In a Dancing Times review of the Royal Ballet's Swan Lake Jonathan Gray wrote of Lauren Cuthbertson (in an otherwise positive review, btw) that her hands and feet are 'proportionately too small to be seriously considered for a perfect classical line'.

So, what is perfect classical line (proportions, carriage, geometry etc) and who has it?

I bristle when critics use terms like "perfect" and "pure" or "purity," especially in an excluding way, as the above example seems to. How small is too small? What's the correct proportion, exactly, of one body part to another? Sometimes it's such a vague "I-know-it-when-I-see-it" definition--which is strange for something that seems to have such a precise geometrical basis!--other times these descriptions are so arbitrarily exact it sounds no more enlightened than dog breeders talking about the "proper" height of the haunches. Clearly, as seen by the thread on changes to technique over the years, these ideals, supposedly etched in stone, change with the times. A different question: why are notions of "classical perfection" important to us as viewers?

This reminds me of judging a dog show where some standard is defined as "perfect". ICK for humans and it is weird enough for animals. Wasn't this called eugenics?

I am not terribly experienced in these things, but I have seen many dancers which look balanced, proportioned and in control of their bodies. I suppose they have gotten onto a stage because they have all the right stuff and the differences are often pretty subtle... but they do exist. But that makes it interesting doesn't it?

I would think that unless these so called "standards" are defined it is largely a matter of taste and may change over time and will vary from individual to individual observer.

Look at classical sculpture to see who our concept of beauty has evolved.

I find most dancers exquisite and that is fine with me.

Yes, I think you're catching my sense of unease with such terms. Yet my unease is within, too, because while I value diversity among dancers I also derive pleasure from seeing the uniformity of "exquisite" bodies at a performance of, say, the Kirov's Swan Lake or Bayadere (a topic I'm sure we've covered in other posts).

I agree that these labels can be used arbitrarily and unfairly. Almost as much as "musicality."

However, humans going back to the classical Greeks have held up one sort of body type -- and movement -- as an ideal. This varied has over time, of course. Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man is a famous example:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Le...truvian_Man.JPG

The questions scherzo raises is really interesting. We certainly see the concept of "line" being used frequently in ballet criticism -- on Ballet Talk, too. Those who talk about "good" or "bad" line are presupposing an ideal type -- a "look" -- against which the individual dancer is being compared. Now that I think of it, the term is rarely defined by those who use it, which may indeed give the impression of arbitrariness.

It's a big topic, but worth pursuing. We have so many knowledgeable people here on Ballet Talk who I know can provide some answers.

To repeat scherzo's original questions: I'd add another: how and when did this idealized concept of "perfect line" develop in the history of ballet?

Well, some humans in the West, at least.

Interesting thoughts, thanks. What you call excluding, I call setting standards, i.e. recognizing ideals, which as Bart points out, has long been done. In this case, if I read scherzo correctly, while noting that Cuthbertson lacked the physical proportions necessary for perfection, the critic otherwise praised her performance, not excluding, but ranking.

Even with the caveat someone posted below, this is not factually accurate.
The Greek canonical body type shifted over time, with some putting it as height equalling 7 heads, others 8 heads (stacked vertically).

Vitruvian man was a Roman Architect's puzzle which people set themselves to solving again during the Renaissance (both Leonardo in Italy and Durer in Germany among others) but ultimately the renaissance period was one in which a canon was being sought, but no one really established one definitive one.

Even looking at Durer's figures and those of the Italian Ren--both based in theory on Vitruvius--there are clear differences in body type, if not in height/length of limbs etc.

Furthermore the Mannerist period was characterized by a very different sort of body type, with elongated limbs and hands and a very small oval head.

Then there was Rubens.

I'm not sure what you meant by "this varied has over time"--maybe what you meant is that every period seems to hold up an ideal of beauty, though these ideals are very different for different periods. But that isn't how it came across.

Even the notion of proportion of the human form is rather vague. We tend to find long legs and shorter torsos more attractive than the reverse. Why this is so is hard to rationalize, yet our eyes get trained, most probably by the media and the images we are bombarded with.

The average male finds larger breasts as more attractive in a female along with a curvy silhouette a la Pam Andersen. I would think most ballet dancers and balletomanes find that form disproportionate and less appealing aesthetically and would find a lithe dancer's body to be more the ideal.

The term "line" is also unclear in my mind as I am not sure it it refers to a static image... as in a single frame captured form a movement.. or is in fact the entire movement. I would think it is the latter and this is where line might intersect with musicality, ie where the dancers movements are so perfectly in tune/timing and coordinated with the rhythm and tempo of the music... that it seems to flow right through their body in perfect synchronicity. So it's not JUST seeing the movement, but hearing music AND seeing the movement.

You could be deaf and love ballet, because of the visual aspect alone. But with the music it takes on a whole other dimension. So is the term "line" used absent music... and even absent movement, or does it include movement and music?

Help!!!!!!!!!!!!

Personally, I find Gray's comments to be petty, picayune, and above all, untrue.

I understand this gets into the area of prejudice and exclusion, but at the same time, form, line and shape in choreography are meaning. Dancers who cannot sustain a line because of their proportions don't have the same impact in adagio - dancers who can't move quickly because of extended limbs have a similar problem in allegro. Another example from choreography - Aria I in Stravinsky Violin Concerto doesn't look the same on a dancer with "proper" classical proportions - it was built on Karin von Aroldingen, who had a very long back and Balanchine used it in a series of backbends.

Yes, it's wrong to be closed minded and exclusionary but there is also a difference between how Herman Cornejo and Marcelo Gomes look in a role. They don't look the same. It doesn't mean the same thing when they dance. They aren't appropriate for the same parts.

Ideals of beauty do shift to some degree over time and according to place, but every culture and sub-culture has ideals, so I don't fault the critic for referencing a current one. To my mind, that's his job: ballet is in large part about achieving ideal beauty. And speaking of a particular ideal, I'm excited about Christopher Wheeldon's new company, but I don't like the ideal image offered on his website. Maybe it should be, Morphoses: The Shape-Shifting Company.

Just remember, opinions are a lot like noses. Everybody has at least one, and almost all of them smell. Except that some smell better than others.

Leigh, I do agree with a lot of what you said, but I think one of the things that is interesting (and often beautiful) in dance is different dancers each bring something of themselves to the role. Of course the 2 dancers you mentioned above don't look the same in a role, or dance it the same, but neither do Gomes and Hallberg (whose lines are beautiful in my opinion--his feet almost make me cry).

Most roles, no, I can't see both Gomes and Cornejo doing--but romeo? I would have loved it if Cornejo had been given the opportunity to dance that in NYC.

I would have also liked to see him take on the prince in SB--yes he's more of a bluebird, but it would have at the least been interesting, at best, very good indeed (nb--no commentary on how nothing could make ABT's SB very good is necessary, I mean more hypothetically!)

I regret not having spelled this out in greater detail. Thank you for your very informed discussion of just the kind of variations I might have mentioned.

We seem to have two dicussions going in parallel but not very connected lines. The issue of body types and inclusion/ exclusion is not, I think, what scherzo proposed at the start of this thread. Few of us will disagree that there are many perfectly wonderful body types and that none should be excluded from respect and attention. I cannot imagine any disagreement over the statement that the "ideal" of physical beauty has varied tremendously over time and by culture (even sub-culture). As Ray says, we've discussed these issues extensively in other threads and other forums.

However, the question scherzo raised focuses more narrowly on classical ballet and the standards of beauty that have tended to be applied in classical ballet. The focus was on that hard-to-pin-down element called "line." I don't recall this precise topic on Ballet Talk ... and I hope it won't get lost in the fascination we all have over the larger related issues.

I don't disagree. What I object to is critics taking refuge in "standards" that they don't do enough work to articulate or contextualize. Your brief comment above, Leigh, said reams more than most critics do, including Gray: you gave reasons why a certain dancer's proportions matter without recoursing to uncritical, "timeless" notions of "purity" or "perfection."

Can some provide a good definition of "line".... please. I can't find it... but I have seen the word used here and have gathered the meaning from context. This is clearly a word with a very specific meaning in ballet. no?

Thanks for stating so succinctly something I'm sure we all agree on. Meaning and "the perfect line" change over time in an organic process, I suppose. Balanchine absorbing America meant something else in Agon than he had in Symphonie Concertante. A young person new to ballet at the Vail Festival would find a somewhat dissimilar meaning in Wheeldon's Polyphonia (itself influenced by "Agon," of course) than an experienced viewer, and if Wheeldon succeeds in his vision, he may change the ideal of perfect line as he pours his own experience into it.

SanderO, I identify with your confusion. This made me turn to Robert Greskovic's Ballet 101 (pp. 151-52), where I found a wonderful discussion of the topic.

Here are a few of the highlights (I'm skipping around just a bit, in the interests of answering a few questions, and with apologies to Mr. Greskovic.)

What it's not:

So what IS essential line?

How to look for it:

Bart,

Thanks, but I must say that that is really a whole lot of words that do not provide a definition. I don't know who that author is but I think he might find a better editor.

Sorry, now in one paragraph, Line is:

Here are a few concrete elements to line most balletomanes look for.

Turnout

Feet -
Feet point, toes are agile and nimble.
Ankles work as well as toes.

Straight knees. Speaking of trends in line, hyperextension goes into and out of fashion.

Arms and hands - what people look for has a lot to do with their training. As a stereotype, Balanchine involves a hand with the fingers spread and is "wristy." The fingerss at the RB are held more closely together, the wrists are much softer producing a full soft curve to the arm rather than a break at the wrist.

Extension.

Proportion. The stereotype - longer limbs, shorter torso, small head.

-----

One hopes a discussion of line doesn't happen in a vacuum. Certainly just because two dancers are different in type it does not follow that they have no overlapping roles. Part of the job of the artistic director is to advocate for a ballet - this starts by understanding it. To understand "Agon" or "Giselle" as a director is to know what it means and how it needs to look to project its meaning. Casting should flow from that. The ballet ought to come first.

Ah what a wonderful description by Mr. Greskovic. Here is a similar explanation by the NYTimes' Gia Kourlas...(maybe paraphrasing Greskovic?) I once sent it in appreciation to a dancer who has exquisite line and uses that internal & external ability both in solo and in partnering to beautiful effect.

"Classical dancers are commonly judged on their execution of steps, but what matters most is the whole package, specifically the hard-won combination of musicality and line, a slippery concept that connects a dancer's movement to his or her core. It means that every muscle and bone--from the toe to the fingertips--is working in exquisite harmony.
Proportion, highly arched feet, and long, straight legs figure into the equation, but the dancer with the extra-special something is able to radiate that internal power without thinking about how to do it. Dancing is not a mindless activity, but it is about watching the body, not the mind, solve problems under extreme circumstances."

SO TRUE.


Forgot to add:
RE: Cornejo and Gomes, I disagree with Mr. Witchel. Both Cornejo and Gomes are proportioned well enough, and talented enough to project beautiful line, and so, are BOTH able to perform ALL roles. I don't think "line" is the deciding aesthetic in casting choices, but rather height differentials in partnering. I saw Herman Cornejo do Prince Desire in Costa Mesa, and given an excellent partner in proportion with him (which he had in Sarah Lane) there were no problems that I saw in his technical, dramatic, or aesthetic abilities to project line.

Just simply defining "line" is quite difficult. Putting it in the simplest of terms from a technical standpoint, in my opinion, "line" is a specific position a dancer makes that is found aesthetically pleasing to the eye, no matter what length of legs you have, how beautiful your feet are, or what kind of choreography you are dancing.
Than again, that is the simplest of terms in my opinion.

Going back to the original question you asked about classical lines.
Obviously, we all know that certain famous dancers are well known for their beautiful bodies (Sylvie Guillem, Svetlana Zahkarova, Polina, etc.). These are very classical dancers in my opinion (which is not to say they can or cannot dance neo-classically or contemporary, etc.)... and I'm sure if you were to search for pictures of them on the web, you would (in my opinion) see what a classical line is. They have "ideal" bodies for ballet.

There are also neoclassical lines, which are very different from classical lines, and are also hard to achieve as most of them are off-balance.

I'd argue that both Guillem and Zakharova have neo-classical rather than classical lines. A dancer using a classical line wouldn't push her extension as far as either did.

A classical line emphasizes harmony and proportion, a neoclassical line length and sweep.

Classical lines - Fonteyn, Platel
Neoclassical - Farrell, Guillem

I'm hoping Alexandra will jump in here and correct me if she has a better definition (I'm not the one who studied it)

Hyper extension is not classical because?

Is this the result of extreme athleticism?

What's the deal with hyper extensions? Is it virtuosity.

If line involves musicality, then one cannot see it in a still photo... no? What would be the word to describe such a perfect "pose/position" revealed in a photo?

Sorry for all the dumb questions... but this is my learning lab and you geniuses are the best teachers.

Gomes in Brian Shaw's part in Symphonic Variations.
Cornejo in Michael Somes'

Gomes as Oberon in Balanchine's Midsummer
Cornejo as Oberon in Ashton's

It's a real stretch to say that a great dancer is great in any role. Interesting, yes. Great, no. A service to the ballet, only maybe. You may want to see dancers you like in every role. I sure do. But at some point casting should be decided by neither line nor partnership (that's how we've gotten the Mutt and Jeff Mozartiana when the role was made on two men of equal build - yet another case where type matters) but by the ballet. What does the ballet require?

Well, it depends on which hyperextensions you're referring to. Hyperextended knees (where the knee locks behind the leg's plumb line) is one clear distortion. Six o'clock-ish extensions in second position require displacement of the pelvis, throwing off the nose-to-heel (on pointe) plumbline. These days, that imagined line is usually displaced at least a little, and each dancer must find that level where her/his leg is high enough but one can still sense the continuous energy flow uninterrupted from the center through and beyond the extremities.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you must.

You can find clips on the web of Cojocaru rehearsing Giselle. She has very high extensions. In this context, using her full range of movement distorts the choreography, drawing attention away from the smaller, aerial steps which, IMO, define Giselle, especially in Act II. It ruins the proportionality of the phrase. A shame, because she has within her the makings of an amazing Giselle, if only she'd lower that leg a bit.

Hyperextension is anatomical, not classical. Some very fine classical dancers have had it, and done perfectly well. As explained above by carbro, hyperextension refers to any joint which, at full travel, locks "in back of" straight. It's what kids used to call "double-jointed", especially when seen in the arms.

In line with the discussion going on about Wheeldon's neological pronunciation of "morphosis/es", perhaps we should be careful against applying an anatomical name for "sticking the leg way the up there in the air."

According to Gail Grant, line is, "the outline presented by a dancer while executing steps and poses. A dancer is said to have a good or bad sense of line according to the arrangement of head, body, legs and arms in a pose or movement. A good line is absolutely indispensable to the classical dancer."


I don't think line really has anything to do with musicality, except in the sense that to be a ballet dancer, one must have both--a beautiful line moving harmoniously with the music, expressing whatever the characterization requires.

Somewhere around here Alexandra wrote a definition of various types of emploi in relation to dancers' proportion and the shapes they make. I'll try to find it.

Hans,

That was excellent. I am starting to understand how this term is used. Of course it appears to be more than JUST the arrangement of the body, because it has to also deal with.... I think... with the dancer's body... shape, proportion and even musculature.

I would think a dancer with a great body, well proportioned who was able to arrange their parts into a perfect form would them have a perfect line... and classical line would... be represented by formal classical steps, positions etc. I suppose to achieve this requires a complete awareness of the body in space and how to make it appear thus beginning from the skeleton right out to the skin from toe to finger tips.

What does the ballet require? Someone who can execute the steps correctly; if it's a story-ballet, who can act; who understands line, musical phrasing, and continuity of movement. Beyond that, I do not care if they are tall, blonde, and blue-eyed, or shorter, dark, and brown-eyed. If they are physically in proportion, no matter the height, and not glaringly, obviously, different in proportion with a partner or cast, then I do not see why anyone cannot do a part. I will admit in some ballets, it MAY be more aesthetically pleasing to have longer limbs with greater extensions, but I don't feel it is absolutely necessary.

I'm not talking about aesthetics nor about the ability of dancers to do the steps in a role.

The ballet's meaning is independent of the dancer. Some of that has to do with the shape of the choreography. The shape is more than the steps - I'll use the example of Mozartiana, where the meaning has been distorted by tall-short casting (that was probably originally done to give Gen Horiuchi a role that did not require partnering) instead of the casting of two similar men. Watch the tape of it done by Andersen and Castelli with Farrell and you will see a ballet that makes more sense than the ballet as done today.

Another example is in Balanchine's Midsummer Night's Dream, where even though Melissa Hayden originally danced the part because of injury to Diana Adams, the point of the casting is the shape produced by height differences - a tall Titania and short Oberon - and conversely a short woman and tall man in the second act divertissement.

Thanks to scherzo for a very good question. There have been several very good answers here. I second what Leigh and Hans have written about line (and the quote from Ballet 101, of course) -- it's more than having a pleasing body. It's how the body is used. (I once was given a very interesting example of how line -- the harmonious arrangement of limbs, the way the upper body of a dancer in arabesque was tilted a bit forward, the harmony of his extended leg with the opposite arm -- was also a demonstration of that dancer's musicality.)

I think the "any dancer can dance any role and it's just a matter of opinion" is one of the biggest problems in ballet today, and it's happened because there isn't a real leader, either choreographer, dancer or company, in classical ballet. We've gone through times like this in the past, and it always gets sorted out when a leader emerges, yells at the children, and everyone gets back in line (that's the other kind of line, the line you make at a grocery store). At a certain level -- Baryshnikov, Makarova -- any dancer should be able to dance anything they want; they've earned the right. And they'll know in their heart of hearts whether they're suited to the role or not. But generally, the major classical Schools know exactly what their school demands in line, placement, turnout, how high the leg should be extended and how the little finger should be crooked, or not. What to many viewers might seem a tiny detail is cosmic to a dancer -- or should be. Many dancers don't understand line, I've found, especially if someone has told them have don't get to dance X or Y role because they "don't have the line for it"

Line is a part of employ -- the 17th century idea that there are three (or four, depending on the country and decade) general types of dancers: tall and elegant, dancing slow and stately measures; slightly smaller and quicker, though still elegant; shorter and comic; forceful and rather coarse. These categories were never iron clad and have slipped around over the years. In recent years, for example, the "ideal" Odette has changed a great deal. I remember when Lesley Collier danced the role in New York for the first time in the mid-1970s, the NY Times wrote, "We will probably never see anyone with her line in this role again." She was rather short-limbed, and the role was becoming (and now has definitely become) a role for long-legged ballerinas.

As several people have mentioned, we've had several discussions on this forum in the past about employ, and why it matters that a dancer fits the role. Dancers usually recognize this -- we've had comments here, and I've had them, and read them, in interviews, of a dancer saying how roles by one choreographer or made on one dancer or type of dancer suited them perfectly, while others weren't quite a fit. If you ever see a ballet cast as the choreographer intended it, you might see a difference in the way the ballet looks: the geometry of the work is clear, especially in a ballet -- like Balanchine's "Midsumner" of "Stravinsky Violin Concerto" -- where height is a subtext.

As for scherzo's original question, I don't know Ms. Cuthbertson's dancing well enough to comment on the comment. Some critics don't know what they're talking about, but some actually do They can't write a detailed explanation of what line is because of space -- we've had that comment made here time after time, and it's true -- and also because a review isn't a lesson in ballet appreciation. I learned much of what I know about dancing from reading reviews and trying to figure out what in the *** the person meant -- take Croce's comment that the ballerina role in "Theme and Variations" was an adagio role made for an allegro dancer (Alicia Alonso). That's about line and employ, and it took me a couple of seasons to decode. Another help to me was Nancy Reynolds' "Repertory in Review." While reading through it, I noticed that, for example, Bart Cook was being cast in all of Jean-Pierre Bonnefoux's roles, and I didn't see that they were alike physically. I figured Balanchine probably knew what he was doing, though, and realized it was the key to something I was trying to understand. So I started to look for other similar pairings, and traced roles back to their origins, through several generations of casts. I was also reading at the time about "the McBride line and the Farrell line" -- another kind of "line," the line that connects dancers within a similar repertory. All of these things were very helpful in figuring out what both kinds of "line" mean. In today's anything goes world, there are very few models. We don't have the chance to look at perfectly cast ballets very often, and so it's harder to get one's bearings, I think.

None of this is to say that there's anything wrong about liking a dancer who "shouldn't" be dancing a role -- that's personal taste. But there *is* something to why ballet masters cast certain dancers in

Leigh and I were posting at the same time, and I'd like to second something he wrote in the post above mine:

"The ballet's meaning is independent of the dancer. Some of that has to do with the shape of the choreography."

I agree with that -- some would not, believing that it's all about the performance, and that the ballets should serve the dancers and not the other way around. That, as much as personal taste in leg length and hair color, may well be why there are disagreements about this and other aesthetic issues.

Hope this isn't all OT...
Ok, maybe I'm obtuse. I understand the point about the "shape" of choreography, if not always "meaning", which to me is a SUBJECTIVE decision akin to a zillion viewers having a zillion ideas about the "meaning" of an abstract painting. (I have a funny cartoon at home showing a professor/lecturer going on and on about the "deepest emotional horror/angst etc. etc". in an abstract painting, only to discover afterwards that it's title was "Pink Snow Bunny".) Of course there are many opportunities to express emotions or situations through choreography and its musical accompaniment, but does each step have a "backstory"? Or a POV? What is the "meaning" of a dance?

Of course much of what I say above, is contradicted by my posts last year about seeing dancers' technique and personalities inherent in steps created originally on them, and later danced by others. But all of it emanates from my wish not to typecast dancers based on body types, if their technical/artistic abilities are already at a top professional standard.

Returning to original topic of "line"
Line to me has always been a technical knowledge expressed artistically. That is, a true artist knows how to use an inherent technical knowledge of line continuously to express and enhance the presentation/performance/viewer's understanding.

Muddled musings as usual.

As far as each step having a backstory and/or point of view, I would say it depends. Some choreographers intend this, others do not, and others have their own meaning but intend for the audience members to figure it out for themselves, and if they see a different meaning, that is fine. There are probably many gradations of all that, too. Some stagers and dancers make up their own backstories, usually to explain a step or gesture they don't understand, and sometimes it works (although I think it usually doesn't). The trouble with ballet is that it isn't like a book, painting, or even a symphony because its "text" (the steps) changes every time it is re-staged, and perhaps even with each performance, so people come away seeing very different things and there isn't always a way to reconcile that to a set-in-stone original and analyze who gathered what meaning from which movements.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that you're right, "meaning" in dance very often is subjective, whatever the choreographer intends, and unlike other more static art forms, there isn't always a way to find out what s/he intends the dance to mean, if anything, and if the dancer or stager comes up with his/her own "meaning" for the dance, the choreographer's intentions are distorted and the audience has to draw its own conclusions anyway.

EDIT: Upon re-reading this, I feel I made it sound as if some choreographers purposely create totally pointless dances, which is not what I meant. The difference between playing around with movement and creating a cohesive work of art is, IMO, usually pretty obvious at first glance, and even if the choreographer is not conscious of a specific meaning, even one s/he keeps totally to him/herself, there is nevertheless still something there driving the dance to its inevitable conclusion.

Yes, sometimes the steps do have a specific meaning, or suggest a specific meaning, and sometimes they're like snowflakes. Each one is different and beautiful, and they don't mean anything in the sense that they're sending us a message in a snowflake verdict of morse code.

Re 4mrdncr's question: "Returning to original topic of "line". Line to me has always been a technical knowledge expressed artistically. That is, a true artist knows how to use an inherent technical knowledge of line continuously to express and enhance the presentation/performance/viewer's understanding," I think line is geometry. Someone without classical line -- Nijinsky, say -- could be a consummate artist and expressed the choreographer's intentions beautifully (we can see that in the photos). People who have line have it. It's the way their body makes shapes. It's possible that someone with beautiful lines could be totally uninteresting as an artist -- unless all you're into is geometry. (And there are empty vessels that I've enjoyed watching, simply because they make such beautiful shapes!) They're two different things.

If we're talking about the ideal type of "perfect" line, wouldn't costuming also play a role? For instance, is it possible to have classical line in boots? Or high-heeled shoes? Greskovic refers to this briefly when discussing the street dancing by the harlots in MacMillan's Romeo and Juliet. Or, on the other hand, is "perfect line" something you only see in "perfectly classical" choreography?

By and large.

Line is a function of adagio. Allegro was even used to conceal lack of line (see Vestris). You're not going to see classical use of line in character dancing; they're generally spirited allegro dances about movement rather than shape.

What an interesting and serious discussion that goes to the heart of modern performance of academic classical ballet.

I don't know if anyone has already said "line is everything" in classical ballet they should have because that is exactly what 'classical' implies.

“However, humans going back to the classical Greeks have held up one sort of body type -- and movement -- as an ideal. This varied has over time, of course. Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man is a famous example:�

Leonardo’s 15th century translation of the architect Vitruvius’s (died circa AD20) idealized balance of the human figure, whilst conjuring up an aesthetic for academic classical ballet is for me superceded in balletic imagery by the Flemish mannerist sculptor Giambologna’s (1529-1608) “The Flying Mercuryâ€� created in 1564 as it beautifies the harmonic line in a pose of the god who flies through the air. This statue’s beautiful movement is echoed in his “Angelâ€� of and his near balletic “Rape of Proserpinaâ€� and the “Fountain of Neptuneâ€�.

“Look at classical sculpture to see who our concept of beauty has evolved.�

Each art form has created its accepted standard from which sub-art forms have appeared and in doing so do are related but quite visibly different. I absolutely do not agree that concepts of beauty evolve. What was beautiful to Greek or Roman eyes more than two thousand years ago remains I would suggest beautiful to most modern eyes. Whereas those that see certain modern works as beautiful remain in a minority which makes the idea that our “…concept of beauty has evolvedâ€� a wildly extravagant claim. We cannot extrapolate the views of a media publicised minority to create a universally accepted measure a “concept of beautyâ€�.

“I bristle when critics use terms like "perfect" and "pure" or "purity," especially in an excluding way, as the above example seems to.â€� ….Clearly, as seen by the thread on changes to technique over the years, these ideals, supposedly etched in stone, change with the times. A different question: why are notions of "classical perfection" important to us as viewers?â€�

Simply because we are discussing an art form called academic classical ballet and not neo-classical or modern classical ballet or dance and when a form becomes diluted in its aesthetics it becomes a bastardized event of an art and not an art in itself.

I do not agree that the appreciation of line is "subjective" I would say it is a shared aesthetic of knowledge. Classical ballet is a 'performance art’ dependant upon individuals, a very few of which, will possess extraordinary qualities that enable them to overcome perceived their limitations of line in performance.

“I'd add another: how and when did this idealized concept of "perfect line" develop in the history of ballet? “ From the moment ballet was created. It took its aesthetics from what was considered harmonious in the other arts and developed folk and court dances from various ethnic backgrounds into a sophisticated form that remained in alignment to sculpture and the rhythmic flow of music. This became a codified form that had various flowerings and developments of which the academic classical ballet is one.

“Can some provide a good definition of "line".... please. I can't find it... but I have seen the word used here and have gathered the meaning from context. This is clearly a word with a very specific meaning in ballet. no?

In academic classical ballet, to define appropriate line to this art form, I believe you have to begin with the way the dancers body relates to the elegant harmony of shape and expressive movement in relation to music and drama that adheres to tenets of the academic school. This should remain the same for every moment of all the Petipa ballets except where expression is required to go outside the canon.

Carbro deliciously explains hyperextension and the hyper-extended and with his, “Just because you can, doesn't mean you must.� is music to my ears. To which I would add and definitely not in Petipa ballets.

When I first started going to the ballet it was the general view that ballet dancers were still divided by emploi within the repertoire. When particular types were rare, e.g. strictly academic classical ballerinas, dancers from the other divisions were allowed to dance
ballerina roles. Those days seem to have of course gone, but one always has the chance to first observe and then avoid.

A particular favourite dancer of mine Svetlana Beriosova considered tall for her time and had 'sway back' legs not fitting the ideal physique of some observers. Madame Beriosova being an artist (and having the advantage of distinguished teachers and choreographers) used this perceived deformity to great advantage in all the great ballerina roles and was much admired.

I can think of a number of excellent Russian and dancers in the UK who were not considered for leading roles in academic classical ballets up until the 1970's and 1980's because they were not considered to be aesthetically correct for particular roles. Regrettably such considerations no longer exist which diminishes the status of what once called a ballerina or a danseur noble an essential and central denomination to the art. This I believe has led to a dilution of the aesthetics in classical ballet as companies pursue goals of being equated with a Broadway or West End entertainment rather than an art. If this sounds pompous on my part, I am not ashamed.

On reading through this discussion for the first time to day, I saw Vestris mentioned but did not see the name of an extremely wise writer on the subject Carlo Blasis.
Instead of reaching for my copy of his, "The Code of Terpsichore" I ‘googled’ and found this site, hdl.loc.gov/loc.music/musdi.251 where everyone can read his views on dancer types and his opinion of requirements in stature and performance. I quickly scanned the chapters on Theatrical Dancing and on each page found substantiated examples of what is required in poses and the performance of steps meet the academic aesthetic.

Alexandra has said, “I think the "any dancer can dance any role and it's just a matter of opinion" is one of the biggest problems in ballet today, and it's happened because there isn't a real leader, choreographer, dancer or company, in classical ballet.�

However unexpectedly, the recent Bolshoi visit to London showed an aesthetic in its performance of classical ballet that to me was only blemished by Svetlana Zakharova. Other Bolshoi dancers who could over-extend their line, did not and I hope this is the result both of Ratmansky's ethos and a new aesthetic in the coaching of roles. Of course the identity of the Bolshoi remains, but to my eyes, it has been tempered with some good taste in the execution of its classical ballet repertoire.

When Alexandra states, “Yes, sometimes the steps do have a specific meaning, or suggest a specific meaning, and sometimes they're like snowflakes. Each one is different and beautiful, and they don't mean anything in the sense that they're sending us a message in a snowflake verdict of morse code.� She is beginning to illumine for others the semiotic code of academic classical ballet which she like others are able to read that leads to understanding classical ballet in a way that not everyone else does.

The language of classical ballet is not arcane and reveals itself immediately to some but only slowly to others. It comes from study when study is not the aim. If this sounds like esotericism it is no mores so than the acquiring a relationship to something in such depth that understanding takes place at a level different to casual encounter. I would say this is what defines the difference to an artistic experience rather than an entertainment experience and what makes every connoisseur a connoisseur of whatever they appreciate and why line mean more to some people than others.

ED: Spelling

Thank you for this, Leonid -- and Amen! I especially loved this line in your post: "I do not agree that the appreciation of line is "subjective" I would say it is a shared aesthetic of knowledge." I think that is very true. Unfortunately, there is little or no dance education in schools, even at university, and so we're not given, as we are in art or music, this shared aesthetic of knowledge. We have to find it on our own.

Leonid,

Thank you to that interesting link at the Library of Congress. It provides some informative reading with videos as well.

I think Plato would understand the concept "perfect classical line" and this is obviously something that only some can attain who begin with the "right stuff".

Thank you, leonid, for helping us to focus this disussion.

I agree with you that we get off-track if we wander off into the contentious area of such questions as "What is beauty?" "What makes something beautiful?" "Is there an ideal, universal idea of the beautiful, or are such judgments socially conditioned or subjective?"

Let's start with the parameters of the original topic (that is, what we are and what we are not, really talking about). It would indeed simplify matters if we could agree to stick to the following, to borrow your words:


Now, once we agree to concentrate on "academic classical ballet," your next proposition follows quite naturally:In other words, if I follow you correctly: within the art form of academic classical ballet, there exists a single, shared, idealized vision of the beautiful. This has been codified into a preferred set of movements and positions that constitute ideal "line." This in turn has become the set of standards which allows us to compare and evaluate individual dancers when they are performing classical works. Such standards will not necessarily apply equally to neo-classical or contemporary work.

Is that a fair summary? Is it something we can all agree on, whatever our larger ideas about the nature of beauty, or of any aesthetic abstraction, may be?

Edited to add:

Code of Terpsichore is indeed a fascinating work. Right click the title and then click "open" to get to the web address.

Blasis recommends that dancers study certain classical and Renaissance works of art for images of the line they should achieve. But he goes further.
His general advice to dancers on how to hold and move their bodies is found HERE
Right click and then click "open."

Bart wrote:



I think this could be a good overarching rule (and very well-phrased!) BUT it changes depending on place and time. So it's totally the same and totally different Which is why we have such interesting discussions! (I would say that neoclassical ballet also has a sense of balletic line, and that the definition of neoclassical has changed from century to century too. Yet we all have at least a vague idea of what it means!)

This all sounds like it reduces to some very quantifiable metrics. A dancer of a specific defined height and proportion who can get their body to move in a prescribed "classical" manner would be exhibiting perfect classical line. Is this defined somewhere?

I think training and experience may also play a great part in being able to present line - I've noticed that for instance when comparing videos of Lopatkina. There is one of her as Myrtha very early in her career, in the mid-90s, and although she of course already had that beautiful body with endless limbs, she didn't seem to control them as completely as she does now. Therefore, her legs in arabesque or her arms might be gorgeous on their own, but on the whole her line was lacking something (not much, but still...). It's not the case in later recordings - every movement is so organic it makes for an ever-flowing line that is mesmerizing to watch.

At the same time, I guess Agnès Letestu would qualify for "wonderful proportions and lines" on paper - but somehow, when she moves, there's always something that breaks the line for me (broken wrists, stiff back - although she can be wonderful in some roles and somehow overcomes this when she dances Odette, maybe because the swan arms are not strictly classical). I guess IMO she has lines, but not line, if that makes sense... And perfect lines may depend on changes in aesthetics, but I don't think line does.

Likewise I can think of the opposite situation - a dancer who does not have perfect proportions, but who has something that makes up for it - a way to present the movement as a whole, perfectly shaped. It reminds me of a debate I read over Evgenia Obraztsova's debut in Giselle, some people stating that her legs were just too short to ever be able to create the illusion of a spirit, whose lines should seemingly dissolve themselves in the air, and therefore be as elongated as possible. Several great dancers of the past had much shorter legs that is the fashion now, so it would seem to me that it's all about the way of presenting the choreography. There's a short video of her debut on Youtube where we see Obraztsova going for a 180° penché in Act II, during the famous sequence of slow developpé/promenade ; well, of course her lines will look too harsh this way, especially if her legs are short... The right romantic arabesque, with the upper body tilted forward and continuing the line of the leg, would seem to create the right feeling when carefully done, regardless of the dancer's height.
Same could actually go for Swan Lake 40 years ago, as someone said, but it's hardly the case anymore. It goes back to the debate over emploi (cf Diana Vishneva's attempt at Odette/Odile), but the ballet was not meant to be "Slow Lake of the Freakishly Long-Limbed" in the beginning after all...
(I hope no one minds my using precise dancers as examples, I mean no disrespect to their work - just some general thoughts they brought to my mind !)

On the contrary. Your examples help me to "see" and give extra life to the discussion. Thank you for that wonderfully thoughtful post, azulynn.

I'll echo bart's thanks, Azulynn. I very much agree with what you wrote: "I think training and experience may also play a great part in being able to present line." There may be some people who walk into ballet school with perfect line, but I don't think it happens often. I think classical line is a product of classical training.

That is an odd image -- I know what the body is doing, and how the ends of the limbs got to be where they are, but the way the image has been manipulated does make it seem quite strange on a first look.

Perhaps an example of how "classical line"....morphs over time.