There are so many excellent reviews on BT. Some writers focus on technique; others on characterization; others on that mysterious quality called "stage presence."

Here's atm711, writing in her marvellous Ballet Talk blog, about the early dancing days of Maria Tallchief:


Who are some of the other dancers -- past or present -- who were (or are) exciting, eye-capturing dancers with a kind of star quality BEFORE they developed their technique?

Or, what about dancers who might never have achieved technical heights, but still commanded the stage and were able to carry off major roles?

And how did they do it?

Bart ,

Two that come to my mind are Marcia Haydee and Lynn Seymour. How did they do it? They chose their roles
very carefully, much as Alessandra Ferri does today

I did see Haydee dance Cranko's Swan Lake though, if my memory is still working.


Carla Fracci would be another from the same era that I think would go into this category.


Richard

I guess I don't buy this premise. I'm no expert, but when I "spot" someone in the corps that captures my imagination, and who I then start tracking over the years, the process I go thru is far more complex than this stmt can do justice.

True, it may be "technical prowess" that first captures my eye, but equally important is that the reason I end up tracking them, and even becoming a fan, is what I guess here is being called "stage presence".

I see the concern of this stmt as an illusion created perhaps by the simple fact that it is easier to distinguish, and therefore to discuss, technique than it is to distinguish presence -- in much the same way that it is easier to expound on the "correctness" of science, than it is to expound on the "correctness" of art.

Tamara Karsavina was criticized for her "sloppy" technique, but according to contemporary reviews, no one commanded the stage better than she did, including Nijinsky.

Gennady Smakov in his book on Russian dancers has some very harsh words for Galina Ulanova's technique, but obviously she triumphed despite her deficiencies.
In her day, Anna Pavlova was also criticized and ridiculed for her perceived lack of perfect technique, but her ethereal grace and delicacy obviously drove the audience wild.

I'm very surprised re: Ulanova, as in "Days with Ulanova" it appears that she worked obsessively, never missing a day of class.

So, apparently, would be Maya Plisetskaya. Writing about her great "rival" in her autobiography:

I've reserved judgment on Smakov. I don't like what he says about Karsavina, but what do i know? on the other hand, what exactly does HE know.

Karsavina could do entrechat-huit. And she wrote two valuable books on technique.

I wish I could see her dance to know what I'd think.

Danilova didn't use her feet, in Gaite Parisienne (of which film exists) as well as the merest corps member of NYCB, BUT Massine wasn't asking for that, and she DID deliver what Massine's choreography needed.... the back-bends, the timing, the wit! and the fearless brio, and a personality strong enough to hold that mess together and take the climax over the top.

Great phrase! Just think of how many millions of times in the history of human performance art this qualitiy has been called upon to win the day!

I am really surprised about what was written about Ulanova too. I have seen a bronze statue of her in attitude position on point and it was the most perfect and beautifull attitude I have ever seen.

I think Nureyev is the most famous dancer in this category. He never had the technique, but he was captivating on stage.

Really? I thought Nureyev had a tremendous technique. There were rough edges but still I don't see how he wouldn't be called a virtuoso. And he didn't avoid difficult roles like some of the other dancers mentioned.

Richard

Inconsistency was Nureyev's failing. He certainly had the technique, but couldn't/didn't always display it, which is why you still get so many people considering him over-rated as a technician. On top form he could compete with anyone.

Forgive me for the misunderstanding. I just did not think having good technique equals virtuoso. I do not think having a good technique only means being able to do super hard steps. I think it is how you do even the easiest steps. Consistency is part of technique too. Also I think it depends who you compare to. Nureyev certainly had the technique compared to most male dancers of the west at that time(ofcourse there were few exeptions like Erik bruhn ) but he was from the Soviet Union. I was comparing him to dancers like Soloviev. I would say Nureyev was an unfinished material.

Once I had lunch with a dancer who quickly found out how much I admired Farrell. He promptly told me she 'has no technique.' I thought that was idiocy but hadn't the technical chops to properly refute it. Another told me Farrell was 'insipid' but this dancer only liked flamboyant types and had a tin ear. And then a musician who had not only told me about the 1980 Ballet at the Beacon where Farrell danced to Mejia's 'Romeo and Juliet' in a program also including Cynthia Gregory (that pianist's favourite; I like her too) and Patrick Dupond but had also led me to a large scholarship toward my 4th year at Juilliard tuition, said to me when I enthused about Farrell: 'Oh, I didn't like her at all. She didn't have any personality.' I just glared and stormed off in high dudgeon, because he was being a bore and I did know he didn't know what he was talking about.

Consistency is not necessarily a part of technique, although it can be. I am a pianist and such things apply just as much to musical virtuosity as they do to dance technique. Nureyev could do super hard steps and he could do the easiest steps too. Just watch the old movie of 'An Evening with the Royal Ballet' and look at 'Les Sylphides' and you'll see consummate gentleness and sensitivity. Of course, he was an exhibitionist (even Stravinsky used the word for Nureyev) and an incredibly flamboyant personality.

Everybody is 'an unfinished material.' I bet if you asked Farrell she'd even say she hadn't completed everything she might, and she even had the discipline to get to explore certain aspects of her potential further than almost anyone else. Now that the careers of Nureyev, McBride and Farrell as dancers are over due to death in the first case, and retirement to teaching, etc., in the 2nd and 3rd cases, I realize that Nureyev is my favourite dancer of all: He had everything as far as I'm concerned, and I couldn't care less that he wasn't always good, or that he let a lot of the glamour scene go to his head. This is not because I think any less of McBride and Farrell, but because now that they aren't dancing, I prefer the paganism of Nureyev to the more civilized religiosity of Farrell from time to time. When they're not dancing anymore, you are left with a whole body--an essence, as it were--of what they represented, and I think Rudy's well-known animalism has not exactly been duplicated by a single one of the more 'perfect' dancers. I don't know if Pat McBride is religious or not, but in the NYRBooks review of 'Holding on to the Air', Farrell said 'I dance for God.' The reviewer pointed out 'she also danced for Balanchine.' I was glad of that, and thought it was therefore terrific that she danced for God if she could come up with that sort of result. Someone said that Franz Liszt, both the most flamboyant and probably the greatest pianist ever to have lived 'loved God but worshipped the devil.' Not bad. Rudy may have just 'worshipped the devil,' I don't know. But he sure knew how to dance and he sure knew how to put on a good show--onstage and off.

Perfection and perfectionism aren't the same things. Perfectionism can even get in the way of perfection, but occasionally it doesn't, as in Farrell's case. But Nureyev's perfection was just as great as hers.

omshanti writes: I just did not think having good technique equals virtuoso.



papeetepatrick writes:

Very well put.

Thank you for the interesting thoughts, Patrick. Farrell was a Catholic girl, of course, and Balanchine was Orthodox, and clearly their sensibilities fed each other there. The modernist elevation of form over personality that struck many as cold actually put personality in a clear frame. I'm trying to think of a Balanchine ballet that could be characterized as pagan in sensibility (Walpurgisnacht Ballet?) and I'm coming up blank. Not Meditation, his first work for her, and not Diamonds, and not the overtly reverential Mozartiana. Balanchine loved/worshipped women, perhaps to a fault. According to Tallchief in her autobiography, they didn't even sleep together. Desire was easy to read onstage, but isolated pagan lust didn't seem to be a choreographic force. No need to worship the devil when God had all the best steps and the larger picture.

Well, you see, I think they both have good steps and large pictures, and are equally necessary to the artist. Liszt did fine worshipping the devil and working at the Vatican as an abbe. Even the pope at the time wanted a private audience, and it was most likely to evoke the concert fan-mobbed period rather than to provide vesper material. I like what Balanchine did and I like what Nureyev did--it's possible.

Mmm. I agree - I can almost taste that...

Dear Bart
The question you raised has led to the raising of temperatures and to lifting of corners of carpets where many prejudices lie swept from view. As I have been fortunate enough to witness on stage or meet in person many of the dancers named in the postings, I felt I just had to jump into the fray, but I do so with caution.

I can only speak from my witness and study of classical ballet and the effect particular performances have had upon me over the years. I consider that some forty or more leading dancers I have seen over the years have given me the justification of considering classical ballet to be a ‘high art’ in which dancers through extensive study, personal qualities and exposure to the highest elements of their art, have for me wrought an atmosphere of a kind of perfection in performance that can elevate my thoughts, move my emotions, warm my heart, satisfy my intellect and confirm my interest as being thoroughly worthwhile.
The question of technique has been mentioned and I would like to give an example of what can be missing from the observation of a performance when technique becomes the foremost virtue in a dancer. I have witnessed that some people cannot go beyond their own prejudice when seeing films of dancers from earlier generations without saying, I just don’t get it, he (or she) just does not have technique and for a moment you wonder if this person is getting the same kind of experience that you are getting when you are sitting next to them. If a member of an audience is looking for the perfect execution of every single step, it seems to me to not understand the art of ballet in terms of a theatrical performance. Ballet is about experiencing a harmony of components that resonate with the audience to bring some measure of experience. If you are just watching and measuring steps, you cannot be experiencing. How little or too much of an exhibition of technique in a performance is a question of measure which is always going to come down to a question of personal informed knowledge, experience and the resulting acquired taste. I often find myself musing after a performance in which an outstanding virtuoso technique has been exhibited and feeling rather empty then asking myself where was the beautiful epaulement or line, all part of a dancers technique, Where was the understanding of the role. If the dancer does not possess in the ability to convey subtle changes in character and mood (a part of the technique of dance acting) it is as if I have been watching an exhibition of an attained skill and not a theatrical performance.

Some of the postings above get rather up front and personal in respect of individual dancers.

Gennady Smakov’s book on great dancers (referred to above) is I believe an important work as no other single book covers the sort of detail about a number of dancers that he does. He appears to exhibit some prejudices about some dances and of course is frequently giving opinions about dancers he never saw. Whilst it is true that Karsavina was criticized for not possessing an adequate classical ballet technique in the major classic ballets performed at the Maryinsky, it was in the ‘art’ of her performances with the Diaghilev Ballet, that she achieved great fame in which her art of expression and her personal beauty contributed to the audiences experience. The height and quality of Karsavina’s jetes were enthusiastically recorded by several commentators in her created role of ‘The Firebird’. As regards Smakov’s comments on Ulanova, Vaganova created the highly virtuoso pas de deux ‘Diana and Acteon’ for Ulanova’s graduation. There is a film of Ulanova in Act II Swan Lake Pas de deux with Sergeyev in which there is now doubt as to her technical ability and in the Messerer book on ballet technique there is a picture of Ulanova alongside Plisetskaya in a classroom exercise of jetes. After seeing these two examples and studying the roles she danced and reading opinions of her performance I had to reassess my own opinion that Ulanova was an extraordinary dance actress rather than having attained a highly developed ballet technique.

Pavlova who was mentioned in a posting was highly successful on the Maryinsky stage in ballerina roles such as Medora, Kitri and Nikiya. Having had conversations with numerous members of Pavlova’s company, the technique she exhibited in class was not that which she used on the stage where she gave as many as 10 performances in a week. What Pavlova had, was the ability through short dance essays, to express joy, tragedy the experience of love and death and to a degree that an audience was able to identify with at a level that few other dancers have ever been able to achieve. I have spoken to many members of the audiences from all classes of society that saw Pavlova who without prompting told me that seeing her dance, was the most important experience of their life.

I am used to hearing negative comments regarding Nureyev but as a witness to his career in the West from the very beginning, the only fault I observed at the beginning of his career with the Royal Ballet was his noisy landings. This he mastered very quickly. His jetes en tournant, his entrechat six, his pirouettes ala seconde were all generally recognized as extraordinary at his best and his general quality of movement, physical presence, his ability to convey emotion and the sense of danger he brought to his performances(never really captured on film) made him the legend he was. My personal opinion is that after 1969 he rarely achieved the standard in classical ballets that he had in the eight years previously.
Some people remark that Fonteyn’s technique and feet were weak yet she undoubtedly was a virtuoso dancer in performances of the Corsair pas de deux or Black Swan pas de deux in the 1960’s when appearing with Nureyev. Fonteyn could say more in a still moment than few others in my experience could. Her performances as Aurora, Odette, Ondine, Daphnis, Marguerite, Giselle, Nikiya in the Shades Scene, Raymonda, which were moving, thrilling and enthralling by turn. Of course I have seen all these roles performed marvelously well by other dancers and certainly with better turn out and placement, stronger feet and more elevation, higher arabesques etc but for me only a few other dancers have ever reached the heights of a performance experience that Fonteyn gave to her audience.

A number of the dancers that are mentioned in the above postings have always remained an arcane mystery to me as I never appreciated any aspect of their performances measured against others. They have however achieved some fame. Is it our objective study, reasoning and appreciation of standards achieved in a performance that creates our reactions, or, is it the subjective response that in the end overrides any objectivity in our appreciation?

To take control of an audience so that it becomes a single massed response in theatres across the world is an achievement that very few ballet dancers can attain. Some achieve through their perfection and control of their technique, their musicality, physical beauty, dramatic skills a recognized high level of performance, but few dancers have the universality of appeal that perhaps only fifteen or twenty in the history of classical ballet have achieved.
Yours Leonid

I think that bart simply asked a question regarding the technical aspect of ballet and dancers whose strengths were in their stage presence or persona rather than the technique. And every body simply responded to that and named some dancers. Nobody wrote anything negative about the dancers they mentioned. Now there were disagreements about what technique is in ballet . Some take it as a display of virtuosity and others take it differently ( I think it needs a whole thread of its own). Why do so many people take things to the personal level and make a simple discussion difficult without reading carefully what other people wrote?




I apologize (to Nureyev ) about what I wrote here. It was a mistake that I wrote He never had the technique. I should have written he struggled with technical aspects of ballet.

I think I know what you mean even if I don't feel it myself. You are much more in touch with the true grand European-romantic traditions from what I can tell from what you've written here. As an eclectic American, I pick and choose from anywhere, most likely, and in some cases I've intersected with you (certainly when it comes to Nureyev)--and all of what you wrote here is quite arresting.



I think it works both ways, and that the former by itself is suspect. On the other hand some artists are of a subtlety that won't allow the latter to come sweeping through by itself: If it then does, then the former was justified and redeemed; if it doesn't, and what can best be called 'learned behaviours' result, then the former is just barren and effete, aspirations to commonplace chic.



The clear distinction makes me think of 17th century Mannerist painting and the following explosion into the Baroque--or, when you start seeing 'Picasso dancers' on stage who are not generally going to become household words. You mentioned 'all classes' when discussing Pavlova. Even so, dancers that look like Picassos on stage become so famous in the ballet world that it is forgotten by those within it or connected somehow to it that they are not especially well-known elsewhere, and certainly not universally and in all classes. I mentioned Peter Martins to a 23-year-old in my building here in NY about 1993, and after he said 'Who's Peter Martins?' I began to realize that changes had taken place even by then that I had not wanted to face.

In welcoming Bart's thread and other contributors who broadened the discussion, like them I offer my opinions on an extremely serious and complex or even difficult subject that should be the concern of dancers, company directors and audiences. If you read and examine Barts thread it calls for a response on a matter that is both complicated and seriously difficult, as the demand of various periods of classical ballet on the surface at least seem to require different things from dancers to those in an earlier age.

However, I do not believe this is true. The best examples of the past, in all the arts, still speak as loudly today as they did as when first appreciated and it the best examples that need a particular encouraging environment in which to prosper. When exceptional dancers(in various ways) bring a level of communication and experience to an audience that clearly separates them from their colleagues, the universality of the art and performance achieves the goal that takes a ballet performance away from the routinely very good theatre to a different level of theatrical experience. Technical perfection has a place in such experiences but true 'artists' of the dance always go beyond the level of their personal technique to become one with the vehicle of their expression that in turn engenders a universal response as it touches the human experience in a way that sometimes only great art can do.

The questions Bart raises, “Who are some of the other dancers -- past or present -- who were (or are) exciting, eye-capturing dancers with a kind of star quality BEFORE they developed their technique? Or, what about dancers who might never have achieved technical heights, but still commanded the stage and were able to carry off major roles? And how did they do it?” are I would say highly significant questions. Why? Because such artists reinforce the answers to the significant questions as to how classical ballet can continue to remain a theatre ‘high art’ and encompasses “What is the best environment for aspiring dancers to add to the continuum of experience for an audience where no arbitrary division confounds the aims of the art. It is after all the dancers that bring life to a ballet and it is the dancers who in the end tend to make history in classical ballet. To return to Nureyev who was brought into the discussion by others, I certainly witnessed a large number of performances where his technical perfection in a role was clearly exhibited. I did however have the luxury choosing those performances from around watching him dance around 200 or more times over a long period of time.

Thank you, leonid, for the serious and exceptionally thoughtful nature of your answers. Your responses, as well as those of others, have revealed implications in my original questions that (I admit) I did not imagine at the time I posted them.

Here is one of the most important implications, or so it seems to me. It's also one that is very relevant to the on-going mission of Ballet Talk, as defined originally by Alexandra, Leigh, and others:

I believe that all of us on Ballet Talk wish to see classical ballet taught, studied, performed, and discussed in a way that will preserve and advance the very highest aspects of the art and all its practitioners.

Our function as posters is discussion (ruminating, advocating, learning, and even changing our points of view at times). That's how we are all helping to support ballet here.

Dear Leonid,
I have been reading your posts in this thread many times in the past few days since you wrote them, in order to understand them fully ( I have only been learning and using English for 4years). I do understand and agree with many things you wrote . I admire your deep thoughts and envy your experience as an audience of ballet.

But there is something that I have difficulty understanding. It probably sounds silly but when the words art ,artistry(you did not use this) and artists are used I am in the dark. My English is probably the problem here but in the few other languages that I speak, the concept of the word art or its equivalent word in each language all have slightly different meaning and feeling depending on the culture and the language. For example I understand well when someone says Nureyev s dramatic ability, his intense charismatic stage presence were great, his honesty and risktaking on the stage as if he was ready to bleed and die on the stage really pulled me in and I could feel his passion and love of dancing, as a result I could not take my eyes off him ( you see I love Nureyev and he is one of my favorites). But when someone says he was a true and great artist I am completely in the dark.

Since I found ballet talk I have been thinking what art (artistry,artist) is because it gets used so much all the time. I know that in general ballet ,music ,painting , poetry .. etc are called arts (sometimes high arts) and their practitioners artists. But I think this is just an empty labelling (with elitist implications) and has no real meaning . What makes an art art ? or an artist artist? If you ask 100 people you will get 100 answers. To me they are very convenient but meaningless words. So can you please explain to me what you mean by art and artist in the context of your posts? I am sorry for asking such a favour, but I just wanted to understand fully what you wrote.

Regarding the technique (not virtuosity) of ballet, I do not think it is possible to overlook it especially if we think about the survival of ballet. After all it is the classical ballet technique that makes ballet ballet and seperates it from other danceforms. I think the reason Soviet Union produced so many great dancers (including Nureyev) is because the great teacher Vaganova improved the technical aspects of ballet tremendously, and one of the reasons the level of classical ballet is dropping now is because so many basic technical aspects are being neglected and forgotten. In my opinion from observing my own teacher whom I consider to be one of the greatest remaining teachers (he studied In the Bolshoi in the early 50s, danced with Ulanova, Plisetskaya, Fonteyn and numerous other great dancers, was the director as well as the principal dancer of Tokyo ballet company in the 60s and 70s, was a judge of Lausanne in the 80s, gets invited by the Paris opera school to observe and comment on the teaching) some people can see and examine every tiny technical detail of a dancer like an ex-ray while also experiencing the theatrical performance as you put it. So it is not one or the other, as in if you look at the technical aspects you will not be able to experience the performance, and I think that the technical aspects of ballet are the most mathematical part of it with one and ultimate answer (if you really know it) which will not be subjective depending on personal taste. I think it is such a person (like Vaganova) with the real eyes and understanding of ballet that is really needed for the survival of classical ballet.

I have tried to reply to this and other parts of your post in the best way I can.

Firstly I would say going to watch the ballet is a matter of choice and learning about ballet is another choice. As a teenager I found that forming opinions from observation alone, can result in viewpoints at odds with the historical context of the form and though satisfying to the individual, it may find little resonance among other members of the audience. I discovered that generally members of a ballet audience gravitate to groups of shared experience and values. Ballet fans (short for fanatics) in one interval bar position, critics elsewhere and the connoisseurs of performance and history elsewhere.

So what is it that makes shared values among audiences, commentators and those that work within ballet to suggest that ballet is an art and certain dancers a great artist? What is art and how is it measured and valued? Whilst the practice of an art requires skills in the manner that the craftsman requires, the artist does not just replicate a form, the artist generates from within an original expression in their work that separates them from others. What does being considered to be an artist mean? Simply being a practitioner of a skill in a manner that is superior to most other practitioners measured by shared values of those that experience the art. It is not simply the skilled mode of expression within their art form that creates an effect upon an audience it is the combination of psychological and physical response that a ‘great artist’ engenders which creates the theatrical experience that an audience desires. Great artists become one with the form which they practice and there are many ways in which it can be achieved but you cannot replicate dancers to become great despite strict methods of teaching being apllied with sensitive and informed coaching. Like all other people no two dancers are exactly alike in gifts that will enable them to success in their career and many students at the best schools failt to proceed from one year to the next. Ballet dancers who are going to be successful will be noticed in the corps de ballet or in a small solo, because they bring more than technique to the stage, they also bring a distinctive air that reflects a realised creativity in the manner in which they performed. This level of creativity becomes the subject of discussion and public opinion. Ballet is a form of language because it carries meaning with it. Through certain ballet dancers it speaks with an intensity of power that at one performance it can make decades of watching ballet a worthwhile pursuit. . You say, “Since I found ballet talk I have been thinking what art (artistry, artist) is because it gets used so much all the time. I know that in general ballet, music, painting, poetry. etc are called arts (sometimes high arts) and their practitioner’s artists. But I think this is just an empty labelling (with elitist implications) and has no real meaning.”(quote)

I want to take up your mention of ‘elitist implication’. We live in a world where rulers shaped history and elite groups in society were formed. This is a reality. Patrons from the elite have shaped the development of the arts and up to today classical ballet companies could not do without the support of people who fit the profile of this imagined class. History is history. Some people will rise to positions of wealth power and influence most of us will not.

Regarding your mention of the importance of technique versus virtuoso exhibitionism and Vaganova I agree on the first part of your statement but question the latter reference to the lady. I had thought for a long time, that we could always witness in particular dancers a high level of execution of individual steps but that the wider vocabulary that existed in the 19th century had disappeared. This opinion was formed from viewing the repertoire of the Kirov and Bolshoi I witnessed in the 1960’s and 1970’s. However reconstructions of ballets (and fragments) unseen in the West in previous decades seen in the 1980’s, 1990’s and this century have shown that the Vaganova Academy still teaches a method that allows modern dancers to effectively accomplish individual steps and combinations that one had read about in history books. The Bolshoi in Lacotte’s, ‘La fille du Pharoan’ showed that the seemingly forgotten steps of the 19th century Paris ‘ecole classique’ could be replicated.

I agree that the contribution that Vaganova made to teaching cannot be underestimated but we have to remember; she was the product of three methods of ballet technique taught by superior teachers and she had they advantage of witnessing the developing method of teaching already innovated by Preobrajenskaya. It was during Vaganova's era that the virtuoso (Soviet heroic) type of dancer appeared with the emphasis on showy technique vulgar exhibitions of jumps and pirouettes that had a lot of force behind them – and it showed. Fortunately, there were always pupils with an innate sense of taste and who later received coaching from other former dancers that carried on teaching the refinements of the school as opposed to strong execution of steps. A measure of this statement can be made if you compare various dancers who made ballerina status but who differed in 'artistry' to such a degree you cannot believe they were products of the same school. I remember both the Kirov and the Bolshoi in the 1960’s presenting highly unsuitable dancers in leading roles which led to certain of the females to be given the soubriquet of ‘basher’ because of the way that they 'beat up'’ the ballet steps.

As regards a decline in technique I don’t think there is a problem with teaching at the Vaganova Academy for instance, and the technical achievements elsewhere. There is however almost universal crisis in respect of epaulement. I do also believe that it is wrong to encourage every rising young dancer to dance in the manner of a virtuoso. Occasionally, the natural virtuoso appears and is to be celebrated. On dancers capable of a perfect display of technical ability, the practice of making them appear virtuosic simply makes them appear vulgar. I can’t agree with you that that the Soviet Union produced so many great dancers; it produced a number in my opinion and a number of extraordinary and unusual dancers. It should be mentioned that certain character dancers of the past and one or two now were great artists as were certain mimes.

Ps I apologise to all readers for the length of my post. Brevity deserted me
today. (Don’t say, “What do you mean today”)

I, for one, am glad.

I agree with helene, and I want to thank all the posters so far for contributing so much thoughtfulness and depth to this topic.

I have a few questions, especially as regards the relationship between emphasis on "technique" for its own sake, and "artistry", which ineviably incompasses fine technique but uses it for higher ends. (Or, as leonid puts it:

One of these questions is triggered by a recent re-viewing of Dudinskaya's and Sergeyev's take on the Black Swan pas de deux in 1953. (Glory of the Kirov DVD) I realize that both were advanced in their careers when this film was made, but this thread made me look at these strange (to me) performances in an entirely new way. The tightness of the upper body, the lack of concern for fluidity and line as we would value it today, the exagerrated preparations for the more difficult combinations, the constant alterations in musical tempo (as when everything is speeded up to an almost comic level for Dudinskaya's series of pique turns). This is "technique" -- combined with huge muscles -- shouting attention to itself. I'm a bravura dancer! Linkage and flow are given no attention at all.

Would this be possible on the stage, and especially in the more intimate medium of video, today?

In other words, is it possible for "technique" to actually be even more destructive of the artistry in ballet than "lack of technique"?

Dear Leonid .
Thank you so much for taking time and answering my questions. You explained your opinions really well and now I understand your posts much better. Forgive me for taking this long to reply.

One thing I realized is as you wrote we have completely different perspectives.I for one started loving ballet purely from doing it, the watching came later. Also I am influenced by my teacher about whom I wrote in my previous post. I feel you come from a pure audience perspective.

I have been asking many people (incuding my teacher) about art in general and art in the context of ballet, and am starting to understand and form an idea about it. I have few questions and few things that I want to clarify.

Can you please name the dancers who made you feel that way and let me know what was it that they communicated through their dancing? I am really curious.

When I wrote elitist implications my comment was not concerned with wealth but meaning that people who do [art] call what they do [art} to say what they do is higher in worth or importance compared to the things they do not call [art].

For me ballet technique and virtuoso exhibition are two different things.

My teacher always says never do ballet your own way, do it ballet s way. The more a dancer s way of dancing ballet is closer to ballet s way or ballet logic the more technically accomplished that dancer is. In my opinion a good teacher is a teacher who can find and show ways suited to each student s talent personality and physique to reach that one and only ballet logic. My teacher also says that it is the technique that gives a dancer freedom. It is not the other way round. Ballet technique is the most basic foundation for all dancers that gives them freedom. If we think about houses for example we can design a fancy beautifull house on surface but without a strong foundation nothing will stand properly. This is why I am saying that we can not ignore the technical aspects of ballet.

I mentioned Vaganova as one example out of many to mention the importance of technical aspects of ballet in respect of its survival, I was not meaning that Vaganova did it all alone . We all know that we are influenced by the teachers we take class from or dancers we observe or dance with. To be fair to Vaganova the disappearance of the wider vocabulary that exsited in the 19th century started in stages from when Petipa moved to Russia. In later stages I agree that there were things that were better preserved outside of Russia by people like Balanchine. I do not think it is fair to blame Vaganova for that. Just like ballet became more theatrical in Britain because of Britain s theatrical past, ballet bacame more physical and athletic in Russia because of Russia s Euroasian folkdance culture. It was also the soviet Union s system that created [soviet heroic roles] not Vaganova. Thanks to great teachers like Vaganova and their great folk dancing tradition the Russians were able to do those roles with lightness, style and logic. I do not think the emphasis was on showy technique because even though they were doing the showy technique it was within the dance and they were dancing it , and they were doing it with logic rather then force.

That is normal for any school or teacher. Any ballet teacher aimes to develope each student s individuality, but there is always an underlining technical similarity within student s of a same school.

I think epaulment is only one of the many things that is in crisis. If you think how much time ballet schools now spend on modern and contemporary dance forms and also have made the school years from 8 years to 6years it is understandable.

Surely the ‘Ecole Classique’ from the 19th century still exists in Denmark? Bournonville’s Le Conservatoire” has at its heart the recreation of a ballet class that shows us exactly what that 19th century dance vocabulary looked like. And why is the Vaganova School so highly regarded? It certainly doesn’t cut that much ice in either Copenhagen or Paris, where classicism in its purest form still manages (against the odds in Paris these days I’d say) to survive.

As for Daughter of the Pharaoh, I have to admit to some disappointment that the Paris Opera Ballet hasn’t yet performed it. Petite batterie has been virtually lost in Russia (and elsewhere, as is acknowledged in another Ballet Talk thread, ‘Are certain ballet steps an endangered species?’) and I don’t agree at all that Vaganova training enabled the Bolshoi to tackle Lacotte’s choreography, which was his own remember, not the original. I was in Moscow for the premiere of that work and the dancers I spoke to were highly indignant at having to perform such difficult steps that they weren’t used to; there was actually a move to have the ballet dropped from the repertoire completely. Fortunately this threat was averted due to the instant popularity of the work with Muscovites and today the Bolshoi dances this ballet rather well.

Although this thread is about dancers lacking in technique, I would like to refer to two that don’t lack technique at all: Messrs Lund and Thibault in Copenhagen and Paris respectively. If you want to see what the ‘Ecole Classique’ looks like, you need look no further.

To speak literally to the topic, Lynn Seymour, certainly at the beginning of her career, was not a solid technician, but at a very early time in her performing career was singled out by Kenneth MacMillan, whose eye she had obviously caught.

WOW!!!!!
I am waiting to get my breath back from Mashinka's and Omshanti's posts. When I have, I will reply.
I feel I have entered an advanced fencing school all thrust and parry.
Warmest regards
Leonid

The Vaganova Academy is not exactly a bad school. And considering that Asylmuratova is currently the director, I suspect that in eight years or less we are going to see it produce some very lovely dancers.

Similarly to Lynn Seymour, Balanchine saw something in Stephanie Saland, who could not do cabrioles nor turn reliably but became a star of New York City Ballet; she had a fabulous look and fabulous dance imagination

Thank you Helene for reminding me of the centre of this topic, as in replying to other posts it has become much broader than perhaps Bart intended with his original question. I am ducking the question of the great male artists of the dance as the popular conception of such rare animals would raise such contentious issues it deserves a topic of its own.

To answer Omshanti’s assumptions about my background I would inform her that I studied ballet in class, I have had the opportunity of watching legendary dancers from the Kirov and Bolshoi Ballet (i.e. Natalia Dudinskaya and Asaf Messerer etc) teach classes and have watched a hundred or more classes taught by famous dancers and other teachers with established reputations. I also in the 1960’s attended a long series of lectures on Vaganova technique (presented by Anne Marie Holmes) illustrated by I think 11 films made at the Vaganova Academy illustrating the classes over a 8 year period which were discussed by the audience who included representatives from the Ballet Russe era and those who taught the Cecchetti and RAD method. Watching films of Anna Pavlova and talking with many members of her company has for me also been inspiring. Escorting Galina Ulanova around a museum and discussing with her aspects of former ballet stars and her teachers was an unimaginable experience as has been listening to talks by famous dancers and choreographers. I have contributed research to published books and lectured on ballet history and staged a ballet festival and exhibitions about dancers. I am also a collector of books on ballet history and attend performances that I expect to enjoy so yes Omshanti, I do see ballet from the point of view of an audience but I also like to think as an informed member of the audience.

The reason I am interested in dancers who did not have strictly academic technique as well as those that do, is because ballet is not just about the perfect replication of the established steps, it is also about the ‘flow of movement’ and a ‘ theatrical experience.’ I have to say that dancers that have meant most to me possessed as good a technique as can be achieved. Omshanti you mention “…. by the one and only logic” by which I understand you to mean the guiding principles of a school of ballet. Every dancer should find within the framework of the execution of steps and choreography on stage something that illuminates their performance and adds a layer of their own logic (the relationship between elements and the whole in a set of objectives), to that which they learn and practice in the classroom.

Margot Fonteyn was in a direct line of ballerinas who confirmed ballet as a complete theatre art wherein the execution of steps in time to music achieved in relationship to choreography and acting took place when she danced. The theatre is the place where the dancer leaves the classroom behind and the performer appears. It is through seeing dancers like Fonteyn, Chauvire, Kolpakova, Zubkovskaya, Osipenko, Sizova, Komleva, Plisetskaya, Struchkova, Maximova, Asyluratova, Lander, Samsova, Beriosova, Verdy, Schanne, Ananiashvili, Nadezhda Pavlova, Bessmertnova, Chenchikova, Evdokimova, Haydee, Seymour, Vishneva, that have set standards which I undoubtedly carry with me to performances and establish my expectation in all other dancers I see. There have been many outstanding soloists and character dancers that have also formed my expectations and taste. Of course it is absolute originality of personality in performance that I would expect from any dancer in a leading role.

When technique falters in older age or due to injuries, what often remains is still a unique theatrical experience which is why I pay to go to a theatre and watch the ‘art; of ballet and not go regularly to watch a class. How far should we go in measuring the balance between technique and audience experience? We have to travel no distance at all because the performances by great artists transcend normal measurements. The subjective appreciation or experience diminishes the objective measure, which should be the aim of any practitioner in any field whose work is aiming for a significant audience response. We have the ability not only to see and measure, but to also to feel a response that arouses the emotions and that is what great artists evoke and a work of a craftsperson does not. Art imposes a response from an audience not measurement of skill at a craft.

The aim of every artist is to make technique invisible so that only art remains. If it is not invisible then they have in my opinion failed as an artist. “When I (Omshanti) wrote elitist implications my comment was not concerned with wealth but meaning that people who do [art] call what they do [art} to say what they do is higher in worth or importance compared to the things they do not call [art].” What is wrong with this? Calling something art is not to diminish a practitioner of a craft or skill. Elite also means the best or most skilled members among society in a particular area of expression whether tennis, football, opera or ballet. This is a reflection of societal value systems that grow from education, knowledge and experience. Audiences of all sports. arts etc, seek to become members of the cognoscenti. Education and the acquisition of knowledge and the resulting formation of particular expectations or taste, is a natural process for some people but not all as some members of audiences merely want to entertained to while away time.

To become an elitist or a member of the cognoscenti can attain seemingly obsessive levels and that is an individuals right. If someone wants to be (or is) considered to be an ‘exquisite’ (One who is excessively fastidious in matters of taste or appreciation) that is their choice and many people across the world will admire that and emulate them. It is natural for individuals to recognize different kinds or levels of expression of skills and it in the use of the words art or craft, which have a historical usage over centuries, that people are able to share a common understanding of their meaning. When I see dancers today on stage emphatically producing every step at its fullest possible value as if in showing their teacher that they can execute the step, I despair.

Bravura dancing is an art itself but it should be within character and not just a display of technique. The classroom should not be seen on the stage, as the stage is a place for seamless interaction between choreography, music and the other aspects of a ballet. It is in the lightest of touches of performing technically difficult steps that we as an audience recognize art transcending form or structure. Dancers who exhibit obvious strength in performing every step of choreography, can tend to become wearing and appear vulgar. There are those dancers who want to make a greater physical impact on the audience and to hear gasps of delight from those that go to ballet to seek sensation.

It is in the giving of different weight or emphasis to the same step (among other things) that makes the repetition of such steps in a ballet bearable. The true ballet artist learns this through teaching, coaching and the experience of audience response. Schooling alone (ecole classique or not) cannot make a ballet artist, because artists quite patently are born not made. Great artists, who assimilate technique into their performance so that it matches the choreographer’s inspiration or goes beyond it, are in my opinion, extremely rare. Frequently, they are dancers who do not exhibit (but may possess) the perfect schooling or strength of technique as they are concerned with becoming the role and vividly bring a character to life in way that has meaning beyond the skill of most dancers and the audience responds.
.

Beautifully stated, Leonid.

I apologize for not completing my thought in this post. I think the way the discussion has evolved is much more important than a narrow interpretation of the question. I meant to bring up Seymour in the context of the discussion: a dancer who is widely called a great dramatic ballerina and artist, who strengthened her technique during her career, but was never a stellar technician or bravura dancer, and whose training in unified schooling started relatively late, with her move to England. In a narrow definition of ballerina as classical technician, she would not qualify, and would have been sent home to Canada. Luckily for ballet, this did not happen.

I witnessed many of Lyn Seymour's performances in the 1960's and 70's with the Royal Ballet in London where she was after Fonteyn and Beriosova much loved by the audience. Her teacher at the Royal Ballet School(and later in her career) was the distinguished Winifred Edwards who had returned to England in the 1940's from a long sojourn teaching in the USA with the Kosloffs where Agnes de Mille was also her pupil. As has been mentioned Miss Seymour never had an extensive technique but in 1958 she did dance nine Odette/Odiles when the RB were on tour in Australia. The last major classical role I saw her dance(excepting MacMillans's ballets was as Aurora to which she brought much feeling and a softness of movement with her beautifully rounded arms lovely leg line that ended in beautifully arched feet like Pavlova's that Ashton so admired and exploited when he created 'The Two Pigeons for her. Seymour's performances with Chritopher Gable were legendary. Rarely have two dancers met on the same emotional and dramatic plain as they did in Romeo and Juliet. She was Macmillan's muse and the ballets he created for have in my opinion never had a better interpreter.

Ps. Antoinette Sibley and Marcia Haydee were in the same class as Lyn. No doubt
Miss Edwards learnt a lot as a member of the Anna Pavlova Company.

Leonid , my apologies for any misunderstanding. I was not assuming that you had never done ballet. I was only saying that I feel your perspective on the matters we were discussing comes from an audience point of view. I was only stating the difference in our perspectives, I did not say which one is better or worse. (I am male by the way)

I only asked you to name the dancers and let me know what they communicated because I simply wanted to know who they were and was curious.

To speak literally to the topic the way Helene did, I would name 2 male dancers. Jorge Donn and Patrick Dupond. I think these 2 dancers fit this topic in different ways from each other. Jorge Donn was not a technically accomplished dancer at all but he became a star dancing for Maurice Bejart. Patrick Dupond was a virtuoso or a bravura dancer but one of his feet was sickled , his ballet positions were not clean or beautiful and were all over the place , his batteries were awfull. Still he had much stronger and more eye-catching stage presence than more technically accomplished dancers such as Manuel Legris or Jose Martinez. I am not sure if he was a great artist but he was definitely very entertaining.

While transferring my old tapes to DVD I came across a clip of Seymour and Nureyev in Sleeping Beauty PDD and what an eye-opener it was. Although I only know Seymour mainly through tapes, I have come to admire her greatly ---much for the way it is expressed above. After watching her in 'Brahms Waltzes" I feel I have really seen Duncan; but it is "A Month in the Country" that her artistry (yes, that word!) is so much in evidence.

Eventhough I feel that there are many things that I need to ask , give my opinion , clarify, in Leonid s long post before his last one, I do not have the energy nor the patience to sit in front of the computer long enough to do that as this whole discussion and computer has really tired me out. However there is one thing that I could not let go.




When I wrote ballet s way or the one and only ballet logic I was meaning the ultimate right way of using and controling the human body and mind in the context of ballet movement and dancing. It is more internal and deeper than things that can be seen easily on the surface such as the guiding principles of a school of ballet. Although it includes those things on the surface they are rather like the tip of the iceberg. Ballet positions are not the goal of ballet logic but guides in order to reach it. It involves mental and body control not only during the class but every minute of the day. Therefore it is a way of living. In my opinion only few dancers have attaind it perfectly and even fewer know it consciously enough to teach it. There is a Sanskrit saying that says a teacher can only show the way to or teach a student as far as he/she has gone. There are very few people who know by experience and have the eyes to see the ballet logic. That is one of the reasons I love ballet and ballet technique because in this respect of pursuing one ultimate goal it is very similar to the great meditation techniques and it is spiritual. I know that the aim of ballet is first of all performing to an audience and that ballet technique might not be as important as its theatrical performance aspects to many people , but to me it is very important because of the reason I stated above. ( this is my opinion so I am not saying it has to be this way)

As I wrote in my previous post it is the technique that gives a dancer freedom. The more technically accomplished a dancer is the more option and freedom of expression the dancer will have. So I do not understand why many people think that the technique comes in the way of [artistry]. If a dancer is technically accomplished it does not mean that the dancer dances as if he/she is in class on stage. On the other hand it means the dancer will have a stronger foundation and more freedom to add his/her own expression to the dance and the steps.

There's nothing wrong with being technically accomplished; you are exactly right--it gives the dancer freedom to be expressive. The problem comes when a dancer ignores expression and focuses on technique as an end in itself...which I think perhaps brings this topic full circle.

On another thread the question was posed: What is technique? This seemed to me to be a rather "self evident" question and the more interesting one is: What is artistry in ballet?

One interesting notion about the ballet is that, like music, theatre and opera, so much of the performance is "set down" in writing... the notes, the lines, the steps. Each participant must perform their bit with precision so that the entire structure of the work has coherance and integrity. I can read aloud the lines of a play, but those lines done by a skilled actor make more than a world of difference. So the message is much more than the writing word, the libretto, the score, the steps...

But you can't be sloppy with these elements... one letter can change the meaning of a word, a sentence, a thought... one way to pronouce a word can change its meaning.. or inflection. How we "deliver" the words... is perhaps where the actor's artistry lies... and so it is with the dancer.

But the dancer is working against a very rigid structure and their opportunity for artistry is perhaps limited, and nuanced. But within these impossible constraints of proper technique, and timing and so on the great dancer can demonstrate amazing artistry above, beyond and outside of their language of movement and technique. Like a musician in an orchestra you can't change the notes... but you can find a unique and stunning way to present them. So it is with dance... no?

I would actually compare a dancer to a singer rather than to someone playing an instrument--two pianists can play the same music at the same tempo and sound exactly the same*, but two people singing the same thing will sound different because each voice is unique--and each dancer's body and way of moving is unique.

*And yes, they can also sound different depending upon who the pianists are and what sort of piano each is playing, but I'm sure you understand my point.

I understand your point, and consider it to be 100% incorrect regarding the pianists or instrumentalists, no matter how closely they resemble each other--try to test a NYCB audience without opera glasses in the 4th ring who don't know much about the dancers, and you would have found in the 80's that most would be lucky they could pick out Suzanne Farrell--and only because of her height and because they knew which role she was doing (if they didn't, they still might not). Let them describe in perfect detail why it was Maria Calegari or Heather Watts without knowing they were dancing that night. And few could make the difference in various Violettas, Mimis, etc., if they just heard on an unidentified recording.

They wouldn't have been able to tell the difference between the perfectly schooled Balanchine dancers than most dancers would know how to tell the difference between Andras Schiff and Murray Perahia or Garrick Ohlsson or even Leif Ove Andsnes or Ivo Pogorelich.

It is precisely the same to compare a dancer to a singer and to see that while a dancer can be 'musical,' he/she cannot literally sing.

Dancers can be musical, but they are never musicians as such, unless they are also musical performers as well (as was Balanchine himself.)

A singer is more like an instrumentalist than like a dancer. this is because they are both musicians, not because they can get an artistic 'singing' quality in their art.

As for the dancer 'singing,' he is therefore much more like an instrumentalist than a singer, because the pianist or violinist is often cajoled over and over to 'Sing! Sing it!' But he/she is never actually singing in the same sense as a singer is. The dancer and the instrumentalist become 'singerly', but they do not sing.

Likewise, the instrumentalist and singer can 'dance' their music, but they dance it in precisely the same way that a dancer or instrumentalist 'sing' theirs.

What you've said would only be possible if the pianists were capable of forgeries such as are done in paintings. They would have to make a special project to exclude every ounce of personal expression.

That's exactly what happened in a very cheesy movie called The Competition. The young pianist played by Amy Irving was surprised to find that she had auditioned for a piano competition, when her teacher, played by Lee Remick, told Irving's character that she had made and submitted the audition tape for her, and described in several pointed phrases exactly how she had mimicked the personal qualities of Irving's character's playing.

Helene--and it could only happen in such 'cruel and unusual' circumstances. Made me remember Arlene Croce's piece 'Farrell and Farrellism', in which attempts were made on Karin Von Aroldingen (and perhaps others) to remedy the sense of lack during Farrell's Bejart sojourn. However, I thought Ms. Croce went a little far in her assessments of Ms. Aroldingen's talents, which she thought limited, unless she was referring the attempt to 'farrellize' her. I thought Von Aroldingen could be very haunting and moving and was an especially sensitive artist, so my guess is that that occurred as a result of that difficult period.

It's often the quieter, less bravura aspects of technique that get lost in a discussion of a dancer's technique, the assumption being that arms and line are the "easy stuff" than any dancer can do if s/he put his or her mind to it. (If they are so easy, then why do so relatively few actually do them?) While there were steps and moves beyond Saland's technique, it wasn't just as a dramatic ballerina or late muse of Robbins that she was noted for: she had some of the most beautiful basic technique of anyone in the Company. For example, I don't know of any other dancer at NYCB who did sur le cou-de-pied with the same quietness and precision as she. It seems like a small thing, but then so does tendu, and it's the basis for developpe.

That's an excellent point, Helene. The most difficult things to do in ballet are also (seemingly) the simplest.

Thank you, Helene--

Saland was an exquisite dancer, and one of the greatest experiences of my dance-going life was seeing her borne off to Paradise at the end of Serenade. I've seen the waltz-girl before , and I love Serenade every time I see it, but Saland made that finale make me want to shout "Holy!" and fall on my knees.... And she did it simply, but with the grandest imaginable phrasing, by ennobling her lines with a gradually but steadily accelerating intensity that corresponded to the brightening of the light as she got nearer and nearer its source.

Just a reminder that although Saland may be famous for a "lack of technique," she did dance the lead in Square Dance. (Once.) Not brilliantly, but certainly respectably. I'm pretty sure she was still in the corps at the time. Another example of giving a promising youngster an opportunity to break through.