NOTES FROM THE DIRECTOR

Balanchine: Twin Masterpieces is a chance to see, in real time, the extent to which the “classical” approach to art makes infinite expression possible. 

“Classical” in this context simply means the understanding and use of the tools, discoveries, and advancements made by centuries of artistic work as a way forward. 

While this may seem like the only logical approach, the idea periodically arises (as it did in the 20th century) that the path to artistic originality and greatness is through rejection of the past, and that the fundamental languages of music, dance, and other art forms have to be reinvented. 

Rejecting the advancements of masters and centuries may require a hubris of which only young artists are capable. Perhaps it’s understandable; contemplating the towering greatness of the work created by one’s predecessors in any artistic field can leave a young artist paralyzed. It may seem easier to declare them misguided, proclaim revolutionary insight, and start from scratch. But it leaves the artist with an even heavier burden.

To reject the past is to put oneself in the position of the primitive. Further, one cannot create art and an artistic language simultaneously. The creation of great art comes from absorbing an artistic language and models of its use so thoroughly that one can spontaneously shape them to one’s own inspiration. 

This is how composers like Bach and Handel were able to write with such fecundity, variety, and speed. It was the zeitgeist that Michelangelo grew up in. 

Balanchine’s own expression of this view was, “You must go through tradition, absorb it, and become in a way a reincarnation of all the artistic periods that have come before you." In the 20th century, he stands as the definitive reproach to anyone who would throw out the past. While the artistic experiments of the erstwhile reinventers now look quaint and dated, many of Balanchine’s ballets still seem to be from the future. 

Balanchine also said, “There are no new steps, only new combinations.” One might expect a choreographer with such a view to be limited in his output. Instead, he was the most original, wide-ranging and inventive choreographer of his time. Perhaps of all time. One only needs to sample his repertory, from the futuristic Agon, to the jazz-infused Rubies, to the sleek opulence of Concerto Barocco to see this.

Even the ballet novice can see in the two works presented this evening how much variety is created using not only the same choreographic language, but the same number and gender of corps, soloists, and principals (eight, one, and two respectively) for both ballets. They are approximately the same length, and both are storyless, a mode Balanchine developed in the 20th century: dancing as an expression of the music rather than as a storytelling device. They even use many of the same steps. And yet the flavor, atmosphere, and meaning (if one can apply such a term to ballet) of these two ballets are worlds apart.

Believe it or not, if you were to strip down the layers of stylization in these ballets, and the full extension of the legs, feet, and arms, and the grace of the hands and head that are responsible for much of ballet’s breathtaking beauty, you would find some very familiar dance steps — ones  you might do or see at any wedding or nightclub. Steps that in one stylization or another have been performed for centuries because they represent our inspired and instinctive responses to rhythm. 

It is not in the attempt to replace past forms that we find new ones. It’s in building from these foundations, adding layers of style and choices specific to the music, that works which are both timeless and utterly singular emerge.

Lincoln Jones, Artistic Director
American Contemporary Ballet

To get deeper inside the experience of these ballets and enjoy private events including live demonstrations of the concepts discussed here, join Ballet Society by clicking here.