Birdsall Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Fascinating reading indeed, I don't know how I have missed it. Very valuable information. Should be attached to Zozulina's article as Exhibit #1. I was talking to a friend about Lopatkina's recent Nikiya on June 6. They told me that Lopatkina had not performed Nikiya at the Mariinsky Theatre in four years. I said that could not be possible and they were convinced it has been four years. I went checking the Mariinsky website and looked at the schedules for every month since June 2010. On June 15, 2010, Lopatkina danced Nikiya. In between her 2010 Nikiya and her June 6, 2014 Nikiya, there have been 33 Bayadere performances and my friend was correct, none of those 33 were danced by Lopatkina. What is very interesting is that after the June 10, 2012 Somova Nikiya and the July 8,2012 Tereshkina Nikiya, the two most used performing Mariinsky Nikiya ballerinas went on maternity leave with Lopatkina, Vishneva and Kondaurova being the only regular Nikiya ballerinas. Vishneva rarely performs classical ballets at the Mariinsky, reserving her classical performances for ABT. However, Lopatkina would have been the most obvious choice for Nikiya during those maternity absences and she danced no Nikiyas.That left only Kondaurova among regular Nikiya ballerinas and 2013 was very interesting. Fateyev was forced to make a Nikiya Mariinsky debut and on February 4, 2013, Skorik made her Mariinsky Nikiya debut. Beginning with Skorik's debut, Skorik danced 3 of the next 4 Mariinsky Nikiyas, with Kondaurova being the other Nikiya. After that, the situation was reversed with Kondaurova dancing 3 of the next 4 Nikiyas with Skorik being the other Nikiya. With 8 consecutive Bayadere performances before Tereshkina came back from maternity leave to dance Nikiya again, only Skorik and Kondaurova danced Nikiya. We are not talking about my local ballet company where there is little depth of talent among ballerinas in the company. We are talking about the Mariinsky Ballet, which many consider as having the best wealth of talent among ballerinas. Fateyev was forced to give one debut, Skorik, or Kondaurova would have been forced to dance every Bayadere. With so many talented young ballerinas, why did all these talented girls not dance Nikiya? I would love to have seen Stepanova, Marchuk or Nikitina make a debut in some of them. I think they would be better than Skorik or Kondaurova in the role. And I am sure many people could find other ballerinas who they would love to see make a debut. Fateyev should not be stingy with roles, because then he would avoid the casting problems he has probably had scheduling in August. Link to comment
naomikage Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Lopatkina and Vishineva did dance Nikiya on Mariinsky Ballet's Japan tour in November 2012. They had 4 performances of Bayadere, and the others danced the role was Skorik (her role debut) and Kondaurova. (first, Somova and Tereshkina were announced but they went on maternity leave as mentioned above) http://japanarts.co.jp/mariinsky_ballet2012/english.htm Well, Lopatkina and Vishneva might have danced the role because they were on tour. Link to comment
Birdsall Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Yes, I think the friend was talking about home performances.....just at the Mariinsky Theatre, not tours. So as you say Lopatkina probably danced Nikiya somewhere in the world but not at the Mariinsky Theatre for 4 years. By the way, two friends have told me the recent June 6 Lopatkina Bayadere at the Mariinsky was the best one she's done. It seems a shame to limit her performances of this at her home theatre! Link to comment
Lidewij Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Daria Pavlenko also has (used to have) Nikiya in her repertoire.. But she hasn't been dancing much for a very long time, I do not know what shape she is in. Link to comment
Tiara Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Yes, I think the friend was talking about home performances.....just at the Mariinsky Theatre, not tours. So as you say Lopatkina probably danced Nikiya somewhere in the world but not at the Mariinsky Theatre for 4 years. By the way, two friends have told me the recent June 6 Lopatkina Bayadere at the Mariinsky was the best one she's done. It seems a shame to limit her performances of this at her home theatre! Yes, that performance of Lopatkina's as Nikiya on 6th June was just wonderful - truly a privilege to see. I wish Mariinsky Theatre had thought fit to film this great performance instead of the Tereshkina/Shklyarov one. Link to comment
Mathilde K Posted July 23, 2014 Author Share Posted July 23, 2014 I was talking to a friend about Lopatkina's recent Nikiya on June 6. They told me that Lopatkina had not performed Nikiya at the Mariinsky Theatre in four years. I said that could not be possible and they were convinced it has been four years. This is what I wrote about that outstanding performance myself: Ulyana Lopatkina last night at Mariinsky as Nikiya was breathtaking. A "priestess" in the Temple of High Arts, like Ulanova and Pavlova before her. I often remind ballerinas with big aspirations that to become a truly great artist you cannot afford any moment of "prose" when you are on stage, that you must keep oneself as far as possible from banality in life, you must strive for and cultivate Beauty around yourself. That Beauty you will later show on stage. Even how you enter and leave the stage will set you apart from merely "dancers". These were my thoughts after watching Lopatkina yesterday. A true paradox is that a dancer as truly outstanding and as unique as Lopatkina is not a favorite of the current management either. Add to this Novikova who is not even a prima. Link to comment
Helene Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 It's not a paradox at all: it's standard operating procedure for AD's. In what major or minor company have major talents not suffered or been undervalued because of the preferences of the AD and/or company politics, even if some great talents are prominent? Balanchine, for example, pushed aside Danilova, Tallchief, and Hayden. He seemed blind to everyone but Farrell before she left the Company. Link to comment
Mathilde K Posted July 23, 2014 Author Share Posted July 23, 2014 In the case of Balanchine, Helene, you can say that was his own company, he was its "god-creator", and he was literally falling in love with his female dancers. Mariinsky, like Bolshoi, like the Opéra, are companies with completely different character, history, and modus operandi. And none of them will ever be "just another company". Great Vaganova trained artists have really no other place to go — not in the sense that they would not be wanted — in the sense that Mariinsky is the only place where they really can show what they were so meticulously trained to do. Link to comment
Helene Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 There were never great talents at the Mariinsky, Paris Opera Ballet, or Bolshoi who were pushed aside because of who was running the company, or, during Soviet Times, to which generals the others were married? As great as Bessmertnova was, there weren't ever any dancers pushed aside because she was Grigorovich's wife? In Petipa's time, there were no formerly prominent dancers who languished because of the changes he made, the dancers who came from outside Russia, and the style and virtues he emphasized? When the Royal Ballet dismantled the Ashton legacy and replaced it with Macmillan's aesthetic while the School was still producing dancers honed for Ashton's work, were there no prominent and respected dancers who represented the legacy, but were set aside as the company went in another direction? Lifar, who learned at the knee of Diaghilev, never had favorites at the expense of established dancers? Even before the breakup of the Soviet Union, where there was economic upheaval and reinvention, the standard brakes that institutions have on change failed, and the company decided to look outward for its aesthetic, there were the years leading to Vaganova's taking over the company and a shift in the company's aesthetic, based on the demands of the then-current choreographers. The pressure to change came from within rather than the West, but it was still great, and aesthetic changes push noted artists to the side, for better or worse. Link to comment
alexaa1a Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 There were never great talents at the Mariinsky, Paris Opera Ballet, or Bolshoi who were pushed aside because of who was running the company, Maybe in the past, but now at Mariinsky there are loads of talented dancers being pushed aside and rotting in the corps or in character roles, which never happened in Mariinsky history, even Soviet or Tsarist times.. Link to comment
Balletfreak Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Bolshoi is lucky to have Zhiganshina. In my eyes she is the next Obratzova: beautifully musical and technically consistent. And those turns would make most principles jealous. Great potential, and another great loss for Mariinski. Link to comment
Drew Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 There were never great talents at the Mariinsky, Paris Opera Ballet, or Bolshoi who were pushed aside because of who was running the company, Maybe in the past, but now at Mariinsky there are loads of talented dancers being pushed aside and rotting in the corps or in character roles, which never happened in Mariinsky history, even Soviet or Tsarist times.. Quoting Helene's whole sentence might be helpful here: "There were never great talents at the Mariinsky, Paris Opera Ballet, or Bolshoi who were pushed aside because of who was running the company, or, during Soviet Times, to which generals the others were married?" If I understand correctly, then the rhetorical point of the question is that such things have happened in the past, though I also understand that you judge the situation at Mariinsky to be worse than in the past. I can't weigh in on that as an independent observer, though I too am puzzled by some recent casting decisions. (None of us can really form independent opinions of what talented young dancers may have been pushed aside in Tsarist times, or even early Soviet times, for other than artistic reasons. We know careers in the Soviet era were damaged for reasons that had nothing to do with artistry. Add choreographers, librettists, and composers to the mix and it's even worse.) Link to comment
Mathilde K Posted July 28, 2014 Author Share Posted July 28, 2014 If I understand correctly, then the rhetorical point of the question is that such things have happened in the past, though I also understand that you judge the situation at Mariinsky to be worse than in the past. I can't weigh in on that as an independent observer, though I too am puzzled by some recent casting decisions. I am not at all certain "that such things have happened in the past": the personnel policies of the Acting Director are so pathological they are far beyond any "I favor this ballerina over that one". Link to comment
Tara Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Bolshoi is lucky to have Zhiganshina. In my eyes she is the next Obratzova: beautifully musical and technically consistent. And those turns would make most principles jealous. Great potential, and another great loss for Mariinski. Indeed a loss for Mariinsky and gain for Bolshoi! I was quite surprised to notice on her Facebook page today that she listed Bolshoi as her employer as like many/most others I thought she would go directly into Mariinsky and on the fast track as well. I suspect Zhiganshina had multiple offers from both inside and outside Russia and am curious as to what played into her decision to join Bolshoi over any and all other offers. Link to comment
Mathilde K Posted July 29, 2014 Author Share Posted July 29, 2014 I suspect Zhiganshina had multiple offers from both inside and outside Russia and am curious as to what played into her decision to join Bolshoi over any and all other offers. She would have had in the U.S., not in Russia. Russian society is totally different. She had a "non-offer" from Mariinsky (i.e., an offer with humiliating terms), and later a real offer from Bolshoi. The choice was obvious (if one can even talk here about "choice"). Link to comment
Tara Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 This is a perfect example of lack of insight on not just artistic but also practical matters by Fateyev's management. Novikova is admittedly a favorite of mine but would be considered splendid (by I think most anyone's standards) and most certainly is a capable , experienced and seems to be particularly consistent ballerina too- something I feel any true Prima should have as a mastered skill. Link to comment
Tara Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 I suspect Zhiganshina had multiple offers from both inside and outside Russia and am curious as to what played into her decision to join Bolshoi over any and all other offers. She would have had in the U.S., not in Russia. Russian society is totally different. I find this confusing as she appears (at least from my perspective) to be much adored in her homeland. Is this not the case? Link to comment
Helene Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 She would have had in the U.S., not in Russia. Russian society is totally different. She had a "non-offer" from Mariinsky (i.e., an offer with humiliating terms), and later a real offer from Bolshoi. The choice was obvious (if one can even talk here about "choice"). Please provide the official source for the terms of the offer. If she was offered a starting position like many other Mariinsky grads, then "humilating" is an opinion. It also does not make sense that in Russia she would have received no other offers, if other dancers in the last few years have been offered and have accepted positions at the Mikhailovsky, for example. If the Mariinsky did not make Zhiganshina an offer as good as the Bolshoi did and/or she looked at the preferences, casting policy, and career development approach of the AD, the political landscape, and/or the upcoming closure of the old theater and decided to go elsewhere, she'd be making the same choice that graduates of elite schools worldwide make when they juggle offers. Most are at the schools with the dream of joining the parent company. Others and those who decide the trade-offs make something else more attractive go elsewhere. Link to comment
Mathilde K Posted July 29, 2014 Author Share Posted July 29, 2014 She would have had in the U.S., not in Russia. Russian society is totally different. She had a "non-offer" from Mariinsky (i.e., an offer with humiliating terms), and later a real offer from Bolshoi. The choice was obvious (if one can even talk here about "choice"). Please provide the official source for the terms of the offer. If she was offered a starting position like many other Mariinsky grads, then "humilating" is an opinion. It also does not make sense that in Russia she would have received no other offers, if other dancers in the last few years have bern offered and have accepted positions at the Mikhailovsky, for example. Helene, please reread the opening paragraphs of Zozulina's article. To put things into perspective: Mikhailovsky compared to Mariinsky is like University of Michigan compared to Harvard, and Vaganova Academy's mission always was to prepare dancers for Mariinsky — only those who couldn't were going elsewhere. Combine this with the fact that Zhiganshina is not just a graduate of the Vaganova Academy: she is an outstanding graduate, highly accomplished, professional and with exceptional promise. In Russia such individuals don't get offers from lesser companies, it is considered to be a different league. Mikhailovsky in recent years was simply benefiting from disastrous policies of Fateev at Mariinsky and internal strife at Bolshoi. If Zhiganshina's case was isolated... but it isn't, it follows a clear pattern. Link to comment
Helene Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 Helene, please reread the opening paragraphs of Zozulina's article. I didn't realize you added your translation to your original post. Thank you so much for it. Unfortunately, what she writes does not make anymore sense to me than it did through Google translate. First she makes the analogy between this year's graduates and the graduates from three years ago, where the two graduation performance Nikiyas went to the Bolshoi and Nemirovich-Danchenko Theatre. They were offered corps contracts, but, at the same time, management didn't make an effort to hire them in the first place, which sounds like a contradiction. If so many graduates are languishing in the corps, I can only conclude that most top graduates start in the corps; please let me know if this is wrong, as the Mariinsky website gives only a join date and for Principals, the date of promotion to Principal. Is the "trial period" unusual for an entering corps member, who is almost always (if not always) a Vaganova graduate? Is it insulting because she's being treated like the other graduating members of her class, or were these special terms that applied to her? This is not clear. To put things into perspective: Mikhailovsky compared to Mariinsky is like University of Michigan compared to Harvard, and Vaganova Academy's mission always was to prepare dancers for Mariinsky — only those who couldn't were going elsewhere. As Zozulina said about the earlier class stars, "One may think, of course, that the girls were unable to resist the temptation of dancing in the capital city. Not so: they simply chose what looked as a superior path of developing their careers, sensing the interest expressed by the art directors of the respective troupes, and the lack of that interest displayed by the management of Mariinsky Ballet, in person of its acting director Yuri Fateev." That means that other companies made them better offers, something that the ballet equivalents of the University of Michigan -- the Mikhailovsky or the Stanislavski -- do on a regular basis to attract students who would normally head for Harvard. (The proper analogy for the Bolshoi would be Yale, which has its own advantages over Harvard and needs to offer no explanation when chosen over Harvard.) They compete for those dancers, whether through opportunity to advance quickly and dance better roles earlier, or through a management that recognizes them -- much to the chagrin of dancers already in the company who will lose opportunities to those being recruited, especially those at the Bolshoi who might expect that their competition comes from their academy, and they know the lay of the landscape -- just as the University of Michigan is more attractive to a student who might not want to leave the university with six-figure debt. It's up to the dancers to decide whether to slog through the levels at the Mariinsky, because there are no guarantees that every top graduate who enters will rise through the ranks or get the great roles under the most competent of AD's, just as it's up to dancers at Paris Opera Ballet to subject themselves to the promotion tests, with intense competition and years where there aren't any spots. If they feel that going anywhere else is failure, then they stay in a frustrating situation. If they don't, they go to ABT like Part or SFB like Froustey. Combine this with the fact that Zhiganshina is not just a graduate of the Vaganova Academy: she is an outstanding graduate, highly accomplished, professional and with exceptional promise. In Russia such individuals don't get offers from lesser companies, it is considered to be a different league. Mikhailovsky in recent years was simply benefiting from disastrous policies of Fateev at Mariinsky and internal strife at Bolshoi. They obviously do get offers from "lesser" companies, because they are going to them. As Bob Dylan sang, "The Times, They Are A-Changin'." Dancers who don't fit the mold that the Artistic Director is looking for or just aren't what the company needs at the time can remain in the corps of the company they consider worthy, or they can look at the "lesser" companies or, in the case of the Bolshoi, a different Ivy, as an opportunity. If the Bolshoi had to pay the Mariinsky (or the Vaganova Academy) for Zhiganshina's training when they hired her, it would make sense that if Fateev wasn't interested in her, he'd want her featured prominently with the company -- like baseball teams bring up minor league players as trade bait -- either to get money or another dancer-to-be-named-later, but it makes little sense to me otherwise. Fateev could have buried her rather than give her those opportunities. (He couldn't hide her from the graduation performance.) If he's so uniformly incompetent, why would she have had those roles with the main company? It's also hard to imagine Academy head Tsiskaridze encouraging Zhiganshina to join the Bolshoi, if he thought Filin would be in charge of the company. The Mariinsky Ballet is the Mariinsky Theatre's cash cow. The Kirov Opera, even before the breakup of the Soviet Union, when the theater's singers could freelance and earn hard currency instead of slaving in a rep company in turmoil, was not as great as the Kirov Ballet. The opera suffered long under the thumb of the ballet. With Gergiev in charge, the tables have turned. It's unfortunate that rather than simply raising the level of the opera while funding it with receipts from the ballet, he's hired someone who seems to be bringing down the ballet. The Mariinsky Ballet is like a big oil tanker, though: since the bulk of the company is so good, and the school keeps pumping out great dancers, it's much easier to change artistic directors than to build it. The Mariinsky was in a much worse situation when the Academy through a doldrums period. If Zhiganshina's case was isolated... but it isn't, it follows a clear pattern. If the top graduates are either leaving or wallowing in limbo once they reach the company, the pattern is that Fateev is looking for something that the Academy isn't providing. In those graduation clips, Zhiganshina looks much more like a Bolshoi dancer than a Mariinsky dancer. I think she's landed where she belongs. Link to comment
Balletfreak Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Originally Zhiganshina expressed she was very keen on staying in St. Petersburg and dancing with Mariinsky after graduation. She said that in an interview http://www.worldartstoday.com/dance/russias-newest-rising-star/ The article also quotes Fateyev saying he plans to hire Ksenia in the Mariinsky for soloist work "for solo parts in Sleeping beauty, Bayadere and Le Corsaire. " A trial term corps de ballet offer seems like such a betrayal after all those promises... and after all the wonderful solo dancing Ksenia has already done on the Mariinsky stage. Also, Zhiganshina was scheduled to dance Queen of Dryads in Mariinsky yesterday but she was apparently replaced by Chebykina? Does anyone know why? I was so disappointed. She would have been wonderful. Link to comment
Helene Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 My questions still stand: were those terms different than any other Vaganova Academy graduate? If different than in years past, did the change apply as of a specific year? Academy graduates who have been hired into the corps have been cast in soloist roles, whether or not they are slated to rise up the ranks. She graduated in June and signed with the Bolshoi Ballet. When does she start with the Bolshoi? Link to comment
elianam Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 My questions still stand: were those terms different than any other Vaganova Academy graduate? If different than in years past, did the change apply as of a specific year? Academy graduates who have been hired into the corps have been cast in soloist roles, whether or not they are slated to rise up the ranks. Zhiganshina is different to other Vaganova graduates in recent years in that she is the ONLY one who danced a principal part in a full-length ballet (Masha with the Nutcracker) with the Mariinsky ballet while still a Vaganova student. Not the only one in her year, but the only one in the past 19 years, because the last one I can remember is Diana Vishneva as Kitri (correct me if someone here knows someone else who did that later). None of the graduates since 2008 or earler has even danced a solo part with the company before graduation. With such a huge distinction, it is hard to suppose Zhiganshina would be pleased and satisfied to receive a contract that is merely equal to an average Vaganova graduates in her year, or even merely equal to the contracts received in previous years, since independent to the quality of dancing, she IS different to the others in terms of opportunities received from the company prior to graduation. Personally I have problem continuing with the analogy of Harvard and Michigan because theatres in Russia does not function like academic institutions or companies in the US (that is why American ballet company is never ever comparable to Mariinsky or Bolshoi), and Paris Opera Ballet also functions differently. Finally, I agree that Zhiganshina might be better as a Bolshoi ballerina (and I am very happy for her), but that is something related to her own quality even prior to being trained at the Vaganova. That alone does not show that it should be considered normal when a Vaganova top-graduate joins directly to the Bolshoi with better terms, for stylistically, Vaganova graduates are TRAINED to join the Mariinsky, and it is Mariinsky that has the coaches and choreographies that let them to make best use of their training through the years. Before Smirnova, I cannot remember a single Vaganova top-graduate who joined Bolshoi immediately after graduation only because the Bolshoi offers more advantageous terms. And clearly in the past 20 or 30 years no top Bolshoi graduate joined the MT. I still do not know what you mean by the thing that the MT is looking for while the academy does not possess - maybe we should open a new academy for a new Mariinsky ballet? That would be dire. Link to comment
Helene Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 It's not a matter of debasing arguments: I don't understand how a company could offer corps contracts to top Vaganova graduates and simultaneously not attempt to hire them. This sounds like a contradiction to me, unless one is living in Orwell's "1984." I am trying to understand if Zhiganshina was offered what all Vaganova graduates were offered, if she was offered what all or almost all top graduates were offered, or if she was unique in being offered probationary terms. I am trying to understand why anyone, based on precedent and history, would expect different treatment for her, since it's presented as fact that she should be given preferential treatment and scandalous when she was not. It also seems like a contradiction that Fateev is so bent on ignoring her that he gave her principal roles as a student for which dancers wait years. What explains her prominence? Did she win some special prize that forced him to give her the opportunity, or did he choose to cast her that way? If he chose to cast her that way, why, if he was planning to "humiliate" her once she graduated? If he wasn't interested in her, why not simply ignore her, as far as the main company is concerned? As far as creating a new Academy to Fattev's standards, they don't have to, as it's been documented here that he's recruiting dancers that were trained in other schools and casting them prominently, while great Vaganova-trained talent withers on the vine. I have no idea what Tsiskaridze will produce if he makes changes to the faculty and/or curriculum, or if he'll even last long enough in the position to impact the Academy much. (I expect that he will be offered the AD position at either of the two main theaters soon.) The claims of exceptionalism for the Mariinsky, the Mariinsky and the Bolshoi, and all Russian companies have been made many times, but the attitudes of the students at School of American Ballet are no different than those of the Vaganova graduates: almost all of them are there to dance a specific style and repertory for their affiliated companies, which are, by far, the most prestigious in the company style. Throughout their training, they've all be exposed to what the Artistic Director likes, whom he promotes, what he needs for the company at any given time, company politics, etc.,and it usually doesn't dissuade them from wanting to dance for the home company. They choose to go because it is their dream since they were a child and considered the Promised Land for their style, even if it's a bad fit or even if another company would be a better fit, offering more opportunities, a schedule less prone to injury, more opportunity to tour, etc. At SAB, all of the graduates taken into NYCB, no matter how prominent, are offered apprenticeships first and have to make it up the ranks to Principal. (Some of them, like Kathryn Morgan, danced principal roles as apprentices.) Before NYCB understood that it was cheaper and a good tryout period and created the apprentice level, all SAB graduates started as corps members, even if like Patricia McBride or Darci Kistler, they were promoted to Soloist and Principal very quickly. If it comes to the point where top students leave because other companies make better offers than Peter Martins, perhaps he will compete contract-wise, like the Bolshoi did with Zhiganshina. From an institutional standpoint, it might be better to let one go than set a precedent. It's not as if Fateev has never hired a Vaganova-trained dancer back at a higher rank, or, like Esina, in a better situation as a guest. Think of what it says about the Mariinsky that with all of the strife at the Bolshoi -- all of the allegations of favoritism, of unequal compensation, of selective permission to dance elsewhere to supplement a paltry salary, where five corps members are forced to share apartments -- the top Vaganova graduate chose to go there because despite getting undreamed-of opportunities as a student, she took a basic contract offer as something a noted critic and scholar described as an insult. Link to comment
elianam Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 The thing is that Russia is a country different to the US - I assume it would be seemingly ridiculous to hear a Russian to criticize or comment on a company like NYCB because it does not follow a certain scheme of education created in the time of the Tsar of in the time of Soviet Union, or even in Europe or Africa or Latin America or Asia. Anyone who lives in Russia like a Russian for a substantial amount of time would know that. I suppose none of us here knows how Zhiganshina really feels, nor of the way she is connected to Zozulina, so what are the official basis to question the argument of Zozulina by following the logic of another country? This to me is either Imperialism or stupidity. And I think it is hard to argue that all ballet students have similar attitudes toward their professional life, since none of us is able to know the other's mind. My own case is that I have a teacher who opted for another profession because she thought she was no longer capable of carrying out her the style she was following - there are tons of other professional dancers who continues whatsoever with other attitudes or thoughts in mind. On Shapran, officially, she does appear as First Soloist, but this is immediately AFTER this article, which could be, or could not be, an effect of this article (if we follow Mathilde's logic, it is very likely that it is). I find it similarly questionable why he did not hire Asylmuratova together with Shapran, why he did not hire Shapran earlier (before she is almost in a situation of running out of job or coach), and there are also other facts that leads one to doubt whether Shapran's case has nothing to do with Fateev's attitude with the Vaganova. Besides, being later than the publication of the article, it is equally questionable if Shapran's case can be used to "argue against" Zozulina. Actually, for this topic, I think it is enough to have the original article and Mathilde's translation of it. This is not a court room and there is no need to have so many judges or lawyers who are doing nothing more than demonstrating their own "intelligence" which has nothing to do with ballet. Zozulina's article stands for a position, and like it or not, or believe it or not, we are not in the place to "classify" her points because we do not share the same perspective and the same knowledge of facts. I don't know if I was misreading some of your words, but anything that appears to be a simple "classification" or "judgment" aiming to show that Zozulina's points have no basis or totally biased piss me off. Even if she is biased, we are no less so than she is, and it is better to reveal our own limits first before commenting on those of the others. But overall, why can't we appreciate those points like appreciating ballet itself? Link to comment
Recommended Posts