I too adore the idea of beautiful weightless ballet dancers to some extent. I love the effort they see to achieve the easiness and beauty of their craft. So why is it a bourgeois art, doesn’t it speak for all? Ballet is so-called high art, which is about princesses and princes with manners, costumes, settings, choreography, funding, competition. It does exclude from the beginning a lot of people, all of high art is exclusive. What happens for the art, which likes to linger in the past and have a sense of closed society? Question is does high-art evolve and is it a belonging of someone and what kind of purpose does it serve? Does it repeat something that cannot be or is not wanted to be changed? Is it meant to elevate? Same goes of course with the music played for these shows. Crackless bravo.
It is a culturally bound, strictly framed way of expressing love for symmetry, achieving a certain kind of perfection, to be adored as ballerina, as an artist, who does many sacrifices for her art: becomes a swan, moves her arms like a swan. The art expresses bourgeois longing for harmony, ecstasy, tradition and fantasy world. Women as flawless floating beings expressing all this.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books-and-arts/78263/ballet-over article Is ballet over by Jennifer Homans for The New republic 2010
“The ubiquitous presence of reconstructors, notators, and directors—ballet’s curators and conservators—rather than choreographers is further evidence of this obsession with preservation. London’s Royal Ballet and New York’s American Ballet Theatre have both devoted vast resources in recent years to new productions of The Sleeping Beauty and Swan Lake. Even the New York City Ballet, vanguard of modernism, now has its own full-length productions of these nineteenth-century classics with new but blandly conventional choreography.”