As far as I know, visible tattoos are more modern on a ballet stage than the extreme extensions we are seeing. Suzanne Farrell had some extreme extensions in "Bournonville Divertissement" (certainly extreme for Bournonville), but Balanchine would have had a heart attack if she had showed up in the studio with a visible tattoo. Semenyaka didn't limit herself to 90 degrees in the "Raymonda" from the 1980's.


I think we'd go bankrupt from the bandwidth costs if everyone pre-faced every opinion on this board with "In my opinion"

Polls like this one solicit aesthetic judgements. We would be a very small discussion board if we agreed on everything.

This made me think of the cavalier-porteur. In recent performances of the aristocratic first movement of Symphony in C, part of Roland Sarabia's tatoo was peaking out above his collar line. Half a tattoo is, for some reason, even more distracting than a complete one.

On the other hand: aristocracy doesn't always mean pure, undefiled skin. Aristocrats in the 18th century had lots of disfiguring skin markings owing to diet, worse bad personal hygiene, and even syphlitic sores. These were often sometimes covered up with patches or thick layers of cosmetics. Aristocratic ladies in the Belle Epoque and the pre World War One era got small tattoos to add a little spice to life. But never, of course, on parts of their bodies that were visible in public.

Very interesting, Bart. Thanks.

People will disagree on whether a bod mod is beautiful or not, but the fact remains that the are modifications of/to the body, its skin of a rather permanent nature.

Ballet as a genre seems to include the platonic notion of a perfect human form in formalized motion. In that sense it is rule based and somewhat "rigid". I don't see how body modifications fit into this sensibility. And I believe most ADs and dancers agree and cover them with make up. They are meant to express something, but that expression is largely or almost exclusively directed to non ballet expressions.

This topic became current when I and several others observed tattoos on classical ballet dancers who obviously were not concealing them and obviously felt that concealment was not in order. Seems as if most disagree with that decision.

I observed a tattoo on the hip of Vishneva at her Beauty performance which was outside the auspices of the ABT. The performance was modern and so a tattoo was less jarring, but it was distracting. Although I didn't care for much of the performance the tattoo grabbed too much of my attention and shattered my illusion of "the classical ballerina". It got me also thinking about Anna Netrebko, a modern diva goes clubbing and partying like other women of her age and how we DO put these artists on some sort of pedestal where we expect them to conform to "classical expectations".

In a sense we in the audience don't "know" our dancers except as we see them in performance and read, perhaps, the occasional press release about their lives. But most ballet dancers seem to lead private lives sheltered from their public. I am not advocating more light, because they deserve their privacy. They give us so much with their artistry.

I suppose it's when the private (bod mods) appears in their artist public life that it may be disturbing or to some thrilling. And when we hold an opinion of something like bod mods it can color how we view these artists in the future. I don't know why, but seeing Ms Vishneva's tattoo makes me see her in a different light on stage.

The odd thing about any personal styling choice is that we are all very different to begin with so what's the big deal? I suppose this applies within a narrow range. I see tatts as a fad and can envision when they are out of style. What then?

So the Poll's questions are somehow tricky. "Love'em", "Hate'em" and "careless" seem to be options regarding tats likeness or not in general, not specifically to be applied only to stage time. For once, I was one of the "Love'em" voters, thinking about tats per se. Now looking to some posters clarifications and faced with the possibility to see a Giselle or a Sylph with one my choice could be probably a different one.

Very well put, SanderO. Thanks. The audience looks for self-expression, but self-expression achieved through the discipline that serves the art form. Anything else is a distraction.

My reaction was the same, Cristian. I was a "love 'em" person, thinking in general terms, but I don't want to see them on stage unless they fit the character and period! I think that tats would be great in "West Side Story", and so would piercings. But unless it's a modern view of the classics, my vote would have to be no to wearing them onstage.

I'm curious about those tiny nose piercings, though: Are there many ballet dancers with them?

vagansmom, I know a number of dancers with nose piercings. It's interesting how that is the one piercing that I don't see removed for performances. Mostly they are so small that they can be dabbed with a tiny bit of makeup or I've known one dancer to put a tiny wax-like substane over it so that it wouldn't sparkle in the light. But with a nose piercing, even if it does shine alittle it simply looks like a tiny glisten of sweat.

I think all other piercings I see removed and tattoos covered with either makeup or "Elastoplast". And most purposely have their tattoos where it is easier to cover them when need be.

I'd have to agree with the general consensus that I wouldn't want to see a tattoo in any classical ballet, ever. But I think in most modern ones too, depending on the size and location of it. If it is a small ankle tattoo it probably wouldn't bother me. But a tattoo of the state you are from across your ribcage (I've seen this) would be distracting to me. I just know I would spend most of my time trying to figure out what it was than actually watching the piece unfold.

Over the course of a career, a dancer has to play different types of characters and express the whole gamut of emotions. It's hard to imagine a tattoo that would be appropriate for every role.

I would be shocked if a ballerina has a tattoo, and would not like to see any signs of tattoos on stage especially when it comes to Classical Ballet.

Why would someone who learns classical arts/ dance want a tattoo?
To me, a tattoo is something modern or contemporary.

However, if the tattoo is on somewhere that can be covered up by costumes, and does not show any signs on stage, I would not think it matters for me.

A role that requires a tattoo does not preclude any dancer from that role. They can apply a tatt as make up, which is what a tatt is, a kind of permanent make up.

With ballet being so much about perfection in form and movement of the human body, it's hard to understand how many tatts could be considered as part of that goal.

I see them as "fashion", despite them being rather permanent, and ballet as being more timeless and classic. I suppose some with tattoos see them as just part of their skin while others see them as something rather different. I find them a distraction and more so in ballet and so I would hope that they dancer and the AD would have the good sense to cover them. Otherwise it's a king of improvisation which appears to step over the line and disrespect the established traditions.

I totally agree with you on the "disrespect the established traditions" part.

As far as tattoos are concerned, I agree with the general consensus of this Board, that in performance of the classical rep, it could be a distraction. (Somehow I can't see Aurora in her pink tutu, and Desire in 18thc. court costume with tattoos, but Carabosse and her minions might not look too bad. And except for the fact that Odile is supposed to be the image of Odette, Odile with a tattoo, like Bourne's use of black leather, would certainly provide a not-so-suble intimation of her/his character; that is, if we didn't start analysing what the tattoo we saw actually was--and so distract ourselves from those 32 fouettes.)

As for piercings, I have seen some health issues, that should be considered...

(Assuming it is removed during performances or miniscule in size.)
It is difficult to keep the pierced area clean with a constant influx of stage makeup and sweat, so I've known at least two dancers who abandoned them because they developed minor infections . And does anyone know what causes keloids? I wouldn't think those were very attractive either.

Also, I've had many dentists/orthodontists tell me tongue piercings have caused several young people to require major reconstructive work done or even false tooth/teeth up front, because the constant tongue clicking (a temptation/habit hard to stop) had cracked the enamel and/or teeth themselves.