Fyodor Lopukhov, on critics

[Catherine]

I found this very impressive quote doing research for a book I'm currently writing. Our friend Fyodor wrote it back and 1925 and yet, surprisingly, I can think of many instances where it still applies today.

"Contemporary ballet critics at best remind me of the proprietors of antique shops who through their proximity to works of art have developed a practiced eye but who lack any real knowledge. [...]Until the study of the fundamentals of the art of dance becomes compulsory [.....] we cannot expect to see the emergence of a proper dance critic. [...]

Someone who cannot even demonstrate the first position to a child (properly), let alone correct the child's mistakes, writes articles claiming that this or that was performed imperfectly ...

The critic of the future will have to know as much about choreography as we do and more about everything else. He must be not only able to point out an error but to correct it; he must make comments that are more specific than "the ballerina was good, "the ballerina was appalling," [...] It seems to me that remarks of this sort merely underscore the mediocrity of contemporary dance criticism which until very recently has enjoyed its own special privelege of being inviolable in that it has deprived artists of any opportunity to defend themselves from even the most ill-founded and unsubstantiated attacks."

-Fyodor Lopukhov, 1925

[chiapuris]

Catherine,

Can you give us the title of Lopukhov's article/book/essay,

and, secondly, is the English translation your own?

[leonid17]

Catherine,

Can you give us the title of Lopukhov's article/book/essay,

and, secondly, is the English translation your own?

I learnt something about Lopukhov from, the translation of “Writings On Ballet And Music (Studies in Dance History) by Fedor Lopukhov that Stephanie Jordan presented and was published in 2002.It is widely available as new and second hand on various websites.

[Michael]

It's interesting that Lopukhov, an advocate of pure dance, here advocates a kind of criticism based upon the fundamentals of pure dancing as understood by the professionals. But what of the theatrical viability of a production? I would argue that, for example, in assessing the merits of a performance of Giselle (on the one hand, or even The Four Temperaments for that matter) it matters at least as much that the performances forcefully convey the character and meaning of the work as that it is danced "in proper fifth positions" or some such criterion. And here it's not the dancing master whose opinion is privileged so much as the people of the theater. Ideally you want a foundation in both.

Of course Lopukhov is to be understood in his context of arguing for pure dance in an age when its artistic gravity had to be established - his statement goes to that above all, it comes from that direction. But in my experience, professional dancers or former dancers do not necessarily make good critics. They tend, in fact, to make poor ones, being too interested in whether the position is correct, they have a tendency not to see the forest for the trees.

[Helene]

Of course Lopukhov is to be understood in his context of arguing for pure dance in an age when its artistic gravity had to be established - his statement goes to that above all, it comes from that direction. But in my experience, professional dancers or former dancers do not necessarily make good critics. They tend, in fact, to make poor ones, being too interested in whether the position is correct, they have a tendency not to see the forest for the trees.

Many teachers as well, who sometimes sound like they're grading class.

[Catherine]

It is not my translation, although much of the mss I'm working on is. I found his "Khoreograficheskie Otkroivennosti" to be a very rich primary source but an untranslated one. You would not believe the wealth of original Russian source materials in the Petersburg Theatrical Library that have never been translated! It is mindblowin.

But no, this is taken from "Writings on Ballet and Music" that Leonid previously mentioned, and is found on page 152.

It struck me, because I have seen much of that "she danced well" by some present day critics, which to me doesn't really mean anything. How did she dance well, what about it was lovely or wonderful? Characterization and context are left out. I think a critic has to have both sides -- not just myopic vision but also not just an outsider "forest" view of the overall production. Either route is too lop-sided.

From the production standpoint in particular, if someone is reviewing, for example, the Mariinsky's "Giselle", we know the production itself isn't new -- the choreography and sets and costumes are as they have been for years. So this element is invariable whereas a premiere of a new ballet is a different situation. In the former case though, well and I suppose in both cases further depth (in my humble opinion) must be given about the dancing itself. Not just "she danced well." Again, just my opinion though.