Ballet or bust?
Posted 16 August 2009 - 04:30 AM
But I did notice that in Act 3, one of the soloists had a rather more fullsome bust that one normally sees on ballerinas. She was very good, and seemed to be.. shall we say.. extremely well-supported.
It made me wonder, from a purely practical point of view, whether this can be a problem for young aspiring ballerinas..?
Posted 16 August 2009 - 10:16 AM
Posted 16 August 2009 - 10:26 AM
2: aesthetically, morally, or generally offensive
3: exceeding the bounds of good taste
4: excessively complimentary or flattering
Posted 16 August 2009 - 12:40 PM
If this is just a matter of mother nature, well...fine...not the most typical form in a female dancer, but it is what it is. Now, if the assets are a result pf surgical procedures, then something is wrong.
I read in a book-(I think in that "Unmaking of a dancer")-that the author used to see one of the girls in class having a lot of trouble with the same issue, and she used to wrap herself over and over and very tight with elastic wraps in order to diminish the visual effect. And that she was NOT happy at all about it...
Posted 16 August 2009 - 12:46 PM
Posted 16 August 2009 - 07:10 PM
I wonder if this happens frequently, I mean that one doesn't. I'm not gay, but as an Occasional Bisexualist, I like to gawk at the bosums.
Posted 16 August 2009 - 07:29 PM
Posted 16 August 2009 - 08:13 PM
One point to keep in mind is that a classical tutu looks best on dancers with defined hips, waist, and bust. I recently saw a video of a well-known company and was surprised at how masculine the women's bodies looked in tutus because of their extreme thinness. It was not a pleasing aesthetic. There are supportive garments (that are invisible under leotards or costumes) available for female dancers, so it need not be an issue on the stage.
Posted 17 August 2009 - 05:22 AM
Posted 17 August 2009 - 05:43 AM
Posted 17 August 2009 - 05:45 AM
Posted 18 August 2009 - 02:37 PM
This particular misuse of fulsome has been around for awhile, so it's not unique to you, sejacko. I remember Gelsey Kirkland referring in her first book, edited by the late Jacqueline Onassis, to "fulsome breasts." Not Gelsey's fault, of course, but you'd think a copy editor would have come to her aid.
Posted 18 August 2009 - 09:59 PM
"Pedants rush in where angels fear to tread."
Posted 19 August 2009 - 04:05 PM
I think ‘revival’ is a neutral way of saying, in the manner of many contemporary dictionaries, that people began misusing the term and the large dictionaries of the first half of the century continued to uphold the by then settled upon and accepted pejorative sense(s) of the word. The difficulty is that if you use ‘fulsome’ to mean abundant or generous in a positive sense, as Kirkland did, you run the risk of looking foolish or ignorant. It would be helpful for naive readers of Merriam-Webster if the dictionary warned of this risk, but it sounds as if it doesn’t.
My American Heritage dictionary is more helpful. It notes accurately that the pejorative meanings are the primary ones, placing the positive meaning at #3, and adds a usage note that makes the whole business clear for its readers, suggesting that they not use fulsome in a positive sense to avoid any potential confusion.
(Sorry for going off toic, but it really annoys me when dictionaries hew to their descriptive goals without considering that people also come to them for prescriptive guidance.)
I add to this that all people tend to be distracted by nudity or anatomical irregularities such as very large breasts or a very flat chest, and one’s personal sexuality doesn’t enter into it much, I think.
Posted 19 August 2009 - 05:21 PM
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: