Teaching style and ballet ideal?

[psavola]

Ms. Leigh said on the YD 16-22 board on arabesques: "I have it on prime authority from a Vaganova/Russian expert that the teachers are told not to tell the students that the hip can open, however, they recognize that it is going to happen naturally in terms of achieving rotation."

 

Is this kind of "silent acceptance" present also in other parts of the program? Or even part of the teaching system? I'm asking because one of my two main teachers is Russian, and she also acts sort of like this in some situations. (They mostly seem to be the kind of situations where a real body cannot meet the ballet ideal) I find it a bit odd, because everything else she does makes perfect sense - all things are approached in a methodical, logical and systematic way.

 

For example in extensions a la seconde she emphasizes that the working leg should be fully rotated and to the side, but corrects any twisting of the hip and does not comment on the fact that correcting alignment results in a bit forward placement of the leg.

(I don't think she would ever tell anybody to actually bring the working leg forward, although she has admitted that a working leg that is both completely side and fully rotated is not possible for all people)

 

Päivi

[Mel Johnson]

There is a good bit of individuality in the way all teachers approach different things. Probably the one of the most personal is what to do with that hip in an arabesque. I've seen teachers in all sorts of systems maintain a silence about how open a hip can get before it goes too far, and then, "Oops, Mel, hip down on the working leg." Others will explain carefully what they're doing, and the logic seems to penetrate, but it depends on the teacher. Others lose extension or rotation by insisting on flat, square hips (I didn't go back to them). There aren't a lot of places where a "conspiracy of silence" can work well in ballet, but this is one of them. Consider the adjustments your teacher makes on your own body to be custom tailoring - just especially for you!

[Victoria Leigh]

Paivi, it sounds like your teacher has recognized that the "ideal" cannot be achieved by everyone, and that a very slight adjustment in the placement of the leg in second, so that it can be placed and rotated and still LOOK very much side, is better than one that is perfectly side but not rotated

[psavola]

So there is a logic behind this after all, I just did not see it. Since "acceptable" is a matter of what an invidual body can do, one cannot tell in general just how much adjustment is too much. There can only be a personal "too much" at a particular point of time.

 

Ms. Leigh, I notice you are using the verb "to place". Is placement the same thing as alignment in English?

 

Päivi

[Victoria Leigh]

Well, sort of, but not exactly ;) I was speaking of placing the leg, like where in space it is placed. Placement of the body involves alignment, but also where the body is placed in space, meaning the placement of the body weight. Alignment of the bones is one thing, and the placement of the body in space depends a great deal on the position, meaning, placement standing in fifth is different from placement standing in arabesque or really anything on one foot will be different from something on two feet. The alignment may not change, but the weight placement changes. Does this make any sense at all?

[psavola]

I think I understood most of it.

 

Placement is about where each body part is in space in relation to other body parts and the line of gravity, while alignment refers to the arrangement of bones in the torso and head.

 

So if I would go from fifth to arabesque both alignment and placement change, but from fifth to extension devant only placement should change.

 

Päivi