Search

Aiming to challenge the notion that the ballet lexicon is ahistorical, this study focuses on the ballet classroom. Training plays a vital role in how ballets are performed, and past choreography needs a different approach from that of contemporary ballets. Previous studies of classroom movement, while acknowledging different Schools, have not dealt with the effect on the dancer of diverse training systems. To explore this, I filmed three students from the Royal Ballet School, who learned sections from a syllabus, constructed by Ninette de Valois in 1947, to investigate how aesthetic values, implicit in the syllabus, differed from those of today. Contemporary source material was used to examine the values of the era revealing the extent to which those principles significantly influenced the syllabus. To test this, the study compared the English values with those of George Balanchine and contemporary American writers. Balanchine's classroom technique was also largely constructed at about the same time as de Valois's. The findings show that embodying the past through earlier values can be an effective way of communicating with today's dancers, highlighting how such principles change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This book review discusses the biography of Michael Somes, a dancer, director, and choreographer in the Royal Ballet. The author highlights Somes' influence on Frederick Ashton and the careers of many principal dancers in the company. The biography explores Somes' early training, his rise to principal dancer and partner of Margot Fonteyn, and his later roles as repetiteur and assistant director. The review acknowledges Somes' strict discipline and irascible nature, but also emphasizes his generosity, love for the dancers, and dedication to the art of ballet. The author notes that Somes' contributions were privately acknowledged by the company, despite his abrupt dismissal in 1984. The review concludes by praising the book as a fascinating and readable history of English ballet from the 1940s onwards. [Extracted from the article]

In recent years there has been a remarkable proliferation of ballet competitions. This prompts a number of questions, in particular how much are they affecting current training and performance practice and, more fundamentally, whether the notion of competition may be antithetical to dance as art. Underlying these questions is the issue of judgement. On what basis are decisions made by dance adjudicators and how do they differ from those made by judges of the "aesthetic sports" such as gymnastic or ice skating competitions? In the following article, I examine two prestigious competitions, to try to find some answers to these questions. This leads me to explore the problems that are caused by equating classroom vocabulary with choreographed movement and also to discuss whether the use of nineteenth century dances as the dominant, designated competition variation is leading both judges and competitors to value technical achievement over artistic performance. To do this, I draw on aesthetic theory, which offers a way of distinguishing between aesthetic and artistic judgements. My aim is to instigate a discussion between philosophy and dance, in order to shed light on some of the problems that arise as a result of ballet competitions and to discover whether in fact they can be considered damaging to the future of ballet. (Contains 49 notes.)

The purpose of this research is to instigate a debate about the way in which professional ballet dancers are trained and the content of that training. The literature on the teaching of ballet has always focused on two areas: ballet vocabulary and training. The former is treated as both a fixed and autonomous form, and, for the latter, methods of training have hardly changed since the middle of the last century. The standard training is almost entirely teacher led and gives the student little opportunity for dialogue or dissension. There is almost no research which challenges this situation but the teaching methods and tenacious way in which tradition, or what is perceived to be tradition, is upheld is, I believe, leading to a loss of creativity in both the dancing and the making of dances. This paper explores these problems. I begin by outlining the problem and, using theory developed from Pierre Bourdieu, suggest some possible reasons for the reluctance or inability of pedagogues to embrace change. I follow with a brief discussion of training systems (Ninette de Valois' Vaganova in particular) indicating both the stylistic values underpinning each system and the outcome of those values on the dancer's body. To illustrate more fully the effect of training styles on dancers' bodies, I focus on two performances of the same work and highlight how dancers with dissimilar training present very different interpretations. The paper closes with some suggestions for instigating change. (Contains 4 notes.)