I'm not sure it's necessary to choose one alternative or the other. Surely ballet can be both a sport and an art form? Perhaps it's helpful to think of it as a continuum, with pure athletic display at one extreme and Galina Ulanova at the other. It may not even be necessary to judge which is better, sport-like movement for movement's sake or artistic movement that conveys feelings and ideas beyond the movement itself. We each have our own valid preferences when it comes to enjoyment of a performance.
Most performances probably fall into the midrange of the continuum -- good levels of athletic skill and some ability to interpret a character or convey a mood. Some dancers have poor acting ability paired with a beautiful body, others have physical shortcomings that interfere with an above average ability to emote -- the possibilities are many, and again we all have our own levels of tolerance for dancer shortcomings.
Having said all this, I find personally that while I can admire dancers with extreme flexibility, huge jumps and endless pirouettes, I gravitate towards performances that show me a new way to hear the music or to better understand an old story or familiar character. This is what interpretive artists do, and it is a rare skill to be greatly cherished, in my opinion. I'm even willing to put up with technical lapses and physical imperfections in the best of these artists. One can only hope that artistic directors will continue to provide opportunities for these artists in spite of box office and other pressures to feature dancers solely for their beauty or athletic prowess.
