The topic got prompted by comments on the visible tattoos of dancers in the ABT City Center Season.

I'm also of an older mindset on this. A dancer I worked with in 1996 and again in 1999 showed up after that hiatus with a very colorful, very visible tattoo on his arm. I was so taken aback that even before I said hello, I burst out, "OH MY GOD YOU GOT A TATTOO. CAN THAT BE COVERED WITH MAKEUP?"

So body modifications - love 'em or hate 'em?

Just guess how I voted!

Maybe "Hate 'em" is a mite too strong, but my choice was clear for reasons previously stated on the current ABT thread.

I answered that I couldn't care less, because the fact is that whenever tattoos have been mentioned on this board, it's come as a surprise to me. I never notice them.

They're distracting.

I don't hate 'em if I can't see 'em on stage.

...can't imagine Marie Taglioni with a tatoo...and there's always the risk of being visible, even with a good make up....

I agree. If the choreographer said that a particular tatoo worked for a piece it would be ok. Other than that it's like altering a costume.

Of course it depends on the tattoo. Today we see all sorts of them on all sorts of people. Body mods have been mainstreamed to a large extent. Most of the larger ones and more visible ones are not attractive to me and some are actually repulsive. That's a strong word, but some body mods are more than mildly unattractive or even very unattractive but can make me have a visceral negative reaction. I can recall being served breakfast in a diner once by a waitress covered in tatts and metal in her face. I lost my appetite, literally.

Some tatts are completely inoffensive and by themselves "pretty", usually when small and discrete. But the idea of doing that to your flesh seems odd to me, especially the permanent nature of them.

Sometimes I see what I think is an attractive person and then see their ink and think, why did they "ruin" themselves? Obviously, they think it an improvement and probably can't even imagine how someone would think the reverse?

There's a TV show called LA Ink and it's advertised on a huge billboard on the west side highway. The woman looks like she made herself into a carnival show "freak" and in a sense you can't see her without being assaulted by all her tattoos.

The more extreme the bod mods, the more I find them offensive. And even when they are small, discrete and "attractive" in themselves, they don't seem to add anything to the human body, they're more like putting a pretty postage stamp on human flesh that you can't get off.

But I'm with Helene, if I can't see them, then I don't care.

Oh, if I can't see them, how do I even know they exist to be objected to? If I don't know they're there, it's a non-issue.

But more and more skin is being exposed these days. Women's midriffs are not a rare sight on the ballet stage, and I've often considered the likelihood that if I were a member of a ballet company, the scar running the full length of one side of my middle would (and should) immediately eliminate some ballets from my rep . And a scar is 1) skin-toned, therefore slightly more innocuous; and 2) in most cases involuntary.

It depends on the ballet or dance, the tattoo itself, and the dancer. I don't want to see any tattoos on ballerinas, but some of the men in some of those ABT 'Swan Lakes' and 'Sleeping Beauty'(s) could perhaps improve the situation with tattoos since so much is gaudy already, and not of the most exquisite variety either-Cornejo, Gomes, and Corella might make good Desires and Siegfrieds with tattoos, and even the Hallberg might be able to do okay with some of them. I don't know if Peter Martins tattooed for 'Tzigane' might have added a dash of something ethnic to his partnering of Ms. Farrell, it might not have hurt. But since this is mostly about permanent tattoos, tattoos as part of the costuming itself is bound to evolve eventually if all this many guys have got them. Probably they should be camouflaged as much as possible until such time as they are used instead of garments, as I've seen in some performance artists like Karen Finley. I wouldn't like to see anybody in 'Jewels' with tattoos.

I think that sums it up pretty well, cubanmiamiboy.



Quite so.

I don’t care for tattoos and don’t understand why people get them, unless you're one of those Russki gangsters on view in ‘Eastern Promises.’ (They looked great on Viggo, though.) On stage they’re less noticeable, but I still don't care to see them. I suppose in some modern works they wouldn’t look strange or out of place.

That seems extreme to me and almost like the purity demanded with monochromatic cygnets, white ballets, etc.. I can't really think of any ballerina whom I thought a great dancer being rightly eliminated from a ballet due to a scar like that, although it's a matter of personal preference of course; to some, it's going to seem sexist of me not to mind the occasional male tattoo (but not prefer it unless the production already seemed somewhat moribund or superficial) and never want to see a tattoo on a ballerina. A tattooed Coppelia--now that sounds hideous. And anything in 'The Nutcracker' too. That POB 'Caligula' with a tattoed hero doesn't sound too bad, though.

For myself personally, I've never even wanted a temporary one, much less any kind of piercing. Worst to me is cheek piercing, which borders on self-flagellation.

If I were to find that my dancer was distractingly tattooed, it would be, "Come, my dear, time for you to learn the wonders of greasepaint and powder, and if that doesn't work, fishskin."

I find most tattoos repulsive, especially the larger ones with yellow and green ink. I can understand the aesthetic in macho, working class guys, but otherwise on an aesthetic level I think they're in bad taste, and on a psychological level they seem to me on par with wearing a baseball cap backwards. There are ways to truly distinguish oneself.

And then there's:

"Patty, do you have a chrysanthemum tattooed on your right lower cheek?"

"No, only a tiny little rosebud!"

"Uh-oh! You may want to look at that again sometime."

Please, can we keep the ballet in its traditional ways...? If we start getting used to tatooed Giselles, what's next...? we might as well eliminate the tutus so we can start seeing hyperextended developes and athletc 6 pm arabesques in full display...Lovely!

I voted "hate 'em," but have reconsidered. Can one take back a vote?

On stage, a tatoo is really a kind of costuming. If the costume is appropriate to the ballet, why not? Papeetepatrick, with his reference to Tzigane, has convinced me. On stage, discreet tattoos can call attention to something different about the character, suggesting something exotic and slightly dangerous. (Sadly, they no longer do this in real life. Most of the time nowadays they seem to be the badge of dullness, attention-seeking and/or conformity.)

For some reason my thoughts went to The Man She Must Marry in Lilac Garden. I always wonder: where did he come from? how did he make his money? why is she being forced to marry him? A small tatoo (on the hand, for instance) would make this figure even more mysterious and ominous. And why not Ali in Corsaire? Carabosse, Rothbart, or Katchei? The Queen and her followers in The Cage? One or two of the sailors in Fancy Free? And then there's Gamzatti (but not Nikiya) in Bayadere. Gamache (but not Basiliio) in Don Q. Abderakham (but not Jean de Brienne) in Raymonda. The Pearly King and Queen in Union Jack. Oberon, Puck or even Titania in Midsummer Night's Dream. The Strip Tease Girl in Slaughter on Tenth Avenue.

Why not insert a drunken visit to a tattoo parlour into Prodigal Son, one more way-station on his road to degradation?

For most ballets, however -- for instance, Agon, with its strict black-and-white costume guidelines, or Liebeslieder Walzer, abstract ballets without characterizations, or the ballets blancs -- the dancers should be tatoo-free.

Ah, yes, "IF." By all means, if . . . But why not a temporary, so that when the Second Sailor (wearing at t-shirt, so we can see it) dances Concerto Barocco the next night (also in short sleeves) he doesn't spoil the pristine look of the celestial slow movement?

An intermission group discussed that and other aspects of costuming. One woman complained that Paloma's earrings in Clear were at odds with her simple beige bra top and belled jazz pants, and shouldn't someone have prevented her from wearing them? Well, as far as I know, earrings are considered as much a part of the costuming as any other article, and whatever Paloma wore on her ears (and escaped my notice) was probably the choreographer's choice.

As a point of clarification, the ABT dancer's tattoo was approximately the size of the lid of take-out coffee, and there were several across the back, each only slightly smaller.

I'm almost sure that's what Bart meant, as would I. A permanent tattoo is not costuming anyway, as it is a real-life tattoo thereafter even had it been made for 'Fancy Free'. This couldn't happen, and I definitely think temporary tattoos for 'Fancy Free' are an excellent idea--wouldn't even be surprised if they hadn't already been used. Ditto 'Slaughter on 10th Avenue' for the men, and some other things.

For the permanent tattoos you're talking about, I think they ought to be covered and camouflaged if they do not coincide with very specific kinds of tough guy characters of the kind bart and I are clearly talking about, although he's added some character roles I haven't had time to think about yet. I don't really like the idea of the Striptease Girl in 'Slaughter' having tattoos personally--because she needs to be a ballet-stripper, not a Coney Island or Bourbon Street stripper. Ali in 'Corsaire' a temporary tattoo--yes, if he could dance it at a Tattoo Level.

Include me in the "hate 'em" in ballet crowd. I bought into the ethic that a dancer's body is a temple. And my feeling about tats is probably why I've never cottoned to Marcovici no matter how good he dances at times. I just can't get past that tear drop.

Well, at least on Ballet Talk, there seems to be a rather strong vote against, with a few neutral.

Anyone out there love 'em or think they're hot on a ballet dancer?

I never saw the Marcovici tear-drop, but will look for it next time. Where is it, please? I think it would look good on him and offer a nice dissonance to his prettiness of rococo style that reminds you of the Ile St. Louis, Carpeaux, and Canova, among other 18th century expressions. In the 80s, shortly after her Playboy spread, the 50s-era starlet and Howard Hughes-heiress Terry Moore, who was born with the world's best genes, had a $1000 diamond teardrop she wore under one eye. We thought that was 'de trop' at the time, but now look back on it with more tolerance. here she is at 74, sans teardrop, looks like she might hire Philip Marlowe for an investigation and change the story around a good bit later:

http://www.imdb.com/gallery/granitz/2456/E...,%20Terry%20(I)

Does she look lovelier with this simpler and more natural look?

Anyway, the answer is no, but I'd like to see Marcovici's anyway. If a diamond teardrop, why not a tattoo teardrop? It sounds like the dancers want to do this anyway, and that's where the buck stops thus far, it seems (at least on the tattoo question.)

These are personal self expression thingies...right? So what about pink hair, or mohawks, or both? All these fall into the category of self expression and one often sees someone will all of the above, hair, tatts and piercings.

When one is involved in a performance, cast in a role, you are essentially a blank canvas to fit into, some rather preconceived "standard". It's pretty clear what that is for dancers, but there is certainly some room for variation. Performers are expected to add a certain je ne c'est quoi to their role, but a body mod I would thing are what is sought.

This crowd seems to find them a distraction and out of place in ballet. I wonder if any companies have any official policy about these things???

When i was in the ballet school,among the first things they told us and our parents at the beginning of the first year was:"forget piercings,tatoos and don't change the colour of your hair!".Look is very important in ballet.I remember our teachers telling us even how to keep our hair.They told us we had to look like people from the 19th century.People of that period didn't have piercings,tatoos,colored-hair,spiky hair....so if we were undecided about changes in our look we just thought if a person from the past would have done that and decided consequently.The fact is: if you have to play Albrecht in Giselle,how can you have a modern look?then i have to say that at some auditions you are not taken if your apparel is not as they like.Tatoos are concerned.About girls i remember they were oblidged to keep long hair and perfectly combed in "chignon",without any single hair coming out.And then sober or without make up.This is just one of the things a dancer can't do in his life;-)

What about chest hair? After all, this subject was precipitated by "Clear," Stanton Welch's bare-chested epic. My eyesight is not great, but everyone looked hairless. Every once in a while some oldtimer will recall NYCB dancer Afshin Mofid's mesmerizing performance in "Afternoon of a Faun." IMO, his modest chest hair had something to do with it. But in a cast of hairless men, it might not be fair.

I've always kept my chest hairs but i have only a few in the middle of chest and a little line going down from my navel.This is nice to see but i admit that more hair on one's chest and even legs are unfair.Imagine an Acteon with much hair on his chest and legs and even worse....ON HIS BACK!It's awful!the Bolshoj corps of ballet danced last year "La Fille du Pharaon": some dancers were really hairy and the costume was a typical short egyptian one....it was a bad sight really!

Why not require dancers to have shaved bodies?

You can't have a tattoo or unusual piercing (at least one that can't be covered) if you're going to be a ballet dancer, at least in one of the major companies. Other types of dance or smaller, less formal companies may be an exception, but my view is that if a choreographer wants a tattoo, that is what temporaries are for.


I always thought that was a mole or birthmark.

Regarding body hair, that is not something one chooses to have; it is there naturally, so I do not have a problem with it, although a close trim is usually a good idea, as that will usually keep the hair from being distracting onstage.

I love topics like this -- the chance to be an AD for a day. All that power!

As with tattoos, I think of male body hair hair as an aspect of costuming (and lighting, too, I suppose, following Hans's suggestion).

If this were Shakespeare, it would be a no-no for Ariel, but okay (maybe even desirable) for Caliban. Apollo, no; Hercules, yes. The Poet in Sylphides, no; Othello, okay. Eros no; Aminta maybe; Orion yes.

Odette with chest hair is okay if it's the Trocks. But not okay for Siegfried, should he remove his shirt.

What about the Faun in Nijinsky's version of the Debussy ballet?

To generalize:

No or very little hair: idealized ballets, abstract ballets, ballets in which corps uniformity is an important element, ballets of adolescent love (eg. Romeo), ballets involving sexlessness (eg. Puck) or ambiguous sexuality.

Hair okay: certain characters in dramatic ballets, especially when unidealized raw sexuality is called for. Or street funkiness (some Tharp, McIntyre, Forsythe).

Decisions, decisions.

I didn't vote in the poll because none of the categories seemed to fit my view. Fine in contemporary or modern ballet but they'd better be covered up for classical or romantic

I voted CCL as the question was specific: tattoos and piercings on ballet dancers, no mention of during performance.

Onstage, if visible, I find them a distraction. Offstage, the dancer should do as s/he wishes; it ain't my business. But please cover them up onstage.

So maybe I should have voted "Hate 'em"?

Chest hair: I noticed in the Wheeldonfest last week that Tyler Angle had impressive chest hair. No one else did. I found it distracting. I have nothing against (male) chest hair. Rather the opposite; I find it makes a great cushion. But onstage a single dancer with a hairy chest among the hairless stands out for reasons having nothing to do with the ballet being performed. I don't feel this way about dance but that probably has to do with the less "formal" nature of dance as opposed to ballet.

I quite like a beautifully done tattoo. The Japanese have made an art form of it as have certain NBA players. Unfortunately the majority of tattoos just look like body scribble.

I did the same, for the same reason.
I think the poll might have benefited from a few more categories. Given the options, it seemed the most accurate response.

You can see it faintly here, on his left cheekbone. I've never noticed it from the audience or even on the few occasions I've spotted him in public. But it can probably be pretty well covered by makeup, touching up between entrances, if necessary.

At least half of them remove (by shaving, waxing or other methods) leg and underarm hair. Those would be the women, and we just take that for granted.

I opt for simplicity Given that we're asking the question on Ballet Talk, "onstage" is implicit.

Parenthetically I was pretty shocked by Radetsky tonight in Clear. I mean this as a compliment, I think, but he's gymmed himself into looking like a porn star.

I guess aurora and I opted for clarity. The (your) question posed was " .. body modifications - love 'em or hate 'em?"

Ballet is like a fairy tale: would you depict a prince as hairy,pierced everywhere with spiky hair and rude ways?That can be Shrek but that's the only case.And what about a dark,tatooed and leather dressed princess chewing gums and driving a motorbike?:-)

On tattoos and piercings:

Too much information for the ballet stage.
Distracting from the task at hand.

That's why I voted 'hate 'em'.

Offstage it's a totally private matter.

Wow...

There are worse images I could think of

WOW!!

Maybe a modelling contract is more what he -- and others who bulk up -- had in mind? Seems like there are an increasing number of print ads for non-dance products and services that use sleek, toned, and seriously air-brushed dancers in scanty dress to catch the eye.

Well, this will lead to novelties just like the other adornments. A ballet dancer who would want 'pornlook' would seem to be something of an oxymoron, and in one case from the past, a tautology--the best-looking ones have enough of it already, but in graceful form; and add-ons are going to be vulgar, like Carmela Soprano's ostentatious ring. I've only seen a few porn stars that came anywhere near having a look that most ballet dancers would want to emulate (maybe no more than two)--it's often a half-wit, vacant, slack-jawed look which is certainly not going to work very long unless the whole domain sells out and there's an 'everybody can do ballet' phenomenon (oh well, there probably will be that kind of thing.)

I think of porn as reductive and art as transcendent, and for that reason I think of the two as antithetical. In the same way, while I find "dirty dancing" a turn off, beautifully danced classical steps can be a turn on, precisely because they're also so much more.

To continue a bit - Lincoln Kirstein wrote about Balanchine's dancers as being angelic, and he meant in a broad sense as beyond human needs and desires. Radetsky's new gymmed-out body (you could make carrot salad on his abs) is the opposite - the idea of the dancer as the perfect specimen of sensuality. For a lot of contemporary repertory, one could argue that his look may very well suit it better.

And he's got quite the tattoo on his shoulder.

Not sweet little Charlie from Seattle

A bit late to the discussion.... I would find tattoos (particularly those that you can see from a distance) to be distracting. I already get distracted enough! For classics such as Sleeping Beauty or Giselle, they would be totally out of place.

Some atheletes cover up their tattoos when competing (I'm thinking of gymnast Blaine Wilson, and soccer star David Beckham). Beckham wears long sleeves to cover up his tattoos (which obviously would not be an option for dancers - unless sleeves were part of the costume) and I think Wilson used skin-colored tape over his tattoo on his ankle (maybe a bandage or something like that). But I think for a dancer, it would be much more difficult to cover it up... (not to mention that whatever method used would have to be so seamless as to not draw even more attention to the tattoo/cover up).

Oh no! I was so startled by Radetsky's deltoids that I completely missed the tatoo!

I voted "love 'em" by the way, because I do. I suppose I would find it a little disconcerting if Odette emerged from the wings with tattoos from wrist to shoulder, but at the end of the day I probably wouldn't find them as irritating and distracting as those feather earmuffs she always seems to sport. They make everyone look 50.

And speaking of making everyone look 50, I wish male dancers could ditch those shellacked back quasi-pompadours that I gather are de rigeur. Yeah, I know it gets their hair out of their eyes, but nobody looks good in them, whereas everyone looks great in bed-head hair, even Prince Siegfried and especially Apollo. And if it's thinning a bit more on top than one would ideally like, just shave it off and be done with it. It's fiercely sexy in a way that a comb-over just never will be and is less distracting than wondering if the carefully arranged remnant of a formerly glorious head of hair is going to fly out of place with the next tour de basque. And can we have some facial hair too, please, while we're updating everyone's look -- De Luz looked great in his R+J goatee (fake or not) and I kind of hoped he could keep it for the rest of the season.

The older I get the younger I want everyone else to look.

Couldn’t agree more. I don’t know why the ballerinas don’t stage tantrums, the way Sally Field does in Soapdish when she has to wear a turban. (“Who am I? Gloria [expletive deleted] Swanson?”)



A comb-over is not sexy, I agree (although General Lee was resorting to it in his forties and still looked very handsome, I must say), but personally I don’t find baldness sexy in general, it’s just – well, they’re bald, that’s all, poor fellows. I suppose if you’ve lost enough hair you might as well remove it all instead of going to desperate and possibly embarrassing measures, but I admit to some perplexity at this whole bald-is-hot thing.



I think so too, GretchenStar, and welcome to the board, incidentally.