This fairly long article by Sharon Verghis for the Sydney Morning Herald is an overview of the current debate over nudity and ballet, and I thought it would be interesting to canvass our posters for opinions on the matter. Here's the link:


Out of step over shock of the nude

This topic has come up before, but I thought it might be time to bring it up again for some fresh perspectives, assuming we have any. What do you think? Is nudity always acceptable? Never? Occasionally? Verghis cites some recent examples by contemporary choreographers; have you seen any, and how did you react?

I'm looking forward to the discussion about this!

My immediate reaction to the idea of nudity in most dance is: distracting.

My reaction to the idea of nudity in ballet: VERY distracting.

By definition, something that is "distracting" does not enhance whatever you're setting out to do.

An exception might be if the dance or scene is in some sense "about" the state of being unclothed: as possibly in Salome's dance. Quite distracting,however, would be a mad scene in which Giselle ripped off her own dress just because the choreographer told her to.

It seems to me that nudity is much less distracting or jarring on film, where a sense of intimacy can be created that includes the viewer, than in a live performance in a theater where the sense of physical separation between viewer and performer is inescapable.

I guess I agree in theory with the this position cited in the article:


However, "all about context" is one of those truisms which, on examination, tends to be without meaning. As for "appropriately used"? -- that's the question.

In Germany and in Europe generally nude dancing has become almost the norm in contemporary dance (and sometimes too in classical ballets)- you will have a hard time finding a contemporary ballet without any nudity.
If it fits in the concept of the storyline of the ballet I may find it acceptable (like in the ballet scene of Wagner`s opera Tannhäuser where a bacchanale in the realm of the Queen of Love and sex is shown) - but this is very very rare- in most cases it is just unnecessary and I do not find it esthetically pleasing.
In some european ballet companies it already has gotten that far that a dancer has to sign a policy in his contract that he has to dance in the nude if the choreograper or the costume department demand that! Ughhhhh..... :mellow:

I'm with Bart. In my experience, even white leotards are distracting sometimes. I'm reminded of Diana Adams saying she was mortified to appear in a white leotard in Electronics. Present a nude body and how many of us are first and foremost interested in how that body moves? That body? Presented with the nude body of a strange dancer, how many of us can immediately see a dancer? I'd think that the weaker choreography, the more distracting the nudity would be. The more beautiful the bodies, the stronger the dance would need to be, assuming dance is the subject, and this isn't known as an age of great choreography. Perhaps nudity distracts from that lack as well, but not on dance terms.

The Verghis article is disappointing -- or is it, no pun intended, revealing? -- in that none of the people she quotes defending nudity in dance attempt to offer any real explanation of why it's desirable. Stephen Heathcote talks about appropriate context vs. gratuitousness -- that "appropriate" is an admission that he's on the defensive -- but gives no examples or definitions. If the choreographer can't show vulnerablility, why will nudity automatically read that way? If the choreographer can show vulnerablity, why is nudity necessary?

The author asks why ballet shouldn't break out of its classical aesthetic and move with the times, but she never says why moving with the times is a virtue. Since when is "progress" always improvement?

I admit I'm a prude. But beyond that I try to think of how much nudity I see in life. Outside of within my household......none. Even in news clips of some of the most devastating incidents where emotions run rampant (recently: 9/11, Katrina) there is no nudity. For that, and other reasons, I find it unnecessary in ballet. You can be emotional, vulnerable, whatever, fully clothed.

There was a ballet company here several years ago in which nudity figured in two of the presentations. If you can be tastefully nude, this was tasteful nudity. After the first ballet audience members left, though most stayed.

Eks "Giselle" shows Albrecht nude in the final scene. The ballet was taped for TV, and Albrecht's nudity was very cleverly covered by trees and bushes.

Giannina

I'm fine with nudity depending on the context -- if it's presented in a cohesive way I don't have any objection.

Though I'm reminded of a comment by (I think it was) Deborah Jowitt, in a review of Nederlands Dance Theater several years ago, that you really cannot choreograph for a penis.

I have no moral objection to nudity at all, but it's like any other pungent ingredient in the mix - you had best know how to use it and how much to use. My suggestion would be extremely rarely.

I saw one program at Nederlands Dans Theater where there was so much nudity that was so predictable and gratuitous that it was boring. Who wants to be bored with seeing a beautiful body?

And in ballet, it's just harder to dance nude. You really don't want to be flopping about (pick your appendages, whether male or female) in an allegro.

This is exactly why my reaction is usually "it sounds _awfully_ uncomfortable".

Washington Ballet did Rite of Spring here, and the men danced at one point in nude dance belts only. The thing is, there was so much buildup that it just seemed ridiculous. But at least I didn't watch thinking "ouch ouch ouch".

If you think of certain ballet steps being done by nude dancers on stage than you can begin to see why it's a bad idea. A very high developpe' to the side done by a female? A grand jete' done by a man? It's ridiculous, inappropriate and well..... just yucky.

Having never seen it, I do need to ask HOW in the Ek's version of Giselle did Albrecht manage to wind up nude in the finale? Was he simply too hot and sweaty after all that dancing to his death to wear his clothes one moment longer?

Ek's version is very different from the classical version (but as far as I know it doesn't pretend to be ballet), and the second part takes place in a psychiatric hospital (the Wilis are inmates).

See for example the following reviews:

http://www.dancemagazine.com/dance_magazin...383d2a3968253d3
http://www.guardian.co.uk/edinburgh1999/St...,203011,00.html

At the end, Albrecht is surrounded with the Wilis and falls on the ground, and when the Wilis exit the stage he appears naked (more or less in fetal position at first, if I remember correctly). Then Hilarion comes on stage, and gives him a blanket as a gesture of compassion.

I think that so far it is the only dance piece I saw in which nudity made sense: to me it looked like a kind of rebirth for Albrecht, who is no longer the superficial playboy with a white suit that he was in the first act, and who looks far more vulnerable and fragile at the end of the ballet after the encounter with the Wilis. And it is not shown in a gratuitous, provocative way (the stage is relatively dark in that part of the ballet and that scene is quite short).

There also is a brief moment of nudity in Ek's "Solo for two" (a piece for a male and a female dancer): both dancers take off all their clothes, then stare at each others for a few seconds with some sort of shivering, and then dress with each other's clothing and continue dancing. It is a strange work, with a sad and sometimes moving atmosphere. I don't think that the nudity was very important in itself in the piece, and the dancers could probably have kept their underwear, but didn't find it especially shocking either.

Right back to Eden.

Or in an adagio.

Which is just about all I was thinking during the Pilobolus piece in which they slide across the stage naked on water-slicked tarps.

Or closed fifth. (ouch ouch ouch) It seems that nudity on stage is more painful for the men.

That sounds more like a dramatic use of nudity where Albrecht wasn't dancing.

Ek also uses nudity in his Swan Lake which features a naked female Rothbart.

Thanks to everyone who’s responded so far – keep them coming!

I have no problem with nudity per se, but I agree with those who have said that such a potentially combustible element should be used rarely and with caution, not to mention consideration for the dancers. It can be a major distraction for the audience, and unless you have aesthetic reasons for wanting them so distracted, extreme caution is called for.

(Even very minor nudity can take you out of the ballet in this way. There’s a bit in Mark Morris’ “Sylvia” where one dancer bares his butt to the audience briefly, and all of a sudden there’s nothing else onstage.)

bart’s example of Salome’s dance is a good one, as is shulie’s citing of the Tannhäuser bacchanale. I also think that the bedroom scene in Romeo and Juliet is a place where some nudity might be appropriate – after all, Romeo and Juliet have just spent an impassioned night in the hay and it’s most unlikely that she’d have her nightie on. On the other hand you then have to find a way to dress the happy lovers for dancing. It could be managed, but probably with difficulty, and it’s just simpler to have them clothed.

Giannina writes:

I must disagree respectfully with Giannina on this one. My own feeling is that this kind of cover-up is more distracting, and certainly more coy, than actual nudity. Dress the fellow up, or not, but avoid the fig leaf device.

I agree that some nudity in Romeo and Juliet might be appropriate. Maybe have Juliet's nightie come off her shoulder ever so slightly during an embrace. Another ballet where nudity might be appropriate is Kenneth MacMillan's "Mayerling." It's as R-rated as anything I've seen in ballet, and the "love scenes" are very violent. I could picture Rudolf tearing off Mary Vetsera's lingerie.
But then again, I think there's the "if it's not broke, why fix it?" situation with ballets like these. I've seen Romeo and Juliets that are plenty hot without any nudity (thinking of the moment in the Czinner film when Romeo and Juliet's hands first touch).

Well, I realize my description was not complete: Albrecht is in fetal position (if I remember correctly) when the Wilis exit the stage, but then he does move a little bit before Hilarion enters the stage. However, the whole scene is quite short (at least it's what I remember- I haven't seen it in a while). By the way, I don't remember any trees or bushes hiding Albrecht, just that the lights were rather dark (and I never saw it for orchestra seats...)

dirac wrote:


It reminds me of a very boring piece by Andonis Foniadakis called "Lava Nama" for the Lyon Opera Ballet: I'm afraid one of the only thing I remember from it, besides some totally uninteresting videos of volcanos, was a naked female dancer with a sort of transparent cage-shaped costume who crossed the stage several times doing incoherent movements and looking more or less insane, I really felt some pity for the poor dancer who had to dance such a silly role !

Mashinka, now that you mention it, I remember some nudity in Ek's "Swan Lake". But I thought that it was the prince's mother who was naked (well, anyway the plot of that "Swan Lake" is not easy to understand sometimes...)

A few summers ago, the David Parsons Dance Company performed a piece (Union?) at a free, out-of-doors event. The women danced with either one or both breasts exposed, and the dance was partly, it seemed to me, about the slow movement of the unbound, relatively small breast through various bending and stretching movements, inversions, etc. Seeing it in the park added a certain free and feral feeling which I thoroughly enjoyed.

However, being that it was a free summertime event, the audience had many families. There was no advisory beforehand that the program would include partial nudity, which was unfair to parents who may have wished to spare their children the experience.

I subsequently saw the company perform the same work, again at a free, outdoor event. This time, there was another layer of costuming. I was surprised, the second time, to realize how thin the choreography actually was!


I don't think anyone should be compelled to perform nude if they don't want to, but I guess if there are so many roles in a rep that "demand" nudity, the artistic staff has to ensure the company has enough available dancers to perform the work. Tough situation here.

Re: trees and shrubs covering Albrecht in Ek's "Giselle". This was just on the video, not on stage. As Estelle added he does dance a bit and I don't think the censors would have gone for the nudity. It's done very well; at times it's only the position of Albrecht's body that hides his nakedness. I didn't realize he was naked until I watched the tape for the 2nd time years after my first viewing.

Giannina

Sometimes the distraction is the women's lack of "appendages". What looks great in a leotard or tutu doesn't always conform to our perception of an ideal nude. Most dancers these days aren't odalisques!

I've never liked it. Saw Flindt's "Triumph of Death". AWFUL!!! Might have been just as bad without the nudity, though.

I guess if someone choreographs an "Emperor's
New Clothes" it would work.

Sorry, Giannina, I didn't mean to suggest that I disagreed with you on that specific instance. Not having seen the production, I can't judge, but I'm sure you're right. I intended to make a more general observation.

GWTW makes another good point. If a performer's anatomy doesn't resemble the ideal, or the "norm," that can also be a distraction in itself, even if the nudity per se isn't bothersome.


klingsor writes:



Now there's a thought.

Today's Links has an article discussing the issue of extra pay nudity.

Performers question cost of nudity

Nudity is encorporated into many forms of art - mainly painting and sculpting. If this is acceptable why isn't nudity in ballet? As long as you're not just deciding to dance Swan Lake nude for the hell of it. If a ballet is nude for a reason (such as showing of the creation and beauty of the human form like many of the paintings and sculptures) then I believe it's completely acceptable. The human body is a great thing and we can celebrate it tastefully in ballet. Performing Giselle nude would be completely untasteful and I would be completely shocked that somebody would do something like that to Giselle! But, yes, in the correct circumstances nudity is certainly acceptable in ballet.

I think the difference is that a marble sculpture isn't actually a person--it's just carved marble, and in sculpture, form is generally idealized.

I don't think so Hans. Look at The Statue of David. That's a very modest sculpture.

How many guys do you know who are built like "David"?

He may be more muscly than the average man back then... I don't know if I'm allowed to say this... what about David's "David"? lol

It's safely out of reach of other dancers' flinging bodies, elbows, knees, feet, etc. and the scenery.

Michelangelo's "David" is eight feet tall. I don't see what's so modest about that.

One practical drawback to nudity in ballet is dancing on pointe. Any artistic statement would be subverted by an otherwise naked woman wearing a pair of pointe shoes.

Good pointe, Cliff.

Klingsor's post reminded me that many years ago I too saw The Royal Danes in The Triumph of Death.

At the performance I saw, Flemming Flindt the choreographer of the piece, also stripped off, which made the concept of nudity in the work more acceptable to me as he clearly wasn't expecting his dancers to do something he wasn't prepared to do himself.

...and David does not have to stand in 5th position or jump.

Nudity might work for a dramatic role, but for much of classical ballet, it is simply impractical.

I was watching Romeo and Juliet today and thought about how the dancers might get dressed after the bedroom scene. Do we really want to watch Romeo "adjusting himself" as he puts his dancebelt back on, and are we prepared to sit through Juliet (once she has her tights on) fumbling with her various "ouch pouches," toe spacers, band-aids, tape, wadded-up paper towels, and ribbons as she prepares for an acrobatic pas de deux?

And if they're going to put on their clothes, why not have them put their stage makeup back on as well? Don't want to get foundation on Juliet's bed linens, after all. What, the sight of Romeo and Juliet applying their eyeliner and lipstick together isn't appealing?

How would the Trocks deal with nudity???

The Awakening Scene in "Sleeping Beauty".

Our hero is a bit thick and instead of kissing her, he drops his pants, etc.

Talk about a rude awakening!

I have seen Vivi Flindt dance naked in Salome, and I think that it was quite unnecessary and distracting and it took the focus from the dancing.
And nowadays most ballerinas really don´t have beautiful bodies (with the exception of Marguerite Empey ).

Exactly. And all of David's body parts do exactly what Michelangelo had in mind. Whereas even the greatest dancer in the world doesn't have absolute control over...

It may say more about me than about dance, but when there is nudity on stage I find it hard to pay full attention to anything else.

Really, I find the idea of dancing naked pretty repulsive.

The fact that the dancers are naked pretty much distracts from whatever the dance is trying to express, unless, of course, the dance is about sex.

I'm inclined to agree, violet, but even when sex is the text or subtext, the stray breast hanging out can be a major distraction from the choreography.

I am about the furthest thing from a prude you could imagine, but I do not like nudity onstage in ballet/opera/theatre. It is simply too distracting. In fact, I don't really like it in movies either.

I have a slightly different take when it comes to nudity in media that don’t involve performers live. Although we do see far too much of it, especially where women are concerned (I turned off HBO’s “Rome” after two episodes, and the absurdly gratuitous nudity was one of the reasons), I think candor is preferable to some of the evasions we used to see and occasionally still do (e.g., an actress in bed with a sheet wrapped tightly around her torso, as if modesty forbade exposure in front of the husband/lover with whom she’s just spent a torrid night in bed, etc.).


There are still some examples of prudery about. Returning to HBO, since I’ve pulled the network in from left field, there were some very odd scenes in the old series “Sex and the City.” Because several of the actresses had objections to going topless, although not apparently to fairly graphic simulations of various sex acts, there were lots of scenes that involved heavy breathing activity in bed – with bras firmly in place no matter what. A friend of mine commented, “I guess men in New York don’t like breasts.” I thought more than once it would have been better simply to restage the scene, because it did look rather silly.

Thanks for the laugh. But you know, a woman acting out a graphic sex scene is still acting, not showing us her true self. I'm going to guess that when you wrote "prudery" all you really meant was something like "old-fashioned reticence." It seems to me that a woman who chooses not to bare her body to strangers isn't a prude, but is simply doing what's right for her. Nowadays we're told to accept edgy depictions of sexuality without judgment. Modesty deserves the same respect.

I see your point, but. I don't think it makes those performers willing to bare themselves under the appropriate circumstances "immodest" or exhibitionistic. My point, to clarify, was not that actors should feel obligated to strip, but that the scenes should be shot more plausibly if they're not willing to do that. ( In the case of SATC or any HBO series, that might present a problem, of course, since the unspoken promise of HBO series, even the quality ones with the Complex Narrative Structure and the Fine Writing, is "More sex! More violence! More nudity than the networks can show! That's the HBO guarantee!'' But I digress. )

As a Board Moderator, I rebuke myself for wandering so far afield.

Agreed.

I completly agree that nudity is distracting in most cases. In my dance history class we watched two versions of Rite of Spring, and in one, nudity was used, and in the other there was no nudity that I saw. [snip] I think that nudity is more acceptable in modern dance and even in contemporary ballet, but not in classical or romantic ballet, I think that the men are already naked enough in the tights and shirt outfit things and that it may be taking things to far for that to be done.


[snip]





Moderator's note: Portions including and referring to illegal video links were deleted.

LA GIACONDA, Gran Teatre de Liceu (BARCELONA) 2005

How apropos this topic was as I was just thinking of asking what people thought of that Dance of the Hours? Now available on DVD. (Deborah Voigt as LG) It was contemporary in sets, but singers wore costumes that approximated the time period with some Comedia del 'Arte references. The Dance of the Hours all-female corps had flowing dresses, contemporary again. But the two principal dancers? A gold dusting of torsos for both Angel Corella and Leitizia Giuliani; him shirtless in cropped tights, she topless with some strategic body paint, and only a thong below.

My reaction(s):

1) First and foremost for me "what's the point?" ... There was an element of meeting/wooing/consummating in the choreography which may possibly explain the 'au natural' aspect, but it wasn't explicit (no pun intended). So then I thought, it's Europe, they don't care, everyone does it, so why not them too? But...WHAT is the point? HOW is it relevant to the action, the dance, the story?

2) "ouch,ouch,ouch" and "how unfair to her!--as usual, it's the female who provides the view. Poor Ms. Giuliani, despite the strength of her chest wall, would still have discomfort during and after the performance. And I did wonder if the gold dust/body paint made the partnering more difficult or not. Lots of rosin I assume to compensate? I also noticed that Mr. Corella was careful about where he placed his hands.

3)I should notify all world fitness gurus that all their routines and videos and exhorbitant fees will never provide them with the musculature, athleticism, and grace of Ms. Guiliani. Oh yeah, Mr. Corella's physique was not bad either. At least the second time I viewed the dvd, I managed to concentrate on technique and the fascinating play of what muscle was used during what step, and forget about the fact Ms. Giuliani was exposing more of both. Of course, technically, both dancers were superb.


The choreography was classical with embedded excerpts/references (intentional or not I do not know) to most of the classical rep (I saw lots of Swan Lake, Don Q, some Giselle, and of course Corsair etc.etc.). Christopher Wheeldon, who also used both dancers in his "Dance of the Hours" for the Met last year, commented that Ms. Giuliani was a 'good partner for Angel' with her 'bendy Italian thing' and I agree, physically and technically they were well matched. She did a beautiful penche, had a floating yet powerful jete to match his, and an extension and flexible back. Something else I subliminally felt rather than overtly observed was a VERY subtle, almost defiant attitude in Angel Corella's performance. A "so there" addressed to his audiance that changed into an almost ecstatic smile at the strength of the ovations after. I'm hoping, they, like myself, appreciated the dancing and dancers, rather than what they were wearing...or not.

It seems that a choreographer who decides to use nudity on stage, or vulgarity, or decides to have a performer light up a joint on stage, is doing so to cover up for shallow artistic content. Edginess replaces artistic skill. He can’t figure out how to use the art form’s discipline to metaphorically express his point, so he goes over-the-top literally. I doubt there is ever a case where such a choreographer hasn’t relished the idea of shocking someone -- as if shocking someone is what art is all about. Hey, some people think it is.

Not to be obtuse, but why?

Donatello's David (the first freestanding nude since antiquity) wears a hat and boots...

(people kept mentioning sculpture and I just taught this work today so...)

Why can't that (the lack of conformation to the "ideal nude"), be a point of interest instead of a distraction?
What is wrong in presenting various body types as attractive and interesting?

Why can't dance be at the forefront of this, and highlight the beauty that is inherent in various body types? I'm sorry GWTW, but that comment really struck a nerve.

Hey I don't expect to see overweight ballerinas anytime soon, I'm not being naive about what the public and community will allow, but to expect ballet dancers to be sticks, and then say basically "ick, I don't want to see that naked!" based on them not fitting the "norm" of physical beauty is just ludicrous.