CriticalDance Forum
http://www.ballet-dance.com/forum/

Tutu - Less
http://www.ballet-dance.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9319
Page 1 of 2

Author:  Basheva [ Tue Oct 30, 2001 7:37 am ]
Post subject:  Tutu - Less

I could have put this on the pet peeve thread in Fun Stuff - but opted for this forum instead....because it's now beyond the peeve stage for me, and into the realm of distortion.<P>I am speaking here of the pie-plate tutu. It seems to me that more and more, probably starting in the 80's, the classical tutu (the short one - not the romantic tutu) has come to the point where it is no longer flattering either to the dancer nor an asset to the dance choreography.<P>Yes, I know, that in and of itself, the tutu is a distortion of female attire, but that incongruity being accepted, the cloth covered pot lid now being worn has no redeeming feature. <P>Gone are the ruffles and flourishes under the skirt - and gone the layered construction, which leaves us with a dancer cut in half by a trash can lid (dust bin for those of you in the UK).<P>In many ballets the tutu is part of the choreographic line - "Kingdom of the Shades - La Bayadere" and "Theme and Variations" coming quickly to mind.<P>Anyone else bothered by this?<p>[This message has been edited by Basheva (edited October 30, 2001).]

Author:  salzberg [ Tue Oct 30, 2001 7:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Tutu - Less

Terrific topic.<P>I agree; I've never been a fan of the classical tutu, and like even less those that you so aptly describe above.<P>I adore, however, Romantic tutus.

Author:  archaeo [ Tue Oct 30, 2001 7:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Tutu - Less

I'm sure that you would look delightful in either kind of tutu.

Author:  LMCtech [ Tue Oct 30, 2001 11:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Tutu - Less

I haven't gotten the point of these increibly silly costumes. I always think of the Jetsons. Maybe if it were a truly space age ballet it would make sense, but otherwise why put a dancer in something so unflattering and stupid looking.

Author:  salzberg [ Tue Oct 30, 2001 1:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tutu - Less

You're too kind, Archeo.

Author:  *Sarah* [ Tue Oct 30, 2001 1:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tutu - Less

It's a matter of simple physics and aeronautics, people.<P>The shape of the tutu promotes Bernoulli's Principle; that is, if one is aerodynamically proportioned and either runs or spins fast enough, the decrease in pressure due to the increasing velocity of air moving over the tutu makes it possible to lift right off the ground and fly.<P>Because the choreography in so many classical ballets requires the dancers to soar out over the audience and across the parking lot, it is easy to understand why we would need to costume them this way.<P>Oh, and I'm Santa Claus.

Author:  salzberg [ Tue Oct 30, 2001 1:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tutu - Less

I like the beard....

Author:  *Sarah* [ Tue Oct 30, 2001 1:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tutu - Less

I knew you would.

Author:  Basheva [ Tue Oct 30, 2001 2:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tutu - Less

Can we get back to trash can lid tutus?

Author:  angela [ Wed Oct 31, 2001 11:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Tutu - Less

I think those pie plate tutus are nice for EXTREMELY modern pieces-to rock /punk music(80's music particularly).<BR> I think these are about designers doing their thing. I DOUBT that romantic tutus will be obsolite(spell wrg) because of them.

Author:  Basheva [ Wed Oct 31, 2001 11:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Tutu - Less

Is the advent of this kind of frisby tutu because of economics or taste?

Author:  Katydid [ Wed Oct 31, 2001 11:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Tutu - Less

Wait...I am getting confused here. Basheva, are you referring to a standard classical tutu which is being made more and more cheaply (I assume that would be the reason for less material?) or are you talking about a Mark Morris-Gong style tutu (maybe like the modern tutus that Angela is referring to?). <P>I think everyone is thinking of different images when we say "pie plate" and "frisbee".<P>If you have any visual samples as to what a classical tutu looked like in the past when you liked them (with more material) vs. the '80s look that you like less, I think that might help to clarify matters. I would post such examples myself if I knew where to find them.<P>Thanks!!!

Author:  LMCtech [ Wed Oct 31, 2001 3:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tutu - Less

I think we are talking about the Vertiginous Thrill type of flat flying saucer tutus. Not the classical tutu, which is also becoming more flat, but that has less to do with economics and more to do with taste.

Author:  Marie [ Wed Oct 31, 2001 4:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tutu - Less

So #1 instead of #2 as shown here. Does anyone know who designed the SFB tutu (#1)? Maybe knowing something about the designer would explain the aesthetic choice. Maybe he/she had just had it with sewing row after row of tiny netting, lol...<P> Image <BR>#1<P> Image <BR>#2

Author:  Basheva [ Wed Oct 31, 2001 4:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tutu - Less

Picture no. 2 as Marie posted is what I consider to be a classical tutu of a design that I always saw in classical ballets. I am speaking here of shape and length - not color. Let's leave color out of this.<P>This was the kind of tutu seen worn by Odette/Odile in Swan Lake, Aurora in Sleeping Beauty, Theme and Variations - you get the idea.<P>But now, I see the tutu for these same <u>old classical ballets</u>, much flatter, shorter, without the underskirt ruffles, really just a flat circle that sticks out. It doesn't move at all, it doesn't flatter the dancer (in my opinion), it doesn't take part in the choreographic shape of the dance.<P>I realize that tutus as pictured above are expensive, but I am wondering if this lack of grace in proportion and movement is caused by economics or just a change of style.<P>So, I am not talking about tutus that appear in more modern ballets - but in old ballets.<P>Look at Margot Fonteyn in almost any classical tutu - and you will see the style that I think had a great deal of grace and symetry - which is what we seem to be leaving behind today.<P>Did I make that clearer or did I muddy it up further?

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/