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)

Technique


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#1 Buddy

Buddy

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 616 posts

Posted 06 July 2006 - 05:45 PM

Could someone please tell me what the term "technique" means. If this has already been discussed could you please refer me to the topic. Thank you.

#2 vrsfanatic

vrsfanatic

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 673 posts

Posted 06 July 2006 - 06:21 PM

In Vaganova schooling technique requires the mechanical knowledge and ability to achieve the classical ballet vocabulary as well as the artistic understanding of musicality of movement, expressivity of movement combined with coordination. Without these key components a dancer does not have technique.

In my American training, technique was considered to be the mechanical aspects of movement only. Coordination, musicality and artistry were considered separate entities. I am not sure if this is the case everywhere in the US, but that was my experience.

#3 Buddy

Buddy

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 616 posts

Posted 06 July 2006 - 06:49 PM

Thank you very much, vrsfanatic. I use the term with my own 'variable' idea of what is means, but I was never sure what it means to others.

#4 chiapuris

chiapuris

    Bronze Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 316 posts

Posted 07 July 2006 - 05:28 AM

In my American training, technique was considered to be the mechanical aspects of movement only.


Technique, in my (American) experience also, covered the physical mastery of the classical vocabulary.

In common understanding, as vrsfanatic pointed out, interpretation, musicality, stage presence were spoken of as issues separate from the mastery of technique.

Training for over a year in Paris (Mme Rouseanne, Ana Ilic), the approach seemed to me to be the same: classes were designed for technique, ie. physical mastery.

#5 bart

bart

    Diamonds Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,320 posts

Posted 07 July 2006 - 08:59 AM

Like Buddy, I am grateful for the clarifications. I also have a few questions.

For purposes of analysis, I can understand breaking down the training into mechanical and artistic/expressive components.

But, how does this actually work in class settings?

Is it really possible to WORK on technique separately from these other elements?

And if you do so, aren't you creating the possibility that some dancers will have difficulty, later on, in integrating all these aspects which they have worked on separately?

#6 chiapuris

chiapuris

    Bronze Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 316 posts

Posted 07 July 2006 - 10:37 AM

Is it really possible to WORK on technique separately from these other elements?


I think working on technique separately is not only possible but the explicit goal of a class.
Another way of saying it is that dancers don't usually role-play or 'perform' in class.

Many teachers don't favor familiar 'ballet' music for classroom, for the reason that it
distracts from the task at hand.

Rehearsals are where the integration of all elements for a performance take place.

#7 vrsfanatic

vrsfanatic

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 673 posts

Posted 07 July 2006 - 05:22 PM

It is important to recognize the differing levels of training when one is discussing the artistic development of a step, a class and individual dancers. The Vaganova program has 8 years of study (well even that may be changing again). In the first 3 years, the fundamentals of body placement, coordination, basic leg movements, jumps, arms,heads and musicality are strictly taught. In the 3rd year nuance is introduced by elaborating on the breath of movement through the carriage of the arms and heads and well increased tempi. Movements are taught to the students with an importance placed upon artistic expressivity of each pas. Each movement has a particular musicality and way of being done that is adhered to and further developed. Such strict attention is given to the usage of the back, head and arms that they become an intrical part of the whole. By the 6th, 7th, and 8th year of study these nuances are just considered to be the way it is done, part of the whole.

When I say in my American training technique was about mechanics, for the most part I am discussing perfecting the leg movements, balances, turning movements, turn out, and pointing the feet. Arms were important, yet there were no real answers about how the arms moved. It was known that they were held in the back and that the shoulders were down with a long neck, but it was never taught exactly how to do it so that it looked to be part of the whole. There were arm positions but no answers to how the arm moved mechanically from (for example) over head (3rd position) to the side (second position). Although this is a mechanic, it is a mechanic that becomes the artistic expression of ballet. The study of focus (eyes) and the head were never isolated from the the shoulders. Yes, of course I was told they should be used separtately, but again it was never studied how to do it. There was a lot of talk about the idea that it should be done, but the study did not produce the results.

In Vaganova schooling there are strict goals mechanically and artistically for each level of study that are directly related to stage work. In this way, the ballet class must continue to be for the development of the whole artist not just the mechanic or in American terminology, the technician.

As with language, perhaps the cultural differences of the two countries allow for differing sentiments in the teaching of goals of ballet. Please just a thought. Not a dogma! :flowers:

#8 beck_hen

beck_hen

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 128 posts

Posted 07 July 2006 - 05:59 PM

Brava, vrsfanatic!

It seems to me that much artistry is rooted in technique, in dance effect: the two cannot really be divorced, unless we are speaking of simply warming up the body. Similarly, it is impossible for me to say someone is a great technician if they have no nuance, or lack a complete style (like the student's development of Vaganova style vrsfanatic describes). It does not matter what the style is, just that there is one.

#9 Buddy

Buddy

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 616 posts

Posted 07 July 2006 - 07:18 PM

chiapuris and vrsfanatic thank you very much for your further clarification. vrsfanatic thank you for your extremely interesting detailed description of the Vaganova method.

Beck_hen you have steered things a bit more in the direction of my next question.

When one says that a dancer performed with 'Good Technique' does that refer principally to performing 'Correctly' what has been 'Taught' or 'Systemetized'? Is there a 'Broader Interpretation' of the word 'Technique'?

Beck-hen has suggested that personal(?) "Artistry" might be a factor as well. Can a dancer not perform 'Correctly', if this is the right word, and still be 'Technically Good'?

I only search for precise definitions because 'Good Technique' is such a widely used term in describing ballet performances.

I guess I should add, "What do you think most reviewers have in mind when they refer to "Good Technique"?

#10 beck_hen

beck_hen

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 128 posts

Posted 07 July 2006 - 08:38 PM

Buddy, I agree we are moving to the heart of the matter. I did not exactly mean that artistry is necessary to good technique, but that a mastery of style was.

For example, for each position or step there may be one accustomed position of the arms, head and shoulders (epaulement). I would expect a dancer to have internalized this so she could present to me a beautiful image or movement. However, I would also expect the dancer to have mastered alternate versions, so that she could show me the step with a different emphasis. In this case, where an artist must be sensitive, she is not a technical "robot" or "machine". If a dancer really understands "the system," she can select from it or expand on it appropriately. She must master it fully, but if she adheres to it slavishly, with no imagination, she is a classroom dancer.

As to reviewers, one begins to judge their relative sophistacation—they will mean different things. But I generally assume they are speaking of the lowest common denominator, or what vrsfanatic referred to in her first post as "the mechanical aspects of movement only." In the worst cases, the reviewer will be impressed that a dancer has performed a triple pirouette, without analyzing how well it was done. Technique is a question of taste—on this board we assume it is better to perform a good double pirouette than a bad triple.

#11 2dds

2dds

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 08 July 2006 - 08:10 AM

This discussion is very interesting to me as the terms "technique" and "good technique" seem to have different meanings to different people. I was especially happy to read the detailed way in which artistry or at least "prescriptions" for artistry are included in the higher levels of Vagonova technique. I never knew/fully understood this, but it does explain perfectly my and my dks'* fondness for Vagonova technique. I like to see artists making choices :cool2: :clapping: , not technicians executing steps :( . The dks were taught the clean double trumps the funky triple rule early in their mostly Vagonova training.

Could this also explain a distinction between American training (however this is being defined) and other styles? Maybe it even explains why Americans sometimes fail to make much impact in international competitions (Lausanne for example). Could it be part of the reason ballet does not have broader appeal/support among American audiences? Less artistry and more technical emphasis would make ballet more of an acquired taste and reduce its general appeal. That would be ironic if American training is producing artists less accessible to American audiences.

All this explains why a dancer would have to be so well trained to be well enough informed to even understand how and why they have the responsibility to make choices artistically. I've noticed some young dancers do not seem to realize they even have this responsibility, and exercise little or no reflection inside or outside the studio. Having said that, where do the Vagonova or other style recommendations/prescriptions about choice come in? Are there only a certain number of pre-defined alternatives in a given style, or is a dancer free after mastering a given vocabulary (the training) to make unique or unprecedented choices? Where does the artist's own imagination and creativity come in?

I am interested in hearing feedback on the relationship among technique and types of training, artistry and a distinction beween Vagonova and an American style. Where would Balanchine style, Checetti, or Royal or Paris Opera style fit? I am especially interested in the implications for American audiences of American training producing certain styles of dancers. Many have commented on how in the top American companies there are more and more internationally trained dancers. How are the American trained faring outside the US? Finally what are the implications for the economic future of American ballet.

I would like to mention here a post that I made today in the musicalty thread that may be of interest to some engaged in this technique thread. Warning, my musicality post is even longer than this one :jawdrop: :rofl:

Glad to have come out of the shadows at last.


[size=1]Moderator's note:[/size]
*For those who don't read BalletTalk for Dancers, dks=Dancing Kids.

Edited by carbro, 08 July 2006 - 11:03 AM.


#12 bart

bart

    Diamonds Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,320 posts

Posted 08 July 2006 - 10:43 AM

2dds, you raise some interesting questions re comparing US and non-US trained dancers. I hope that those who are familiar with both sides of the ocean will be able to ansewr them.

I was also interested in this comment:

All this explains why a dancer would have to be so well trained to be well enough informed to even understand how and why they have the responsibility to make choices artistically. I've noticed some young dancers do not seem to realize they even have this responsibility, and exercise little or no reflection inside or outside the studio

I realize that your generalization was not intended to apply to everyone. But it got me thinking. I wonder whether, when we talk about the balancing of technique, artistry, "mastery", etc., we don't have to pay more attention to the personality and history that the young dancer brings TO the studio.

It seems to me that some young dancers start out with a greater predisposition to expand beyond the studio and beyond the physical movements -- even BEFORE they begin serious dance training. This predisposition may come from greater musical aptitude, more stimulating and demanding cultural backgrounds, a higher level of intellectual curiosity, a greater need to find meaning in things, and possibly even from their genes.

Maybe that's why so many of the greatest dancers have also been quite fascinating human beings, and have often continued to contribute in highly creative and disciplined ways after their dancing days have ended.

It raises a couple of questions: what kind of young people are pursuing serious ballet study today? and what are their motives?

I guess the old "nature" versus "nurture" dichotomy rears it's head again. :clapping:

#13 Buddy

Buddy

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 616 posts

Posted 08 July 2006 - 04:30 PM

Thanks everyone for your comments.

Hi beck_hen. Your ideas about different viewers perceptions are very welcome. The idea of artistic input into the technical process seems like a very worthwhile topic to explore.

bart, interesting comments about children. Give me a soap box to stand on and I will give you my views on children. They are quite favorable. So you touched off the whole idea in my head about the incredibleness of spontaneous child behavior contrasted to the learned beauty that we are discussing here. Another time maybe.

2dds, thanks for your wide range of observations (also at the "Musicality" topic). Certainly a lot to think about. Your children sound very sensitive and intelligent.

#14 Hans

Hans

    Sapphire Circle

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,104 posts

Posted 08 July 2006 - 05:56 PM

As far as American training goes, I think that would be extremely difficult to define. All kinds of training occurs in this country, much of it a conglomerate of what each teacher has learned. Even true Vaganova training only occurs at the Vaganova Academy, although students outside it may still be well trained and even look similar to Vaganova Academy graduates.

#15 2dds

2dds

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 08 July 2006 - 09:03 PM

I agree on the difficulty in defining "American" style, I was just trying to follow up on a distinction I detected in earlier postings making a contrast about the inclusion of artistry and other factors beyond the physical. My children's old studio was not pure Vagonova by any means, but the sensibility and most of the teachers were generally oriented toward Russian style. The director's most important affiliation was Ballet Russe (the American incarnation). Having said this, one of the most influential teachers was trained in China and at SAB. Another personal favorite of one of my children was a Cuban teacher. Most others were American trained; many were also alums of that studio who had professional careers.This was our family's earliest and longest affiliation, but both my kids have moved on many years ago.

I promised myself when joining this board, not to go into too many details about my dancers who I also (of course) believe to be intelligent, thoughtful, talented, and sensitive. They are still seeking the best dance fit and/or personal path for themselves. When this becomes more clear I will share more details, at this point, I'll just leave them their personal space. Thank you though for the compliments and support, and please forgive my reticence. Hopefully, I've shared enough relevant material to interpret my post.

I think many kinds of kids are pursuing ballet these days (with the proviso that it is too expensive for many without some sort of subsidy--another contrast with much training abroad, I think). The commitment required begins to sort these guys out after around age twelve I've found, when it's harder to sustain tutu fever because so much sacrifice is involved.

Nature/nurture???I don't know. This gets into questions of what is innately in a dancer or any artist and how much of their craft can be taught. This question is beyond me, but provides another important contrast with other training outside the US. My understanding is that access is more strictly limited in state-supported systems. I guess predictions about career potential rather than economic status more often limit the ability to receive elite training. Does this also have implications for the art of ballet as well as the patrons?


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):