic girl, of course, and Balanchine was Orthodox, and clearly their sensibilities fed each other there. The modernist elevation of form over personality that struck many as cold actually put personality in a clear frame. I'm trying to think of a Balanchine ballet that could be characterized as pagan in sensibility (Walpurgisnacht Ballet?) and I'm coming up blank. Not Meditation, his first work for her, and not Diamonds, and not the overtly reverential Mozartiana. Balanchine loved/worshipped women, perhaps to a fault. According to Tallchief in her autobiography, they didn't even sleep together. Desire was easy to read onstage, but isolated pagan lust didn't seem to be a choreographic force. No need to worship the devil when God had all the best steps and the larger picture.

[papeetepatrick]

No need to worship the devil when God had all the best steps and the larger picture.

Well, you see, I think they both have good steps and large pictures, and are equally necessary to the artist. Liszt did fine worshipping the devil and working at the Vatican as an abbe. Even the pope at the time wanted a private audience, and it was most likely to evoke the concert fan-mobbed period rather than to provide vesper material. I like what Balanchine did and I like what Nureyev did--it's possible.

[sparklesocks]

papeetepatrick writes:

When they're not dancing anymore, you are left with a whole body--an essence, as it were--of what they represented, and I think Rudy's well-known animalism has not exactly been duplicated by a single one of the more 'perfect' dancers.

Very well put.

Mmm. I agree - I can almost taste that...

[leonid17]

There are so many excellent reviews on BT. Some writers focus on technique; others on characterization; others on that mysterious quality called "stage presence."...............

Or, what about dancers who might never have achieved technical heights, but still commanded the stage and were able to carry off major roles?

And how did they do it?

Dear Bart

The question you raised has led to the raising of temperatures and to lifting of corners of carpets where many prejudices lie swept from view. As I have been fortunate enough to witness on stage or meet in person many of the dancers named in the postings, I felt I just had to jump into the fray, but I do so with caution.

I can only speak from my witness and study of classical ballet and the effect particular performances have had upon me over the years. I consider that some forty or more leading dancers I have seen over the years have given me the justification of considering classical ballet to be a ‘high art’ in which dancers through extensive study, personal qualities and exposure to the highest elements of their art, have for me wrought an atmosphere of a kind of perfection in performance that can elevate my thoughts, move my emotions, warm my heart, satisfy my intellect and confirm my interest as being thoroughly worthwhile.

The question of technique has been mentioned and I would like to give an example of what can be missing from the observation of a performance when technique becomes the foremost virtue in a dancer. I have witnessed that some people cannot go beyond their own prejudice when seeing films of dancers from earlier generations without saying, I just don’t get it, he (or she) just does not have technique and for a moment you wonder if this person is getting the same kind of experience that you are getting when you are sitting next to them. If a member of an audience is looking for the perfect execution of every single step, it seems to me to not understand the art of ballet in terms of a theatrical performance. Ballet is about experiencing a harmony of components that resonate with the audience to bring some measure of experience. If you are just watching and measuring steps, you cannot be experiencing. How little or too much of an exhibition of technique in a performance is a question of measure which is always going to come down to a question of personal informed knowledge, experience and the resulting acquired taste. I often find myself musing after a performance in which an outstanding virtuoso technique has been exhibited and feeling rather empty then asking myself where was the beautiful epaulement or line, all part of a dancers technique, Where was the understanding of the role. If the dancer does not possess in the ability to convey subtle changes in character and mood (a part of the technique of dance acting) it is as if I have been watching an exhibition of an attained skill and not a theatrical performance.

Some of the postings above get rather up front and personal in respect of individual dancers.

Gennady Smakov’s book on great dancers (referred to above) is I believe an important work as no other single book covers the sort of detail about a number of dancers that he does. He appears to exhibit some prejudices about some dances and of course is frequently giving opinions about dancers he never saw. Whilst it is true that Karsavina was criticized for not possessing an adequate classical ballet technique in the major classic ballets performed at the Maryinsky, it was in the ‘art’ of her performances with the Diaghilev Ballet, that she achieved great fame in which her art of expression and her personal beauty contributed to the audiences experience. The height and quality of Karsavina’s jetes were enthusiastically recorded by several commentators in her created role of ‘The Firebird’. As regards Smakov’s comments on Ulanova, Vaganova created the highly virtuoso pas de deux ‘Diana and Acteon’ for Ulanova’s graduation. There is a film of Ulanova in Act II Swan Lake Pas de deux with Sergeyev in which there is now doubt as to her technical ability and in the Messerer book on ballet technique there is a picture of Ulanova alongside Plisetskaya in a classroom exercise of jetes. After seeing these two examples and studying the roles she danced and reading opinions of her performance I had to reassess my own opinion that Ulanova was an extraordinary dance actress rather than having attained a highly developed ballet technique.

Pavlova who was mentioned in a posting was highly successful on the Maryinsky stage in ballerina roles such as Medora, Kitri and Nikiya. Having had conversations with numerous members of Pavlova’s company, the technique she exhibited in class was not that which she used on the stage where she gave as many as 10 performances in a week. What Pavlova had, was the ability through short dance essays, to express joy, tragedy the experience of love and death and to a degree that an audience was able to identify with at a level that few other dancers have ever been able to achieve. I have spoken to many members of the audiences from all classes of society that saw Pavlova who without prompting told me that seeing her dance, was the most important experience of their life.

I am used to hearing negative comments regarding Nureyev but as a witness to his career in the West from the very beginning, the only fault I observed at the beginning of his career with the Royal Ballet was his noisy landings. This he mastered very quickly. His jetes en tournant, his entrechat six, his pirouettes ala seconde were all generally recognized as extraordinary at his best and his general quality of movement, physical presence, his ability to convey emotion and the sense of danger he brought to his performances(never really captured on film) made him the legend he was. My personal opinion is that after 1969 he rarely achieved the standard in classical ballets that he had in the eight years previously.

Some people remark that Fonteyn’s technique and feet were weak yet she undoubtedly was a virtuoso dancer in performances of the Corsair pas de deux or Black Swan pas de deux in the 1960’s when appearing with Nureyev. Fonteyn could say more in a still moment than few others in my experience could. Her performances as Aurora, Odette, Ondine, Daphnis, Marguerite, Giselle, Nikiya in the Shades Scene, Raymonda, which were moving, thrilling and enthralling by turn. Of course I have seen all these roles performed marvelously well by other dancers and certainly with better turn out and placement, stronger feet and more elevation, higher arabesques etc but for me only a few other dancers have ever reached the heights of a performance experience that Fonteyn gave to her audience.

A number of the dancers that are mentioned in the above postings have always remained an arcane mystery to me as I never appreciated any aspect of their performances measured against others. They have however achieved some fame. Is it our objective study, reasoning and appreciation of standards achieved in a performance that creates our reactions, or, is it the subjective response that in the end overrides any objectivity in our appreciation?

To take control of an audience so that it becomes a single massed response in theatres across the world is an achievement that very few ballet dancers can attain. Some achieve through their perfection and control of their technique, their musicality, physical beauty, dramatic skills a recognized high level of performance, but few dancers have the universality of appeal that perhaps only fifteen or twenty in the history of classical ballet have achieved.

Yours Leonid

[omshanti]

Who are some of the other dancers -- past or present -- who were (or are) exciting, eye-capturing dancers with a kind of star quality BEFORE they developed their technique?

Or, what about dancers who might never have achieved technical heights, but still commanded the stage and were able to carry off major roles?

And how did they do it?

I think that bart simply asked a question regarding the technical aspect of ballet and dancers whose strengths were in their stage presence or persona rather than the technique. And every body simply responded to that and named some dancers. Nobody wrote anything negative about the dancers they mentioned. Now there were disagreements about what technique is in ballet . Some take it as a display of virtuosity and others take it differently ( I think it needs a whole thread of its own). Why do so many people take things to the personal level and make a simple discussion difficult without reading carefully what other people wrote?

I think Nureyev is the most famous dancer in this category. He never had the technique, but he was captivating on stage.

I apologize (to Nureyev ) about what I wrote here. It was a mistake that I wrote He never had the technique. I should have written he struggled with technical aspects of ballet.

[papeetepatrick]

A number of the dancers that are mentioned in the above postings have always remained an arcane mystery to me as I never appreciated any aspect of their performances measured against others. They have however achieved some fame.

I think I know what you mean even if I don't feel it myself. You are much more in touch with the true grand European-romantic traditions from what I can tell from what you've written here. As an eclectic American, I pick and choose from anywhere, most likely, and in some cases I've intersected with you (certainly when it comes to Nureyev)--and all of what you wrote here is quite arresting.

'Is it our objective study, reasoning and appreciation of standards achieved in a performance that creates our reactions, or, is it the subjective response that in the end overrides any objectivity in our appreciation?'

I think it works both ways, and that the former by itself is suspect. On the other hand some artists are of a subtlety that won't allow the latter to come sweeping through by itself: If it then does, then the former was justified and redeemed; if it doesn't, and what can best be called 'learned behaviours' result, then the former is just barren and effete, aspirations to commonplace chic.

To take control of an audience so that it becomes a single massed response in theatres across the world is an achievement that very few ballet dancers can attain. Some achieve through their perfection and control of their technique, their musicality, physical beauty, dramatic skills a recognized high level of performance, but few dancers have the universality of appeal that perhaps only fifteen or twenty in the history of classical ballet have achieved.

The clear distinction makes me think of 17th century Mannerist painting and the following explosion into the Baroque--or, when you start seeing 'Picasso dancers' on stage who are not generally going to become household words. You mentioned 'all classes' when discussing Pavlova. Even so, dancers that look like Picassos on stage become so famous in the ballet world that it is forgotten by those within it or connected somehow to it that they are not especially well-known elsewhere, and certainly not universally and in all classes. I mentioned Peter Martins to a 23-year-old in my building here in NY about 1993, and after he said 'Who's Peter Martins?' I began to realize that changes had taken place even by then that I had not wanted to face.

[leonid17]

In welcoming Bart's thread and other contributors who broadened the discussion, like them I offer my opinions on an extremely serious and complex or even difficult subject that should be the concern of dancers, company directors and audiences. If you read and examine Barts thread it calls for a response on a matter that is both complicated and seriously difficult, as the demand of various periods of classical ballet on the surface at least seem to require different things from dancers to those in an earlier age.

However, I do not believe this is true. The best examples of the past, in all the arts, still speak as loudly today as they did as when first appreciated and it the best examples that need a particular encouraging environment in which to prosper. When exceptional dancers(in various ways) bring a level of communication and experience to an audience that clearly separates them from their colleagues, the universality of the art and performance achieves the goal that takes a ballet performance away from the routinely very good theatre to a different level of theatrical experience. Technical perfection has a place in such experiences but true 'artists' of the dance always go beyond the level of their personal technique to become one with the vehicle of their expression that in turn engenders a universal response as it touches the human experience in a way that sometimes only great art can do.

The questions Bart raises, “Who are some of the other dancers -- past or present -- who were (or are) exciting, eye-capturing dancers with a kind of star quality BEFORE they developed their technique? Or, what about dancers who might never have achieved technical heights, but still commanded the stage and were able to carry off major roles? And how did they do it?” are I would say highly significant questions. Why? Because such artists reinforce the answers to the significant questions as to how classical ballet can continue to remain a theatre ‘high art’ and encompasses “What is the best environment for aspiring dancers to add to the continuum of experience for an audience where no arbitrary division confounds the aims of the art. It is after all the dancers that bring life to a ballet and it is the dancers who in the end tend to make history in classical ballet. To return to Nureyev who was brought into the discussion by others, I certainly witnessed a large number of performances where his technical perfection in a role was clearly exhibited. I did however have the luxury choosing those performances from around watching him dance around 200 or more times over a long period of time.

[bart]

Thank you, leonid, for the serious and exceptionally thoughtful nature of your answers. Your responses, as well as those of others, have revealed implications in my original questions that (I admit) I did not imagine at the time I posted them.

Here is one of the most important implications, or so it seems to me. It's also one that is very relevant to the on-going mission of Ballet Talk, as defined originally by Alexandra, Leigh, and others:

[Why are these questions significant?] Because such artists reinforce the answers to the significant questions as to how classical ballet can continue to remain a theatre ‘high art’ and encompasses “What is the best environment for aspiring dancers to add to the continuum of experience for an audience where no arbitrary division confounds the aims of the art. It is after all the dancers that bring life to a ballet and it is the dancers who in the end tend to make history in classical ballet.

I believe that all of us on Ballet Talk wish to see classical ballet taught, studied, performed, and discussed in a way that will preserve and advance the very highest aspects of the art and all its practitioners.

Our function as posters is discussion (ruminating, advocating, learning, and even changing our points of view at times). That's how we are all helping to support ballet here.

[omshanti]

Dear Leonid,

I have been reading your posts in this thread many times in the past few days since you wrote them, in order to understand them fully ( I have only been learning and using English for 4years). I do understand and agree with many things you wrote . I admire your deep thoughts and envy your experience as an audience of ballet.

But there is something that I have difficulty understanding. It probably sounds silly but when the words art ,artistry(you did not use this) and artists are used I am in the dark. My English is probably the problem here but in the few other languages that I speak, the concept of the word art or its equivalent word in each language all have slightly different meaning and feeling depending on the culture and the language. For example I understand well when someone says Nureyev s dramatic ability, his intense charismatic stage presence were great, his honesty and risktaking on the stage as if he was ready to bleed and die on the stage really pulled me in and I could feel his passion and love of dancing, as a result I could not take my eyes off him ( you see I love Nureyev and he is one of my favorites). But when someone says he was a true and great artist I am completely in the dark.

Since I found ballet talk I have been thinking what art (artistry,artist) is because it gets used so much all the time. I know that in general ballet ,music ,painting , poetry .. etc are called arts (sometimes high arts) and their practitioners artists. But I think this is just an empty labelling (with elitist implications) and has no real meaning . What makes an art art ? or an artist artist? If you ask 100 people you will get 100 answers. To me they are very convenient but meaningless words. So can you please explain to me what you mean by art and artist in the context of your posts? I am sorry for asking such a favour, but I just wanted to understand fully what you wrote.

Regarding the technique (not virtuosity) of ballet, I do not think it is possible to overlook it especially if we think about the survival of ballet. After all it is the classical ballet technique that makes ballet ballet and seperates it from other danceforms. I think the reason Soviet Union produced so many great dancers (including Nureyev) is because the great teacher Vaganova improved the technical aspects of ballet tremendously, and one of the reasons the level of classical ballet is dropping now is because so many basic technical aspects are being neglected and forgotten. In my opinion from observing my own teacher whom I consider to be one of the greatest remaining teachers (he studied In the Bolshoi in the early 50s, danced with Ulanova, Plisetskaya, Fonteyn and numerous other great dancers, was the director as well as the principal dancer of Tokyo ballet company in the 60s and 70s, was a judge of Lausanne in the 80s, gets invited by the Paris opera school to observe and comment on the teaching) some people can see and examine every tiny technical detail of a dancer like an ex-ray while also experiencing the theatrical performance as you put it. So it is not one or the other, as in if you look at the technical aspects you will not be able to experience the performance, and I think that the technical aspects of ballet are the most mathematical part of it with one and ultimate answer (if you really know it) which will not be subjective depending on personal taste. I think it is such a person (like Vaganova) with the real eyes and understanding of ballet that is really needed for the survival of classical ballet.

[leonid17]

Since I found ballet talk I have been thinking what art (artistry,artist) is because it gets used so much all the time. I know that in general ballet ,music ,painting , poetry .. etc are called arts (sometimes high arts) and their practitioners artists. But I think this is just an empty labelling (with elitist implications) and has no real meaning . What makes an art art ? or an artist artist? If you ask 100 people you will get 100 answers. To me they are very convenient but meaningless words. So can you please explain to me what you mean by art and artist in the context of your posts? I am sorry for asking such a favour, but I just wanted to understand fully what you wrote.

I have tried to reply to this and other parts of your post in the best way I can.

Firstly I would say going to watch the ballet is a matter of choice and learning about ballet is another choice. As a teenager I found that forming opinions from observation alone, can result in viewpoints at odds with the historical context of the form and though satisfying to the individual, it may find little resonance among other members of the audience. I discovered that generally members of a ballet audience gravitate to groups of shared experience and values. Ballet fans (short for fanatics) in one interval bar position, critics elsewhere and the connoisseurs of performance and history elsewhere.

So what is it that makes shared values among audiences, commentators and those that work within ballet to suggest that ballet is an art and certain dancers a great artist? What is art and how is it measured and valued? Whilst the practice of an art requires skills in the manner that the craftsman requires, the artist does not just replicate a form, the artist generates from within an original expression in their work that separates them from others. What does being considered to be an artist mean? Simply being a practitioner of a skill in a manner that is superior to most other practitioners measured by shared values of those that experience the art. It is not simply the skilled mode of expression within their art form that creates an effect upon an audience it is the combination of psychological and physical response that a ‘great artist’ engenders which creates the theatrical experience that an audience desires. Great artists become one with the form which they practice and there are many ways in which it can be achieved but you cannot replicate dancers to become great despite strict methods of teaching being apllied with sensitive and informed coaching. Like all other people no two dancers are exactly alike in gifts that will enable them to success in their career and many students at the best schools failt to proceed from one year to the next. Ballet dancers who are going to be successful will be noticed in the corps de ballet or in a small solo, because they bring more than technique to the stage, they also bring a distinctive air that reflects a realised creativity in the manner in which they performed. This level of creativity becomes the subject of discussion and public opinion. Ballet is a form of language because it carries meaning with it. Through certain ballet dancers it speaks with an intensity of power that at one performance it can make decades of watching ballet a worthwhile pursuit. . You say, “Since I found ballet talk I have been thinking what art (artistry, artist) is because it gets used so much all the time. I know that in general ballet, music, painting, poetry. etc are called arts (sometimes high arts) and their practitioner’s artists. But I think this is just an empty labelling (with elitist implications) and has no real meaning.”(quote)

I want to take up your mention of ‘elitist implication’. We live in a world where rulers shaped history and elite groups in society were formed. This is a reality. Patrons from the elite have shaped the development of the arts and up to today classical ballet companies could not do without the support of people who fit the profile of this imagined class. History is history. Some people will rise to positions of wealth power and influence most of us will not.

Regarding your mention of the importance of technique versus virtuoso exhibitionism and Vaganova I agree on the first part of your statement but question the latter reference to the lady. I had thought for a long time, that we could always witness in particular dancers a high level of execution of individual steps but that the wider vocabulary that existed in the 19th century had disappeared. This opinion was formed from viewing the repertoire of the Kirov and Bolshoi I witnessed in the 1960’s and 1970’s. However reconstructions of ballets (and fragments) unseen in the West in previous decades seen in the 1980’s, 1990’s and this century have shown that the Vaganova Academy still teaches a method that allows modern dancers to effectively accomplish individual steps and combinations that one had read about in history books. The Bolshoi in Lacotte’s, ‘La fille du Pharoan’ showed that the seemingly forgotten steps of the 19th century Paris ‘ecole classique’ could be replicated.

I agree that the contribution that Vaganova made to teaching cannot be underestimated but we have to remember; she was the product of three methods of ballet technique taught by superior teachers and she had they advantage of witnessing the developing method of teaching already innovated by Preobrajenskaya. It was during Vaganova's era that the virtuoso (Soviet heroic) type of dancer appeared with the emphasis on showy technique vulgar exhibitions of jumps and pirouettes that had a lot of force behind them – and it showed. Fortunately, there were always pupils with an innate sense of taste and who later received coaching from other former dancers that carried on teaching the refinements of the school as opposed to strong execution of steps. A measure of this statement can be made if you compare various dancers who made ballerina status but who differed in 'artistry' to such a degree you cannot believe they were products of the same school. I remember both the Kirov and the Bolshoi in the 1960’s presenting highly unsuitable dancers in leading roles which led to certain of the females to be given the soubriquet of ‘basher’ because of the way that they 'beat up'’ the ballet steps.

As regards a decline in technique I don’t think there is a problem with teaching at the Vaganova Academy for instance, and the technical achievements elsewhere. There is however almost universal crisis in respect of epaulement. I do also believe that it is wrong to encourage every rising young dancer to dance in the manner of a virtuoso. Occasionally, the natural virtuoso appears and is to be celebrated. On dancers capable of a perfect display of technical ability, the practice of making them appear virtuosic simply makes them appear vulgar. I can’t agree with you that that the Soviet Union produced so many great dancers; it produced a number in my opinion and a number of extraordinary and unusual dancers. It should be mentioned that certain character dancers of the past and one or two now were great artists as were certain mimes.

Ps I apologise to all readers for the length of my post. Brevity deserted me

today. (Don’t say, “What do you mean today”)