WSJ.com: George Balanchine, the greatest choreographer of the 20th century, believed that all ballets, even his, were like butterflies: "A breath, a memory, then gone." Twenty-nine years after his death, Mr. Balanchine's ballets continue to be performed throughout the world, but it's also true that the way in which they are danced today is not the way in which they were danced when Mr. Balanchine himself was around to rehearse them. The steps may be the same, but the nuances are different—sometimes joltingly so—and to compare a modern-day performance of, say, "The Four Temperaments" or "Stravinsky Violin Concerto" to an old video of a Balanchine-supervised performance by the New York City Ballet, the company that he founded in 1948, is to receive a lesson in the fundamental impermanence of dance.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Sometimes in the Arts, Impermanence Is Good
WSJ.com: George Balanchine, the greatest choreographer of the 20th century, believed that all ballets, even his, were like butterflies: "A breath, a memory, then gone." Twenty-nine years after his death, Mr. Balanchine's ballets continue to be performed throughout the world, but it's also true that the way in which they are danced today is not the way in which they were danced when Mr. Balanchine himself was around to rehearse them. The steps may be the same, but the nuances are different—sometimes joltingly so—and to compare a modern-day performance of, say, "The Four Temperaments" or "Stravinsky Violin Concerto" to an old video of a Balanchine-supervised performance by the New York City Ballet, the company that he founded in 1948, is to receive a lesson in the fundamental impermanence of dance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This article brings up a point that as theater artists, we deal with on a regular basis, and that is the impermanence of our very medium. A show is conceived, designed, built, rehearsed, teched, performed, and then struck. And when it is gone, it's usually gone for good (perhaps with the exception of touring shows). It may appear in a different form later done the line, but those performances are a unique experience. It is what separates us in many ways from other mediums. Films, music, fine art; they are all more permanent. They can last forever in theory. Part of the mystique of theater is that it happens in the moment, and it mirrors real life in that sense, more so than other art forms. It's done in real time, out in front of the audience, not masked behind multiple takes and tries. There is a lot of preparation, sure, but when you're out on stage or running the show, you've only got one shot to do it every night, and that's one of the great things about it, and why it will continue to endure for many years to come
I don't know how to feel about this article. On the one hand they do present the point of, "things that are produced in their own time are beautiful and untouched and pure". But I have always been taught that innovation and creativity are more important then preserving a classic. Should we be thinking out of the box and creating many "butterfly's" as possible or should we focus on trying to reform performance and change it into something unique every time that you go? I guess I just don't agree with the author's main point. If theater is not permanent and not replicable then why are people trying to replicate the originals.
This was an interesting article and I tend to agree with the writer. I think those of us who are in theatre are interested in how a show was twenty five years ago and also how it is today. We are probably the exception though. We find it interesting and fascinating to compare and contrast because theatre is in our blood, but for the average theatre goer, they want to see something that is a reflexion of today even if it is a story set in another time. I appreciate what a show was, and how it has evolved, but still stayed the same.
I really find a lot of beauty in this article- I am most drawn to pursuing a career in theater design BECAUSE of the impermanence- sometimes the most beautiful things in life are the ones that disappear from us the quickest. That gives us all the more reason to appreciate an art form that is is fleeting from us, making it so much more precious and special. It also never fails to amaze me how much of an impact can make on the world, I feel that it is a moment in time that visually and emotionally challenges us to think about our lives, evaluate them, and in even the most subtle of ways, change what paths we follow. Because theater lives only as a memory, it can be considered similar to a life experience, and a force to be reckoned with. I appreciate that this play was an attempt to rekindle the memory of it's former predecessor.
This article brings up an interesting reality that I think often gets overlooked. Some shows strive to be the most well-known or most memorable thing to ever cross a stage and get referenced by people who may not have even seen the show live, and that would define the show's success. Reality is, live performances are different every single time a show is put on, and that is what makes the show so special. I think this may also be why revivals of well-known shows are very hit-or-miss, because it's not performed or designed or directed by the original people involved in the show.
Post a Comment