Should we be even considering which is 'better'? Can't we look at both with the same integrity and judge it for what it is and for what it offers to the dance world..?

Upon reviewing these posts, I am thinking that perhaps we need to define "classic"...do we mean "classical" as in based on artistic renderings of literary convention or "classical" in terms of balletic technique?

Welcome to CriticalDance, dance on canvas. A categorical "Bourne is better than Petipa/Ivanov" or visa versa is rather like arguing that avocados are better than tomato soup; of course, people are making decisions on a daily basis which they prefer to have as a starter, but that's a different matter.

Just out of curiosity, what is the 'six blocks rule'?

thankyou stuart sweeney, its good to find lively discussion in dance for a change!
In reply...to that end, if as such it is matter of individual preference, then again, is the matter worth considering for as we all know we all have our own opinions, arguments for and against etc each as viable as the next...

can i just say quickly to shallot as well that remember, today's new dance may and could be tomorrows classic, which is worth thinking about...

Hi there,

The "six blocks" rule means one keeps one's opinions either neutral or to one's self- particularly if hostile, uncomplimentary, etc.or even if not- until one is six blocks from the theatre. It applies mainly to reviewers, the company's artistic and administrative staff, board members, and others who wish not to sink ships with loose talk.

I hope this answer helped.

And, following Shallot's lead (for the second time one would like to add) here are some thoughts on "classic" and "classical."

In the American Heritage Dictionary the first definition (one cites just one for the sake of brevity) of the adjective ‘classic’ reads: I a, “belonging to the highest rank or class; b, serving as the established model or standard: a classic example of colonial architecture; c, having lasting significance or worth. In its noun form, the first definition of classic reads: “an artist, author, or work generally considered to be of the highest rank or excellence, especially one of enduring significance.”

The first definition of the adjective ‘classical’ reads: “Of or relating to the ancient Greeks and Romans especially their art, architecture, and literature; b, conforming to the artistic and literary models of ancient Greece and Rome.” The fifth and sixth entries read: “standard and authoritative rather than new or experimental: classical methods of navigation; well-known- the classical argument between free trade and protectionism; and, “ Of or relating to non-relativistic or non-quantum mechanics.”

So, we use the word classic to show the value of the ‘thing’ it modifies, i.e. classic Rock, classic cars, and classic Coke. Moreover, an important feature of this value particularly when used in the arts includes, one thinks, the sense of permanence- its ‘ancient-ness’- along with the authority and universality that that permanence suggests. From this angle, one immediately sees the works of Martha Graham. In addition to their historical importance as classic works of modern dance, Graham’s use of classical subjects in such pieces as Errand Into The Maze, Cave of the Heart, and Night Journey to examine the human psyche well embodies the value, the ever returning appeal, of the classic subject of: the puzzlement over of the human condition. From this, one thinks, that when we use ‘classic’ and ‘classical’ to describe something it is as if we are saying, “time flies, things changes, but these “old things” (or issues) still have value in our lives and we don’t want to loose (sight of) them.”

Artistic change is a given. Controlling it is a utopian madness. And artists- individuals and groups- whether classic or vandal will go whereever their creativity or not, takes them. Each, given the evidence of history, will find or not their own audience. In the words of Wilfred Owen and in reference to the ‘battle’ of Swan Lake, “there is no need to war.”

<small>[ 21 January 2005, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: S. E. Arnold ]</small>