Staging the Folk: Choreographic Issues of National Representation

This article looks at the multiple ways that folk dance has been staged in both the nineteenth century when character or national (the two terms were used interchangeably) dance was widely used in classical ballet, and the twentieth in which Igor Moiseyev created a new genre of dance related to it. The ballet masters that created character dance for ballet often created ballroom dances based on folk origin, but that would be suitable for the urban population. This popularity of national dance was the result of the burgeoning of romantic nationalism that swept Europe after the French Revolution. Beginning in the 1930s with Igor Moiseyev founding the first professional ‘folk dance’ company for the Soviet Union, nation states across the world established large, state-supported folk dance companies for purposes of national and ethnic representation that dominated the stages of the world for the second half of the twentieth century. These staged versions of folk dance, were, I argue an extension of nineteenth century national/character dance because their founding directors, like Igor Moiseyev, came from the era when ballet dancers were trained in that genre.

Developing Craft in the Ballet Class

The ballet class is a complex pedagogical phenomenon in which an embodied tradition is transmitted in practice from one generation to the next, shaping not just the dancing but the attitudes and perceptions of dancers throughout their careers. This paper emerges from observations and experience of recent and current ballet class practice, and theoretical investigations into embodied learning in the arts. It outlines the influential role of large hegemonic institutions in shaping how ballet is currently taught and learned; and the effect of this on the class's evolving relation to ballet's repertoire of old and emerging dances as artworks. It notes the increasing importation into ballet pedagogy of thinking rooted in sports science, engendering the notion of the dancer as athlete; and of historic attitudes which downplay the agency of the dancer. I propose an alternative model for understanding the nature of learning in the ballet class, relating it to what Donald Schön calls ‘deviant traditions of education for practice’ in other performing and visual arts ( Schön 1987 p16). I look at the dancer's absorption via the class of ballet's danse d’école, its core technique of academic dance content. I suggest how this process might more constructively be understood through the lens of craft learning and the development of craftsmanship via apprenticeship, the dancer learning alongside the teacher as experienced artist practitioner who models behaviours that foster creativity.

Nietzsche's Looming Presence in the 1930s Dance Polemics of John Martin and Lincoln Kirstein

Some of the most perplexingly antagonistic comments about the differences between modern dance and ballet can be found strewn throughout the works of two pioneering twentieth-century American dance writers: John Martin (1893–1985) – The New York Times's first permanent dance critic, champion of modern dancers and early supporter of Martha Graham ( Kisselgoff et al. 1988 : 44) – and Lincoln Kirstein (1907–1996), the prodigious author, impresario, and balletomane, who cofounded with George Balanchine the New York City Ballet. Looming behind a significant number of Martin's and Kirstein's appraisals and condemnations of modern dance and ballet are Friedrich Nietzsche's aesthetics, particularly his Apollonian-Dionysian conceptualisations. This essay investigates the reception of Nietzsche in the context of the 1930s writing of these two dance critics, particularly in respect to their treatment of gender. Foundational for this essay's development are the analyses of Nietzsche's reception by earlier twentieth-century dance figures in the works of Susan Jones (2013 , 2010 ), Susan Manning (2006) and Kimerer LaMothe (2006) .

Leach Glover, ‘Dancing Master to the Royal Family’ Part One: The Professional Dancer in Context

Leach Glover (1697–1763) danced in London's theatres from 1717 until 1741 and was a leading dancer for nearly twenty years. In 1738, he was appointed as a dancing master to Britain's royal family, a post he retained following his retirement from the stage. This article looks at Glover's family and professional background and places his theatrical career within the wider context of dancing on the London stage. It looks in detail at his first and last seasons working for John Rich, manager of the Lincoln's Inn Fields and then Covent Garden theatres. It examines not only Glover's repertoire but also his changing status in the dance company that existed within the theatrical company. As part of this investigation, it discusses some of Glover's contemporaries alongside its appraisal of his own work and looks at the challenges as well as the opportunities he experienced within the commercial environment of the London stage.