I always talk about creating new classics that represent our era. That’s what the romantic, classical and neoclassical choreographers did. Let’s let future choreographers present the future, while we create ballet’s present.
Around the time of the late 1980’s early 90’s, I noticed a shift in how audiences reacted to characters they were drawn to in popular entertainment, specifically movies and television. It seemed they no longer strove to emulate characters they admired, but instead admired characters they identified with. “I want to be like him” became “He is just like me”. Audiences approval meant they could either identify with, or at the very least connect a character to someone they knew in their personal lives. Herein lies the dilemma with most contemporary ballets in that they are usually devoid of characters, and simply display bodies moving in time and space. General audience admiration extends beyond actors to include athletes and musicians, but rarely dancers, and I’ve often wondered why. After all, a dancer is an amalgamation of athlete, actor and musician to produce a complete artist. Despite the well meaning efforts of ballet society and their proclamation of “ballet is for everyone”, our art form continues to be out of touch with 21st century American popular culture. Ballet may be for everyone, but everyone is not necessarily for ballet if “Ballet is unlike me”.
During the Romantic era of the 19th century, ballet catered to the trends of the day. The books for ballets contained stories inspired by popular folklore, the costumes were inspired by fashion trends and the music appealed to tastes of the period. Elegance, beauty and grace matured into the definition of ballet itself, as early ballerinas portrayed ethereal characters such as muses, nymphs, and sylphs, which were always unattainable to their Earth bound mortal male partners.
In the Classical era the late19th and early 20th centuries, the great creative teams of the day developed ballets that celebrated elite society. The stage was ruled by princes and princesses, while ballets were performed in honor of great rulers. They celebrated pomp and wealth and the styles catered to the wealthy upper class, and showcased technique that was developed in schools sponsored by the government. Many story ballets of the period also featured cultural and national dances to give a sense of national pride. 20th century choreographer Vaslav Nijinksy pushed the boundaries of choreographic styles in ways that had never been seen before, while Jerome Robbins successfully created contemporary characters in contemporary situations.
Choreographers such as Enrico Cecchetti, August Bournonville, Martha Graham, Doris Humphrey, José Limón, George Balanchine and Bob Fosse trained dancers in their method, technique or style and created incredible art that continues to be performed and appreciated today. But they all now represent the past. Unless ballet companies are contemporary specific, they follow a standard formula of presenting full-length classics and contemporary mixed rep created by emerging artists, which cements them both in the past and future. But what about the present? In order for new classics that stand the test of time to develop it would make sense to take cues from the past. That would include catering to the fashion and music trends of today, developing new techniques and styles, incorporating current cultural dances, collaborating with other artists in popular culture, continuing to push boundaries in new and creative ways, and of course presenting relatable characters in situations that reflected our time. Audiences want to see themselves in characters, and they can no longer relate to nymphs, sylphs, and fairies, or even princes and princesses for that matter. Ballet cannot truly move towards the future until it promotes the present and is no longer stuck in the past.
Comments