Technique or Personality?
Posted 26 March 2002 - 04:42 PM
Posted 15 September 2002 - 05:28 AM
Now, at least I know what I think - I think that technique is the indispensible item; that it is the means through which the personality of the dancer is conveyed, and neither one is an end in itself, but are both media through which a fully realized performance take place.
The nice part about opinion questions is that your answer is always absolutely correct, because that's what you think. The only way I used to tell my Jr. high Social Studies students that they could get a bad mark on an opinion question was to say nothing at all.;)
Posted 26 March 2002 - 10:15 PM
I couldn't come up with a better word than "personality" but this was hard for me to answer, too, because I saw Ballerina A, cold as steel, churning out fouettes, and Ballerina B, skipping across the stage without doing any real steps, but blowing kisses and looking absolutely adorable. (Of course, there are the ones who do fouettes AND blow kisses, but that's another story.) So I guess I read the differences as "robot" and "not a robot" -- which may not be fair.
Posted 28 March 2002 - 03:52 PM
It seems as if much of this mystical "personality" comes from within the artist themselves, however, and it is a shame that they aren't hiring personality with the potential to improve technique (and I am speaking in terms of a high level of technique).
A teacher at a comparatively small company without a large talent pool on which to draw told me once: "We take people and make them dancers. Other companies take dancers and try to make them people."
I can't believe I've gone along these many years without ever hearing about Emily Litella!
Posted 28 March 2002 - 04:36 PM
Posted 29 March 2002 - 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Cabriole
Ah, but isn't the purpose of technique to support the personality?
Beautifully put, Cabriole. I'd say yes, and I'd vote for that one
Posted 12 July 2002 - 11:46 AM
I thought it interesting that the art world broke this down so easily. We've had discussions before about a dancer's "facility" (inborn talent), which would be the equivalent of "an easy hand" -- he's a natural jumper, a born turner -- and that doesn't have anything to do with whether the person will develop into an artist or not.
Posted 14 July 2002 - 08:59 AM
Posted 14 July 2002 - 04:31 PM
Ashton, always the middle man, loved virtuosity, but used it like a spice. Balanchine, once accused of being all technique, all the time, seems positively chaste today. Technique subservient to artistic expression in a different way than Fokine, but still primarily interested in artistic expression.
I think much contemporary ballet is exactly analagous to your punk/garage band description, dirac
Posted 28 March 2002 - 03:12 PM
Emily Litella was also hard of hearing. I recall in particular her performance of "I Will Follow Him," which she rendered as "I love him/I love him/I love him/And where he goes I'll swallow, I'll swallow, I'll swallow/I will swallow him...." at which point she was corrected by a grim Jane Curtin.
Posted 14 July 2002 - 04:23 PM
We've seen that kind of thing in modern dance but not in ballet; the technique is so rarefied and demanding (I don't mean to say necessarily superior) that I think it gives the form a sort of inherent conservatism in that respect.
Posted 17 September 2002 - 11:14 AM
Posted 27 March 2002 - 08:55 AM
All people have personalities, but not all of them can be dancers and just few of them have the rights to dance, let say, Aurora in "Sleeping Beauty".
Posted 26 March 2002 - 10:00 AM
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. (If it doesn't appear below, your computer's or browser's adblockers may have blocked display):