In The Guardian there has been a discusion as part of a series on 'What's the Point of Ballet'. Here is our thread on the theme, why not add your comments there:
http://forum.criticaldance.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=17&t=000111

<font size = -2><center>(Edited by salzberg to fix link)</center></font>

<small>[ 08-11-2002, 04:59: Message edited by: salzberg ]</small>

<BR>I read the article last week. I think it's simplistic in its view of the sexuality of dance and rather crude. Yes, it can be sensual. Yes, it can be "sexual" - but so much more.<P>What's the point of ballet? To meld music and dance. To take us out of ourselves. To help us grow in awareness. To shock us. To entertain us. To free us. To transport us to a different time and plane of existence. To show us the here and the now. To offer us possibilities. To engage us with the choreographer's, the composer's, and the dancer's view of life before, now and in the future. To quicken us.<P>I was not exposed to ballet as a child. I wish I had been. Instead my child made the introductions...<P>P.S. By the way, I am rather partial to a good story ballet!

I've split the thread 'What's the point of ballet' thread into two, as it was becoming rather confusing for a bear of small brain like me.

This thread will be closed and act as a signpost to the main discussion on this theme, with this link, where I have also copied Ryebred's post:
http://forum.criticaldance.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=17&t=000111

A separate thread 'What's the pointe' will focus on the Rachael Howard article and here is the link to that thread:
http://forum.criticaldance.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=000310

[This message has been edited by Stuart Sweeney (edited September 19, 2001).]

<font size = -2><center>(Edited by salzberg to fix link)</center></font>

<small>[ 08-11-2002, 05:02: Message edited by: salzberg ]</small>