Amy Reusch

Got around to reading the Gottlieb last week and thoroughly enjoyed it... I still stand by my thinking that the Teachout is better for neophytes who draw a blank on names like Danilova, Geva, Lifar, Dolin, etc.... and those others who might get turned off by Gottlieb using words like 'internecine" in the first paragraph ... Teachout might perhaps inspire them to go on and read the biographies of the dancers involved, so that when they read Gottlieb quoting them, they already have a picture in their minds of the personalities involved and the historical import. And yes, that Ray Schorr photo on page 146 is a jaw-dropper! Wow! And just how did they get all those people to agree to that? There's the anecdote I'd like to read about! Actually, that photo is a good example of the difference for the reader between Gottlieb & Teachout... if one doesn't know who all those people are in that photo, and their relationships & rivalries with each other, one wouldn't find it particularly interesting... Teachout would have given the background to make your eyes pop... Gottlieb apparently assumes the reader knows it. I've also been trying to figure out that p86 photo of Zorina! I guess, specifically, I'm trying to picture the moment after and the moment before the photo. Gottlieb's writing about Kirstein made him more human, and made it clear that in addition to being a godsend, he could be a handful. One almost gets more of a sense of Balanchine as a manager than one does in other biographies.

But isn't he usually portrayed as taller than his servant? (honestly don't know)

Saw this while looking for details of the fundraising In a Saffron Ribbon, a Billowy Gift to the CityKimmelman, NY Times, 2/13/05 But this was what I was really looking for, what Nanatchka was talking about: 'The Gates' transforms Central Park Hooper, CNN, 2/16/05I thought I had read it explained somewhere in more detail, but can't seem to find it. I bring it up, because... well... dance companies are always facing fundraising issues.... and I was wondering why they don't help raise funds by selling the costume & set designs... I've always wondered if Diaghelev didn't use those beautiful Bakst costume designs as a means of persuading doyennes to bestow their largesse. It seems that the dance companies could make do with copies of the originals as easily as work off the actual originals, and the public relations value of having the designs prized in wealthy patron's collections would have indirect pay-offs as well. Even at a lower level, it would be wonderful if the company gift shops sold notecards of the designs, everytime someone mailed correspondence it would be like a double advertisement. Would it be an intellectual property issue for the designer? Or is it work for hire? Have dance companies been using EBay for fundraising? Should I double post this to the ballet-talk for dancers site?

I suppose there will always be people who think of art as unnecessary expense because it's benefits are usually intangible. However, I believe it feeds society ideas that are absorbed and then recycled in the depths of the creative process. A way of putting together notes or colors may sink in to a scientist's mind and return unconsciously as a way of putting together chemicals... or facts or whatever elements that creative person is assembling. On a more pragmatic side, I think advertising drives the success of many industries which produce "necessary" items, and a society with no art (has such a thing ever existed?) would not produce very good advertising. I'd even go so far as to say the creative freedom of western advertising is what really won the Cold War.

I didn't realize there was a case of ballet to modern crossover! (other than of ballet dancers sometimes guesting with modern companies). Weren't Limon & Tudor both on the staff of Julliard? Is that how this happened? (Or am I mixed up again and Limon never taught there?) When was it in Limon repertory?

Looking at the press for Christo & Jeanne-Claude's "The Gates" in NYs Central Park, I can't help wondering if anyone's been tempted to try any site-specific choreography before they're taken down. The NY Times has a nice overhead photo in it's slideshow. I'm not sure how to put a link here as the URL doesn't appear. If you go to this article there's a link there 'The Gates' Colors Central Park in Saffron I suppose, everyone in Central Park is involved in accidental site-specific choreography?

I would have like to have seen this one, just as a curiosity.

While I'm delighted that Mr. Rockwell turned the spotlight on PA Ballet, this quote worries me a little. Pop Tunes and Idioms, a Classical Vocabulary NY Times, 2-4-05I'm not sure it's what he intended, but it sounds as if Rockwell thinks straightforward ballet vocabulary isn't interesting, but adding in unjustified creeping is. Perhaps he meant that nothing inventive was done within the ballet vocabulary, but that the mystery of the women creeping along the backdrop piqued his interest? I wouldn't be reading this so very closely if there hadn't been the controversy. And my apologies to Matthew Neenan for interpreting Rockwell's "mysterious" as "unjustified" without having seen the performance in question... I'm critiquing Rockwell's description not Neenan's choreography. And... ... but not apparently not enough to mention a single one of them by name? I would have liked to have read more about the dancers and less about the composers, if there wasn't room enough.

Well that's a strike in Rockwell's favor! It used to be just about impossible to get the NY Times out to review PA B.

No, but plagurizing would be... which I doubt Mr. Rockwell would do. However, it would be pretty blind to equate dance notation with music notation, whatever the glories of having a score might be. I'm not sure that was intended... If we had the equivalent of music notation, it would indeed be wonderful... but until every dancer can read notation... well... on the other hand, perhaps lifeforms might do that quickly and easily? Has no one used lifeforms to notate a ballet yet? [off-topic, just to keep in character]

I don't know about the hip thing. I don't have those beautiful narrow hips. Maybe in shorter female dancers with elevation it's more typical? I think it's more about the kind of foot and calf.... I don't really know, but I think low calf muscles and short ankles tend to lower jumps... but I wouldn't swear to that... an image of someone with those legs doing good (though low) petite allegro keeps floating in my head... I've heard big feet can make for a higher jump, and when I think of tall men with elevation, they seem to have those big feet... but my feet are relatively small for my height. It's probably the achilles thing. (paging Paul Parish!). {now spelled properly!}

Is it possible to listen to [non-vocal] music and not visualize dance to it? I'm only lately coming to realize that music has other ways to appreciate it! I'm with ostrich!! I still use dancibility as my primary form of evaluation of music... though I guess some music is acceptable for non-dancing reverie... generally if it's dull rhythmically; it's dull. ... latest driver's seat confession: Applachian Spring with children dancing balletically. (yikes, will I be tarred & feathered?)

In defense of the taller women.... I believe that in most cases when taller women/girls are given the chance to go professional it is because of their line, and generally to be worth stretching the company feminine height average, the tall dancers chosen are extremely flexible, most enhancing their "line" potential. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that generally the body types that are extremely flexible tend to be not as good at jumping as those with "tighter" physiques. It's not that tall women can't jump, it's that those who can don't tend to have the flexibility required of them. Possibly too, the tall jumpers are more injury prone? In men, in the classroom, I haven't noticed height to limit their jumping ability. Why should that differ for women? I seem to remember something about girls being better jumpers when they're younger until they begin working seriously on their flexibility and pointe work.... Frankly, I don't think pointe shoes are conducive to floating jumps. And then there's the question of repetoire... how much have ballet choreographers emphasized women with elevation in the last 30 years? Sure, there are plenty of perfect split grand jetes used, but what about focussing on elevation & ballon? (disclaimer: I'm one of those tall women who loved to spring & leap and considered it one of my strengths)

Ari? Can I return back into this thread the bits of my post that were perhaps more Rockwell oriented? Is this a first in the NY Times arts coverage where an internet forum ("chat room", shame on you Rockwell!) commentary became the subject of the article? And in the Sunday Times too? Congratulations Leigh & Alexandra for taking us to a new level. And Thank You, John Rockwell, for taking the time to respond.. ... though I thought this little dig wholly undeserved.Has anyone here done a tally of new ballet-choreographer works vs. new modern-choreographer works in ballet company repetoires? I'd love to see the results.

Estelle, I'm entirely in agreement with you. It's preposterous to think the classics can be maintained without proper attention... That's why I was wondering if there has been a tally done of company repetoire... I think perhaps you have it worse in Europe than we have it here in the US? It's almost the essence of fine art that it requires an extreme amount of constant attention to bring it up to that state of refinement... post-modern glib won't sustain it. And then, of course, there are those who forget art needs life in addition to studio work... there's an understanding of what happens to a piece when it's "over rehearsed" until all the life has died in it, but what's the equivalent for the training of a dancer, who never seems to leave the ballet studio, so much so that their dancing is so devoid of personality that they're not fit for anything beyond corps work?

BW, I cannot imagine what kind of modern this was... there are so many different kinds, of course... though I can easily imagine a teacher "having it in" for ballet students and not teaching them appropriately ... I can also suspect students hating the movement might injure themselves in a way that more openminded students might not... it's possible to be injured by not respecting the movement, crazy as that might seem... I've been thinking a lot about your experience, particularly as it's the first time I've heard of such a thing. Did the school where your very serious student was required to take the modern discuss it's reasons for requiring it? Did they later cancel the class as the injuries piled up? I do wish you would say what kind of modern it was. I'm also a little mystified by the problem being caused by "natural" turn out... do you mean your daughter's hips couldn't accomodate working in parallel? In otherwords, would simple walking be dangerous as well? It keeps reminding me of how Villella once said something about how he became injured by walking his dog. And then, of course, I got to remembering how one used to be able to spot the ballet kids on the upper West Side by their "duck walk", and how that doesn't seem to be fashionable any more, and hasn't been for decades now. I can't imagine that kind of turn out is what you mean. My own feet are sort of "naturally turned out" if you will, so that if I stand with them in parallel and plie, my knees knock together, so that to work properly in parallel I have to turn my feet slightly out. I went to school with two dancers who were required to take modern classes five days-a-week in addition to their ballet, but that didn't stop one of them from dancing with ABT under Baryshnikov and another from becoming a principal at Houston Ballet. I did hear a lot of dancers complaining at first about how much they hated having to take modern and then hearing from the same dancers a few months later how much they loved modern. It also reminds me of how dangerous Balanchine technique seemed at the time... we used to talk about the tendonitis and the large number of the company out on injury, etc... but I can't imagine anyone nowadays complaining about being asked to dance Balanchine repetoire, and the technique is required to dance the repetoire properly, I should think. I would very much appreciate it if Paul Parrish would post his thoughts on the issue of modern class being dangerous to ballet students.

Andrei, my apologies for not writing more precisely... I meant not that ballet artists should walk naturally (in say a heel to toe pedestrian style), but rather that they should look natural when they walked. Far too often I've seen a ballet artist walking very unconvincingly... not so much stylized, as awkwardly... as if they felt foolish...and I notice this much more often in the men than in the women... I wish I had Kshesinskaya's biography on hand, I could have sworn she began some argument about walking naturally on stage. Not all Modern is focussed on bringing the weight down into the earth and not all ballet is about weightlessness.... one reason I mentioned "Les Sylphides" and the Black Swan pdd is that I can't say Black Swan is about weightlessness... I'm not saying that any ballet training should be forfeited to make room for experience with modern but rather that ballet training should be supplemented with a physical acquaintance with modern training.

NY Times lengthy obituary: Philip Johnson Is Dead at 98; Architecture's Restless Intellect

Is this a first in the NY Times arts coverage where an internet forum ("chat room", shame on you Rockwell!) commentary became the subject of the article? And in the Sunday Times too? Congratulations Leigh & Alexandra for taking us to a new level. And Thank You, John Rockwell, for taking the time to respond.. ... though I thought this little dig wholly undeserved. I cannot agree that studying modern dance repetoire weakens ballet dancers. I think it improves their ballet dancing. They might not be able to make use of that improvement in Les Sylphides, but I suspect it would even improve say the black swan pas de deux in Swan Lake. Particularly, I think it helps the men. I think it improves their ability to walk naturally on stage, for instance, and I think it informs the use of their backs. Did straying straying from the Soviet repetoire ruin Baryshnikov? Was he wrong to have defected? This is not to say that the ballet & modern repetoire is interchangeable. Certainly if one is not having the demands of the classical repetoire made on one regularly the ability to perform such work slips. I agree strongly that the future of ballet should be built upon the existing institution not grafted on from some modern institution (yes, Graham, Limon, Cunningham are certainly institutions as much as NYCB is), but I think we hurt our argument by claiming that doing any modern at all hurts ballet. I agree with Alexandra that the ballet dancers don't perform modern as well as modern dancers do, and I think that ballet companies are not the ideal institution to mount say "Appalachian Spring" (from either a balletomane's or a modern dance lover's point of view), but learning to express themselves physically through yet another aesthetic deepens any artist's expression. It's not that we're against cross fertilization, it's that we're against abandoning the core of ballet's aesthetic while we flit after commissioning whatever "hot" new modern choreographer there is. Has anyone here done a tally of new ballet-choreographer works vs. new modern-choreographer works in ballet company repetoire? I'd love to see the results. and off topic... And what about that directive that it doesn't matter how one gets from position to position, that it's the positions themselves that must sing out like a string of diamonds? Simplicity is dull, isn't it?

While I was in NYC on Friday for the Dance On Camera festival a kind friend took me to NYCB taking advantage of her 4th Ring Society membership. I very much enjoyed La Source which I had not seen before. Bouder & Weese were wonderful, evoking that "if I had the chance that's the way I'd like to dance" sort of feeling... it's a little different from just admiration or awe... gives one more vicarious pleasure in viewing the performance perhaps. There was one thing that bothered me though, Millepied's pumping his arms in his entrechats (sp?). Is that part of the choreography? I remember seeing a regional company principal do it once in another pdd and thinking "well, that's what you get with a regional company". It doesn't resemble flying to me, if that's the intent... but rather distracts from the jump. Is it traditional to flap one's wings? It looked weak to me. However, I did very much enjoy his pas de poisson or sisson faille, whichever they were. Funny, I kept forgetting to watch Bocca because Albert Evans was so much more vibrant to watch. Perhaps it was because I was up so high, but Bocca didn't project for me. I just don't seem to get him. I sat in practically the front row at an ABT/PBS videotaping though when he did a pdd from Romeo & Juliet with Ferri and he didn't reach me then either. It must have been the angle of watching from the 4rth ring... the "smouldering" was projected at the orchestra I guess. I must say, though, I did very much enjoy how much the NYCB dancers projected up to the nosebleed seats. I wonder if this might be a dying art elsewhere in this country? I noticed at a Boston Ballet 2003 Nutcracker that most of the dancers weren't dancing for the first balcony, even though those seats were plenty expensive, and on Saturday I watched two BB dancers as guest artists at a local production of The Snow Queen in West Hartford, and they projected down as well. Are we losing ballet's appeal to the balconies?

I wonder if my impression of the size of pre-1950s ballet stages is off. When I saw the size of the stage at the Wadsworth in Hartford, I thought it pretty amazing that Kirstein had dared to try to bring Balanchine over to a venue that tiny. Looking at Shiryeav's films, I assumed the small stage space was for the benefit of the camera. Were dance stages smaller back then? Were even the larger stages filled in with supers, scenery, corps, etc. so that the space available for dancing was smaller? Did the choreographers complain of how cramped the Old Vic was? Or the dancers?

Perhaps I should make clear that I'm not in strong disagreement with the other posts, only that I wanted to see the issues "discussed out". I think many good points have been made, particularly about the vortex qualities of gossip, malicious or otherwise. Is "scuttlebut" as negative a word as gossip?

The Dance On Camera festival always has something interesting to see. Lately, getting there has been more difficult for me. I still made it down for one screening: "Belated Premiere" by Victor Bocharov. Here's the review by the NY Times' Anna Kisselgoff: Pioneering Russian Films Show Ballet Master's Wit Here are some of my impressions. Though perhaps not titallating to the average dance student; those fascinated by the dance of Imperial Russia would like to catch some of this. I can't decide if Shirayev is an inspiration or an example of Obsessive Compulsive Dissorder. With my vague memory, I can't recall whether it was in the film or in the commentary that it was pointed out that Petipa was a proponent of character dance. Kisselgoff: Alexander Shirayev (1867-1941) Seeing this review before the screening, I was very eager to see this bit. The case wasn't made as clearly as I would have liked. Perhaps rg can explain. Was it these strips that were the basis for Shiryaev being credited as choreographer rather than Ivanov or other evidence? I guess I was looking for an exact quote in the Balanchine candy canes dance, to the extent of a sequence of steps rather than simply similar vocabulary. I wasn't as excited by the animation as I thought I would be. Although I've worked in video, I didn't come to it via film school and almost no knowledge of film. It was my impression, though, that early film frame rates would preclude the recording of fast footwork of the sort so many current character dance companies seem to pride themselves on. I can't imagine early film being at all successful at catching flamenco, for instance. I thought perhaps Shirayev went into the incredibly laborious effort of the strips because of film's inability to capture all the footwork, but was informed by Bocharov's interpreter that animation long preceded actual film in history, and also in Shirayev's case. Although he wanted to film the choreography at the Maryinski (and was denied), Shirayev filmed most of his live dance sequences on stages outdoors in natural light. The reason for this is, I would assume, because of the much higher quality image he would get in sunlight as opposed to the stage lighting of the time. (Were they even using electric stage lights yet?). The stages were also quite small, and almost always with objects defining the wings. As an archival videographer, I have a strong opinion of why... I don't think it was because the dances were by nature intended for caberet size stage space (like flamenco might be) but rather because bigger reads better, and a wider stage means smaller dancers. There were no pans... I don't remember when filmmakers started using these... but it was typical fo the time. The camera was set up, the objects in the wings defined the space for the dancers, the lighting came from the powerful sun, and there was no camera movement. There were, however, in some of Shirayev's films, lots of special effects. He enjoyed exploring these and several were quite clever. I can't imagine what results he might have gotten in the theater if he attempted to shoot an actual performance (dim, blurry, with small dancers?) According to Bocharov, Shirayev was denied the right to film because the medium was considered too bohemian for the aristocratic confection that was ballet. I kind of wondered if this were the "official" reason given, but that there might have been other reasons as well. Apparently photography was not too bohemian. Was it about control of quality? It seems it must have been too early for the dancers to be afraid it? (Anyone want to explain again to me why there is almost no footage of Isadora Duncan?) Eventually, he was given the right to shoot, but unfortunately the World Wars interfered. Shirayev made very intricate and beautiful stop-motion puppetry films. He really got the movement down to the point where several times I had to remind myself that I was watching puppets. I think his films would be of great interest to the puppetry world. I hope at some point a DVD is made available to BIMP (the Ballard Institute and Museum of Puppetry). Interestingly, he made his exquisite puppets have the same physique of dancers of the day... they moved like the dancers of the day. So? Why is that a surprise? Well, it sort of seems as if while one was making a dance puppet, one might go for the ideal physique... these don't look like Spessitsiva (sp?) or Pavlova or anything remotely proto-Balanchinian... they look like what I imagine Kschessinska or Karsavina moving like. It made me think of that old ballet technique correction advocating that "the upstairs should not know what the downstairs is doing". I always took that to mean that whatever effort is being exerted by the feet and legs, no struggling should be manifesting itself in the arms and upper torso.. however now I wonder if the art form didn't look very different. Nowadays there is a definite center that the extremities extend out from... the opposition of the stretch from that center is displayed as one of the beauties of the technique. It seemed as if back then, that extension was not part of the aesthetic at all... or if it were, it must have been from a different "center", maybe even seperate "centers" for the upper body than the feet? it's almost hard to conceive of ballet line without that extension... but here it was not. The puppets had, it seemed, short legs and long backs. His animation took an immense amount of work. His family said the parquet floor was worn through along the path that lay between his little puppet theater and the camera. I can't figure out what paid for all this. I can't believe film was cheap in those days. I understand he worked a great deal teaching and staging... which left him the hours and hours available to spend on animation? And he never distributed his films, they were only shown in his apartment to family, friends and students... because to have such a thing as movie camera in those impoverished soviet days would be a suspicious matter, I believe I was meant to understand. Someone at the screening was trying to talk about a sequence from La Fille Mal Gardee... I thought he was trying to say that a bit of choreography from the film actually came La Fille, and was not so attributed, but he was cut off because he didn't get around to phrasing a question... and what relationship La Fille had to the film was not made clear (to me at any rate). The film is not yet available. It didn't seem that there was yet a copy at the NYPL Dance Collection, though I'm not clear on that as there seems to be many other entrants to the festival that weren't screened available for viewing at the DAnce Division; apparently "200 entries not shown at other Festival venues". It was wonderful to see top dancers of that time, even though they be character dancers... to see what the dynamics were. I'd be curious to see a discussion of choreographers & puppetry... it seems Petipa had that chessboard, didn't Ashton have an elaborate puppettheater as a child or am I mixing him up with some other great British choreographer... Merce Cunningham explored life-forms (that seems a cousin of puppetry), Twyla Tharp often uses video in the choreographic process. Has anyone wrote about this? I suppose Shirayev was the first dancer turned filmmaker? I would love to read his thinking about the problems of catching dance on film. I'm not clear that any of that is archived anywhere... just the result.... though Kisselgoff mentions his unpublished memoirs. Shirayev (Kisselgoff spells it "Shiryaev", the DOC program lists it as "Shirayev" I have no idea who is right or if it's just one of those cyrillic translation issues) Shirayev opted to take his 20 year retirement rather than comply when asked to stage (re-stage? re-choreograph?) some Petipa work while Petipa was still officially employed but was not being asked to do anything. In the portrait photos it looks as if some fire was burning inside him... not that he was glowering, but rather that he looked like an intense individual. (I want a dna sample... where did he get all that energy?) There will be one last showing, at 7pm on Tuesday, Jan 18th at the Brooklyn Public Library, Grand Army Plaza.

For me, personally, not giving "modern" equal footing is one of Ballet Talk's biggest shortcomings... I understand the bias, but I still feel it to be a major shortcoming. Perhaps if Ballet Alert had not superceded alt.arts.ballet which discussed both on equal footing, I'd never consider it a shortcoming. If onyone could tell me what the "modern" equivalent of Ballet Alert is, I'd be happy to subscribe to it and leave drop the subject here. Because there is cross-over between the two worlds -- or rather from modern into ballet -- whether we approve of it or not, is it so wrong to be kept apprised of the goings on in Modern? Sure, we have that subcategory, but it's so clearly "sub" that not much discussion has been spawned there. Not all of what we find interesting is purely ballet but there are issues common to theatrical dance in general, and I'm sad that the thinking from the "modern" community isn't shared with us. And I guess I'd like to amend my earlier suggestion about rearranging the "pro shop" over to the viewers side of the board... while I think the design issues are interesting to the viewers, perhaps the technical craft belongs with the "do-ers". However, I still would like to see the administration on this board rather than on the "for dancers" board. Think of all the SPAC discussion. And of course, I'm not encouraging malicious gossip. Sometimes "official" news is so censured that there is less to it. Is there another board someone wants to point me to where the bits that don't make the press releases are discussed?

The moderation issue... I almost wish there was one forum on Ballet Talk called "Unsubstantiated Gossip" with an official disclaimer at the top. Why? In the old alt.art.ballet forum days, a lot of news was passed around that would never be passed around otherwise, and I'm not sure all of that was a bad thing. I'm thinking in particular of the Joffrey moving to Chicago from New York... there were dancers desperate for any kind of clues (I believe they were the last to be informed of the company's move). And as tiresome as "flame" posts could be, some of them started interesting discussions. Of course, it's been wonderful not to have the site full of spam. As far as professionals not posting because of conflict of interest issues, I believe professionals on alt.arts.ballet simply posted with pseudonyms. In terms of structure, the split between Ballet Talk and Ballet Talk for Dancers... I wish some of the forums on Ballet Talk for Dancers could be moved to Ballet Talk... in particular the Arts Administration and The Pro Shop... I'd like to see the Ballet Talk for Dancers be more involved with what goes on in the studio. Administration and production seem more related to the discussions that go on at Ballet Talk than the pointe shoe and summer intensives discussions that go on at Ballet Talk for Dancers. It's wonderful to be able to track the most recent posts across the board rather than having to go on a click-safari through each forum. This is what draws me to Ballet Talk rather to a forum like Critical Dance where this sort of overview doesn't seem possible. None of the above are major issues, but since we're trying to bring up discussion, I thought I'd air them.