Here's a statement about the relative disappearance of epaulement in ballet today. (It's from The Observer: Luke Jennings' review of the Royal Ballet's celebration performance for the Queen's 80th birthday.)



Having just been saturated with the role of "oppositional torsion" in Renaissance sculpture, I'm thrilled to find that this is an aesthetic issue in ballet as well.

Is it true that epaulement is now undervalued or has disappeared from most classical ballet today? Do you agree with Jennings about Nunez? Are there other dancers today who are notable for their "upper-body expressiveness" in this classical manner?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S.: Here's the link to the entire review, from pmeja's Sunday selectionç
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/stor...1794575,00.html

Épaulement is valued by companies that employ dancers trained in the Russian style. There are some in the U.S., many in Europe. Some major companies seem to not want it. I think when carbro spoke of Guillaume Côté's dancing with ABT, and mentioned his "square-torsoed" style as being that of NBoC, that is what she meant.

I wouldn't say that épaulement It is still being strongly taught in many schools. When the student dancers become working dancers, they must adapt to the style that a ballet company's AD requires (perhaps sacrificing some artistic expression) or go looking for work where the style they were trained in is used.

Here is Ballet Alert's picture of Maria Bystrova at 15 which shows her lovely épaulement.
Maria Bystrova

Of the dancers I've seen on the West Coast, the two dancers with the most notable epaulement are PNB's Mara Vinson, whose arms are very English in style, and Giselle Doepker's (Ballet Arizona).

Cechetti training also emphasized epaulement and the upper body. I haven't seen them perform for a number of years, but when New York Theatre Ballet was called Balletfore, the company's dancers had very lovely epaulement.

And I'd completely agree regarding Nunez. She's one who can crank out the turns and do all the tricks but she has a lovely, easy, generous, flowing quality to her dancing, including epaulement....

Off the top of my head, Royal Ballet dancers I'd include as having the 'upper-body expressiveness' would be Nunez, Morera, Yoshida, and the young but effervescent Yuhui Choe.

The Kirov still has most of its épaulement intact, and I'd imagine the Royal Danish Ballet still has a good bit as well. To develop a truly beautiful upper body, one has to learn to coordinate the head, arms, and legs starting very early in the training so it becomes second nature. I don't approve of the practice of training first the legs, then the arms, as it gives a disjointed look to the movement.

I agree that this placement and movement of upper body is "beautiful." In fact, extraodinarily beautiful. However, standards of beauty change over time. I wonder when -- and under what influences -- this particular standard developed?

And, Hans, as someone who has experienced training from an early age, how did you learn to do this and to value it? Where you just placed in a certain way and told that it was correct? Or was there an attempt to explain WHY classical ballet values this positioning and movement so much?

Growing up, and forming most of my ballet "eye", with Balanchine, I don't recall people talking about epaulment very much. Dancers certainly had what I guess I would have called "carriage, " "elasticity," or even -- -- "good posture". But this kind of epaulement, if it was there, passed me by. What WAS Balanchine's view (and standard) on the subject?

Alina Cojocaru IMO has beautiful epaulement. Her arms always serve as a musical instrument.
But about epaulement in general, I saw Sylvia at the ABT and then I saw the Sylvia telecast from the Royal Ballet, and I realized what was missing from the ABT production, which was the upper body coordination of both the corps and the principal dancers. At the ABT, the dancers kept their upper bodies as stiff as possible, perhaps to imitate the "stereotypical" British style and carriage. But the Royal Ballet corps understood the difference between the regal upper body and a stiff upper body.

I think ABT's Zhong-Jin Fang has beautiful epaulement, to the point where she stood out like sore thumb in Sylvia when ABT was at Orange County a couple of months ago.

I was very impressed with Misa Kuranaga when I saw her Lise in Boston Ballet's production of La Fille Mal Garde a few months back, and how she captured the English style so well. It was especially impressive in her solo in the Ellsler pas, where her epaulement and arms seemed to serve the same function as the reverberation of the hall during the silent pauses of the music: you could see and hear the music resonating in the silences through her arms and shoulders.

One reason I've heard that a lot of young students don't develop their upper body expressiveness is because it's considered almost an affectation that is added only after they join a company so that they fit in with that company's style. I really don't buy it. I think the real reason is that many students don't see enough productions so they don't see the expressive possibilities of their technique, and there seems to be an overemphasis on pure technique, especially for the lower body.

--Andre

In the insight events/masterclasses I've been to, the Royal Ballet dancers have all mentioned how Ashton wanted them to bend, and then bend more. The masterclass where Nunez was learning the Act III Pizicatto solo Monica Mason had her demonstrate the sisonne ferme section - 'upright as normal', and then 'as Ashton wanted it' - huge, bending difference!

And yes, regarding Cojocaru, and I think with her it's also a lot about port de bras - I was just thinking last week what a transformation has occured in her arms - their almost floaty now, but not in a hyperbolic way. They've always been gorgeous, but there's a slight difference - almost more natural, and to me it appears to create the impression of a huge transformation.

Bart, unfortunately, my early training was Balanchine, so I learned very little in the way of épaulement until I attended the Kirov Academy toward the end of my training. At that advanced stage, the teachers used a mix of techniques--sometimes we were just told what was correct, and sometimes they went into more detail.

Having taught ballet students of all ages, I think the teaching technique must depend on the students, and there is a variety of ways to get them to produce a particular position so that it still has life and doesn't look affected or "placed." Imagery helps, as does telling them where to look (which engages the eyes). Connecting the movements of the head with the arms is extremely important (and difficult to accomplish) and of course the line of the head and neck must flow into the back and shoulders. It's all very detailed, and various styles and methods have different rules for what the head and arms do according to what the legs are doing, not to mention when or how far to incline or turn the head, precisely where the eyes go, the angle and specific shape of the arms in various positions, &c. (I mention the arms because it's impossible to have épaulement without port de bras.)

I hardly know how to convey how rich and varied épaulement can be; it is quite different from the bland, simplistic "turn your head toward the leg that's in front." I fear much of the detail is ignored today, even by those who try to implement as much as they can.

I watched the first half of Children of Theatre Street for the first time today, and watching the class of 11-year-olds at the barre, it was already clear that the young girls had learned this from the beginning of their training.

I hope I didn't frighten people away from replying--as with everything in ballet, one needn't know every tiny rule about épaulement to have an opinion about how it looks and/or who does it well. I know what's correct from a teacher's point of view, but what does the audience think?

Last summer I saw soloists from the Royal Danish Ballet at the Sadlers Wells in London. I enjoyed them very much but, on the whole, did not think they compared well with the groups I saw back in the eighties (though I always love Tina Hojlund). I had read strong praise for Thomas Lund, but was not as impressed with him as I expected to be until at a certain moment in mid air, during a leaps forward with the back leg in attitude he suddently tilted his head and upper body just the barest hint more than the other dancers and opened his arms before him just the barest hint more as well: suddenly the jump was beautiful and beautiful in a way that no-one else's was. I don't know if this is exactly what is meant by epaulement, but certainly that slight angling of the upper body over the working leg as he went through the air completely transformed the jump from a well executed stop into something free and expressive.

In the past I had read (usually in newspaper articles) that Bournonville does not emphasize epaulement the way the Russians do, but it does seem to call for "whole body" dancing...

Epaulment is a subject near and dear to my heart because its importance was emphasized to me in no uncertain terms from my very early training and onward through teenage years--- and that training was at the School of American Ballet, a school which is often derided for producing dancers too unfamiliar with classical style, port de bras, or clean technique. I won't get into refuting any of those arguments, but I will attest to how strongly we were urged and directed to use our heads, necks, and eyes to complete positions and lines. I will never forget how our teachers would walk around and adjust each student's head position individually so we could feel exactly how it should be, as opposed to simply being told to "turn your head this way", for example.

Now, when I teach, I find most students are completely unfamiliar with the concept of opposition in the torso and neck, as well as reluctant to focus their eyes anywhere to complete the line. I do agree that epaulment must be explained early, because once a student has gotten used to holding their neck so stiffly and in one block with their torso, it's really hard to break that movement pattern.

As a company cited above for its relative lack of epaulement, ABT's dictionary gives this definition:

The tricky to find dictionary:
http://www.abt.org/education/dictionary/index.html
also supplies photos for both croise and efface.
Alxei Ratmansky, in discussing his new ballet for NYCB in Time Out ( http://www.timeout.com/newyork/Details.do?...oi_and_tell.xml ) also compared Russian and American dancers in this regard

Has anyone seen the new Russian Seasons that can comment on whether (s)he can see changes in the individual dancers?

I really appreciate your insights, Hans, as well as those of others who have studied ballet seriously and even taught.

Although I understand the reasoning behind the split between BT and BT for Dancers, I often find myself wishing that those of you who truly understand the technique beneath and within the dancing would talk MORE about what it is that you see and experience during performance.

The concept of "opposition," as presented in drb's post, seems crucial. In Renaissance and Mannerist sculpture, the opposition (often referered to as "torsion") tends to between upper body and lower body -- a kind of twisting of the spine.

The influence of Hellenistic sculptures like The Dying Gaul and Laocoon on artists like Michelangelo and Caravaggio is unquestioned. Comparison of representations of the human figure with this tension and without it -- for instance, Michelangelo's Pieta versus Piero da Cortona's -- is striking. The artists who use this more elaborate version of epaulement produce figures that "live" in the way that other, more conventional artists, could not.

It may be an optical illusion, and I don't understand it, but the effect is definitely there. So why not in ballet as well?

I am one of those with no ballet training at all, but who thinks he can see epaulement. Working with the expression "oppositional torsion" used early in this thread I will risk being mathematical (sorry!).

Torsion is a very tricky word, as it has radically unrelated meanings in various fields. But I'll stick with math and physics, since dancing does take place in 3-D, dynamically so, since time/music is also involved. From the math field called differential geometry, which is the framework for the subject, torsion refers to a curve (movement pattern) that deviates from being confined within a plane; in other words, it twists through three dimensions. So it would "fill" all three dimensions. Dynamically, movement (velocity) involved in the process not only involves changing velocities (acceleration/deceleration) but even changes in the rate of these changes. For a real-world example of this latter, imagine you are driving and see a wall ahead: you try to cut your velocity (decelerate) but encounter the wall before you've completed that process. You would experience the effect of a change in the deceleration as a "jerk". I would suppose that this makes mastering epaulement difficult. For both beauty and comfort, the dancer would have to smooth-out (make harmonious) the changes in acceleration. I would guess that music(ality) would be crucial to this. As noted in an earlier post in this thread, ABT's Zhong-Jing Fang has this characteristic, which seems to show as a lingering or after-glow in her ports-de-bras. I would also guess that epaulement is among the strong points of Sara Mearns's appeal, when the conductor gives her sufficient time...
The oppositional part of the description I would guess refers to the asymmetry through the body's center between upper and lower body, determined by the contrasting (counterbalancing) relationship between feet and shoulder positioning. I would "feel" that the oppositional aspect of the torsion would be crucial to avoiding the jerkiness of the (mathematical) jerk referred to above.

In classical sculpture, this oppositional posture thing is called controposto, and I think many ballet choreographers were aware of it and used it.

Another way to think about this is that ballet is performed in spaces where the furthest seat still has to be able to grasp the shape of the choreography: you have to be able to project clearly to back of the hall. I think this was codified in one way by ballet: looking towards front leg, the spatial relationships between the various limbs, etc. are all designed to project line and shape to people far away.

And I think it doesn't take any special training or skill to appreciate good lines or epaulement or any of that stuff. In a way, many of these positions and choreography were done because they appealed to human psychology, and were effective in how they could communicate what the choreographer wanted to a large number of people, not just a select, trained few. For example, people will tend to look where you're looking, so in an arabesque, to extend the line of the pose, you wouldn't look down on the floor, you'd look up to where you want your line to be, among other things.

My (current) favorite school of thought for epaulement, heads, and arms is the Royal Ballet, and especially the Ashton rep. It's a luxurious, plush style that has a unique life that I don't see anywhere else: lines and shapes grow, and shift and change in shape.

--Andre

Well bart, I'm more of a BT4D poster, but I'll drop in here because you mentioned something I was thinking about... I think there are many others here more knowledgeable and articulate than I, so I hope this makes sense and feel free to correct!

Anyways......Oppositional torsion. I like that term!

I was thinking about the spiral in class tonight - just got home. This teacher is huge on how we 'make' movement and the processes involved, and today we were working on a certain arabesque a terre position - and the spirals that it creates through the vertical plane of the body to create the epaulement. Or the movement of the shoulders/upper bodies facilitates the entire process of the larger movement... I don't know if that makes sense at all?

I think epaulement is one of those things that is often not used in class enough, or if it is, it is often in cookie-cutter fashion - when the arm is here, the head here, the eyes here, this incline to the head, etc.... In reality, there are many more variations, and it is not about the position itself, but the *process* of making that position. One of the revelations I had with this teacher a few years back was that you don't have to 'present' front.

I remember being at an Insight Day at The Sadlers Wells last year, with the Forsythe Company. Forsythe (and the others who spoke on him) essentially said that epaulment was the center and the foundation of dance... I can't find my notes right now, and I'm also not someone who feels familiar enough with Forsythe and his approach to technique and dance to comment on how he uses epaulement in practise, but it might be interesting in light of the Kirov's current tour in the U.S.

Ami1436, it sounds like you have a wonderful teacher. My beginner's experience of barre work is that it is very much a matter of positioning the body forward, with emphasis on movement and placement of the limbs. Other than "keep your shoulders down," and some adjustments of the angle of my classmates' heads, I don't think the concept of epaulement has ever come up. Maybe they cover that in Intermediate.

This is fascinating. From my viewing of only 3 Forsythe works, I would not have thought that this was the case. Those of you who've seen the Kirov Forstythe program in London or in Washington: what do you think? Did the performances demonstrate the kind of concern for epaulement that Forsythe claims?

I think core strength is crucial for smoothing this out. Some young students I've seen look very rigid because they don't have the muscle strength to manipulate thier torso and some others sway and wobble like grasses in the wind because they don't have the muscle control.

I was surprised by your post because it has corrected a misconception I had of SAB training. My dd was taking classes with someone who had been trained at SAB and was told "Keep your head perfectly still and look only at the bun in front of you. This is how we were taught at SAB." Previously dd had been working with David Howard videos. That school worked hard to get her to keep her head forward during barre instead of moving it like on the videos. We switched to a Russian school so now epaulement is definately being taught and encouraged.

I am lucky enough to see the Royal Ballet often including quite recently open-to-the-public coaching sessions of some rather wonderful Ashton choreography and there is a very particular delight and satisfaction of seeing a dancer who 'has it' - dancing choreography which has it too, of course.

Being a musician I would liken it maybe to adding an additional melody line to produce two melodies playing together, counterpoint... and of course the great thing being that at any given moment you do not always get the harmony you might have predicted.

Maybe the analogy is too obscure... anyway it looks awfully difficult*..... sort of like ballet²




*hats off to those who make it look so easy

Several years ago I watched quite a lot of RAD classwork, and came away from it with the image of a nested Chinese ball, where a single piece of ivory is carved into a series of intricately pierced balls, each inside the next. The physical counterplay of epaulment is complex and subtle -- I've always thought it needed to be seen fairly close up to observe all the detail, though an ensemble working in unison can knock you out even from the nosebleed seats.

Pacific Northwest Ballet just finished a series of performances of Jewels, and I was very struck by the epaulment in Emeralds, especially in the Verdy role as her arms constantly cross the centerline of her body, which creates incredible torque. Louise Nadeau was very, very effective in that role here.

A great analogy! Thanks, GoCoyote.

Sandik's comment, in reference to Emeralds -- "the physical counterplay of epaulement is complex and subtle" -- seems completely justified by so many of the contributions to this thread. You all have changed the way I will look at ballet in the future.

My apologies for repling to myself, but I've just come across a review, by Alastair Macaulay, of the Royal's Peter Wright production of Giselle (Times Lliterary Supplement, 5/16/06, not online).

It gives an example of epaulement gone very much awry.

If Andre is correct and the audience tends to look where the dancer is looking, I suspect a great number of viewers were distracted by this.

I THINK one reason so many American dancers are not taught much epaulement is that Joseph Pilates moved to new York after world war one and had a big influence on the dancers who came up in the thirties. Graham and Balanchine both worked with Pilates -- and even though Graham uses a LOT of spirals, still, the emphasis on core strength owes a lot to Pilates.

One of the Pilates concepts -- not sure how early it developed, but it's certainly widely used now in both Pilates and in ballet class -- is the idea that the torso is a "BOX"-- the shoulders are over the hips, square. THis is a reference point, or set of reference points, and people are constantly referred to them. It facillitates very clear turns, the kind that flip around fast, and also for going straight up and down in jumps.... Dancers once trained are asked of course to move OFF this center a lot -- but it's a different "orientation technique" than thinking naturally in spiralling contraposition, and many American dancers will square themselves back up if they run into difficulties, whereas Cecchetti-based dancers may try to renew their spirals.....

I haven't put that very subtly, but something like that is surely in play at a deep level.

For a FABULOUS example of epaulement, one of hte most beautiful I know of on video (wish we had more Violette Verdy on film, for she sure had it) is Adam Luders's partnering (of Merrill Ashley?) in Act 2 of a Midsummer Night's Dream (the televised NYCB performance from about 10-15 years ago). Normally it's the ballerina who gets the attention in this dance, but I could not take my eyes off Luders (who was not upstaging Ashley, he was nobly at her service) -- but what noble attention, and what beautiful lines he created.

And he hadn't forgotten it in his teaching, 15 years later (photo from 2001):
http://www.mainestateballet.org/images/lef...uders_glenn.JPG
And even if OT, just because it exists, a photo of Mr. B. coaching Adam and Karen in Davidsbundlertanze:
http://members.authorsguild.net/susankukli...arenadammrb.jpg

To clarify re: SAB training, its faculty underwent a radical change. At first, the entire faculty was Russian (and French?) and dancers were not taught the Balanchine style until they became company members. Currently, most of the teachers are American, former NYCB dancers, and the students are taught the Balanchine style from the beginning. Therefore, if one was trained at SAB in the 50's, 60's, and probably the 70's, one had old Russian imperial-style (pre-Vaganova) training, but that is no longer the case. I attended SAB in the late 1990's, so my training there was entirely Balanchine style, and to be quite honest, the Balanchine style does not use much épaulement, at least not nearly as much as the Vaganova method does. (I know that last statement will probably not be popular, but it was my experience. )

You've really nailed it Hans. They seemed to have forgotten that Balanchine's Balanchine style very much emphasized epaulement. Quoting the former Balanchine dancer and current great teacher (of many NYCB dancers) Wilhelm Burmann, from a Dance Magazine interview in 1996:

In full:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...v70/ai_18640447

A friend saved this article out for me, and I recommend looking for it -- it has a great discussion of equity in male/female dancing roles in the romatic repertoire, and a very interesing analysis of dance as a metaphor in Giselle -- Mcaulay is an extremely thoughtful writer.

Anton Dolin was rather loose with the giving of permissions to stage "Pas de Quatre". If you paid your money and said that you knew it, you could pretty much have a free hand in staging it. One stager had a vision of Romanticism which included some pretty exaggerated epaulement. I felt distinctly seasick watching it.

Someone who possessed among the most extraordinary epaulement I've ever seen was not a dancer but a figure skater, John Curry. What I think is a masterwork in any medium, his Afternoon of a Faun, which Norman Maen choreographed for Curry and Cathy Foulkes, a dancer with Boston Ballet, shows this. It was broadcast in full for TV in a program called "John Curry's Ice Dancing," and was excerpted in part 3 of a four-part BBC bio of Curry.

Has anybody else been noticing the epaulement iamong soccer players in the World Cup?

I/e., some of the teams play with a very controlled boxy torso, and others really work the body in spirals--

Last week I saw a player kick the ball in sideways from the corner, and he actually used his head as a counterweight to the leg -- as the foot kicked across his body in one direction, he took his head in the other direction, which allowed for a tremendous follow-through with hte leg.

I think that was a Swede -- though generally it's the Europeans who play squarer, and the South Americans who play with more across-the-body spiralling.... or it seems that way to me....

Again, a bit off-topic, but my dad, a figure skating fan, claims that he can pick the winners of competitions simply from the way they skate out on the ice, especially for pairs and ice dance. He says that the way they hold their arms and back and head says everything he needs to know about them as skaters. Considering his astonishing ability to pick winners, I'd say maybe he has a point.

I remember reading something about John Curry once which explained that he'd had a lot of ballet training and really emphasized the importance of movement quality in the skaters he trained himself. You really, really can see the difference between ice skaters who have a serious ballet background and those who don't, or who have only limited training. Katherine Healy is a great example. When she went back to professional skating after her ballet career, saw her in a pro exhibition doing gorgeous, gorgeous stuff--- incredible lines and positions-- that the crowd went wild for. Not a jump in her entire routine, but it clearly didn't matter to the audience!

I had the great privilege and pleasure of taking two adult classes from Gelsey Kirkland. Her corrections of our collective upper bodies was to "open your heart," which she explained (less poetically)as imagining each nipple pointing diagonally outwards. One of the striking features of Gelsey was the openness of her chest. Sarah Lane shares this quality.

When we see a dancer with an "open heart," we are drawn to her. First, there is no tension in the upper chest and shoulders. Second, the dancer is emotionally accessible. It may be a posture adopted (consciously or not) by ambitious politicians! The Royal Ballet's easy, open epaulement was one of the sweet satisfactions of their Beauty at Ken Ctr.

I just found this wonderful example of Alexandra Danilova's epaulement. (Thanks for posting it on your blog, atm!) As the final pose, it may be exaggerated for effect, but how luscious! Remember the "epaulement" lesson she gave Leslie Browne in The Turning Pointe?

Fabulous picture, Carbro--

Danilova had a LOT of heart. You know, she danced virtually for free; I was just reading the Ballets Russes article in Ballet Review and Windreich gives nearly a paragraph to that; Denham or de Basil actually asked her one season to dance for no salary, which I don't think she did, but she wasn't contract-savvy like Markova.

That's maybe not by-the-by.

Let me fortify the Forsythe strand from the beginning of this thread; when SFB was dancing Artifact Suite here a little while back, the epaulement was THAT most noticeable thing about it -- incredible spirals they were all doing, esp the young corps girls, who looked like it was the first time all year they'd been encouraged to dance up to full scale. it was like they were using it to locate and immediatley RElocate their centers, and as they swung into new positions they looked like they were getting stronger and stronger. It put me in mind of the tempering of a rapier, the more flexible they got the stronger they got. It was very physical, and very visible. Lily Rogers and Rory Hohenstein took it to the point where they seemed to be so powerfully dancing from the center, they didn't have to be standing on the ground but could just as well have been upside-down....

A very interesting discussion which gives me a bit more insight into that ineffable quality some dancers have, and I never know whether to describe it as epaulement or port de bras, but it is a magical way of moving that just rivets my attention. Two dancers have particularly struck me as "having it" -- Yuan Yuan Tan with SF Ballet and the much-missed Alicia Graf with Alvin Ailey. Both have long slender lines and a fluid upper body movement that just seems so into the moment. It particularly shines in their adagio work and I find it exquisitely, heartbreakingly beautiful.

I must have been taught epaulement very early in my training because I never remember having to think about it, and never remember being correctly "placed". I just did it. And loved doing it. And yes, I do remember it had a lot to do with torsion and tension, efface/croise, shoulders, eyelines/chinlines, AND extending line. From my reading of this thread, I also agree with most posters concerning which schools taught it, and which didn't. I experienced the same thing. (It's probably why I was never that comfortable doing Balanchine. Today, if I love NYCB, it's not because of their epaulement.)

RE: ABT
After being away from viewing ballets for almost ten years, when I finally was able to see live performances again, I started analysing what I saw at ABT, especially its vaunted male dancers. (I was still familiar with its female principals, most of whom had been at ABT for ten years or more.) And then I started analysing one dancer, trying to see what he did, how he did it, and why I noticed. (I was very reluctant to follow the crowd, and wanted to understand the appeal.) I was not impressed by multiple turns or a high jump (I'd seen Baryshnikov and others past and present with same or similar abilities) or any other fine matters of technique I expected of a principal dancer. No, what I discovered was that Angel Corella had the most beautiful epaulement I'd seen in many years. Even if other areas of technique relax or fail, his epaulement never does. If he teaches anything to his new company I hope it's that.

eg. Gene Schiavone's two photos of the same ABT Swan Lake Act2 pdd penche. In one is David Hallberg, in the other Angel Corella. Both are beautiful images of correctly placed dancers, but the epaulement is very different. You can see that same epaulement in Nancy Ellison's photo of the same pose in her ABT 'coffee table book'--actually I think it's a better pic since it's caught at the end, rather than middle, of the movement. I'll try to give another photo example if I can from photographer Jesus Vallinas took of Bayadere later.

http://www.geneschiavone.com/gallery/v/Pri...AJ0254.jpg.html
http://www.geneschiavone.com/gallery/v/Pri...proved.jpg.html

If the work is displayed on the artist's or distributor's own site, it's safe to assume linking is fine. Otherwise, they wouldn't make the works available to view. I was unsure whether the photo I found of Corella was the one you had in mind, and couldn't find any photos of Hallberg in a similar pose.

You're right, I was able to do the links ok. (See my above post, where I added them.)