Cynthia A. Roses (
Wed, 21 May 1997 11:07:40 -0400

Thank you all very much for your responses. You have all given me a lot
to think about. The diversity in opinions is great.

And oddly enough I am more hopeful about the future of ballet since
talking with you. It may be just theoretically but it's a start.
Although ballet and the computer are opposites( emotional response
versus intellectual or abstract response) as Richard pointed out, I see
many more similarities now.

For example, both need structure to function. Ballet is structured in
its form and through its' class, i.e. barre and center are sets of steps
through which ballet variates. Perhaps like the program through which a
computer performs. In fact would you agree ballet and a computer are in
many ways dependent on structure to perform?

Modern or contemporary to me is more a quest for individuality and
self-expression. It creates inherently free thinkers as the desire to
express yourself and choreograph becomes the supreme goal. Ballet
creates followers. Again isn't there a similarity to computers because I
guess even Deep Blue had to have someone turn him on.

So both require structure and both are dependent to some extent on the

The point being (and I agree funding is the major issue here) but why
then is ballet reluctant to tackle the computer in performance? Modern
is able to absorb variables and interactivity. Is ballet resisting
because of structure? I think so.

Michel Fokine changed ballet forever when he broke the mold of Petipa's
classical ballets with Les Sylphides. Perhaps we are on the verge of
that happening now. Someone like Fokine will break the structure.Break
the mold and as Susie said create dancers that think,lead and explore.
Life can be so exciting!!!!

Cynthia Roses-Thema
DANCE Technique Newsletter