>will follow suit, but for the most part I think ballet to most people is
>still Swan Lake and Nutcracker.
I have always wondered why certain people go to see The Nutcracker every
year. Isn't there a particular audience population that is not interested
in seeing what's new but rather what they already know and understand? And
the ballet-going experience for them is more a social function than an
opportunity to be exposed to a new thought/expression? I suppose as long as
someone is still making a Nutcracker, there will always be an audience for
>I know Merce Cunningham uses LifeForms to aide in choreographing as do
>other modern choreographers. Plus look at Troika Ranch and other modern
>companies expanding and exposing themselves to technology.
Thank you for mentioning our company twice now. I truly hope that you can
see our work in the flesh sometime so I can hear from you if our theories
are holding up in the actual work we are creating!!
>I say this because I am concerned ballet, which I believe is a beautiful
>and joyous art form will be left behind and become extinct if it does
>not in some way incorporate technology and I have no idea how or who.
It almost sounds like you have a desire for the "old" ballet to be replaced
with a future ballet but I wonder how this art form that you call
"beautiful & joyous" will look after it has moved "forward". How will you
recognize it as ballet? As I think Mark mentioned earlier, David Parsons
(who is a "modern" choreographer) set a piece on the Atlanta Ballet using
"technology" developed at Georgia Tech. Some folks are incorporating
technology into ballet...but is it really ballet since a modern
choreographer made the dance? blur. blur. blur.
Dawn Stoppiello / Artistic Co-director / Troika Ranch / firstname.lastname@example.org
416 W. 23rd Street #3D New York, NY 10011 / 212.691.9547