Giannina

Vishneva (continued)

83 posts in this topic

Perhaps I'm being silly, but it seems to me that "buttock placement" would be more of an issue with male dancers. Has there also been a falling off in this regard?

Share this post


Link to post
Perhaps I'm being silly, but it seems to me that "buttock placement" would be more of an issue with male dancers. Has there also been a falling off in this regard?

I have reason to think so, but my statistics are both amateurish and not exhaustive enough.

Share this post


Link to post

Is it possible, omshanti, that the fall of the buttocks is due to the greater range of movement of the legs? If you're holding the gluteals too tightly (or at all?), you'll never be able to kick yourself in the ear, no matter how flexible you are!

When I took class, it was sometimes tricky finding the point where the muscles were supporting but not gripping. Maybe dancers of earlier generations tended to grip? These days, for better or worse, the premium seems to be on the height of extension.

I'm not sure you're right, but I'm not sure you're wrong, either.

Share this post


Link to post
[ Anyway, point made omshanti, unless it can be explained why this matters for the viewer.

It completely depends on the viewer Dale. If he/she can see it , it matters.

omshanti, I'm sorry if I seem like I'm peppering you with questions, but when do you think this phenomenon happened? I admit that I have never really looked at buttock placement carefully in dancers. And I have never seen the earlier version of La Sylphide, so I can't use that as comparison. And how do you think that affects the line of dancers?

I do not know when it happened exactly, If you look at the female etoiles of POB only a generation ago such as Guerin(she was amazing) , Platel ( she had a habit of letting go of her feet sometimes which remindes me of Fonteyn) they had highly lifted buttocks but on the other hand from the same era Ruzimatov , Asylmuratova did not have it. How do I think it affects the line ? I think it makes a difference in the build of the dancers body and like I said the dancing becomes more Par tere without it.

Perhaps I'm being silly, but it seems to me that "buttock placement" would be more of an issue with male dancers. Has there also been a falling off in this regard?

It is an issue regardless of sex , and yes male dancers are the same.

Is it possible, omshanti, that the fall of the buttocks is due to the greater range of movement of the legs? If you're holding the gluteals too tightly (or at all?), you'll never be able to kick yourself in the ear, no matter how flexible you are!

When I took class, it was sometimes tricky finding the point where the muscles were supporting but not gripping. Maybe dancers of earlier generations tended to grip? These days, for better or worse, the premium seems to be on the height of extension.

I'm not sure you're right, but I'm not sure you're wrong, either.

I really do not know what is the reason Carbro , it is a mystery. From the dancers I named above it shows that it has nothing to do with extension. The only reason I can think of is maybe dancers now are too preoccupied with choreography and superficial movements. It is not holding or gripping or tucking the gluteals, if you do that it will of course make your movement range smaller and also heavier. It is more the lift in the whole hip area or the bottom of the spine which as a result affects the look of the gluteals too.

This might have been a little off topic from Vishneva, and anyway it is only a small part of the whole ballet technique , so please go back to Vishneva.

Share this post


Link to post

[ Anyway, point made omshanti, unless it can be explained why this matters for the viewer.

It completely depends on the viewer Dale. If he/she can see it , it matters.

Sorry. I meant to explain why it matters with Vishneva. You've explained why one dancer might have a different rear vs. another, but I don't know how this specific aspect relates to your enjoyment or non-enjoyment of Vishneva's performances. I meant to explain how it relates to her dancing. Is there some aspect that is diminished by this body part being the way it is? Enhanced? (I'm trying to keep things on topic)

Share this post


Link to post
You've explained why one dancer might have a different rear vs. another, but I don't know how this specific aspect relates to your enjoyment or non-enjoyment of Vishneva's performances. I meant to explain how it relates to her dancing. Is there some aspect that is diminished by this body part being the way it is? Enhanced? (I'm trying to keep things on topic)

Dale I thought I explained. It is not a matter of one dancer having a different rear vs another. It makes a difference to the total body shape and the dancing. I am not saying this relates to every body s enjoyment or non-enjoyment of Vishneva s performance. Every body has their own way of enjoying ballet and like I wrote, I was only adding a perspective on to the disscussion of her comparison with the great dancers of the past. I personally think ballet is an en lair dance and think that the lifted buttocks are closer to how it should be. Every body is free to enjoy ballet their own way But we should not forget that it is better for ballet itself to keep a certain standard. Any way like I wrote it is only a small part of the whole ballet technique.

Share this post


Link to post

OK. That is clearer to me. So it's purely a visual thing, like preferring a type of leg or head. Fine with me.

Share this post


Link to post

omshanti, just out of curiosity, do you think there are any great dancers today?

Share this post


Link to post
OK. That is clearer to me. So it's purely a visual thing, like preferring a type of leg or head. Fine with me.

It is not purely a visual thing like prefering a type of leg or head Dale. The fault must be in my explanation. I will try to explain better although I am not sure if I can. First of all I am regretting for having used the word buttocks since it seems to be to much associated with only a certain muscle or muscles and the look of them. I am not talking about muscles here. Try standing on releve passe en avant ,take your hands off the barre and hold it. You might be able to balance there and think you did it well but push your supporting leg even harder and stand higher . There will be a point where you will start to feel that the push of your supporting leg is stronger than your weight on them. that is when you are no longer sitting on your legs and your supporting leg is not battling against the weight of your body. You are no longer standing firmly on the ground but standing lightly with your weight up. You are no longer balancing but standing with logic. Now this is a very difficult thing to explain on computer especially if the person does not see it.

omshanti, just out of curiosity, do you think there are any great dancers today?

I am not sure about great but I think there are some dancers who have good aspects.

Share this post


Link to post

omshanti, from what you write, you seem to think that there is a right and wrong way to place the buttocks, and the right way is higher, as you say. But it seems as if a dancer like Asylmuratova (whom you mention as an example) can't help but have lower buttock placement simply because she has such a flexible back and her line emphasizes the extreme curvature of her spine, which would automatically "lower" her buttocks when she arabesques.

Asylmuratova

Whereas someone like Guerin (whom you also cite) naturally has a straighter back and this more conventionally erect posture makes the buttocks seem higher:

Guerin

But this aesthetic, IMO, indicates a difference in training, and probably, preference. Asylmuratova chooses to emphasize her flexible back, and this lowers her buttocks. So from my perspective, it's not necessarily "right" or "wrong" to place the buttocks a certain way, it's just a matter of preferring one kind of line to another.

Getting back to Vishneva, since you obviously pay a lot of attention to technique, is there another part of Vishneva's posture/technique that bothers you?

Share this post


Link to post

Canbelto thank you very much for your carefull observations, but I do not think it has anything to do with the flexibility of the back or spine, nor the difference in the schools. It is the difference in the level of training and the talent of the individual dancer. Since I have explained what I think on this matter as best as I could I am afraid I have to leave it there.

I will take the subject back to Vishneva as you asked. She does every thing which is needed to be done in the choreography so No there is not anything in particular that I would pick and say about her technique in general. However One big impression her dancing gave to me was that it really makes you aware of muscles. If I exaggerate ,it is like watching a body builder jumping on stage ( this is a very big exaggeration but I hope you understand what I mean). She seems to rely too much on power ,force and the strength of her muscles, which I think in order to become a better dancer and also as she ages she needs to change. She has the potential, so she just has to change this. On the other hand her incredible energy is very much suited to ballets like Don quixote. I happend to have seen her in Don Quixote with Jose Martinez and I have to say that she was wonderfull in it. Jose Martinez who has one of the purest ballet technique in present day ballet world but who lacks certain intensity in his dancing seemed to have been energized by the strength of Vishneva and looked better than his usual dancing. In my opinion they were very much suited to each other as partners because they seem to bring aspects of each other out which is normally not there and also each has something the other does not have. In my opinion Malakhov is not suited to her as a partner. Also even though Martinez was the Spanish one, Vishneva looked equally if not more Spanish ( well, she had the advantage of Don Quixote being a Russian ballet). Also She has a beautifull face which is eye-catching by itself. As an actor I have to say she is good ( much better than Zakharova), and did look convincing in the role of Gissele ( apart from her dancing which looked much stronger than Malakhov who was dancing with her, but that is not such a hard thing to do if you are dancing with Malakhov). But again my standard for Gissele is Galina Ulanova and I prefer her to Vishneva( and many other dancers).

Share this post


Link to post

omshanti, please don't feel like I'm giving you advice, but you seem to have extremely fixed ideas about what is "right" and "wrong" in classical ballet. Nothing wrong in having high standards, but I really can't think of how elevated or lowered buttocks is an example of poor training or inferior talent. I think I understand what you are talking about, but I see it as an aesthetic preference that has evolved over time.

Also, just out of curiosity, what is so unacceptable about Malakhov?

Share this post


Link to post

Reading the posts in this Vishneva thread has been very absorbing.

Vishneva is a multi-faceted ballet superstar with a wide range of

performing resources. The performance I saw of her in the reconstructed Bayadere (2003 Mariinsky Festival) was unrivaled for the gifts she brought to the stage. Aside from the riches of her dancing, her first entrance as she walked in from the temple and stood downstage center was a small theatrical gem, on its own.

Some later posts by Omshanti on the placement of the buttocks as an observation on Ms. Vishneva's artistry have puzzled me. He has never made clear whether what he is talking about is technical intention or a genetic dice-throw (see last quote below).

I want to comment on some random quotes of Omshanti in this thread.

"....most dancers now do not have the highly lifted and light buttocks that dancers of the past had...."

"...it is much lower now on most dancers and as a result the dancing looks more par terre...."

"...it is more the lift in the whole hip area...."

"...I think ballet is an en l'air] dancer....lifted buttocks are closer to how it should be....."

"...it is the difference in the level of training and the talent of the individual dancer......"

What came to mind is, that, the conclusions of the first four quotes are associated not with buttocks and their shape, but with what is referred to as a dancer's 'center of gravity' (defined as the midpoint of the body's total weight, or as kinesiologists have it: "that point in the body in which all parts balance each other").

Dancers with a high center of gravity give an impression of lightness and mobility (en l'air?); dancers with a low center of gravity give a down-to-earth impression (par terre?).

To quote Anna Paskevska [both Sides of the Mirror, p. 42]

"The ethereal quality, so admired in classic dance, relies on the center's being located high under the sternum, only occasionally descending below the sacrum".

I mention this because I don't think it is a true statement to say that most dancers today have a low center of gravity. On what evidence? Also, I don't believe Ms Vishneva has a low center of gravity.

Or else I'm reading Omshanti all wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
He has never made clear whether what he is talking about is technical intention or a genetic dice-throw.

What came to mind is, that, the conclusions of the first four quotes are associated not with buttocks and their shape, but with what is referred to as a dancer's 'center of gravity' (defined as the midpoint of the body's total weight, or as kinesiologists have it: "that point in the body in which all parts balance each other").

Dancers with a high center of gravity give an impression of lightness and mobility (en l'air?); dancers with a low center of gravity give a down-to-earth impression (par terre?).

To quote Anna Paskevska [both Sides of the Mirror, p. 42]

"The ethereal quality, so admired in classic dance, relies on the center's being located high under the sternum, only occasionally descending below the sacrum".

Thank you chiapuris for introducing the word

, although I am not sure if I agree with the location Anna Paskevska is describing the center of dancers to be , because in my opinion the center of gravity is located in the same place of the body on every human-being whether a dancer or not. ( unless she is meaning something else by center). It is in the area just under the naval. In my opinion it is not something that is located in different places on each person such as under the sternum on one person and below the sacrum on another. So I believe that the height of the center of gravity depends on how that area under the naval is placed and controled in relation to other body parts.

Now the[ center of gravity] was definitely a part of what I was trying to explain but not all of it. The reason I did ( could ) not make clear whether I am talking about [technical intention] or [genetic dice-throw] is because the body , mind and [technical intention] are deeply inter-connected. Your body is shaped by the way you use it. You can tell alot only by observing a dancer s body .

I mention this because I don't think it is a true statement to say that most dancers today have a low center of gravity. On what evidence? Also, I don't believe Ms Vishneva has a low center of gravity.

If you look at the kirov dancers of the past ( I am using the kirov dancers as an example because they are the most obvious ones to see), you will notice that it almost looks as if they did not have the down half of the buttocks or as if the legs started directly from the back without buttocks on them. If you look at the dancers now the buttocks are much more visible on top of the legs.

One more example I thought of in order to see the difference is the Video dictionary of classical ballet. If you compare the pirruettes of the dancers in it ( again I am using the pirruettes because it is more obvious), you will see that

1. Meril Ashley really stretches upwards and her center of gravity is high.

2. the female dancer from Joffrey ballet ( I forgot her name) puts all her weight on her legs and stands firmly with the power of her legs.

3. Kevin mckenzie does not stretch upwards nor sits on his legs but balances with the whole of his body.

Canbelto, I understand what you mean , sometimes it is really difficult to draw a line between preference and high standard. I am only giving my opinion on things. If I think something is right it does not mean that it is right for every body else. It is only one person s opinion. I am not pushing my opinion here.

Would you have written the same thing (as what you wrote in your last post) if I was talking about turn out , pointing the feet or the crisis of epaulmant ?

As for my opinion on Malakhov , I am afraid that my post has already been too long and off-topic, so do you mind if I leave it for some other time? Thank you so much for your attention on the things I write.

Also to all the readers and posters ( especially Buddy), it was not my intention to take the discussion so off-topic when I wrote my first post here. I am sorry about that. I hope it goes back to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Thank you chiapuris for introducing the word
, although I am not sure if I agree with the location Anna Paskevska is describing the center of dancers to be , because in my opinion the center of gravity is located in the same place of the body on every human-being whether a dancer or not. ( unless she is meaning something else by center). It is in the area just under the naval. In my opinion it is not something that is located in different places on each person such as under the sternum on one person and below the sacrum on another. So I believe that the height of the center of gravity depends on how that area under the naval is placed and controled in relation to other body parts.

Is this some chakra-yogic thing? If so, do dancers believe such a thing generally? How could they even if they believe that the height of that particular area is 'placed and controled in relation to other body parts.' If it is related to yoga, that could make sense to someone who sees things in those ways, but I had never thought that ballet had all that much to do with yoga in the usual technical sense (forgetting all the religious extensions from it that are made to fly off so seemingly without obstacle, perhaps conveniently when it's not a self-evident truth to everybody.)

Share this post


Link to post

Whilst this post has been extremely interesting to read, I am reminded of Sir Thomas Beecham’s remark," A musicologist is a man who can read music but cannot hear it.” I recall this quote not to offend but this post rather like another post in a similar vein, at times seems in danger of forgetting that ballet is first and foremost is a performance art that takes place in front of and for an audience. It does not matter what critics or so called experts say, it is the audience that keeps ballet alive in the 21st century nearly a century after new style dancers in the 1920's had given it the last rites.

In the theatre, ballet is presented to be appreciated and enjoyed and all considerations of dancer’s physical attributes and methods of training and placement mean nothing except to reduce ballet to a physical event when it certainly is much more than that. Narrow views are to be abhorred and judgements are only personal views no matter whether they emanate from Auguste Bournonville, or any other luminary of dance teaching. I mention August Bournonville very particularly as he created a very strict method for the classroom but all his ballets rely on the effect created by outstanding dancers with personality and whose individual attributes made them special. It is this kind of individuality in a dancers that enabled his ballets to survive, not the story or choreography alone because, ONLY DANCERS MAKE A BALLET LIVE.

Those dancers that for some, seem to meet a personal ideal in physique and training may never become an audience favourite because the best examples of what a ballet dancer should do on stage, always go beyond the point of physical and technical analysis. To not understand this, is to not understand ballet on stage. I am however not in favour of seeing dancers stumbling through choreography and I defy anyone to say that Dame Margot Fonteyn (who never stumbled through steps because she was an artist of the ballet) should not been a ballet dancer because she did not have the correct or incorrect development of buttocks or that her centre of gravity was in the wrong place, or her technique was weak.

Favourite dancers of mine included Osipenko, Kolpakova and Sizova, Dancers of a refined artistry and exemplary schooling. What they brought to the stage in entirely different ways would probably meet suggested standards for most observers. I can tell you however, that I have heard these dancers criticized by knowledgeable teachers of some repute. All discussions are futile if based only on regimented point of view because, you stop talking to people and only talk at them. I would like to quote one of my favourite English poets, "Knowledge is proud that he has learn'd so much; Wisdom is humble that she knows no more." William Cowper.

PS There is a useful introduction to the Physics of Dance

at http://web.hep.uiuc.edu/home/g-gollin/danc...ce_physics.html

that gives a technical explanation of the physics of dance and a dancers centre of gravity.

Share this post


Link to post

leonid, I was hoping that you would make a posting here. Omshanti, canbelto, chiapuris, papeetepatrick and everyone else, it is good to hear your opinions. That is what makes this all so interesting--all the different points of view. Just from myself, thank you all.

leonid, I really enjoy following your wealth of viewing background. In the topic-- "Dancers who may have been lacking in technique, but who still commanded the stage and captured the eye."--you said...

"It is through seeing dancers like Fonteyn, Chauvire, Kolpakova, Zubkovskaya, Osipenko, Sizova, Komleva, Plisetskaya, Struchkova, Maximova, Asyluratova, Lander, Samsova, Beriosova, Verdy, Schanne, Ananiashvili, Nadezhda Pavlova, Bessmertnova, Chenchikova, Evdokimova, Haydee, Seymour, Vishneva, that have set standards which I undoubtedly carry with me to performances and establish my expectation in all other dancers I see."

http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/index.p...pic=22719&st=30

Since the only one of the currently active ballerinas that you have included for the moment in this illustrious list is Diana Vishneva, may I ask you what you like in particular about her.

Share this post


Link to post
leonid, in the topic-- "Dancers who may have been lacking in technique, but who still commanded the stage and captured the eye."--you said...

"It is through seeing dancers like Fonteyn, Chauvire, Kolpakova, Zubkovskaya, Osipenko, Sizova, Komleva, Plisetskaya, Struchkova, Maximova, Asyluratova, Lander, Samsova, Beriosova, Verdy, Schanne, Ananiashvili, Nadezhda Pavlova, Bessmertnova, Chenchikova, Evdokimova, Haydee, Seymour, Vishneva, that have set standards which I undoubtedly carry with me to performances and establish my expectation in all other dancers I see."

Since the only one of the currently active ballerinas that you have included for the moment in this illustrious list is Diana Vishneva, may I ask you what you like in particular about her.

Unless there has been a recent announcement to the contrary, Ananiashvilli is also still dancing, although it's true she has been out recently because of having a child. I certainly hope she still has a few more season's with ABT--I'd be heartbroken if I never got to see her Odette/Odile again.

Just an aside,now back to Vishneva!

Share this post


Link to post
Since the only one of the currently active ballerinas that you have included for the moment in this illustrious list is Diana Vishneva, may I ask you what you like in particular about her.

I rather like to think of dancers as being like Aristotles view of the five elements of matter in the explanation of his theory of the Motion of Objects. His classification of the components of matter was: Fire - Earth - Air - Water – Aether (the divine substance of the heavens) Aristotle posed the following questions: Why does a rock fall while smoke rises? Why does water flow downward while flames dance into the air? Why do the planets move across the sky? Well for me, dancers fall into the Aristotlian categories quite nicely and Vishneva when I first saw appeared to be a dancer of the fire always moving swiftly reaching upwards to the sky. For me her technical fluency is self-evident. Fearlessly attacking steps but without the hardness of other dancers have who perform at the same level as she does.

Vishneva achieves all the five elements for me with her earthy terre a terre technique that enables her to perform pirouettes sur la place, her airy lightness as both Nikiya and Giselle the controlled fluidity of her movement where line is never sacrificed for effect, in the forceful fieryness of her jumps and that quality of the spiritual ethereal world she can assume at will. Having spoken to members of the audience and and read the reviews of her recent performances in the USA Vishneva appears to have moved into a new level of achievement.

What first attracted me to Vishneve was her determination to come on stage and perform to her utmost capabilities every single time I have seen her. Her forthrightness appeared a little brash for some of my friends but no one denied that she gave 100% of herself in an attempt to inhabit a role. Some of her early attempts came off better than others but a real progression has been evident. With Malakhov(an exemplar of classical male dancing and partnering) she has further developed to achieve things on stage that seemed just beyond her reach with some of her Kirov partners.

I have heard people say she doesn’t have beautiful feet (nor did Karsavina, Ulanova or Fonteyn) certainly she appears to lack a beautiful instep like the two Pavlova’s or Maximova or Sizova. I have heard it said that her legs are short never to my eyes. She has a strong back, high extensions (usually not too high) certainly very attractive with a face whose expressions carry beyond the footlights and has developed an authoritative stage manner and acting skill as she has so far progressed through her career. I am hoping there is more to come.

In the past, I can see why Omshanti sees her as a character dancer( more correctly a demi-classical) but then other dancers when young have been labeled as such but developed into true artists(yes that word again) who were capable of performing a wide range of leading classical ballet roles. To call her a character dancer, would suggest that she was a Massine type dancer, Her performances in Bayadere and Sleeping Beauty clearly show she has no such limitations. Omshanti mentions seemingly grudgingly of her success as Kitri but forgets that in the vision scene the role changes from demi-classical to strictly classical and here Vishneva achieves everything that is necessary for this scene. Do I think she is great? For me, not yet. Seriously important? Certainly.

Share this post


Link to post
Unless there has been a recent announcement to the contrary, Ananiashvilli is also still dancing, although it's true she has been out recently because of having a child. I certainly hope she still has a few more season's with ABT--I'd be heartbroken if I never got to see her Odette/Odile again.

The website dedicated to Nina Ananiashvilli says that she is hoping/expecting to return to performing in 2007 following the birth of her daughter five months ago.

Share this post


Link to post

leonid, thank you very much again for your extremely well thought-out and beautifully written comments. Omshanti, you also have put a great deal of thought into your comments and they are very appreciated. Both of you have given me, for one, a great deal to think about and I am very grateful.

leonid, I do agree with you very much about the huge importance of the audience. I do think that commentators (critics?) and posters can help define what it is that audiences appreciate and this can add interest and enjoyment to the performances.

In regard to Diana I have a few more thoughts as usual--because there always seems to be something new about her to think about. This for me is one her very fascinating characteristics.

Her ability to amaze with her physical capabilities overwhelmed me from the start. Her ability to put herself into the character seems to keep improving. Her ability to handle 'subtleties'--for example, possibly one of the most ethereal sequences in ballet--the Act II of Giselle--seems to keep improving.

Her range of performance skills seems huge. Everytime that I watch her Giselle video performance (with Vladimir Malakhov doing an excellent dramatic portrayal) I tend to find some new aspect that is more than commendable. About a week ago I commented on how she resembled a beautiful reverberating wave. Now I watch the exact same sequence and it is the intensity of the character that is so impressive--a completely different aspect.

She always seems on the move. Performing so many different elements so well. It is sort of an adventure to watch her with almost complete surety that she will succeed--and succeed with beauty.

Share this post


Link to post

leonid, I am in the process of rereading your comments about Diana Vishneva. I am extremely impressed with the detail of your analysis as well as the heart-felt sentiment. To go off topic for a minute would you care to discuss Ulyana Lopatkina, who is often considered the amazing contrast to Diana Vishneva or visa-versa. You might consider doing it here as a comparison or perhaps at the Ulyana Lopatkina topic a few doors away.

http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/index.p...pic=20176&st=15

Also I noticed that you have omitted Galina Ulanova and others from your list. Is this because you never viewed them in person? I was a little confused by your statement that your opinion of Galina Ulanova changed after observing the Swan Lake pdd with Sergeyev on the video. Could you maybe clarify this. I only mention this here because this seems like a good place to catch your attention today. You might want to discuss it back where you originally mentioned it...

http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/index.p...pic=22719&st=15

Share this post


Link to post

Moderator's interjection:

As you well know, Buddy, we have an ongoing thread on Yuliana Lopatikina, and I will ask Leonid and anyone else interested in posting about her to do so there.

A reader coming to this thread anew looking for information and opinions on Vishneva is bound to feel their head spinning :wacko::icon8: . So let's try not to digress to generalizations about anatomy or the devolution of training too far beyond their relevance to the subject at hand. That's what "New Topic" buttons are for. :wink:

:thanks:

Share this post


Link to post
Would you have written the same thing (as what you wrote in your last post) if I was talking about turn out , pointing the feet or the crisis of epaulmant ?

Actually, yes. Because while all dancers should have some degree of turnout or pointed toes, there have been many many dancers whose feet or turnout have not been ideal (Margot Fonteyn jumps to mind). The Bolshoi has always been known as a company with somewhat "ugly feet", and there have been times when this has been so egregious as to ruin a performance. For instance, their Swan Lake video when all the swans had feet sticking out like ducks is one example. But nowadays, even if their feet/turnout aren't ideal, I can enjoy their strengths as a company.

What first attracted me to Vishneve was her determination to come on stage and perform to her utmost capabilities every single time I have seen her. Her forthrightness appeared a little brash for some of my friends but no one denied that she gave 100% of herself in an attempt to inhabit a role.

Thank you leonid for expressing what I find so appealing about Vishneva. Another thing I love about Vishneva (that I know many people dislike) is her larger-than-life stage persona. Standing next to other dancers, I realize how short Vishneva is, but she never seems insignificant or slight. She grabs the spotlight and never lets go.

Share this post


Link to post
Because while all dancers should have some degree of turnout or pointed toes, there have been many many dancers whose feet or turnout have not been ideal (Margot Fonteyn jumps to mind).

Actually, I think Vishneva herself is a better example of this than Fonteyn, whose feet and turnout were not exceptionally good but certainly not bad. Vishneva has, through her superior training and hard work, been able to shape her less than ideal feet pretty well, using them to elongate the line of her legs rather than calling direct attention to them, and this serves her well, making her appear taller and longer than she really is. Vishneva is thus yet another example of a dancer turning the tables on what could be considered a shortcoming and instead using it as an advantage. :thanks:

Share this post


Link to post