DefJef

Classic ballet of course is very rigorous and involves not only a historical repertoire, but rigorous steps and "style" such as pointe. The use of the classic ballet style and steps could be used in "contemporary" dances and choreography... and some modern dance, although demanding and rigorous may contain no classical steps and style. I am interested in the gray area where dance uses much of the rigors of classic ballet but less so. Is this called modern dance? Are dances being choreographed using some classic style but less so than in the classic repertoire? Do modern dance companies do more of these contemporary dances as time marches on? Or do they remain very much rooted in a classical repertoire? Do classically trained dancers have an "easier" time at doing modern dance than modern dancers moving to classical work? Are some dancers known for their work in both genres? Or is this considered a "no no". What are the general vibes between classically trained dancers and modern dancers? Can some of you experts shed some light on this gray area for me?

Hans, Since coming to this board I have so many questions, but I am asking them "slowly" so I can receive lots of comments and mull them over and absorb them. I really appreciate the generosity and patience of those who are "experts" with neophytes such as myself. Thanks again for the replies and comments.

We just returned from the matinee of Giselle seen from Row H to the side in the orchestra. Much more intimate way to see the ballet.. but you can't see the "plan" view and the Wilis look very different from down there. Side is not great cost you miss a part of the stage and entrances and exits. Gomes and Herrera were stunning. Paloma seems to have perfected the motion and postion of arms and hands... more than anything this stood out in her performance. Her balance is great and she makes dance seem almost effortless. Gomes is quite the althetic dancer and very handsome to boot. The Wilis are/were wonderful! Seeing it from down in the orchestra and fairly close appealed to my wife very much as she liked looking at the expressions of the dancers which is much harder, almost impossible without glass from up stairs. Tuesday we sit in Grand Tier so I can do a pretty instanteous comparison of the experiences. Giselle was stunning and it is no wonder that it has been going strong for more than 150 years.

Of course I was joking! But the irony of the whole thing did not go unnoticed and I thought I would comment on it. But why wouldn't anyone insterested in Ballet read whatever they can? Are we like that we are interested in something.... we search every nook and cranny to feed our curiosity and thurst for knowledge? As an old fellow I am thrilled that I am able to learn about ballet here and have questions that pop into my head addressed instead of following some formal education of dance histiry.

Funny thing happened this morning. As usual I take my breakfast at a local coffee shop and read the NYT. Finally, I get to the arts section and lo and behold there is a review of this week's ABT performances of Giselle by Jennifer Dunning. Great because this afternoon we will see it! What struck me as odd and perhaps this is over the top speculation.. but in this very thread I started about the strange nature of Rockwell's reviews and why doesn't a reviewer compare the dancers who perform the same ballet in a run at the ABT... and Jennifer Dunning did just that! Thanks Jennifer!!! Perhaps critics are reading this board??? We missed the Vishneya / Malakhov performance on Wednesday, but will see Herrera and Gomes this afternoon armed with her commentary. I am very excited about my (hahahahhahaaha) impact on the world of ballet reviews!

It is obvious that dancing is athletic in that it involves the training and development of the body and atheletic movement. As far as I know all sports have one thing in common - they are competitive games with winners and losers.. With the exception of dance competitions, I see no basis for calling ballet a competitive sport. I see all dancers as glorious winners!

This also brings to mind the "interpretation" of the music, not by the dancer or choreographer but by the conductor. I know from listening to classic music and opera that the same music can sound quite different depending on the orchestra and the conductor more so I suspect. So in terms of tempo and so forth how is this all worked out? Do they ever chnage the tempo for example for different principals? Not being a musician I haven't the slighest clue how this works, but watching the dancers move it seems that they are so completely in synchronicity with the music that the timing and so forth seems more precise than a Swiss watch movement. Amazing isn't it?

This may be yet another dumb question, but here goes. The ABT does a series of performances of the same ballet, but change the cast of dancers... perhaps principals, soloists and the corps. Is is the same ballet, the same sets and costumes and the same choreography, but each performance will have its own personality... I suppose because of the dancers... how they look and dance. Are the differences in appearance "played up" or played down? Are they meant to be almost identical? Is each performance meant to emphasize the differences that the performers can bring to their roles? Is each cast rehearsed separately or are the rehearsals done "ensemble" with each dancer receiving the same "direction"? Of course, since ballet dancers at the very minimum will each look different, height, body type, face, skill and so on even with everything else equalized each cast would appear different. What ARE the variables from performance to performance of the same ballet done by the same company in a series of performances?

We have sat in the dress circle at the Met in the center close to the front. The view is quite good but you do need glasses to see expressions and smaller things well like hands and so forth. I like to feel the ceiling above and not the ceiling of the balcony above. The sound is better too. This season we are down in the grand tier... which is actually a bit better and on Saturday we have some seats in the orchestra. I have seen opera from down there but not ballet... This will be a first. Next week I can report which of the three locations I prefer... I think it will be Grand Tier... but who knows? Where do the critics sit? Anyone knows? House seats?

I plead guilty to not having used the library since college. And now the internet has replaced the library for me. I suppose there are ballet performances available via the web? For a study aid I can see the value, but as I am not a dancer, but a consumer... the experience to me is very much about it being live... the lighting, the acoutics.. the orchestra... the energy. For me, seeing it live and on memorex are very very different experiences. Having said that... I have found myself enjoying opera on PBS and some dance... but of course the rest of the TV offerings are so bad I hardly watch the tee vee.

I have been reading John Rockwell's reviews in the New York Times for a year or two. Is it just me or are they not very good? I can't get much from them and wonder if I don't know enough about the ballets he writes about or does he not develop his thought too well. Perhaps someone can direct me to well written reviews (assuming the Rockwell reviews are not the greatest). Is every performance of the major ballets companies reviewed? I notice that the ABT, for example performs the same ballet for about a week and changes principal dancers. How do they decide which performance to review? Why don't they compare them? Wouldn't this be instructive and useful? What IS the impact of a review? Does it change the career of the dancers mentioned? Or are advancement and promotion decisions made inside the company without concern for reviews?

Where do you like to sit when you see a ballet? Obviously not far... and not off to the side. But do you prefer to sit in the first balcony or down in the orchestra? I mean assuming cost of the seat was not the issue? Can you sit too close? Do you use opera glasses? Why and what are you looking for? Do performers focus on anything outside the stage when they dance on stage? If so are they playing to the orchestra level or simply the entire threatre? I like to be up a bit because I like the "plan" view, but perhaps that is my architecture training coming through. It is also easier to take in the entire stage at once...

Patrick.. Dance is quite a different thing from most other "Arts". You have to attend a performance. You can listen to a ballet on a CD or in you car or on the radio... the music yes.. but not the ballet. You need to OBSERVE it.. and like a play it takes time. The visual arts can be reproduced as are and why we all know the Mona Lisa and the Last Supper. Even music can be listened to "in the background" and most people DO.. whether it is po music or classic music or folk music you CAN do other things AND listen to music. Dance and ballet are different. You can see them on film or video or TV... which are very different experiences from seeing a performance "full scale" and live. Even so because the niche market not many ballets are available on video and TV. Modern dance is perhaps perceived as "elitest" as well. I think in the public's mind it is simply what modern choreographers do. Would Mozart write the same music were he alive today? We tend to be a product of our times. Ballet seems to be a much like a living museum, a time machine... a body of work and rules and so forth which have been performed continuously since their original creation... much like Shakespeare's plays perhaps. Like folklore the art and mystery of ballet is passed down through the generations. I think you combine all the attributes of the ballet and the ballet experience and you can see how it is a very special and esoteric genre and why it is tagged with being "elitest". Thankfully we live in a free enough society that we can choose to gravitate toward different aspects of our culture... and we do so for any number of personal reasons and circumstances as Mouse so beautifully demonstrated above. Ballet is a very strong magnet and that is why it is not likely to disappear from the cultural landscape, despite being tagged as elitist. No?

Mouse, thank you for that post! I certainly want to disabuse any readers of the notion that I know the first thing about this topic - ballet and the arts. I don't. I am from a middle class family with a decent education who was exposed to lots of things and as I get older I grow "awe" at the arts and feel humbled before them. But I love the experience of being completely dazzled by ... for lack of a better word by the "work" of artists and performance artists. I found this place because I simply want to know more about the genre and how others experience what I do. The quality of "thought" here is wonderful. What a crew! One thing I am trying to wrap my mind around... and I hope to use this site to educate me and give me more insight is the nature of the ballet experience as differentiated from other art. I see ballet as a very special and very different language. This perhaps may be part of the elitist nature of ballet... Now step back a moment you ballet lovers and just think how "abstract" the language of dance (ballet) is. Set aside the "libretto" which conveys the story... and the sets which tend to be... well "stage sets" and the dance is both completely "abstract" and completely rooted in "gestures" that is common to every human being. Part of the esoteric nature of ballet lives in the "rigidity" of steps and so on which all dancers train for. These are the notes, the letters, the words of the language of ballet. God I can't find the words. So there is the notion of skill and athleticism and perfection in technique. But there is a lot more that dancers are able to do... and it is terrible "emotive" and full of "meaning" as gesture is "meant" to be. I am getting far a afield here, but again I am trying to convey that the language of something like ballet is esoteric. I popped over to Wikepedia and pulled this quote: ....another sense of esoteric has become more prominent: that which is complex and difficult to grasp except by the few who are more perceptive or aware. In this sense, esoteric knowledge often implies an inner or self-reflective wisdom absent from external knowledge. The notion of ballet being "esoteric" may be the seed which spawns the elitist tag. No?

The data cited of annual expenditures of the NEA uts spending today at about where it was in the early 70s. Adjust that for inflation and you can see our government is essentially starving the arts... or as the right would decribe it.. leaving it to the "market" and the private sector. So again I return to my point that the uber wealthy remain the patrons of the arts, with their grants, endowments, tax deductible (of course) support of the arts etc. Leigh also notes the much beloved myth of america.. that anyone has a chance at rising to the top and those stories always headline the news. But it must never be forgotten that we live in a pyramid where the huge base supports those at the pinnacle. Wealth and power have come from the mass of people, albeit concentrated in those very few at the top. But returning to the notion of "elitism" and the perception that the arts and ballet are elitist it should be noted who asserts the claim and why do they do this? Although there are some very self invoilved self centered people who can't help bu see past their own rose colored glasses... the vast majority of us, regardles of our station like to think of ourselves as ... just one of the members of humanity. Celebs are always remarking how much like the average John and Jan Doe they are... and if they don't have OUR problems, the ones they have are equal somehow. This is a false assertion of equality in our society, especially by the priviledged. Priviledge is treated as they expect... "first class". The perception of elitism perhaps may be noting more than a statement of resentment about being excluded, for whatever reason from playing up there in the ether. Money seems to be able to buy a lot more than tangible things in our culture. Money buys power, respectibilty, access and can put those with it next to those who have talent, skill, culture... you name it. The view perhaps maybe that getting access to the arts is nothing more complicated than having money. When I attend the Met and survey the audience, I see what appear to be a mix of lovers of the opera and ballet and a whole lot more of what appears to be people with lots of cash who simply attend these performances because... well because... it goes with the territory of comporting wealth. These folks have all the expensive (better) seats.. access to the special "members" room and so on. They are usually the older people... The young and wealthy might be seen in the boxes at Yankee stadium... Indeed part of the notion of elitism lives in the idea that ballet and the other "arts" are quite esoteric. To "get it" you need to be in the know and that takes time, dedication "hard work". You can't just show up at the ballet and see what many of the posters here see Sure you see the same performance, the same painting, hear the same notes... but without the deep understanding and intimate knowledge you are just not able to extract as much from the experience. So why are all the good seats and "access" wasted on those who usually and not the cognoscenti... Simply because they can buy it! So we have this love hate relationship with material success. America blesses material success, but those who don't have shout that it is a stacked deck, an unfair deal and shout "elitism". But in the end, talent is talent and regardless how it finds expression, it is recognized and embraced. For some painters it came long after they died. Performers have to make it whilst they are alive... alas. No?

Helene, As an "old timer" I had a similar backrground and yes... the cost of things was radicaly different than it is today.. Remember 15 cent subway fares and 5 cent candy bars.. 25 cent a gallon gas an the same for a pack of cigarettes? These items are still "incidental" costs for the rich. Look at how many drive and own several gas hogs called SUVs? The fact remains, that the arts are relagated to a small niche in our culture and the republicans would be happy to suspend all public support of the arts. The niche, sadly is mostly occupied by the wealthy and those who without the easy path of wealth, stuggle to acheive what it takes to be an artist or an arts consumer. I don't read music but I have always listened to classic music and as a child attended concerts with a friend who beacme a professional musician. But the reality is that we were from the middle class... and were exposed as you were to the arts in school and home. I don't hink many blue collar families foster this interest... especially today. Of course there are exceptions... and thanks god for that because if not there would no doubt of the arts and ballet as elitist. In reality the middle class really believes that they are on the way to becoming the upper class. This concept of class mobility is one of the myths of America. Again it is possible here, but only for a very few, but it doesn't prevent ma y in the middle class from identifying with the rich and "copying" their "behavior". But the thrust is not really to "bring the arts to the people" but rather for those who want to be in the top of sociiety to "get with the program" and acquire the "trappings" of wealth. I think Cuba may have a different approach to the arts and if true it demonstrates how capitalism and socialism manage the social fabric. It should also be noted that some ethnic groups have and foster different "values" and encourage their younger generation to take pursue specific carreers in life... no? What say you?

Patrick makes very strong points... and they are hard to dismiss. However, although sports is getting into the stratosphere to attend as a spectator, they are infinitely more accessible to amatures who play them in streets, lawns, school yards and so on. it should be noted that museums such as the Metropolitan have an optional fee which means that anyone with interest can afford the price of admission. This is not true of the opera or the ballet in NYC as far as I know. Classical training IS expensive in years and money and unless a student is sponsored with a scholarship, only upper middle and above classes can pursue classical arts educations. With empty seats for the ballet in NYC why don't they offer them at deep discounts to students or those who cannot afford the full fare? Perhaps the image of the well heeled audience would be tarnished? Art appreciation is something that also requires education and trying to get kids to sit still in the opera may be a waste of time without some time invested in art "appreciation". Being familiar with the "arts" is indeed a sign of a good education and this is typically, but not always associated with the well off... the elite in society. These are some of the ways the upper crust distinguishes themselves from the rest of us. There is no law barring any person from study of the arts, the discrimination is much more subtle, much the way blacks still suffer in america. Look at the cross section of people in the typical ausdience at the opera or the ballet or at the museum and you can see why the arts are seen as elitist. They ARE for the elite in a sense... the barriers are unstated and not acknowldged... but they are there.

My perspective on this issue is to step back and "analyze" exactly what ballet is... and then place it into contemporary culture. Ballet, like classic music comes from a tradition of European culture. Must "high culture" was produced for royalty as "entertainment" etc. Going back to the renaissance, artists were "employed" by patrons who were commissioned to paint "on demand" and even the subjects were chosen. The "court" was responsible for much of music produced during this period. The unwashed masses were left with less structured and studied artistic expression. They simply did not have the time to study and acquire the discipline of the "schools" of art and music and so forth. These "schools" were very hard to get into, and had very rigid rules and are the epitome of what is elitism. I don't know the history of ballet, but I would guess that, like art it has a similar past, rooted in performing for the upper echelon of European society. This does not mean that what was produced in the arts under this "system" was not exquisite or beautiful or less artistic. As we moved into the late 19th century, the arts underwent some major changes and all sorts of new movements and expressions emerged, upsetting the apple carts in the various disciplines. Individuals in the visual arts rebelled against the rigid ways of the old "schools". The era of "classic music" had past and those works became part of the repertoire of musicians who were the embodiment of "time machines" providing replicas of art and music heard in the past. Ballet is rooted in this same tradition and is viewed this way, despite the fact that new ballets are created, new choreographers are "re interpreting" "old" ballets and dances are dancing to contemporary music which did not exist when ballet was born. Perhaps (I don't know as I don't know the history of ballet"... even new "steps" etc. are introduced into the genre. But the perception remains that ballet is yet another "time machine" looking back to a piece of European culture created for the "idle classes". It requires years of study and even this is not accessible to those in the lower classes who must struggle to survive and don't get the opportunity to struggle to achieve greatness in dance. The thematic material of ballet is largely a legacy of what the aristocracy viewed back then for amusement. But again, this does not make it any less beautiful.. in the same when renaissance art created for the Medici is not considered beautiful today. The audience reflects this very Euro-centric culture for the most part in ballet which has a predominant classic repertoire. This may be changing, but when it changes too much it becomes modern dance and not ballet. When you visit the metropolitan museum you see the same (almost) cross section of society in the halls as you do at concerts, opera or ballet. These all represent the repository of European culture and people who are interested in THEIR culture heritage. Unfortunately, the common person's cultural heritage is largely to be found in art, architecture, and music produced for the hoy paloy of the time. Today those who have a great interest in the "classic" arts are tainted with the stroke of that very broad brush of being interested in a culture largely created for the aristocracy of the past. It seems that this is usually the parts of the past that survive... that which is created by those of wealth who CAN have a legacy through time. Although the very talented artists in the performing arts are not typically part of the aristocracy today... the rich don't do the hard work to become an artist usually... only the very best will be embraced as celebs for their extraordinary talent and rub shoulders with the hoy paloy. Today the ABT, which I attend a bit has rich sponsors for their principal dancers in a throwback to the patrons of yesteryear. You wonder why people see the ballet as elitist... ask the management of companies such as the ABT who model their funding on ancient history (at least in the case sited). Add to that the expensive tickets and the fact that going to the ballet or opera in NYC costs a couple for grand tier seats perhaps $400 when you consider transport, dinner, baby sitters, parking, snacks at intermission and you can see who the target audience is. Things have not really changed in a very real way. The "arts" are for the well heeled. END OF STORY

One thing I noticed about the "stories" in ballet and opera.. at least the ones I have seen... is that are so "contrived" and almost cartoon like. The damsel in distress.. the lover betrayed and so on.. and the dying young beauty... whatever. you get the point. But the emotional range is large if the nuance is lacking no? I was wondering if more nuance in the storyline were not possible? Or maybe it is not desirable? A case in point is Le Corsaire which comes to mind because it is the last ballet I saw. The storyline is so silly no? Or take Rigoletto... again a "goofy story". Am I being too harsh i wanting more nuance and sophitication inthe storylines? Would this detract from the performance... the dance and opera? What about less literal ballets more thematic with no storyline? Can't do that in opera though.. it's all words and built on a story. What say you?

Hans, I understand intellectually your words, but I am not sure how you break out of the "steps" and become more "expressive"... could you give some examples? Is it things like facial gestures or making the steps completely blend into a continuum or what? I know when I see a perfomance which is especially "emotive" I sense it but I can't figure out why it is... how was this achieved? What exactly did THAT dancer do that this other dancer didn't??? I am not a dancer obviously... so this is very new to me.

Another observation / question from a naive (and new) lover of ballet.... When I look at some ballet, I am struck by the exuberance, the appearance of freedom and sonething that looks like an almost unconstrained joy. Those leaps and turns and so on a thrilling to watch and almost breath taking to observe. Yet I know that this is all very well rehearsed and practised and controlled. What might look like something flowing in the wind is a very studied and controlled movement or series of movements. Does a dancer feel "trapped" inside the moves, the steps and so on/ How do they break out and express "emotion" when "forced" to perform the precision which is required? Does this make any sense? Can someone articulate how one can be so controlled in their movement and convey so much "freedom (for lack nof a better word)? Tomorrow night is Giselle and I am going to look very closely and see if I can find some better words...

Sz, Of course!!!!!!! Each ballet performance lives but one time... the same painting hangs on the wall until it turns to dust. Performance is very special because it is a unique experience through a snatch of time.. precious and fleeting. Yet that performance is the result of thousands and thousands of hours of work... by the dancers, the corps, the musicians, the composer, the choreographer, the set designers and builders... and it involves in a sense ALL the hours of ALL their training all meeting in one performance which might last but an hour... and you get to see it from only one unique location. But this is only one wonderful aspect which makes a ballet such a precious art form... or opera for that matter. But it must be noted that the world is divided into two general classes of people... those who have intimate knowledge of (in this case) ballet... and those who do not. But of course there are those who leave the later class and begin the process of entering the class in the know... and this DOES change the experience of perhaps not only ballet, but of movement and gesture and posture and who knows how many other things. I am not motivated at almost 60 to learn to do ballet... but I am tickled by the idea of becoming more knowledgeable about the art because it MAY make the performances I attend so much more "robust". But I fear becoming focused on looking for "technique" and so on and not having the experience of being "washed over" by the whole gestalt... the balance, the form, the extension, the precision.. sometimes like a flower growing right before your eyes! I love to be wowed by the incredible poise and timing and perfection and sitting their in stunned disbelief of how a ballet might come together. Dance is a language I feel but cannot speak and I wonder how these works are created. Do you get lost in looking at the trees so closely that you can miss the splendor of the forest? Scientists and almost all creative people MUST focus on detail and precision of the "very small" because it is reflected in the very large... in the way each brick must be precisely placed to make a perfect wall. And then there is the notion that a ballet.. is a "set" work when done by a choreographer... and it only changes with the orchestra, the dancers, the theater and perhaps the set... Each performance is a somewhat exact replica of the vision of the choreographer... each one takes on a "personality"... a signature... like when a song is "covered" or sung by a different artist. To begin to see all this requires a far amount of "familiarity" and knowledge and exposure. Since ballet performances are so few and far between it takes a long time to "get there". Even opera you can at least listen to recordings... not so with ballet as far as I know... And unlike a play.. you can't even read it and use your imagination. Ballet is unique this way. What say you?

I don't think of ballet or dance as a sport. The key to sport is that it about competition, piting individuals against each others in games with rules, and scoring and it is objectively "easy" to determine the winner.. the goal of sport. Dance and bellet although physical and involving physical training and discipline is not a competition and scored usually as far as I know. Things like skating has become a sport because it is now "scored" on diffuculty in executing "moves" or whatever they do... triple toe loops and so on... It can look like dance but it it seems to be very much more limited and confined. One may need atheletic skill to dance, but this does not make it a sport. WHo do you think will wind the world cup? Boshoi or the ABT? hahaha

Since at my age actually studying dance is not a possibility, and so I could only do it in an "intellectual" way reading and perhaps going so far as to observe classes or rehearsals. I could never "feel" dance in my bones so to speak. However, without a trained eye, I still can see which dancers are "exceptional" or seem to perform and move with "exceptional grace and control". Perhaps this is one of the earmarks of genius, that it is able to transcend our nativity and penetrate our consciousness in such a splendid way. Two weeks ago we watch Le Corsaire with Medora performed by Paloma Herrera. This is the second time in two years we have seen her perform that part. I watched her very closely and I was struck by how completely fluid and in sync with the score she danced... Although this statement on the face would describe any dancer, I particularly noted her upper body, arms and hands and she moved them in a way I have not observed in the past. It got me thinking if I wasn't looking more closely this second time and it was part of the education of study and detail... and hence the original topic post. How much does an observer such as myself go to amplify the experience? I don't want to be keenly aware of technique because it reminds me of looking at the brush strokes of a painting and not stepping back and seeing the entire work. The impressionists played those marvelous "tricks" by desconstructing form into "brush strokes" and giving us the entire "impression" without perfect detail of "realism". Degas has wonderful impressions of the ballet studio, but seeing the ballet in motion, in time is an experience with leaves me dumbfounded. When I rise from my seat to leave I feel so terribly heavy and awkward and flawed as a human.. after experiencing the perfection which is ballet... and it makes me think... How is this all done? Conceived? What a mystery and what beauty! I don't even have the language to describe what I see... let alone understand it!

As an architect and not a dancer, I have always thought about how we perceive/experience the "completed" work. This is, of course, the way it is meant to be experienced.. the completed and perfected work. We see paintings in museums, we experience buildings every day, furniture.. opera, theater and ballet, which is the nature of this site. Yet to get to that final "perfect" work... requires enormous effort, knowledge, experience, training and rehearsal. Artists seem to love the entire process of getting to the completed work. As observers, we rarely see what came before, we don't see the painter painting, the architect drawing, the ballet dancers in rehearsal and so on. However, if you are one of the artists or performers who are involved in these great artistic efforts, you will have a very different perspective on not only the whole process, but the final work. A ballet dancer is IN the work and perceives it from INSIDE, from on the stage, not from the other side of the proscenium. And when they DO sit in the audience, the see the performance with such intimate knowledge of what is taking place on stage. Surely they attend the ballet that I do, but see something very different. Perhaps I see buildings very differently from ballerinas?? I have recently become more and more interested in ballet and opera as a "consumer". Unlike recorded music the power of the live performance is so much a part of the experience. Each time I attend I am intensely aware of how much work and coordination has gone into the performance which unfolds for ME. But I am extremely "naive" about the "technical" matters of the ballet and opera... as a dancer may be about how a building is created, or a painting. Although all art involves time... time to create the work... some art is static when completed, and others, like music and ballet come alive in a unique snatch of time - "the performance"... and each performance... will be unique for any of a number of reasons. As I am more and more drawn to the beauty of ballet I am wondering if I want to be looking deeper into how it was created, or do I want to remain naive and completely awed by what I see. Obviously, young people may be drawn to become dancers, performers or artists, but at my age all I could do is "study" intellectually how it all happens... perhaps observe rehearsals and so on. I don't think I want to do that at this stage, but I wanted to receive the reactions to others about this topic. How much does more knowledge and insight add to the experience? Is there an "argument" for one to remain "sensitive" but untrained and uneducated to the technique, jargon and nuance of the genre? Would seeing all the hard work and so forth... "de-glamorize" the experience for me when I observe a performance? My gut reaction is that more knowledge DOES lead to an increased appreciation of the art. But do you lose a little of that "AWE" factor when you see how human it all is - art, that is? What say you?