Posted 02 March 1999 - 08:09 PM
This is why, to me, the issue matters. We all like different things, for different reasons. Some like classical ballet because it's beautiful or, because as someone posted earlier, because it's what we're used to. Some like contemporary ballet because it's exciting, some because it has no rules and can be enjoyed on its own merits. I'm not trying to attack anyone's taste, and I'd like to take the discussion beyond what I/we "like" to what is the nature of ballet, what should a company's repertory be, etc. I know most people go to see dance because it's fun, and that's how it should be; that's the short term response to what we see. But there's a long term effect of what we see that, eventually, will determine what we see. That is why I think this question matters.
Ninette De Valois once wrote that a company's repertory should be composed of the following: the classics (which, for her, writing in the 1930s, meant Petipa); modern classics; national works (not necessarily those designed to last, but those that would be enjoyed by a local audience and give a new company a national identity); and novelty (works not designed to last, but which would prove amusing or excting, or just plain interesting, to the audience) -- an audience whose tastes had been educated by directors who knew what they were doing.
I think that formula still holds today and is infinitely expandable.
When that formula is out of whack, things begin to go wrong. If a company presents only the 19th century classics, everyone gets bored. If novelty begins to dominate, however, there can be several negative effects. When novelty achieves critical mass, the nature of the company changes.
One of these effects is that a new audience, drawn to the new works, understandably believes that these works are not only great, but are what the company should be doing. Anything else is "old-fashioned." This is what is happening, with at least one segment of the audience now.
Imagine if an opera company, to boost ticket sales, decided to do "West Side Story." Now, WSS is a very good musical. It may be a better musical, in fact, than some of the operas in the repertory are operas, if that makes sense. (A first-rate musical vs. a fourth-rate opera; no names given.) Well, suppose hundreds of people flock to West Side, ignoring not only the old chestnuts, (Carmen, La Boheme, etc.) but the more "difficult" operas, Wagner, anything from the 20th century. The new audience is delighted to have discovered what they have every reason to believe is "opera," the management begins to program more musicals, the opera audience drizzles away, etc. That's what's happening in ballet. It's not an exact analogy, because I don't think ballet moderne is a direct analog to musicals, but the difference between ballet moderne and classical ballet, and musicals and opera, is the point I'm trying to make.
I don't accept the notion that Tetley, Forsythe, Nacho Duato and/or Val Caniparoli are part of the Lully/Noverre/Bournonville/Petipa/Balanchine/Ashton line, any more than I accept the notion that the artist formerly known as Prince is "Our Mozart," as was said at the time the Joffrey Ballet was producing Billboards.
Finally (honest), a steady diet of contemporary ballet affects the dancers. It erodes their classical technique -- all over the world, linking steps, the small, lovely things that make up classical style and have, in various guises, since the 16th century, are being lost in favor of kick, kick, roll on the floor, jump, jump, kick the woman in the face and drag her between your legs, walk around with a plant on your head, etc. Watching some of this stuff is like reading a novel that's composed of a dialogue of curses; it may be exciting and modern, but the vocabulary is limited.
Those are the main points. Sorry it's so long. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts, pro or con.
I'm going to post another thread, about the history of contemporary ballet.
[This message has been edited by alexandra (edited 03-02-99).]
Posted 03 March 1999 - 09:05 AM
But there is one thing which puzzles me: for you, is there any living choreographer who is in the "Lully/ Noverre/ Bournonville/ Petipa/ Balanchine/ Ashton line"? Perhaps one of the problems with the company directors is that real "classical" choreographers seem to be quite rare nowadays, and so they choose among the "most classical" ones... For example, the Paris Opera Ballet recently ordered some new works to choreographers such as William Forsythe and Jiri Kylian. That's not real "100% ballet" style, but I wonder what else
choreographers they could choose (and that'll
probably be better than Preljocaj, or than some of Nureyev's "classical" choreographies...) Do you think that there still are choreographers who'd be able to create "modern classics" in De Valois' classification? And perhaps another problem
is that the "classical ballet" repertory seems more narrow than the repertory for music and opera: the oldest works in the repertory are rather "recent" in fact (late 18th century), and most of the works are known only through reconstructions, and there doesn't even see to be a "canonical" faithful version for some ballets. The list of pre-20th century ballets which can still be danced is quite narrow ("Giselle", less than
a tenth of Petipa's ballets, some Bournonville's ballets (and they aren't well
known outside Denmark), reconstructions of "La fille mal gardee" or of some works by Taglioni...) and so it makes a narrow choice
And also, how do you draw the line between "ballet" and "ballet moderne"? For example, Balanchine's "Agon" or "The Four temperaments" seem pretty far from "Giselle"... Here in France, "ballet moderne" isn't used often, people are more likely to talk about "neo-classique" (as opposed to "danse contemporaine"). But it isn't a clear definition, and might include Balanchine, Nijinska, Fokine, Tudor, Ashton and Lifar as well as Bejart, Petit, Spoerli, Kylian, Forsythe, Neumeier, Van Manen or even Mats Ek. And so there are probably as many differences among such "neo-classical" choreographers as between some of them and some "contemporary" ones.
[This message has been edited by Estelle (edited 03-03-99).]
Posted 03 March 1999 - 10:08 AM
To your three main points, I would say:
First, yes, the pre-20th century ballet repertory is not nearly as rich as that of opera, but I would argue that the 20th century classical/neoclassical repertory is richer. There's much fine repertory that's never done now -- lots of Fokine and Ashton, for starters. In Paris, there are Leo Staats ballets, and why have Neumeier do a "new" Sylvia when Darsonval revived a lovely "traditional" Sylvia a decade ago? Somehow, in the 1970s and '80s, it became the norm to "update" the classics. Nureyev's aren't my favorite versions, either, but they're a lot more pristine than most of what followed.
Second, as for living classical or neoclassical choreographers, there aren't many, but there are some. Some that aren't of the first rank, shall we say -- and I don't mean I'm suggesting that their works should form the core repertory -- but they do exist: the house choreographers I mentioned before. But there are some young men -- Michael Corder, Christopher Wheeldon are the most known. I haven't seen enough Bintley to be sure, but I think he's neoclassical. (Cranko and MacMillan are in this line. I don't think they're the equal of Ashton or Balanchine, but they're not negligible.) Ib Andersen has done twelve ballets that are "after Balanchine," in a way, but, at least the two I've seen, not formulaic. Unfortunately, he's not attached to any company now, and his name has often come up in conversations I've had with people about contemporary choreography; I can remember three times when three very different people have said, "Oh, they won't use him. He's too much of a threat," which speaks volumes about what's going on in the ballet world. Finally, I've gotten many reports since I started Ballet Alert about someone -- Christopher Stowell, Ricardo Bustamente -- doing a classical piece at a workshop, but it never gets into repertory. Thre is a prejudice in ballet, at the moment, against ballet.
Third, I found your ballet contemporaine/ballet neoclassique question especially interesting. Perhaps this is an American versus European view again, but in my eyes, Balanchine, even Agon and Four Temperaments, are very much related to Giselle -- not in theme or story or content, of course, but in language. They use the same vocabulary and the same aesthetic. To me, your list of "Balanchine, Nijinska, Fokine, Tudor, Ashton" (I'm not sure I would include Lifar with those luminaries; he's neoclassical, but I'd rank him with MacMillan, Cranko, Robbins) are neoclassical. I'd even put Petit and Bejart in this line; I haven't seen enough Spoerli to know exactly where to place him, but my guess (from reports I've gotten from colleagues) is that he's rather like our Ben Stevenson; he's classical, but his works are not for the ages. Van Manen, in the 1960s and '70s, did use a classical base -- although he'd always muck it up, turning a plie into a squat, or having a foot wiggle at the end of an arabesque to show he was modern; I haven't seen a new Van Manen work in years, so I don't know how he turned out. The others: "Kylian, Forsythe, Neumeier, or even Mats Ek" are what I'm calling ballet moderne; they're hybrids. They're more descended from Butler and Tetley and, some of them, influenced by Bausch. I guess the European equivalent of Tetley and Butler is Birgit Cullberg, Eks' mother. They do not use the classical vocabulary (Balanchine grafted foreign material to a classical base; these moderns just use a movement here and a step there) and their aesthetic is anti-classical.
I see the "three-generation theory" at work here. When a major change occurs (and I mean change, as in the world turned upside down, not evolution, as in something a little new) the generation that lives through it is horrified and says, "No, this is wrong. There is this, and there is that, and you can't do this." The second generation, their children, remembers the old, and grows up with the new, and is often divided as to the relative merits, but can see the distinction clearly. The third generation, the grandchildren, have known nothing but the new, and can no longer see the distinction; it's all become blended.
Does this make any sense?
Posted 03 March 1999 - 10:33 AM
The difference between the neoclassicists and the modernes/contemporaines is that the neoclassicists came OUT OF ballet; even if they broke rules, they knew the rules they were breaking, while the contemporaines come from OUTSIDE OF ballet. Yes, I know Neumeier "studied with" Volkova, as in admired and took classes, and that both Neumeier and Forsythe were members of the Stuttgart ballet, but they did not grow up in ballet and they never had a balletic sensibility. The same thing with America's Eliot Feld (who's now abandoned ballet entirely). He mastered the vocabulary and he could pass, for a time, but his heart was never in it; he remained part modern dancer, mostly Broadway dancer.
The real rule breakers -- the Impressionists, and their best balletic analog, Fokine -- understood the rules and could produce rule-bound work before they broke with the rules. Fokine said he made Chopinana "to show that I could do it."
I think the modernes are more analogs to Andy Warhol and his "Art is anything I say it is." Which is to say, "Art is anything I can get away with." (I am a great poet; this post is a poem. Well, no, it's not, and the stakeholders of poetry should rise up and say that before I become the acclaimed New Poetess of the age.)
So the difference is that of the inside/outside view of ballet, the buy-in to what ballet is all about or the come-from-outside-try-to-worm-your-way-in, that makes the difference.
[This message has been edited by alexandra (edited 03-03-99).]
Posted 03 March 1999 - 03:41 PM
Posted 03 March 1999 - 06:28 PM
About two years ago on a.a.b we were batting around an analogy of ballet repertory as a tree. We were seeing a lot of branches, we needed to see more people nourishing the trunk. At the same time, to use Balanchine as an example, he wasn't a conservationist, he was a Janus figure, looking both backwards and forwards. His conservation of ballet was a by-product of his omnivorous attitutde toward repertory, not the other way around. He did what interested him, he changed what suited him, his first concern was not "ballet", but his own expression.
It's hard for me to talk more clearly about this issue, because I feel like I'm living inside of it (both in terms of writing and choreography), rather than looking at it from any objective distance!
Posted 03 March 1999 - 10:09 PM
Mary, I love the choice between Walt Disney and MTV. I think that says it -- and of course, I don't think anyone of this opinion thinks that "real ballet" is Walt Disney and "real modern dance" is MTV. Both can be more.
Leigh, I agree with you about Forsythe -- he, or any artist, should follow his muse, and to hell with labels. "It's not his focus" says it well. I think of it as a matter of language. For Balanchine and Ashton (I have an affirmative action plan for mentioning Ashton, since he's so often ignored, or treated as a retrograde embarrassment) ballet was the language. No matter what they "said," they spoke that native language, although they enriched it immeasurably. As often happens, the problem is one of marketing, not artistry. We're in the century of New Now Shock, and those labels are applied whether they're warranted or not, and work that is now obviously New or Now is devalued.
About your dilemma, I can sympathize, and I think the battle between being a choreographer (following one's muse) and a balletmaster (maintaining the art form) is one doesn't get enough attention. If you work for a large institution, I think the balletmaster side has to keep watch on the long view, and that can distract the choreographer.
Posted 04 March 1999 - 06:25 AM
Posted 04 March 1999 - 10:19 AM
I also agree with your point about taking in a contemporary work "from a position of strength." When the Danes worked, that's how they did it. The dancers and the audience (although, unfortunately, not some of their more important critics) understood this as novelty. I remember once going to the "Modern Night" at the RDB: a Laura Dean, a Forsythe (forget which one, the one with the dwarf) and two neoclassical works by Danish choreographers (Ib Andersen and Anna Laerkesen). I sat next to two old, old ladies who were actually atwitter with excitement. They wanted to be shocked! The Theater then was the city's magic carpet. You trusted it to take you on wonderful rides, and you were confident not only that it would bring you back home again, but that, when you got home, the house would still be there.
Thinking of the Danes reminded me that Clive Barnes spent a good part of the 1960s and '70s telling us that Flemming Flindt ("possibly the most interesting young choreographer working today") was the future of ballet.
Nothing to do with Jane's post, but I wanted to clarify what I, and I think others, mean by saying that Forsythe's works are not ballet because ballet is a language, a vocabulary. Yes, he does use ballet steps in his works (and I don't mean to beat up on Forsythe. Like Leigh, my only quarrel with him is the notion that he is ballet's future. I think his work must be taken seriously, but as dance, not ballet).
Raspberry cup table steal berry berry steel grommet, in the basket over the mountain plate car boat.
These are English words and phrases and they look like a sentence, but they're not used in a way that is recognizably English. Again, not a perfect analogy, because this is an incompetent sentence and I don't think Forsythe's works are incompetent, but you can use English words without writing English.
Posted 04 March 1999 - 05:52 PM
Posted 04 March 1999 - 07:52 PM
The last post on the old thread (Contemporary vs. classical/importance) was by Giannina Mooney about Eliot Feld.
Giannina, I'm pretty sure Eliot Feld was trained at the High School for the Performing Arts. I think he did study at SAB (wasn't he a Prince in Nutcracker?) but again, there's a difference between taking lessons and immersing yourself in a technique. Yes, he did dance with ABT, but, first of all, that's hardly a classical hothouse and secondly, when I say "you have to grow up with it," I mean from about age 8 or 9 (Yes, Ashton and Tudor came to it as young men, but Ashton is an exception to the other Greats in almost every way, and many people feel that Tudor's lack of facility in creating enchainements was due to the fact that he came to ballet so late).
Yes, Feld was considered very promising. I saw several programs of his in the late '70s that were definitely ballet; he was rechoreographing, or making his own versions of some 20th century classics ("The Gods Amused" was a two-Muse Apollo, etc.) His dancers were never classical; I can't think of one. They were all demicaractere, but ABT's rep in the '60s and early '70s was mostly demicaractere, and most of his dancers came from ABT.
I remember Michaela Hughes with great affection - what was the Fred Astaire ballet that he did for her? She joined ABT for awhile in the early '80s, I think, and was a wonderful character dancer, one of the few dancers in that company then who really looked alive on stage and had a distinct face and personality. But when she was in a classical solo, it was pretty evident that she wasn't that sort of dancer, and she didn't dance many classical (tutu or Balanchine) roles after that first season.
Feld now has something called Ballet Tech and he's stated (and the repertory bears this out) that he's no longer interested in choregraphing ballets but has gone back to his roots. His new works are very grounded in popular culture, as I think they put it in the press releases, telling today's stories of today's youth.
Posted 05 March 1999 - 12:26 AM
Thank you for posting, libby. The way I look at ballet, yes, I would say that Agon and ballet moderne both look contemporary on the outside, but they've got very different bones. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "intent." I'm sure Forsythe and Neumeier and probably many others are quite serious in intent. But I do think there is a spiritual element (not the best word. I don't mean religious, but something that stirs the soul) in both Agon and Giselle.
As for your question, a "demicaractere ballet" is something like "Fancy Free," or "Rodeo" (nearly all DeMille), much Fokine and Massine ("Petrouchka," "Boutique Fantasque"). This can get very confusing, because "demicaractere" dancers are also classical dancers; they're classically trained, they're ballet dancers. Same with demicaractere ballets. They're danced by ballet dancers. But instead of symphonic choreography, or abstract choreography, in a demicaractere ballet, the dancers take on different characters -- hmmm. I should have looked this up. I'm quite sure of my examples, less so of the definition. "Swan Lake" has characters, too, but it's not a demicaractere ballet.
Hope the examples help. If someone can rescue me with a good definition, please do.
Posted 05 March 1999 - 02:24 AM
I may sound like I'm dismissing the problem, but I don't think ballet needs to change to become more obvious, but that people need to be made less afraid of interpretation. Certainly art is enriched with background knowledge, but it can also stand on its own. It reminds me of the times I catch myself in museums reading the comments next to the pictures more than I've even looked at the paintings. . .
(there's an essay on this at my website - http://members.aol.c...hel/interp.htm)
Posted 05 March 1999 - 08:42 AM
My mind is still boggling having just read this entire thread (all three of them!) in one hit. I can't remember a lot of the points brought up- even though everything said is terribly interesting to me...
So where to start? Well I like contemporary. Just so you all know. I have seen a few bits of fluff passed off as 'contemporary dance' (with that terrible 'slogan' abt the company being on the cutting edge, etc)- but then I've seen ballets that aren't the most substantial ballet meals as well.
I think a classical company needs to have modern works as well. Its all part of a balanced diet for the dancer and means they don't get bogged down with the one style (and a dancer must be versatile!). Its been mentioned that contemporary can impede the dancer's classical technique (was that you Alexandra?). What an interesting point... I certainly hope not! Its up to the individual to keep their technique up to scratch... but then a lot of people seem to be under the impression that modern dance isn't technically demanding and allows the dancer to slop around or something. Oh if only that were true! I do contemporary as well as classical, jazz, tap and a little spanish. Obviously classical is the most disiplined of the five. But modern is the style I am having the most trouble getting into my body (oh the traumas of trying to get your feet parallel when you've just come out of a classical class!). It has almost as many 'rules' as classical. There is a certain way to do things. Its not simply a case of "oh we'll chuck our leg over here maybe fall over here" (and there is an art to falling.. like Margot Fonteyn said to Martha Grahem "Why we (Royal Ballet) fall like paper bags. You fall like silk'). Perhaps the fact that the dancer is working in a different style adds something to their classical technique that isn't very beneficial. I can't really say because I hadn't noticed.. btu then I dn't see enough dance to notice! I'm not saying nobody else knew that or that I'm saying something new and mind blowing- just nobody else has mentioned that...
Hmm. and I also think if any of you have the opportunity to see Sydney Dance Company do 'salome' take it. Its a fantastic work (I'm going to see it again in april!). It uses a huge dance vocabulary as well as an acrobatic one.. And its wonderful. And its something that you remember long after you've seen it.
I'm afraid I cant comment on all that neoclassical part. I simply don't have the knowledge to make an informed comment... But still.. does everything have to fit neatly into a label? dance is an artform and is about expression... not about "OK, I'm now going to do a Balanchine-neoclassical-ballet where this guy is constantly chasing after youth" or something! (Does anyone get the point I am trying to make?!).
I think thats all I want to say for now. I just want you all to know that I think contemporary does have its important place in dance... if anyone has seen one excellent contemporary piece I'm sure they'll agree..
-Katharyn who's hoping she's not just totally mucked up the progression of this thread
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: