Tattoos and Piercings on Ballet Dancers?
Posted 26 October 2007 - 11:33 AM
I'm also of an older mindset on this. A dancer I worked with in 1996 and again in 1999 showed up after that hiatus with a very colorful, very visible tattoo on his arm. I was so taken aback that even before I said hello, I burst out, "OH MY GOD YOU GOT A TATTOO. CAN THAT BE COVERED WITH MAKEUP?"
So body modifications - love 'em or hate 'em?
Posted 26 October 2007 - 11:41 AM
Maybe "Hate 'em" is a mite too strong, but my choice was clear for reasons previously stated on the current ABT thread.
Posted 26 October 2007 - 12:48 PM
Posted 26 October 2007 - 02:45 PM
Posted 26 October 2007 - 03:04 PM
I agree. If the choreographer said that a particular tatoo worked for a piece it would be ok. Other than that it's like altering a costume.
Posted 26 October 2007 - 03:05 PM
Some tatts are completely inoffensive and by themselves "pretty", usually when small and discrete. But the idea of doing that to your flesh seems odd to me, especially the permanent nature of them.
Sometimes I see what I think is an attractive person and then see their ink and think, why did they "ruin" themselves? Obviously, they think it an improvement and probably can't even imagine how someone would think the reverse?
There's a TV show called LA Ink and it's advertised on a huge billboard on the west side highway. The woman looks like she made herself into a carnival show "freak" and in a sense you can't see her without being assaulted by all her tattoos.
The more extreme the bod mods, the more I find them offensive. And even when they are small, discrete and "attractive" in themselves, they don't seem to add anything to the human body, they're more like putting a pretty postage stamp on human flesh that you can't get off.
But I'm with Helene, if I can't see them, then I don't care.
Posted 26 October 2007 - 03:14 PM
But more and more skin is being exposed these days. Women's midriffs are not a rare sight on the ballet stage, and I've often considered the likelihood that if I were a member of a ballet company, the scar running the full length of one side of my middle would (and should) immediately eliminate some ballets from my rep . And a scar is 1) skin-toned, therefore slightly more innocuous; and 2) in most cases involuntary.
Posted 26 October 2007 - 03:23 PM
Posted 26 October 2007 - 03:43 PM
I think that sums it up pretty well, cubanmiamiboy.
I don’t care for tattoos and don’t understand why people get them, unless you're one of those Russki gangsters on view in ‘Eastern Promises.’ (They looked great on Viggo, though.) On stage they’re less noticeable, but I still don't care to see them. I suppose in some modern works they wouldn’t look strange or out of place.
Posted 26 October 2007 - 04:25 PM
That seems extreme to me and almost like the purity demanded with monochromatic cygnets, white ballets, etc.. I can't really think of any ballerina whom I thought a great dancer being rightly eliminated from a ballet due to a scar like that, although it's a matter of personal preference of course; to some, it's going to seem sexist of me not to mind the occasional male tattoo (but not prefer it unless the production already seemed somewhat moribund or superficial) and never want to see a tattoo on a ballerina. A tattooed Coppelia--now that sounds hideous. And anything in 'The Nutcracker' too. That POB 'Caligula' with a tattoed hero doesn't sound too bad, though.
For myself personally, I've never even wanted a temporary one, much less any kind of piercing. Worst to me is cheek piercing, which borders on self-flagellation.
Posted 26 October 2007 - 04:33 PM
Posted 26 October 2007 - 04:43 PM
Posted 26 October 2007 - 04:48 PM
"Patty, do you have a chrysanthemum tattooed on your right lower cheek?"
"No, only a tiny little rosebud!"
"Uh-oh! You may want to look at that again sometime."
0 user(s) are reading this topic
members, guests, anonymous users
Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases: