Amy Reusch

Are you saying Picasso would have thought if Oscar Schlemmer couldn't do it successfully, Picasso couldn't? (I didn't realize Picasso had such a high regard for Schlemmer) Or do you mean Diagheliv would agree with your view? I'm not sure Oscar Schlemmer's production was a failure from the artist's point of view, even if the dance world wasn't thrilled by it. A reconstruction was performed in the 1980s at the Guggenheim. I was sorry to have missed it; the costumes must have looked great set against that architecture. How does that Ballet Suedois fit into your eras (proof of the idea's failure?) And do you feel Parade was hampered by it's costumes or made by them?

All right, Alexandra, but I still want to know more about generally about sets and their histories. I'm interested from a ballet history perspective rather than a design-tech perspective, but there's a natural overlap. (Is there a way for a thread to exist in more than one forum?)

What happens to old sets? How often are they recycled. When they aren't what happens? What's the oldest set still out there in circulation? What was the typcial age of the sets that were destroyed?

I don't know what is done in Russia, but in NY, most designers have a "destroy after use" clause in their contracts. They haul old set units out to the Jersey Flats and burn them. "Generic" pieces like plain flats and framed units and even cycloramas have been known to have been donated to college theater programs. The Metropolitan Opera used to donate its old plain units to the Dialectic Society at the United States Military Academy at West Point.

Thanks Mel, I wasn't aware of the "destroy" clause. But I am sure that many regional companies do rent sets rather than building their own. I remember Ballet Theater of Chicago rented a George Virdak Giselle set and I don't remember from where (possibly Cleveland ballet where the directors had a personal history?), but I remember being told it was very old... wish my memory was better, but I think it might even have been a Ballets Russe set from the 1950s or late 40s?? I remember PA Ballet renting a Gaiete Parisienne set & costumes from ABT. And I remember hearing that once the Ruth Page Nutcracker was closed out from the Aire Crowne that the whole production would die because there was no other theater that could hold a set that big. I also remember hearing the main reason holding back ABT from presenting Tudor's Romeo & Juliet was the cost of rebuilding sets (I'm not sure that's true, but I did hear it).

So there must be some old sets out there in circulation? It would be wonderful for performing arts colleges to get the set donations, I would think (although I guess they enjoy making them themselves). West Point? [What is it about the Pentagon & arts funding... do military bands still get way more than the NEA?]

It's kind of sad. It's too bad it's totally impractical for them to be displayed in museums with proper lighting. Particularly some of the ones for Diaghilev by famous painters. I guess the set design is the true work of the artist, the sets being painted by others, but it would be wonderful to see their vision realized.

(That was what the Joffrey was for, eh? )

Of course, I'm delighted that some of Balanchine's sets were dropped and the choreography presented without them.

Any thoughts?

Somewhere I read that Picasso really wanted to choreograph a ballet for the Ballet Russes but never succeeded in persuading Diaghilev to let him try. [i'm sorry not to have the reference any more.] I don't understand why he didn't just try with another group of dancers later somewhere else. I can't imagine there was no one in the dance world willing to give him a try... even if it were just a publicity stunt.

Fire Destroys Kirov Costumes

Fire destroys Warehouse at Russian Theater

Guardian article about the Maryinski warehouse fire

Was this their main warehouse?

What happens to old sets? How often are they recycled. When they aren't what happens? What's the oldest set still out there in circulation? What was the typcial age of the sets that were destroyed?

(or should I have posted this in the design-tech section of this forum?)

<< He guested with San Francisco Ballet during the Smuin era, some time in the seventies, if memory serves.>> (software not working for me tonight, excuse the quote formatting)

How interesting! Do you remember what pieces they put him in? (does this belong in Ballet History?)

Of the 55 full-time dancers, 32 will be new -- a stunning statistic that indicates his determination to put a very different product onstage.

Without knowing anything about the company, I find this info startling, even if I do believe in an artistic director's right to choose his dancers. Surely some of you have something to say about this? Anyone have any comments on the different look of the new dancers?

''They're going to enhance the qualities I'm emphasizing onstage: more musicality; clean technique; simple, fresh presentation; and quality, quality, quality.''

Suppose he is making big changes in company class as well?

Just very curious as to what's happening in Boston,

~ Amy

We could do a fun mismatch -- Balanchine/Rachmaninoff

Wasn't there some incident where Balanchine approached Rachmaninoff and was rebuffed in some way insulting to choreography in general? Anyone have their Taper handy?

A little more detail, please?

"Hideously"

Was there a dead choreographer that didn't apply to?

~ Amy [MacMillan]

My apologies for the ignorant intrusion.... but does C19 mean 19th Century?

That's wierd, I had been picturing Angela Lansbury, but couldn't come up with a good reason for her. It must have lodged there when I first scanned the article, but I was so focussed on Van Damme that I didn't notice. I could see Glenn Close as Odile, character-wise, but can't bring myself to picture her doing fouettes! Now now now, this is just getting out of hand.... an image of Cher attempting the split-character role has popped into my head and is obnoxiously refusing to depart.

Considering some of the von Rothbarts that already exist on film, Van Damme might be an improvement. I could never quite stomach that short black wings costume that looked like it had been filched from the ice capades, or was it water ballet? As long as they leave the "dancing" parts to dancers, who cares. Perhaps we should be casting Siegfried's mother?

Maybe the rest of you with children [to teach or bring up otherwise] have already seen these:

Colouring Pages from National Ballet of Canada

Any others out there worth the time?

Do you think we could get GI Joe to take on Spartacus?

Hmmm..., come to think of it, do they still have GI Joe?

I can't remember any more, but it seems to me I've seen artists talking to the Times photographer... was it Tom Brazil? I can't remember... but are there dance photographers in NY that work "for" the Times but as independent contractors enough to allow for dialogue with the artists, or is it just professional courtesy?

Thank heaven's there's a skirt! To really appreciate the ugliness of the line, though, we need a unitard. It looks to me like her back knee is slightly bent in one of those Russian-style elongated attitudes... certainly makes her legs look shorter than they need to look, though, doesn't it?

By the way, how do those photos in the NY Times get chosen for publication? I remember modern dance artists hoping to find "press photos" on their contact sheets after dress rehearsal. Would ABT have previewed the photo? Does the reviewer have a say?

Are we talking grand jete (straight legs) or grand saut de chat (bent legs to straight)? The goal of the two jumps is different. In the first, the goal is to leap high; in the second, it's to move the feet as far as possible away from each other. It won't necessarily be the highest jump possible

Yes, Citibob, I would agree the goal of each is different, with the flashing legs for the saut de chat and the soaring arc for the grand jete, so that one would tend to jump higher in the grand jete and perhaps faster in the saut de chat... but... I've seen some beautifully floating saut de chats that almost seem to hover.... unfortunately, I've also seen some saut de chats that make the split but seem almost to lose height in the jump like those Graham jetes where the landing is supposed to be accented without any hint of floating...(in Graham, more like an attack than a leap)... so I hesitate to imply the height of the jump in a saut de chat isn't also important. It is almost as if the saut de chat is typically female and the grand jete male... Are women generally not expected to jump any more? I guess it's the pointe shoe thing. It seems like once pointes get used exclusively, the feet get weak for jumping. Probably a result of all these super stiff pointe shoes dancers seem to like these days.

But flashing the legs out into the saut de chat doesn't mean they don't need to register a beautiful line at full extension.

And yes, Victoria, I agree about the hyper extension... and she does look like the leap had an endearing effortless quality to it. If this were the only example of over-split I'd ever come across, I probably not have felt the need to post. I guess I was just surprised to see the flaw shown at this level (in the NY Times photo of such a famous young dancer's debut).

-- and yes, I should only be so lucky as to watch this dancer perform live! --

I apologize for the vulgar subject heading, but what does one call those grand jetes such as the one pictured in this NY Times article Jealousy and Betrayal in an Oriental Temple

on Alina Cojocaru's debut-- where the split in the leap is beyond a straight line and the torso sinks downward?

Dancers seem to be becoming more & more flexible as if that were an aesthetic goal in itself (is it?). Where will it stop? Should we all begin hyperextending our elbows in port de bras just to show how far back we can bend our arms?

Or do grand jetes like this look great in motion, but don't carry over quite so well in still photographs? I can't quite remember if I've seen one live in a ballet performance, although ghosts of memory reach back to old rhythmic gymnast exercises in Olympic media coverage, where I do remember thinking the image ugly.

I've always thought of the grand jete as one of ballet's great triumphs... a great floating soaring leap that other techniques don't seem to reach for.

In these over-extended jetes, it looks to me as if the leaper is sinking rather than soaring.

Although I admit Cojacaru's example here isn't the most egregious I've come across. It's only the latest and one I happen to have an URL for.

Still, is this a new trend in the technique? Is anyone out there still interested in the height of the jump? (or is that solely a male domain)

Thanks Jack! Hi Ed! Jack, I've been wondering... could they possibly have used that Hubbard Street photo to advertise Tharp Dance in Chicago? It seems like someone would call the bluff in a town where Ron DeJesus is so well known. Do you remember what the photo publicity was for the event at Centre East?

And yes, reading your review was very heartening. The traditional press didn't catch the performance as acurately as you did. I really felt we had seen the same performance.

Tharp has reached that golden age now where critics seem afraid to critique, whereas people like me figure if we're being shown "genius" then it ought to be held to a gold standard. International superstars get the rough treatment.

With no understudies listed, did you wonder as I did what would happen in case of injury? It looked like pretty difficult stuff. Or do you think she has so many stand-by artists who have worked with her in the past that it wasn't a particular worry?

Oh, and at U-Conn, Jim French's lighting was stark, but we were not treated to the diamond flooring effect. (probably because of some inadequacy of the Jorgensen facility... we regularly have whole sets eliminated when the russian ballet pick-up companies come through).

Excellent review, more clearly expressed than my impressions that I posted on another dance forum... but I thought I'd put them here too, just for comparison sake (of Tharp's performance, not particularly my writing skills or lack thereof) [Oddly enough, her company's performance was advertised by a photo of Hubbard Street dancers doing "I Remember Clifford"] Performance was April 8, 2003:

Well, I'm not a huge Tharp fan. Her stuff is fun to shoot, it's so suitable for close-up most of the time, in fact I think a lot of her work maybe is better on film than on stage. Its so post-modernly full of clutter... or is it so postmodernly cluttered with references...  

Jorgensen Auditorium is a god awful space to perform in. The sound system must be one of the worst out there, for starters. It's kind of a boxy cavern, no fly space. And then there's the seating. This time we got our tickets months in advance so I hoped good seats would improve the experience. Unfortunately 10 rows back from the stage are horrible seats. In fact, anything in the front section, until the seats begin to rise, is miserable.... that is unless you don't think it's important to see below mid shin on a dancer (and I'm tall, I can't imagine being short and trying to see). So we moved back after the 1st piece. Actually, it was a pleasure to see how full the house was considering the local obsession with winning the national women's basketball title, the final game being played concurrent with the concert. But god bless them, they do have a dance series, after all, and you can't see stuff like this in Connecticut's capitol.

"Westerly Round"? I felt like I had seen it all before in everything else Tharp has done. I know there's some pre-occupation with artists developing an easily recognizable style, as if that in itself was their goal. Tharp has certainly done that. But I don't know, is that enough in itself? After a while it all starts to look alike.

The dancers, are of course, virtuostic, but the choreographic phrasing doesn't give you space to savor it. I often feel Tharp is like a jazz riff of skat singing with constant "ta-da!" intermixed with "dibble dibble dibble". Of course, I don't understand Jazz either. The phrasing looks very much at home to jazz music but to classical music, I find it dis-musical, to come up with a very lame word. Tharp seems to use music as a soundscape rather than as an embodiment. It bothers me in "Even The King" to Strauss' Emperor Waltz. This was no "Vienna Waltzes". It was as if she were trying to work in the ballet idiom, but couldn't really relate to the music. Oh yeah, sure I don't think dance should forever be chained to the music, and of course there is plenty of very tacky almost camp "music visualizations"... but I don't think dance should ignore music, at least not when it's music that is trying so hard to make you dance.  

"She's as successful as an artist can be, ...alive..." was my husband's intermission comment, "what remains to be seen is how successful she will be after her death". Okay, so that wasn't a direct quote... I'm sure he said it better than that.

"Surfer at the River Styx"

Fraught with non-meaning.  

But it is interesting to see Tharp abandon her constant visual poliphony and take up more traditional compositional groupings. Hey, there's even symmetry here. Interesting soundscape by Donald Knaack... very evocative of "Apocalypse Now" for me... not sure exactly why. Here Tharp gives us some visual space to soak in her imagery. It is much appreciated by the audience. The score has this disco driving drum subcarrier... not all sounding like the BeeJees & company but relentless like disco beat was nonetheless. I don't think it would be right for future dance historians to discuss Tharp without considering Baryshnikov & Studio 57. Not that I was ever there, but a lot of this stuff would have been a thing on the dance floor. It's hard not to see Baryshnikov in the choreography.  

The audience gave it a standing ovation. I gave the dancers a standing ovation, what with their working so hard out here on a one night stand in the boondocks. My husband was crazy about it.

I felt rather jaded.

Or perhaps I'm just annoyed that the advertised Q&A session never materialized. "Canceled" is what the tech people said. Supposedly because of the basketball game. I suspect it was cancelled long before that.

I wanted to know whether there is a "Tharp" style dancer in performance or if it's just their ability to pick up steps quickly that qualifies them. I thought one of the male dancers, though a beautiful technician, was just too "clean", too "correct" to be convincing in some of the work... Emily Coates did a good job of seeming to be a regular person on stage. Oh, and apropos to one of the other current threads, the other female dancer performing, Lynda Sing, graduated from Butler University. I wanted to ask her if she regretted that, since some people seem to think college is a waste of time for young dancers. But really, I wanted to ask Tharp her thoughts on the life of her work after her death. I believe Hubbard Street paid her a million dollars a piece back in the 1990s. Its great to see choreography so valued. But is it more important to the work's longevity for it to be in everyone's repertory than to have a high price for obtaining it? Of course, Tharp wouldn't have come & answered questions at a gig like this.

And of course, now I have no answer on why the concert was sold with pictures of Hubbard Street performing a work that wasn't on the bill for the evening.

-----------------

~Amy, imbedded in rural NE backwater

The Dance on Camera festival will tour around the US, although I don't know if it is the entire program that is touring but a "best of" version. If it is, don't miss the documentary on Anthony Dowell, particularly if, like me, you didn't get to see him on stage. People decry what happens to the energy of dance when it is recorded on video but when I think of the wonderful performances I have only had the chance to see on television, it still seems a wonderful invention. I could never afford a seat close enough to see some of those artists the way the camera can. I agree, the larger stage picture is still hard to get, but pas de deux seem to fare pretty well in the transition to 2D.

Also thoroughly enjoyed "The World Turned Upside Down". The dogs were the dancers, the people the set. Talk about technique!

"Guguletu Ballet" was awe inspiring.... not perhaps in the technique of the dancers but in how ballet thrives in some of the least likely places. A study of inspiration perhaps. It was the first time I've ever enjoyed the performance of the traditional "chinese" section of Nutcracker.

Was it "Minou" or "Sancesse" that happened in the girl's apartment with all the animation, etc.? I've lost track now... but I did find it very imaginative, more ideas packed in to it than most things that length. Very enjoyable & recommended.

While I believe in some homogenization in teaching technical standards (we all want the best technique, after all), homogenization in artistic conventions seems dangerous to the art form, doesn't it? Once everything starts looking the same, it all becomes less interesting, even the archtype that inspired the imitations looks duller.... So what, should choreographers over the age of 20 be forbidden to see other choreographers' work? Only non related art forms? Isolation has lead to some benefit in the past: think Royal Danish, Ballets Russe? What is the solution in this era of globalization? Will poverty lead to creativity? (if they can't afford to see anyone else) Post modernism (with it's proclivity for quoting what the creator has already seen) seems to have kind of played its way out by now, hasn't it. Has technique reached it's limit or are there styles of technique for different eras (one era's technique emphasizing strength & elevation, a later era's technique emphasizing plasticity instead). Exocticism is kind of hard in the 21st century. Cross-fertilization from modern dance hasn't started a new ballet trend yet, has it? (Or is that Forsythe & imitators?) Mixed media is challenged not to be seduced by it's own gimmickry. Whither next? Shallow fashion? Depravity? Or is the audience for new ballet so small that it doesn't really matter... nothing can take hold?

Mel, restaurants may have prefered actors & singers, but I knew many many many dancers & choreographers who were waiters & waitresses & bartenders. True, few of my friends could afford a space as posh as Christopher Street, I meant merely a place somewhere on Manhattan isle, not the west village... although some were there, more often the upper west side, spanish harlem, alphabet city, soho, etc. They were much too late for rent control, but rent stablization was still available... and regarding always having the mind... there's something that seems to happen to dancers when they drop out of school... I don't know what it is... but the pre-professional dancers all seemed to be top students with very high grades... I didn't run into the "dumb dancer" stereotypes until the professional level and then mostly in ballet... it's as if they decided they'd never have to think again, or they weren't socializing with intellectuals or what... I don't know, but there definitely is a dumb dancer type out there and it is very sad... 4 years seems like a terribly long time to a young person, but in retrospect... I wonder how many of those dancers who went to college and went on to a professional career regret having done so before their career instead of afterwards? (although hopefully they have no compunctions about going back to university afterward either).

I really resent being told my personal experience is some rosy colored recollection. It wasn't all that rosy, as I recollect.

As to dancers in the seventies being able to afford housing, I think this is another example of rose-colored hindsight. Housing in Manhattan then was very likely to have taken 125+% of a dancer's income, and dancers had to band together to obtain an apartment to call home with three or four others, and then be subsidizing from some other source, be it parents, moonlight jobs, or anything else. The dancers then were looking back wistfully to the halcyon days of the early sixties, when a loft in the East Village could be had for $35/month, and even then, that was a strain on their personal economies, as pay was much lower then, and the individual dollar had greater buying power.

Apartments in NYC in the 1970s were very affordable compared to now. It's true it might have been difficult to afford them on a dancer's salary, but it was very possible to afford them on a waitress/waiter's salary, which was the standard ploy of the aspiring dancer. For instance, my husband (not a dancer, but at that time a poet-playwright) picked up his 1-bedroom apartment on 81st at Amsterdam as late as 1978... I no longer have records of what his original rent was but with steady rent stablization increases it hadn't yet reached $400/month when we left it in 1990. And I had many friends in the same situation, so it was by no means unsual. I don't think there is anything comparable available now, not even in alphabet city.

Alexandra, I am sorry to realize there has been little change in the ballet dancer's access to higher education. I went to Purchase in the late 70s/early 80s and I had two classmates who actually made careers in ballet, one male who danced with ABT and a female who became a principal for Houston. I had hoped that 20 years later things had improved. I guess we won't get many dancers out of colleges until we get more retired dancers into colleges... maybe in another 50 years?

I want to see the legendary ones, and even some still living that I never saw on stage live at their peak...

Nijinsky, of course,

Kscheshinska

Farrell

Bruhn

Taglioni

Humphrey

Duncan

Graham

Spessivtzeva

Ulanova

St. Denis

Limon

... oh darn, way past 10.... and not even mentioning Legnani or Essler

But of course, without the original surrounding culture to inspire them the clones might just end up couch potatoes, right? Aren't clones supposed to be faded copies of the original... age faster, probably get injured & stiff sooner?

Originally posted by Alexandra

But history is personality!!

Fascinating theory we're evolving -- Be a control freak, produce rebels = good for art.  Be gentle, produce imitators = bad for art.

Was Balanchine gentle?