problems with ballet: steps, style and training

15

Click here to load reader

Upload: geraldine

Post on 19-Feb-2017

288 views

Category:

Documents


11 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Problems with Ballet: Steps, style and training

This article was downloaded by: [University of California, San Francisco]On: 22 August 2014, At: 23:50Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Research in Dance EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crid20

Problems with Ballet: Steps, style andtrainingGeraldine Morris aa Visiting Lecturer at Froebel College , Roehampton University ofSurrey , Roehampton Lane, London, SW15 5PU, UKPublished online: 25 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Geraldine Morris (2003) Problems with Ballet: Steps, style and training, Researchin Dance Education, 4:1, 17-30, DOI: 10.1080/14647890308308

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14647890308308

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: Problems with Ballet: Steps, style and training

Research in Dance Education, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2003

Problems with Ballet: steps, style andtrainingGERALDINE MORRIS, Visiting Lecturer at Roehampton University ofSurrey, Froebel College, Roehampton Lane, London SW15 5PU, UK

ABSTRACT The purpose of this research is to instigate a debate about the way in whichprofessional ballet dancers are trained and the content of that training. The literature onthe 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, methodsof training have hardly changed since the middle of the last century. The standardtraining is almost entirely teacher led and gives the student little opportunity fordialogue or dissension. There is almost no research which challenges this situation butthe teaching methods and tenacious way in which tradition, or what is perceived to betradition, is upheld is, I believe, leading to a loss of creativity in both the dancing andthe 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 embracechange. I follow with a brief discussion of training systems (Ninette de Valois’Vaganova in particular) indicating both the stylistic values underpinning each systemand the outcome of those values on the dancer’s body. To illustrate more fully the effectof training styles on dancers’ bodies, I focus on two performances of the same work andhighlight how dancers with dissimilar training present very different interpretations.The paper closes with some suggestions for instigating change.

This paper deals with two separate, though related, issues: first, the ballet profession’s[1] preoccupation with training and, secondly, its reluctance to recognise that thepresence of style (Morris, 2000) [2] in all training syllabuses affects dancers’ bodies ina variety of different ways. Training dominates the programme of most professionalschools, with little time and attention given to the dance movement requirements ofchoreographers. The rationale for this is rarely, if ever, discussed but, as a result,students are less conscious of the expressive elements of dances. I believe that this is amajor concern which, if not addressed, could affect ballet’s significance in the future.

The problem became apparent to me while researching the dance movement style ofFrederick Ashton (1904–88). This research involved analysis of video performancesthrough time and it became evident that important stylistic features were graduallybeing eroded in later performances (Morris, 2000). The effect on Ashton’schoreographed movement was to make it similar to that of the contemporary ballet

ISSN 1464–7893 (print)/ISSN 1470-1111 (online)/03/010017–14 2003 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/1464789032000064808

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

23:

50 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4

Page 3: Problems with Ballet: Steps, style and training

18 G. Morris

classroom. My perceptions were supported by critics such as Sorley Walker (1995),Brown (2000) and Vaughan (1996). Others, like the dance academic and teacher ShellyBerg (1992), have also noticed a sameness of performance across the dance movementof a range of different choreographers and, most recently, the Australian critic Jill Sykes(2002) complained that dancers in The Royal Ballet appeared to be interested only inperfecting the steps and promoting virtuosic performance.

Analysis of the Problem

In this paper, I want to suggest that some of the reasons for these problems can beattributed to two elements which are threatening to dominate the teaching of ballet: theacquisition of flamboyant skills, and the mechanics of executing the codified technicalmovements. These concerns encourage both dancers and rehearsal directors to perfectthe technical movements rather than the choreographer’s distinctive use of the balleticlexicon. Equally, the demand for skills can also persuade dancers that the technicalmovement is the dance and prevent them from recognising the differences between thecodified and the choreographed movement.

The situation is not wholly straightforward since there is acceptance of stylisticdiversity in the works of different choreographers. This has given rise to a quest for aninclusive system of training that is style-less and which allows dancers to embrace anystyle of dance movement. What is not generally recognised is that all training systemsproduce dancers with a particular way of articulating ballet’s codified movements. Thiswas accepted in the modern dance world (Preston-Dunlop, 1979, p. 45) and in severalarticles by Adina Armelagos and Mary Sirridge (1977, 1978, 1984), who distinguishbetween different dance genres. The latter two writers are almost alone in danceresearch in discussing dancers’ style and little has been published since their last paper.I want to build on their research by arguing that not only does training play a majorpart in dancers’ movement style but, because of the way in which it is imparted, it canalso inhibit dancers from recognising these stylistic elements.

While there has always been some acknowledgement of stylistic variation acrosstraining systems (Hutchinson Guest, 1981; Boos, 1995), the effects of these on thedancer’s kinaesthetic sense have not been fully acknowledged. Ninette de Valois (1956)applauded diversity in training (Houseal, 1994)—she was constantly revising her owntraining system (interview with Pamela May, 1999) but the revisions were made toaccommodate extra skills and change the way the dancers performed the technicallexicon. In her introduction to Basic Principles of Classical Ballet (Vaganova, 1965) shemakes no mention of the stylistic variations between traditional schools, and commentsonly on their technical differences, though she is fully aware that there are differences(see de Valois, 1937, 1977).

Today it is still acknowledged that there are variations in teachers and training styles,but the consequences are being ignored. This is because many teachers persist in thenotion of a comprehensive system of training that can fulfil all the needs of professionalcompanies. In this paper I suggest that no such system exists as yet, since it is notpossible to separate style from training. This point is substantiated below (see sectionentitled ‘Multiple styles in training’). Today’s professional schools (in Britain: The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

23:

50 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4

Page 4: Problems with Ballet: Steps, style and training

Problems with Ballet 19

Royal Ballet School, English National Ballet School and the Central School of Balletamongst others) place a great emphasis on uniformity, physical fitness and gymnasticcompetence, [3] yet they are equally keen to emphasise their students’ versatility andcapacity to perform all ballet choreography. These aims are not necessarily compatibleand mere technical achievement is unlikely to lead to the kind of interpretativeunderstanding needed for performing choreographed dances. Moreover, since unifor-mity and gymnastic competence are not essential for all choreography, it seemsinappropriate to give such prominence to those skills. The point is supported by myrecent unpublished analysis of Mary Vetsera’s solo dance in Mayerling (MacMillan,1978) undertaken for a paper given in a conference in London in October 2002 onKenneth MacMillan (the papers will be published in 2003). Two Royal Ballet archivefilms were examined. The 1978 version with Lynn Seymour demonstrates Seymour’swillingness to subordinate technical accuracy to the expressive features of the dance.These include the creation of light and shade within a phrase and an extensive use ofthe torso. The latter involved generating movement from the lower pelvis, an approachnot usually associated with ballet. The more recent production with Viviana Durante(1994) has technically accurate movement—according to prevailing values—but almostno expressive use of the body and the dancer pays little heed to basic dynamic concepts.

In order to interpret the dance movement of both past and present works, dancersneed to be more aware of the stylistic implications of their training on their own bodies.This is partially dependent on a teacher’s ability to perceive and acknowledge thestylistic outcomes of the various training systems: for example, The Royal Academy ofDance (1920–) (Espinosa, 1920; Ryman, 1997), the Cecchetti system (1922–) (Beaumont& Idzikowski, 1947), the Bournonville system (1861–), the Vaganova system (1934/37–)or even Balanchine’s approach (in Ashley, 1984; Shorer, 1999). Recognising differencesposes something of a dilemma for the teachers and dancers alike. If they acknowledgethe presence of style it means that the technical exercises are open to personalinterpretation and subject to changing cultural and aesthetic values. This wouldundermine the objectivity of the ballet vocabulary. [4] None of the training manuals ordictionaries accepts this position (Espinoza, 1920; Beaumont & Idzikowski, 1947;Vaganova, 1965; Ashley, 1984; Shorer, 1999; Kersley & Sinclair, 1997; Ryman, 1997,1998; Glasstone, 2001): instructions and definitions are presented as autonomous,impersonal prescriptions for executing ballet’s codified steps ‘correctly’. As far as balletpractitioners are concerned, recognition of stylistic variations in the codified movementis intolerable. According to Joan Lawson (1979, p. 8), dance writer and teacher, theclassical in dance comprises a ‘vocabulary of movement that conforms to rules estab-lished by long practice’. Consequently, there can be no individual interpretation of theserules and no changes made to them. The notion that there are absolute values is, toborrow a phrase from Ann Nugent, ‘ingrained in a cultural ideology [which also] helpsto determine how seeing functions’ (2001, p. 82). This is the predicament for ballettraining today: how can the culturally conditioned eyes of its practitioners be changed?

I want to address this problem by considering the two related issues I set out atthe beginning of this article: first, the widely held conviction that the steps, used totrain dancers, are the dance itself and, secondly, the notion that a trained dancer’s bodycan be free from style. There is much written by ballet pedagogues concerning thetechnical elements of ballet—that is its steps and positions—and almost nothing on

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

23:

50 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4

Page 5: Problems with Ballet: Steps, style and training

20 G. Morris

choreographed dance movement. Before the invention of video and the recognition ofnotation as a valuable tool and resource there was little concrete material that theprofession could refer to, so it is understandable that discussion centred on the balletsteps. But despite the availability of copious video material, the situation has remainedunchanged. I take this to be an indication, albeit tacit, of a belief in the supremacy ofthe ballet steps or codified lexicon. However, I would like to argue that retaining theseviews cramps ballet’s evolution, preventing a vital critical environment from developingand, as a consequence, any relationship ballet might have to today’s culture.

Besides ignoring the concept of choreography, interpreting ballet’s training steps asthe dance itself leads training institutions to assume that their role is to teach studentsto perform the codified steps ‘correctly’, or at least according to the prevailing set ofvalues. This position is reinforced by many of today’s companies, which appear to belooking only for dancers who can execute ‘correct’ technical exercises. I am making thisassumption because most companies audition by holding a class and rarely require theirapplicants to perform choreographed work. [5] To meet their needs, heads of traininginstitutions create new systems of training which are then fixed, usually by the school’sdirector, and which can be insensitive to the requirements of past, and sometimestoday’s, choreography. However, because today’s school directors are unwilling toadmit that all training methods are stylistically informed and thus imbued with certainvalues, they are unable to recognise that their dancers move only according to the valuesingrained in their particular training method. For instance, in a recent letter to TheDancing Times, a school director claimed that there is a form of training which allowsa dancer to ‘integrate effortlessly into a [any] top professional company’ (Stock, 2001,p. 504). This claim is, I believe, seriously flawed for reasons which I develop in the nextsection. Moreover, my claim is supported by the dancer, choreographer and writerSusan Leigh Foster (1997, p. 243), one of the few practitioners to address the conceptualaspects of training. She observes that in ballet training the aim is to acquire only thosephysical skills which are dictated by that system of values. Technique classes, shecontends, are generally confined to the acquisition of technical skills and do not addresssuch elements as interpretation, variation or performance style (1997, p. 238). In mostschools the latter aspects are dealt with in the repertory class, but as long as thetechnical exercises are perceived by teachers and dancers to be the dance, it is thesetechnical steps which are further perfected there. The situation can be further exacer-bated by teachers who, frequently unacquainted with a choreographer’s work, disregardthe stylistic components of the choreography and teach only the mechanics of themovement.

I want to draw attention to this point because even dancers whose own performancesare, or have been, expressively and stylistically informed can at times revert to coachingonly the mechanical aspects of the dance movement. The masterclass given by AnthonyDowell (Nears & Lockyer, 1988) provides an example. Dowell omits to give stylisticadvice and chooses instead to deal with problems of technical execution. He is notusually oblivious to style (see Jordan & Grau, 1996, pp. 147–157, and the forthcomingMacMillan conference papers due for publication in 2003—Dowell, 2003) but in thismasterclass he makes little reference to it and yields to the temptation to focus only onthe mechanics. The point is highlighted because the masterclass is filmed alongside an

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

23:

50 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4

Page 6: Problems with Ballet: Steps, style and training

Problems with Ballet 21

earlier masterclass given on the same material by Frederick Ashton to Dowell andAntoinette Sibley. For example, Ashton makes a point of instructing the dancers togenerate the movement from their shoulders rather than their wrists, yet Dowell fails tonotice the wrist-generated movement in the dancers he is working with.

It is proposed that the combination of ignoring the stylistic outcomes of training witha focus on perfecting performance of technical exercises has far-reaching consequences.Not only does it predispose dancers to dance in a specific way, but it also denies themaccess to different schools of training and, if taken to its logical conclusion, impedestheir ability to meet the dance movement requirements of different choreographers.

I suggest that the reasons for this lack of understanding are twofold: first, the trainingphysically creates the manner in which the dancer moves and, secondly, the ideology ofballet determines how the profession perceives dance. In other words, both dancers andteachers view all dance movement, choreographed or technical, according to the idealsof the ballet lexicon. As far as the physical is concerned, Justin Howse and ShirleyHancock [6] (1992) argue that through repetition the body learns patterns of movementknown as engrams. These enable it to move without consciously having to be aware ofeach body part. The body is thus programmed to move in accordance with specificrepetitive and stylistic patterns.

To address the second point, namely the restrictions imposed by a strongly heldideology, I draw on the theories of Pierre Bourdieu (1977/1985), whose notion of thehabitus and the ways in which it influences our perception of the world is useful here.He is not suggesting that individuals are conditioned nor that they are totally free buthis theories help to explain how it is that highly trained dance specialists are sorestricted by the ballet lexicon that they find it difficult to perceive stylistic nuances assuch and not as technical faults.

According to Bourdieu, all individuals possess a habitus. This can be described as aset of manners and perceptions operating mainly at a subconscious level which affectsa person’s inclination to act in one way rather than another (Robbins, 2000, p. 187).This is not something we are born with; rather, it is a learned process which affects theways in which we move, behave and even think. Because it is acquired early in life andis not absorbed consciously, individuals are unaware that their view of the world iscoloured by their habitus. Bourdieu contends that when individuals are possessed by thehabitus more than they possess it, it acts as the organising principle of their activitiesand, in effect, controls their dispositions (Bourdieu, 1977/1985, p. 48). He is not arguingthat a habitus cannot be changed but that individuals need to be aware of the ways inwhich it operates in order to alter it or its effects on the mind and body.

When this notion is applied to ballet dancers, who not only begin training at an earlyage but are also trained in a way which discourages questions or radical thinking, [7]it is probable that most are controlled by their habitus. They subconsciously embracethe values and aesthetics of the specific balletic culture to which they are exposed andthis affects their movement and thought processes. Or to put this another way, dancersare balletically constructed individuals, with all that this involves physically, culturallyand socially. For instance, the disposition to admire discipline with no regard to physicalcost, to see excessive thinness in females as an ideal, to value symmetrical geometricshapes above asymmetry, to seek conformity, virtuosity and perfection as opposed to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

23:

50 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4

Page 7: Problems with Ballet: Steps, style and training

22 G. Morris

experimentation and idiosyncrasy, are all part of today’s balletic habitus. These valuesin themselves are not necessarily bad but, as the only set of dance values, they arelimiting and ultimately restrict choreographic interpretation and, perhaps, creativity.Apart from the choreographer William Forsythe, and in comparison with choreogra-phers working in modern and post-modern dance, there appears to be a dearth ofinnovative choreographers in ballet (Crow & Jackson, 1999) and it is no longer unusualto find works by Mark Morris, Twyla Tharp, Mats Ek and even Merce Cunningham inthe repertory of classical dance companies. The lack of innovative ballet choreographersmay stem from the attitudes prevalent in ballet institutions. Many of these institutionsare based on 19th-century models where choreography was confined only to theprovince of the ballet master and was not a taught element in the school. Today’sschools may teach some choreography but, for reasons which cannot be developed here,they are not producing choreographers (for further discussion see Palmer, 1996; Crow& Jackson, 1999).

The other aspect of the habitus that is worth discussing is its capacity to censor, orfilter out, information (Bourdieu, 1977/1985, p. 18). Because individuals have onespecific view of the world, other aspects of it remain unnoticed. This means that balletdancers who perceive the ballet steps as style free and universally homogeneous areprevented by their habitus from recognising not only the stylistic differences betweentraining systems but also those between choreographers.

What I am suggesting is that the inability or unwillingness to acknowledge the habituslimits the cognitive development of ballet dancers. Equally, it can sometimes preventeven the most experienced rehearsal directors from noticing when dancers do not fulfilthe stylistic requirements of a specific choreographed dance. [8]

Thus, so far, my point is that the perception of what are primarily training exercisesas the dance itself has led the profession away from an understanding of choreographeddance movement to an ideal concerned solely with achieving technical perfection. Thisideology is reinforced by the training methods creating a habitus which censors, orinhibits, the members of the profession from recognising differences in bothchoreographed and training styles.

Multiple Styles in Training

I now turn to my second point, about the presence of multiple styles in training, andbegin with a brief summary of the evidence upon which this assumption is based.

Writing in the The Dancing Times in 1999, Richard Glasstone separated style fromtechnique, arguing that technique ‘is the ability to execute a given movement or step,starting or finishing at a precise moment in the music’ (p. 951). Whereas Glasstonesuggests that technique is concerned with control of the body, he claims that style isinvolved with a ‘given role’. This is a narrow definition of style which denies thepresence of technical style. His comment is tied to the belief that there is only one‘correct’ way of executing ballet movement and he does not recognise that technique istaught through style (Ward Warren’s interviews, 1996, support my contention, as doesLang, 1995). Throughout 1999, Glasstone wrote a series of articles in which he gaveprescriptive details for accomplishing a range of codified ballet steps. I would like to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

23:

50 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4

Page 8: Problems with Ballet: Steps, style and training

Problems with Ballet 23

argue that these steps are not absolutes and that Glasstone’s approach, like that of manyballet teachers, leaves little room for the inevitable variations which culture or geo-graphic region impose on the steps.

I am not suggesting that Glasstone, a highly succinct writer and excellent teacher, iswrong, simply that an emphasis on ballet steps as being immutable does not encouragecreative and innovative thinking; neither is it helpful for teachers and dancers workingwith the repertory of ballet. Despite this, there are critics and academics who whollysupport his point and indeed the issue is not clear-cut. For instance, John Martin (1980),the critic and dance writer, claimed during the 1930s that the academic code wasinherently autonomous and was not merely a training for the body but an end in itself.This approach appears to ignore the dances which came before the technique wascodified. It also reinforces the notion that the coded movements are the dance and,accordingly, makes them more significant than the choreography. Martin is quoted ina paper by Sandra and Philip Hammond (1989) to support their arguments. In thatpaper they contend that because ballet has a high technical base its technique hasgenerally been autonomous. But they do not confront the issue of technical style,although they do acknowledge this in a footnote, which I consider undermines theirarguments. Sandra Hammond is (an experienced dance scholar) the author of severalpapers on ballet’s technical history (1982, 1987–88, 1992) but nowhere does she considerstylistic implications and their outcome on a dancer’s body.

In recent research, Paola Salosaari (2002), a dancer, teacher and academic, whoexpresses discomfort with the hierarchical ‘teacher-centred manner’ (p. 221) of balletpedagogues, became gradually more conscious of the gap between ‘teaching technicalskills and artistic learning’ (p. 221). Her research was directed towards finding a way ofgiving dance students choices when learning the vocabulary and encouraging them tofind different ways of performing ballet vocabulary. This undoubtedly goes some of theway towards changing the ballet teaching culture but, nevertheless, I take issue with heron the notion that the ballet vocabulary consists of fixed forms (p. 220). My point is thateach recognised system (Cecchetti, RAD, Vaganova, etc.) has a different approach to the‘form’ and that each creates stylistic variation. The following paragraphs provideevidence to support my contention that all training is stylistically informed.

The attitude of the writers in the pedagogic textbooks, ballet dictionaries and bookson ballet technique is consistent with that of Glasstone: all assume that there is only one‘correct’ way of performing the movements and that they are discussing the same seriesof movement patterns. The message conveyed is that these systems all lead to the sameoutcome; just employ the method and follow the rules. Yet in all these manuals (seereferences for a list of manuals consulted) only the spatial constituents of the move-ments—leg, arm and head paths—are prescribed, omitting much other essential infor-mation. For instance, there is rarely any mention of the role of the torso, beyondbending, neither is there any consideration of the dynamic or effort element. In fact, asthe dancer, academic and teacher Toby Bennett [9] pointed out in a recent discussion,the reverse usually occurs since most of the technical terms are interpreted as nounsrather than verbs, thus excluding their dynamic content. Rhythm and tempo ofsequences are also neglected beyond a perfunctory recommendation of a 4/4 or 2/4 timesignal, and the difference between these two is not easily recognisable to the ear.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

23:

50 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4

Page 9: Problems with Ballet: Steps, style and training

24 G. Morris

There are also significant variations in the description of head and arm movementsacross the syllabuses (Ninette de Valois’ for The Royal Ballet/Sadler’s Wells School,Cecchetti, RAD, Vaganova, Bournonville) and these alter even more when transmittedby teachers in the classroom (see Ward Warren, 1996, for evidence that the method usedto teach the movement is not style-less). Moreover, when the steps are joined to produceenchaınements, the ways in which they are connected and the choice of combinationaffects the appearance and execution of the step. Dancers trained in a system whereemphasis is placed on footwork, rapid changes of direction and alterations of the upperbody will perform very differently from those in which body position, expansion of thekinesphere and the ability to cover large areas of space is given priority.

The results of these contrasting values are usually unrecognised and when they areintroduced into choreographed dance movement these variations in technical trainingcan be read as poor or inadequate technique. Consequently, dancers and sometimeswhole companies are criticised for their technical incompetence. For instance, whendiscussing performances of Les Sylphides (Fokine, 1909) the Russian dancer NataliaMakarova finds that The Royal Ballet’s performance leaves much to be desired (1980,p. 118). The implication is that it is badly danced and at a later point she argues thatshe can only dance the main role when accompanied by a company with ‘utter purityof execution’ (p. 118). Whilst I cannot comment on the specific performances of theballet that Makarova discusses, the technical training of The Royal Ballet in the 1960sand 1970s was still very similar to that of the dancers from the Ballets Russes;consequently, there were strong links between the values inherent in the training andthose in the choreography. This approach to training placed less emphasis on a ninetydegree turnout; it encouraged a pronounced rotation and flexibility of the thoracic spineand the enchaınements were more continuous: the completion of one step also acted asa preparation for the next. The Vaganova classroom, where Makarova was trained,places more emphasis on ‘ideal’ positions and on the ‘correct’ execution of steps(Vaganova, 1965); it thus operates a different code of values from those which prevailedin the training of Royal Ballet dancers. These contrasting values are unrecognised byMakarova, who appears to judge all dance according to the rules of the Vaganovasystem. Throughout her autobiography, her attitude to performance is rather didactic,allowing little interpretative freedom to performers. Given this attitude to the balletvocabulary, it is hardly surprising to find her (pp. 119–120) criticising the dances ofMichael Fokine, which she believes are ‘archaic’, old fashioned and lacking in technicalchallenge.

Contrasting Performance and Technical Styles

Two examples, which can be seen on video (Asquith & Havelock-Allan, 1963; Miris,1995), were used to investigate how different the same dance can look when performedby dancers with widely divergent training. The first shows Margot Fonteyn [10] in 1963dancing the solo from Le Corsaire (Vaganova after Petipa, 1931) [11] and the second,also from Corsaire, is danced in 1958 by Alla Sizova. There are some slight variationsin the choreography and it is possible that the first group of phrases danced by Fonteynwas inserted by her, since they bear more than a passing resemblance to Ashton’s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

23:

50 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4

Page 10: Problems with Ballet: Steps, style and training

Problems with Ballet 25

choreographed dance movement style [12]. For instance, there is a marked contrast indynamic between the first half of the phrase and the end: the entrechat trois is sharp andthe body design at its completion strongly emphasised. The arabesques, in contrast, arenot held but flow, through the use of the upper body, from one to another.

Throughout that cluster of phrases, Fonteyn also makes constant demands on herupper body: the head and torso turn towards the upstage diagonal with a downwardprojection of the eyes before both turn up and towards the downstage diagonal. In thesecond phrase cluster, [13] danced by both Fonteyn and Sizova, Fonteyn makes asignificant distinction between the downward projection of the head at the beginningand its upward thrust at the end of the developpe. Her jump travels vertically and, inthe retire, her working leg is placed below the knee.

Throughout the solo, Fonteyn’s movement is strictly confined within the square, orkinesphere, of her own body. Her arms move through the codified positions [14] toreach above, or alongside, her head. Her legs appear restrained and move according tothe conventions of her own training. They do not reach as high a point as Sizova’s andher arms are held just in front of the body, whereas Sizova’s come from just behind theshoulder. These are training details of which Fonteyn was probably unaware, despiteencountering the Russian training of Rudolph Nureyev. Fonteyn’s training was eclecticand emphasis was placed more on verticality, on dynamic variation and on movingindirectly across the stage rather than on expanding the kinesphere and swallowing upspace in big leaps.

Sizova’s performance is quite different—even allowing for variations in the chor-eography—and, in order to illustrate this, I need only analyse her first repeated phrasecluster, which is similar to the second phrase cluster described above. Her jump is largeand travels horizontally as well as vertically and is made to appear even larger by theintroduction of a grand battement sideways as she takes off for the jump; stylistically,this makes for a very different jete. The retire is raised higher than Fonteyn’s and isplaced to the side of the knee. Throughout the phrase, her upper body is more mobileand makes a definite bend after the developpe in second, generating flow and continuityin the phrase. But the emphasis is more on fluidity than on the contrasting, dynamicpossibilities of the steps. Her arms progress in a circular pattern, unlike Fonteyn’sstraight lines, and this makes a further contribution to the fluidity of the phrase. Anotable aspect of Fonteyn’s performance is her use of the eyes which flicker between adownward glance and very direct projection upwards. This direct eye focus is absentfrom Sizova’s performance but her movement has a higher energy level throughout. Ibelieve this to be the result of training, possibly influenced by the larger stages at theBolshoi and Maryinsky theatres.

Fonteyn’s training does not allow for spectacular feats, while Sizova’s training wouldprobably result in her having trouble focusing on the detail and the highly concentratedmovement of an Ashton dance. Indeed, few, if any, of the Russian dancers who dancedwith The Royal Ballet could master Ashton’s dance movement style. Nureyev wassuspicious of Ashton’s dances, believing that if he took part in too many Ashton worksit would compromise his technique (by this he meant his ability to execute the codifiedsteps according to the values of his training). He recognised the different demands ofAshton but was unwilling to follow them. In the event he performed in relatively few

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

23:

50 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4

Page 11: Problems with Ballet: Steps, style and training

26 G. Morris

Ashton ballets but changed his mind later about Ashton’s dance movement (Kavanagh,1996, p. 479). Initially his reverence was for Georges Balanchine because he felt Ashtonhad ‘no formal knowledge’ (cited in Kavanagh, 1996, p. 480), but after 12 years ofwatching Ashton’s work he came to understand it better, accepting Ashton as the equalof Balanchine. Nureyev’s approach to performance certainly changed over the years,since during the 1970s he also began to dance in modern dance works, performing indances by Martha Graham and Jose Limon. Makarova also had difficulty performingAshton. According to Julie Kavanagh (1996, pp. 592–593), when rehearsing Apparitions(Ashton, 1936), she refused to accept Ashton’s advice and instructions. As a result,several of the reviews noted the absence of any of Ashton’s style in her performance andexpressed concern about her lack of understanding. Like Nureyev, she may well havedecided that it would damage her technique, and this, it seems, was more importantthan allowing the movement style to take over. It is possible that both of these dancersmay have been prevented by their habitus from recognising the distinctive qualities anddifferent value systems operating in Ashton’s work.

Conclusion

The foregoing suggests that the ballet profession is preoccupied with training at theexpense of choreographed movement and that it is reluctant to acknowledge the effectsof training styles on dancers’ bodies. The training manuals give only prescriptive detailsfor achieving specific shapes and this has encouraged teaching of the mechanical aspectsat the expense of the qualitative. Linked to the emphasis on training is a belief in thesupremacy of the codified movement. This has led to the practice of altering thechoreographed steps by subjecting them to the values of the contemporary classroom.A cultural climate which is dominated by training is also persuading dancers that themechanical aspects of the movement are more important then the choreographeddances. As a result, the expressive elements of the dance movement are ignored and theunique features of each choreographer’s dance movement diluted. Similarly, a teacher-led approach prevents dancers from taking control of their training and of their freedomto make knowledgeable interpretations of choreographed dance movement. In an earliersection of this paper I suggested that a possible reason for this inflexibility could be thedidactic nature of the training which creates a restricted and self-perpetuating habitus.

If development is to occur, dancers and teachers will have to confront the problemeven though this means upsetting the traditional view of ballet and its vocabulary. Thiswould inevitably entail a shift in both the content of the class and the teaching methods.This is not quite as drastic as it might seem, since the notion of a fixed ballet vocabularyhas not always been a constant feature of ballet. As indicated at the beginning of thispaper, some earlier teachers have been open to change. Bronislava Nijinska, writing in1920 (Nijinska, 1986), advocated altering the way in which the vocabulary was taughtin order to accommodate the choreography of Vaslav Nijinsky; her view recognises thestylistic effects of training on the dancer. There is also evidence that Enrico Cecchetti’ssystem was not as fixed as the Beaumont and Idzikowsky version (1922) makes it appear(Poesio, 1994; Bennett, 1998) and the drawings and descriptions in Carlo Blasis’ (1968)early codification of the vocabulary present even more differences.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

23:

50 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4

Page 12: Problems with Ballet: Steps, style and training

Problems with Ballet 27

As Salosaari’s research (2002) shows, the first stage is to give students ‘multipleperformance solutions’ (p. 222). This would introduce creativity into the ballet class andmake the second stage, that of recognising the presence of style, easier. The introductionof a more flexible approach would also help teachers to adapt their training methodsand ultimately open the way for recognising stylistic nuances in the dance movement ofballet choreographers.

It is probable that if ballet teachers were encouraged to teach in a way which is morein line with present teaching in British academic schools, they would have a more openapproach. This kind of teaching involves giving students choices, discussing alternativepossibilities and making them aware that the knowledge imparted to them is notcomplete but part of ongoing investigations. In other words, it requires them to beinteractive students rather than passive recipients. Some moves towards change havealready begun with the new Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree at The Royal Academy ofDance (London), and this may eventually affect the culture in a positive way. It isencouraging to note that Salosaari’s research found that, despite some initial resistanceto change, the majority of students recognised the advantages of working in a moreinteractive way. However, most believed that because of ballet’s cultural environmentit would be difficult for change to occur throughout the professional ballet world.Ultimately, Salosaari posits, change needs to come from the students. It is my contentionthat both students and teachers need to be involved.

My argument is that dance teachers need to give students the freedom to makejudgements about the training, allow them to engage with it in a more critical way and,most importantly, to recognise that they themselves are not infallible. In addition,students need to be encouraged to become aware of the stylistic consequences ofdifferent training methods and to realise that there can be a variety of ways ofapproaching ballet’s codified steps; in other words, they are not autonomous absolutes.By denying students this kind of involvement, we reinforce prejudices and allow ahabitus to dominate censoring not just their view of dance but also their outlook onmatters outside dance. A different approach to training stretches student’s own creativ-ity, something which is inherent in modern dance training. It also gives them a widerknowledge and expressive base, both of which could help to encourage more experimen-tation in choreography. Ballet is not a perfect, unchanging system of movement ortraining but making it so fixes it in the past and may thus impede its creativedevelopment.

NOTES

[1] I am using the term ‘profession’ to stand for performers, teachers and rehearsal directors andnot to cover critics and academic writers on dance. This is to distinguish writings of dancers,teachers, etc. from academics and critics.

[2] Because of the dearth of research into the concept of style in dance, the notion of style for thepurpose of this investigation was adopted from the cognitive sciences. Hofstadter’s study onletter styles was useful (1997). He posits that stylistic patterns can be discerned by examininghow seemingly minor changes, when reproduced across an established code of movements(letters), can confer on it a stylistic pattern. This is the notion of style adopted for examining

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

23:

50 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4

Page 13: Problems with Ballet: Steps, style and training

28 G. Morris

the range of syllabuses referred to here. Graham McFee (1992) has written on style, but hisapproach is too broad to deal with differences between syllabuses.

[3] The advertisements for schools that pepper such magazines as The Dancing Times, Dance Nowand Dance are testament to this. The Dancing Times (2003) 93(1109) advertisement on p. 10 forHammond School shows a young man in a gymnastic body flip; that for Northern Ballet Schoolon p. 18 shows a female dancer in a split leg position, as does p. 44 for Urdang Academy, andp. 34 advertises English National Ballet School and displays a female dancer lifted by two menwhile performing a hyper extended back-bend around a pole.

[4] This notion is borrowed from Berel Lang (1995), who makes a similar point about philosophers’denial of the presence of style in philosophical discussions.

[5] See The Dancing Times (1996), LXXXVII(1034), November, p. 169, and The Dancing Times(1995), LXXXV(1022), November, pp. 169, 171.

[6] Howse is an experienced dance orthopaedic surgeon who has worked with the profession inGreat Britain since the 1960s and Hancock, a physiotherapist, has also spent many yearsworking with professional dancers.

[7] Susan Foster (1997, p. 243) argues that in ballet the teacher’s authority is always unchallenged.[8] The recent masterclasses (December 2001) on Shadowplay (Tudor, 1967) and Firebird (Fokine,

1910) demonstrate this point. See Kemp (2001) Masterclass, BBC 2.[9] Pers. comm., February 2002; Toby Bennett is an ex-dancer who lectures on the BA course at

the University of Surrey Roehampton. He has given conference papers internationally andcontributed to academic journals.

[10] Whilst I am aware that Fonteyn was already 44 years of age and Sizova 19, I do not believe thisaffects the elements I am describing, which stem from the training rather than the technicalabilities of either dancer.

[11] It is not clear which version is danced on either video recording but the Vaganova version isthe most likely.

[12] The group of steps is described as a phrase and comprises an entrechat trios, rond de jambe enl’air and three poses arabesques, and is repeated four times.

[13] The phrase cluster (denoting several related phrases performed sequentially) comprises a grandjete to the side with the foot of the gesturing leg ending in a retire position followed by a releveon pointe and developpe to second ending in a tombe to the side.

[14] As taught during Fonteyn’s era with The Royal Ballet.

REFERENCES

ARMELAGOS, A. & SIRRIDGE, M. (1977) The ins and outs of dance: expression as an aspect of style,Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 26(19), pp. 15–24.

ARMELAGOS, A. & SIRRIDGE, M. (1978) The identity crises in dance, Journal of Aesthetics and ArtCriticism, 37(2), pp. 129–139.

ARMELAGOS, A. & SIRRIDGE, M. (1984) Personal style and performance prerogatives, in: M. SHEETS-

JOHNSTONE (Ed.), Illuminating Dance: philosophical explorations, pp. 85–99 (London, Associ-ated University Press).

ASHLEY, M. (1984) Dancing for Balanchine (New York, E.P. Dutton).BEAUMONT, C. & IDZIKOWSKI, I. (1947) A Manual of the Theory and Practice of Classical Theatrical

Dancing (London, C.W. Beaumont) (first edn, 1922).BENNETT, T. (1998) Cecchetti movement and repertoire in performance, in: Proceedings of the

Twenty-first Annual Conference, pp. 203–209 (Oregon, Society of Dance History Scholars).BERG, S. (1992) The real thing: authenticity and dance at the approach of the millennium, in: Dance

Reconstructed: modern dance art past, present and future. Conference proceedings, pp. 109–118(New Jersey, Rutgers University Press).

BLASIS, C. (1968) An Elementary Treatise upon the Theory and Practice of the Art of Dancing, M. S.EVANS (trans.) (Toronto, Dover).

BOOS, P. (1995) Teaching Balanchine abroad, Ballet Review, 23(2), Summer, pp. 69–78.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

23:

50 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4

Page 14: Problems with Ballet: Steps, style and training

Problems with Ballet 29

BOURDIEU, P. (1977/1985) Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).BROWN, I. (2000) Last dance: why our best ballets are slowly dying, Daily Telegraph, Tuesday 28 July,

pp. 18–19.CROW, S. & JACKSON, J. (1999) Balancing the books, Dance Theatre Journal, 15(1), pp. 36–40.DOWELL, A. & SIBLEY, A. (1996) ‘Par de Deux from The Dream’, in: S. JORDAN & A. GRAN (Eds),

Following Sir Fred’s Steps, pp. 147–157 (London: Dance Books).ESPINOSA, E. (1920) Enchaınements (London, Dancing Times).FOSTER, S. (1997) Dancing bodies, in: J. C. DESMOND (Ed.), Meaning in Motion, pp. 235–257 (Durham,

NC, & London, Duke University Press).GARAFOLA, L. (1986) Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes (New York & Oxford, Oxford University Press).GLASSTONE, R. (1999) Teaching technique, The Dancing Times, 89(1066), July, p. 951.GLASSTONE, R. (2001) Classical Ballet Terms: an illustrated dictionary (London, Dance Books).HAMMOND, S. N. (1982) Ballet beyond the Basics (Palo Alto, CA, Mayfield).HAMMOND, S. N. (1987–88) Searching for the sylph: documentation of early developments in pointe

technique, Dance Research Journal, 19(2), pp. 27–31.HAMMOND, S. N. (1992) Steps through time: selected dance vocabulary of the eighteenth and nineteenth

centuries, Dance Research, 10(2), Autumn, pp. 93–108.HAMMOND, S. N. & HAMMOND, P. E. (1989) Technique and autonomy in the development of art: a case

study in ballet, Dance Research Journal, 21(2), pp. 15–24.HOFSTADTER, D. (1997) Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies, Ch. 10 (London, Penguin).HOUSEAL, J. (1994) Dance Ninette de Valois: remembering Rudolph Nureyev, Ballet Review, Summer,

pp. 52–58.HOWSE, J. & HANCOCK, S. (1992) Dance Technique and Injury Prevention (London, A&C Black).HUTCHINSON GUEST, A. (1981) The Bournonville style, Dance Chronicle, 4(2), pp. 113–150.KAVANAGH, J. (1996) Secret Muses: the life of Frederick Ashton (London, Faber and Faber).KERSLEY, L. & SINCLAIR, J. (1997) A Dictionary of Ballet Terms (London, A&C Black).LANG, B. (1995) The style of method: repression and representation in the genealogy of philosophy,

in: C. J. VAN ECK, W. MCALLISTER & R. VAN DE VALL (Eds), The Question of Style in Philosophyand the Arts, pp. 18–35 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).

LAWSON, J. (1979) The Principles of Classical Dancing (London, A&C Black).MAKAROVA, N. (1980) A Dance Autobiography (London, A&C Black).MARTIN, J. (1980) The ideal of ballet aesthetics, in: C. STEINBERG (Ed.), The Dance Anthology,

pp. 300–310 (New York and Scarborough, Ontario: New American Library).MCFEE, G. (1992) Understanding Dance (London, Routledge).MORRIS, G. (2000) A network of styles: discovering the choreographed dance movement of Frederick

Ashton, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Department of Dance, University of Surrey.MORRIS, G. (forthcoming 2003) Collaborative strands: a discussion of the contribution of certain

dancers to Kenneth MacMillan’s dance movement style, in: Revealing MacMillan (London,Royal Academy of Dance).

NIJINSKA, B. (1986) On movement and the school of movement, in: N. VAN NORMAN BAER (Ed.), ADancer’s Legacy, pp. 85–88 (San Francisco, Publishing Department of the Fine Arts Museumsof San Francisco).

NUGENT, A. (2001) Seeking order and finding chaos in the choreography of William Forsythe, in:Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth Annual Conference, pp. 81–85 (Goucher College, Baltimore,Society of Dance History Scholars).

PALMER, F. (1996) Ballet into the twenty first century, The Dancing Times, LXXXVII(1034), pp. 161,163.

POESIO, G. (1994) Enrico Cecchetti and the influence of tradition, in: J. ADSHEAD-LANSDALE & J. LAYSON

(Eds), Dance History, pp. 117–131 (London, Routledge).PRESTON-DUNLOP, P. (1979) Some considerations of technique, in: Dancing and Dance Theory,

pp. 35–51 (London, Laban)ROBBINS, D. M. (2000) The English intellectual field in the 1790s and the creative project of Samuel

Taylor Coleridge: an application of Bourdieu’s cultural analysis, in: B. FOWLER (Ed.), ReadingBourdieu on Society and Culture, pp. 186–198 (Oxford, Blackwell/The Sociological Review).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

23:

50 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4

Page 15: Problems with Ballet: Steps, style and training

30 G. Morris

RYMAN, R. (1997) Royal Academy of Dancing Dictionary of Classical Ballet Terminology (London,Royal Academy of Dancing) [note: this organisation has since changed its name to RoyalAcademy of Dance].

RYMAN, R. (1998) Ryman’s Dictionary of Classical Ballet Terms: Cecchetti (Toronto, Dance Collec-tion Dance Press/es).

SALOSAARI, P. (2002) Multiple embodiment of ballet and the dancer’s cultural agency, in: V. PRESTON-

DUNLOP & A. SANCHEZ-COLBERG (Eds), Dance and the Performative: a choreological perspec-tive—Laban and beyond, pp. 219–237 (London, Verve).

SHORER, S. (1999) Balanchine Technique (New York, Knopf).SORLEY WALKER, K. (1995) Ashton ballets: post-mortem performance, Dance Now, 3(3), Autumn,

pp. 45–51.STOCK, G. (2001) The state of classical ballet, The Dancing Times, 91(1086), March, p. 504.SYKES, J. (2002) The Royal Ballet down under, The Dancing Times, 92(1103), July, p. 21.VAGANOVA, A. (1965) Basic Principles of Classical Ballet (London, A&C Black).DE VALOIS, N. (1937) Invitation to the Ballet (London, The Bodley Head).DE VALOIS, N. (1956) Summer School for Teachers Third Year Syllabus (Advanced), Unpublished

document in the possession of Valerie Adams (ex-director of The Royal Ballet School’s TeachersTraining Course).

DE VALOIS, N. (1977) Step by Step (London, W.H. Allen).VAUGHAN, D. (1996) Ashton now, in: S. JORDAN & A. GRAU (Eds), Following Sir Fred’s Steps, pp. 1–7

(London, Dance Books).WARD WARREN, G. (1996) The Art of Teaching Ballet (Florida, University Press of Florida).

Videography

ASQUITH, A. & HAVELOCK-ALLAN, A. (1963) Le Corsaire, in: An Evening with The Royal Ballet,London (British Home Entertainment PLC).

KEMP, F. (2001) Masterclass (London, BBC Productions).MIRIS, M. P. (1995) Le Corsaire, in: The Glory of The Kirov (St Petersburg, NVC Arts).NEARS, C. & LOCKYER, B. (1988) Dance Masterclass: The Dream (London, BBC Productions).

Interview

MAY, P. (July 1999) Personal interview with Pamela May.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

23:

50 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4