Success in ballet

[Meliss]

What does it mean to have a successful career in ballet?

Was Godunov's ballet career successful in the USA?

How is success measured?

[On Pointe]

Some years ago,  I attended a seminar for writers hosted by a well-known,  "successful" author of Young Adult books.  She made a statement that has stuck with me - that each person has her own definition of success,  and you have to decide what it is to you, individually.  For dancers as well as others in the arts,  most would call themselves successful if they can make a living doing what they love.  Becoming rich and famous is the icing on the cake.  (Or the curse for some people!). For others,  it might be achieving a certain level of mastery,  even if you don't get paid for it.  The bottom line is that if you dance professionally,  you have to be good enough at it to keep a roof over your head and pay the bills,  unless you come from a wealthy family,  which is the case for many American dancers.  Even if economic stability is not an issue,  there is still the desire to actually be good at what you do and be recognized for it,  by colleagues and critics alike.  But there is no one definition of success.  There are dancers who happily spend years dancing in the corps,  and principal dancers who walk away from big careers long before retirement age.

Godunov was a success in Russia and a success in the west.  But in every life,  there is good fortune and bad.  We don't know if he felt successful.  One can only hope that he did.

Edited July 2 by On Pointe
Further thought.

[Meliss]

6 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Some years ago,  I attended a seminar for writers hosted by a well-known,  "successful" author of Young Adult books.  She made a statement that has stuck with me - that each person has her own definition of success,  and you have to decide what it is to you, individually.  For dancers as well as others in the arts,  most would call themselves successful if they can make a living doing what they love.  Becoming rich and famous is the icing on the cake.  (Or the curse for some people!). For others,  it might be achieving a certain level of mastery,  even if you don't get paid for it.  The bottom line is that if you dance professionally,  you have to be good enough at it to keep a roof over your head and pay the bills,  unless you come from a wealthy family,  which is the case for many American dancers.  Even if economic stability is not an issue,  there is still the desire to actually be good at what you do and be recognized for it,  by colleagues and critics alike.  But there is no one definition of success.  There are dancers who happily spend years dancing in the corps,  and principal dancers who walk away from big careers long before retirement age.

Thank you very much. Yes, of course. The components of success are big money, positive reviews from critics and the love of the audience. Godunov had all these components (I have not yet decided what significance negative reviews, most often completely unfounded, had in his career). But in Russia, for some reason, many people believe that in the United States he "achieved nothing." So I'm thinking - what was he supposed to achieve?

[Helene]

 

2 hours ago, Meliss said:

But in Russia, for some reason, many people believe that in the United States he "achieved nothing." So I'm thinking - what was he supposed to achieve?

Presumably what each one of them defined as success.  Usually that's external success, unless they were his confidants and knew what he considered success.  That usually means  lots of press, great reviews, opening nights, new roles choreographed for the dancer, cross-over opportunities, huge amounts of money, penthouses in prestigious buildings, a star on the Hollywood walk of fame, etc.  He was self-supporting in two notoriously difficult artistic fields in which to make a living, with at least some critical success in each, and he had enough name recognition to create his own temporary troupes for his tours without dancing for an institution, which is no mean feat.  He wasn't Famous Famous for decades in the same way that Nureyev and Makarova were and that Baryshnikov continues to be.  If that's their measure, they wouldn't consider him a success.

Even insiders have their own ideas about the success of their colleagues professionally based on the performances themselves.  Peter Martins and Gelsey Kirkland had diametrically opposite opinions on how successful Baryshnikov was during his NYCB tenure. 

[Meliss]

22 hours ago, Helene said:

 

Presumably what each one of them defined as success.  Usually that's external success, unless they were his confidants and knew what he considered success.  That usually means  lots of press, great reviews, opening nights, new roles choreographed for the dancer, cross-over opportunities, huge amounts of money, penthouses in prestigious buildings, a star on the Hollywood walk of fame, etc.  He was self-supporting in two notoriously difficult artistic fields in which to make a living, with at least some critical success in each, and he had enough name recognition to create his own temporary troupes for his tours without dancing for an institution, which is no mean feat.  He wasn't Famous Famous for decades in the same way that Nureyev and Makarova were and that Baryshnikov continues to be.  If that's their measure, they wouldn't consider him a success.

Even insiders have their own ideas about the success of their colleagues professionally based on the performances themselves.  Peter Martins and Gelsey Kirkland had diametrically opposite opinions on how successful Baryshnikov was during his NYCB tenure. 

Thank you very much. He had international fame before the USA - so yes, it is not very clear what else he could add to this. Ballets that would be created specifically for him - yes, it would be great. But I can only remember Ailеy's Spell.