Two questions:
For people that don't do ballet, what is it that draws you to performances of classical ballet?
For people that do do ballet, what is it that makes you love ballet? What do you love most about performing, etc.?
Full Version: What is it that draws you to ballet?
The sheer beauty of the human body's natural line along with the classical music.
In abstract terms:
The way the human body can accomplish illusions that appear to defy "nature" as well as emphasizing it: for example, jumps that defy gravity, but use it to great effect in landings. The way that something so obviously difficult can be made to appear so effortless. And, of course, the aesthetic appeal and harmony of the entire experience, as well as the unique world created by the language of classical ballet.
More concretely:
I think it's pretty.
The way the human body can accomplish illusions that appear to defy "nature" as well as emphasizing it: for example, jumps that defy gravity, but use it to great effect in landings. The way that something so obviously difficult can be made to appear so effortless. And, of course, the aesthetic appeal and harmony of the entire experience, as well as the unique world created by the language of classical ballet.
More concretely:
I think it's pretty.
My answer would be different for different stages of my life.
As a teen: I agreed with lisinka. I was bowled over by the line created by the human body, which I assumed then to be "natural", along with the beautiful (usually romantic) music. "Fluidity" was my favorite element of ballet. Jumps and atheleticism came a distant second. Being a teen, it was Tschaikowsky I liked best. Swan Lake Act II pas de deux (all versions, especially Balanchine's) was my favorite. Firebird my second favorite.
As a young adult: Balanchine was the great teacher. I learned that what appeared natural was highly "unnatural" unless set on certain bodies, carefully and daringly trained. My fondness for certain dancers -- and disdain for others -- was at its height during this time. My definition of "classical music" expanded greatly. Leotard ballets simply staged became much more thrilling than traditional fulll-lengths with sets, costumes, etc. The sense that NYCB in the 60s and even the early 70s was at the epicenter of artistic creativity. All those artists, serious musicians and intellectuals in the lobby, night after night! And then there were all the moderns: Graham, Limon, and Humphrey being my favorites. All appeared very respectful of the connections between "modern" and the western classical tradition, esepcially in story line and the music.
Middle and advanced age: growing appreciation of the tradition behind every performance and a greater interest in the classics (to be visited, in my case, rather than deeply analysed) than before. The entire work, rather than a partisanship for individual dancers, has become more important now. The more trained the eye was, the more I saw -- and the subtler variations I could appreciate.
Starting ballet classes very late has been a revelation.
I see everything differently now, identifying so much more with what the dancers are experiencing as they move (and much greater awe for what all of them do, not only the greatest.) For the first time, I can "see" dancers making choices as they flow through all those "natural" lines that impressed me long ago.
As a teen: I agreed with lisinka. I was bowled over by the line created by the human body, which I assumed then to be "natural", along with the beautiful (usually romantic) music. "Fluidity" was my favorite element of ballet. Jumps and atheleticism came a distant second. Being a teen, it was Tschaikowsky I liked best. Swan Lake Act II pas de deux (all versions, especially Balanchine's) was my favorite. Firebird my second favorite.
As a young adult: Balanchine was the great teacher. I learned that what appeared natural was highly "unnatural" unless set on certain bodies, carefully and daringly trained. My fondness for certain dancers -- and disdain for others -- was at its height during this time. My definition of "classical music" expanded greatly. Leotard ballets simply staged became much more thrilling than traditional fulll-lengths with sets, costumes, etc. The sense that NYCB in the 60s and even the early 70s was at the epicenter of artistic creativity. All those artists, serious musicians and intellectuals in the lobby, night after night! And then there were all the moderns: Graham, Limon, and Humphrey being my favorites. All appeared very respectful of the connections between "modern" and the western classical tradition, esepcially in story line and the music.
Middle and advanced age: growing appreciation of the tradition behind every performance and a greater interest in the classics (to be visited, in my case, rather than deeply analysed) than before. The entire work, rather than a partisanship for individual dancers, has become more important now. The more trained the eye was, the more I saw -- and the subtler variations I could appreciate.
Starting ballet classes very late has been a revelation.
I see everything differently now, identifying so much more with what the dancers are experiencing as they move (and much greater awe for what all of them do, not only the greatest.) For the first time, I can "see" dancers making choices as they flow through all those "natural" lines that impressed me long ago.
All my life I've enjoyed looking at women's legs; at the ballet I can even do it through binoculars. 
What a timely question. I am a dance student and fan, but instead of a personal ancedote I will share some geeky science news.
Last night on NOVA I watched a segment about mirror neurons. Scientists have found that these neurons fire the same whether you are performing a physical activity, or simply watching someone else perform it. I was thinking that both dancers and dance fans probably have highly developed mirror neurons.
On the NOVA website, there is an article where they are indeed looking at dancers' mirror neurons. They found more neuron activity when a person watched the style of movement they were trained in. Non-dancers had low neuron activity. I wonder how much these neurons can develop over time, either through physical training or observing.
Check it out: NOVA Research Update
Last night on NOVA I watched a segment about mirror neurons. Scientists have found that these neurons fire the same whether you are performing a physical activity, or simply watching someone else perform it. I was thinking that both dancers and dance fans probably have highly developed mirror neurons.
On the NOVA website, there is an article where they are indeed looking at dancers' mirror neurons. They found more neuron activity when a person watched the style of movement they were trained in. Non-dancers had low neuron activity. I wonder how much these neurons can develop over time, either through physical training or observing.
Check it out: NOVA Research Update
Fascinating report. Thanks, carabosse. In terms of MinkusPugni's original questions, it suggests that non-dancers (even big fans) are experiencing something quite different from what dancers experience when watching the same performance. Even if they are "seeing" the same thing.
(The implications for rehabilitation after stroke or injury, mentioned in the article, are very hopeful.)
(The implications for rehabilitation after stroke or injury, mentioned in the article, are very hopeful.)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.