CriticalDance Forum

Tutu - Less
Page 2 of 2

Author:  LMCtech [ Wed Oct 31, 2001 5:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tutu - Less

It is a matter of taste not economics. It is actually not that much cheaper to make the more modern style of tutu #2. The materials are just different, the technique is the same, and most of the work goes into drafting the pattern, the rest is mindless busy work. I have heard from sources that the flatter style of tutu is more popular now because more of the upper leg can be seen, thereby lengthening the line. If you look through the history of dance costumes, you will see that tutu styles change over the years. This seems to be the phase we are in now. I have seen the first stirrings of change though. I'm starting to see a lot more of the more droopy Degas look in various lengths.

Author:  hoxy [ Thu Nov 01, 2001 12:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Tutu - Less

Maybe it is a "because we can" thing, for two different reasons. Firstly tutus were considered quite risque when first worn, so the extra ruffles and the slight droop to the skirt would provide some modesty. Of course, in the last 50 years attitudes have changed, and seeing the tops of a girls legs and even being able to see her knickers, is not particularly terrible as long as not portreyed in an overtly sexual manner - it is quite acceptable for Geri Halliwell (a british popstar, for those who don't get the reference) to prance around in pants and vest in her latest video. In addition, technology and fabrics have changed and it may be easier to get a sticky-out skirt without all the different layers underneath, and of course it is natural to want to try out whatever new techniques are available.<P>Of course ballet is such a traditional thing that I'm sure the traditional ways will remain - Gaynor Minden may exist but many people still prefer traditional paste shoes. I think it's the same with tutus - we should consider ourselves lucky to have a choice!<P>P.S. <P>It has just occurred to me that pants and vest doesn't mean underwear, in the US! Translation: panties and tank top I think. When I was at primary school, we wore pants and vest for indoor P.E. - I'm not sure that would even be legal now! Image<p>[This message has been edited by hoxy (edited November 01, 2001).]

Author:  LMCtech [ Thu Nov 01, 2001 10:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Tutu - Less

More good points. <P>It IS much easier to get tutus to stick out, because the netting is made from nylon instead of silk. And we do need less rows of ruffles but more tightly gathered ones. <P>I agree that it is a matter of technology and options. In this day and age whatever a choreographer wants and choreographer can get. There are very few technological or cultural barriers.

Author:  citibob [ Fri Dec 21, 2001 6:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tutu - Less

Allegra Kent referred to the first TuTu she wore, probably in the 1950's, as a "Flying Saucer" around her waist.<BR>

Author:  Stuart Sweeney [ Fri Dec 21, 2001 8:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tutu - Less

Thanks for bringing this one back to life Bob as I had missed Marie's enquiry about tutu #1. It's from 'The Vertigenous Thrill of Exactitude' by Willian Forsythe and the costume design is by Stephen Galloway, an American dancer in Ballett Frankfurt.

Author:  Basheva [ Sat Dec 22, 2001 6:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Tutu - Less

Not only are there differing degrees of grace of line in tutus, but differing degrees of length - which also disturbs me. <P>Like Salzberg said above the Romantic tutus are beautiful - easy to love. Especially when back-lit (probably not the professional terminology a lighting designer would use), like in second act, Giselle.<P>But sometimes these tutus are, well, tu short. They come down tu about mid thigh or even knee length, which in my opinion, is not a flattering length. I saw one ballet (I am trying tu remember the name) in which the tutus were shaped like a - well, lampshade; coming straight out horizontally from the waist and then straight down tu about knee length. Unflattering bouncing lamp shades.

Author:  Basheva [ Mon Dec 24, 2001 6:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Tutu - Less

...some more...<P>I was watching a tape last night of Galina Panov dancing the grand pas de deux in "Harliquinade" and I couldn't help but notice what a lovely costume she had on. It was a classical (short) tutu, but a nice fluffy one. While it did "stick out" to the sides like a good tutu should, it did so without appearing stiff at all. It moved with her and added grace to the line.<P>There were layers of fluff, but without being fussy, and sat low on her hips, so it flattered her waist. She wore it for the Wolf Trap Farm Park performance, the Panovs American debut. If you have that tape, notice that tutu.<p>[This message has been edited by Basheva (edited December 24, 2001).]

Author:  LMCtech [ Fri Jan 11, 2002 12:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tutu - Less

In the Issues forum while all the rest have been talking about looking at body types from 50 years ago, I've been looking at the tuts. Amazing how tastes change. They all look so old-fashioned, but I can't acurately determine why. Is it the materials, the silouette, the fit? I'll have to think about this more...

Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group