l'histoire

New Member
  • Content count

    1
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About l'histoire

  • Rank
    New Member

Registration Profile Information

  • Connection to/interest in ballet** (Please describe. Examples: fan, teacher, dancer, writer, avid balletgoer)
    fan
  • City**
    San Francisco
  • State (US only)**, Country (Outside US only)**
    CA
  1. I've been registered on BT for years, but haven't bothered to comment before this; I think aurora's point was that the late 20th c. hooped tutu has not always been standard. The in-between look of the Mariinsky version is equally as 'ahistorical' and, dare I say it, silly looking - at least, that was my impression viewing the clip (Ratmansky's point that one does not show one's underwear to the czar - nor a ruffled tutu panty, presumably - is well taken. Pick one, was my thought upon viewing the Mariinsky clip). Furthermore, IMHO, trying to create the same kind of aesthetic with a long, puffy, bell-type tutu as seen in the Wiki photos with today's dancers - who look NOTHING like late 19th c. dancers - would look ridiculous. Part of the reason those old photographs look so nice is the balance between the larger bust, the very narrow waist, and the flair after the hips. Pray tell, who on stage today could replicate that look (no one, because that's not what ballerinas look like today)? Perhaps the "cocktail dresses" should have a little more "oomf" below the hips, but they look very nice in motion & also play into the aesthetic the creators were after. I find the big platter tutus that flop over ballerinas heads in penche, among other moments, extremely distasteful, but they're all over the place. I think the softer, non-hooped, loosely-tacked "Karinska tutus" used in a variety of Balanchine ballets much more aesthetically pleasing - but I don't complain about the 'pancake' tutus; that's the aesthetic these days, regardless of how attractive it is.