In Appreciation of the Classical Arts

Forgive me for being a bit dated in writing this post - college has robbed me of free Sunday nights, so watching 60 Minutes has been a treat reserved for vacations only. But regardless, on November 25, 2012, CBS aired an episode featuring many inspiring topics, among which was one on NYC Ballet - the "New York Yankees in tutus and tights".

The topic of ballet itself brought up many memories of Nutcracker rehearsals and pointe shoe trauma alike, having trained in the ABT and Cecchetti style of Ballet (and been able to identify it, unlike dancers at more commercialized 'Dance Mom' like schools). But by no means were my ambitions ever truly to go professional, which made NYC Ballet all the more alluring as the path not chosen. To perform every night for thousands, and train every day for endless hours...But how many kids today can say they can truly feel the pain behind a grande jeté, or know how difficult it is to move a fan and go on and off pointe meticulously as Kitri in Don Quixote?

Not many. And that's the problem.

Now, I know some may say 19 is no age to be speaking of "kids today", since I may be referred to one as well. But as someone who, just months before her Rangapravesham, was practicing her Kuchipudi items with her Guru in India at 5am every morning only to be asked to teach him Hip Hop choreography at 7am before he went to teach it at a local high school, I beg to differ. "Kids" should be used only in reference to baby goats, which (hopefully) none of us are. But, for lack of a better term, "kids today" I must use. Here, however, they are defined as only those who view classical arts - dance, in this case - and see the foundation of perfection, mastery of knowledge, and strength to work harder than one has ever known versus those who see no connection between Kuchipudi or Balanchine ballet and Bollywood or hip hop, respectively. In other words, those who wish to seek the easier way out.

"We all cannot lose touch with the difficulties of mastering classical ballet* to the extreme utmost beauty. It is such an impossible task. You will never attain it, and we know it. But you have to strive for it." - Peter Martins, NYCB Ballet Master in Chief

Granted, no classical art can truly stand alone. In order to be a diverse performer, one must be exposed to a plethora of styles, the earlier the better. By no means at all am I comparing myself to a NYC Ballet ballerina or any other wordly artist, but I have never been so thankful to have been exposed to two of the world's most classical art forms at an early age. You really get a chance to see where one compliments another and where both merge and connect to a new style altogether. Isolating yourself to only one style of anything, let alone dance, always leaves more to be desired.

But this begs the question. How many young people today are even studying ballet, let alone ballet and another classical form of dance? And how many continue through to the "end", or until such a crossroads point in their lives? Let's say, for example, that you wish to be a writer. Now, not all writers study Ancient Greek, Latin, and write Shakespearean poetry, and this is not to say that all writers should. But just think about the depth of knowledge and references one would gain simply from exposure to such texts, regardless of the medium if current writing. JK Rowling comes to mind as one such 'newer' author, but I'm sure there are hundreds who fall under the "studied classics to perfect future works" case. But there are also millions, perhaps, who do not (unless we are referring to Twilight as a classic nowadays, Ms. James?). Bringing this back to classical ballet, as Stahl described during 60 minutes: many people are interested in dance - we have "so you think you can dance" and "dancing with the stars" - but young people "see classical ballet as stuffy and inauthentic".

First of all , there is not even a comparison between competitive dance TV shows and classical dance. None. And second, how can you even say things like that when watching Robbie Fairchild put his heart and soul into Apollo? Or any other classical dancer, for that matter, from ballet to Bharatnatyam to African tribal. It's no wonder people like Martins have to try the "gimmicks" and make things fresh and light for "new" audiences - people today look at these art forms, sure, but they aren't really seeing any of it. I personally don't find ""contemporary" classical" a gimmick, and rather enjoy it, but can understand where the comments are coming from. But what do critics expect when audiences find classical arts "inauthentic" is my question. Is this a battle that can be won at all?

Remember, through all of this, that appreciating the classics is not just limited to being a dancer. Or being an author. Look at something as simple as handwriting - when was the last time you wrote in cursive, save signing a scrawl at the end of a dinner check? Google "being bilingual" and you'll find hundreds of articles on how beneficial it is - but when was the last time you heard a child speaking fluently in another language to his or her grandparents? Even childhood games can be brought into the conversation: how yesterday's hopscotch has morphed into today's iPod App. Appreciation at its finest.

Yes, this may have been a rant years in the making, built up from lengthy rehearsals, multiple dance classes a day and sore, blistered feet. But it also stems from looking at children today** and their lack of knowledge or even desire for knowledge of the roots. The skeleton on which all other arts have flourished. The classics.  But the apple never falls far from the tree - and our apples are bound to become shadows flickering on the wall of the cave rather than the real thing.

So. What will you strive for?

See the 60 Minutes clip that inspired this post here. 

*Replace "classical ballet" with anything in that apt quote and see for yourself. Do you strive that hard for anything?
**A generalization, of course, not meant to offend Balanchine prodigies or aspiring Mozarts of today.