Classical.

Is classical dance an endangered species? Given the relatively healthy state of ballet and other forms of dance in communities across America, is the immediate future of classical dance even an issue? Concern over this question has generated a symposium this month in Lausanne, Switzerland, called, "What is the future for classical dance?" It poses some interesting ideas worth exploring.

What do we mean when we talk about classical ballet? Strictly speaking, in Western dance, the classical period refers to the second half of the nineteenth century when such works a, Petipa's The Sleeping Beauty, Swan Lake, and The Nut-cracker e created in Russia. The classical period follows the Romantic (epitomized by Filippo Taglioni's La Sylphide and the Coralli/Perrot Giselle) and precedes the neoclassical (Balanchine's Agon, for example). The basic vocabulary of steps used in Western classical dance, however, has a heritage that goes back almost 500 years and incorporates forms that originated in Italy and France. Today, a classical ballet company is composed of dancers trained in the classical tradition and performs some of the great ballets of the past; and new works tend to utilize the classical technique. Good classical training is widely available, and many excellent American schools produce first-rate dancers who perform in companies around the world.

What is constant in all of this is that classical implies a high standard that is widely accepted. Some may disagree on the importance of classical dance - some of our greatest artists, such as Martha Graham, have done so. Ultimately, however, even Graham's modernist movement - which she called contemporary - eventually included training in classical dance. Paul Taylor is another who still complains when his modem dance works are called ballets. We may reasonably ask in Taylor's case why so many of his works such as Aureole and Company B, built on modern technique, are among the most successful additions to classical ballet company repertoires? The answer is that changes in taste and expectations are taking place.

That leads us back to the question, Where is classical dance headed? In Western culture, the word modem is often used in a context of rejection of traditional forms, of revolution. But history shows us that today's revolution becomes tomorrow's established order - the old order is replaced with the new. To survive, the old must absorb the new - the best of the new, one hopes. If this doesn't happen, the result is stagnation and death. Only an unreasonable person would insist that dance forms are permanent, fixed against all change, that the inevitability of change is bad in itself

In the short term, the current trend in Western classical dance seems to be toward a healthy fusion of ballet with various forms, especially modem, while trying to maintain the high standard of classical training as a solid base. (The term fusion dance has begun cropping up in print and conversation.) The once-strict division between dance forms such as modern and ballet has softened. Most classical companies today regularly cross over the old boundaries; all you have to do is look at the high caliber of work being done by contemporary moderns such as Mark Morris, Mark Dendy, and Peter Pucci on classical ballet companies to get a sense of the exciting hybridization and evolution taking place. Ballet companies are still financially dependent on the presence of great classics in their reps - in America, the perennial Nutcracker is an economic necessity - although contemporary alternatives, such as the popular Dracula, are on the rise.

Acceptance of classical dance as the standard, however, still has a lot to do with attitude - and attitude is a result of exposure and education and a certain generosity of spirit that is sometimes absent in those who are very young or very isolated. Classical dance is so widely accepted as the standard that it is difficult to accept the idea that its future may be in peril. The number of classical ballet companies in Asia today, for example, is fourfold what it was a decade ago, and classically trained Asian dancers are strongly represented in American companies. Or consider ballet and sports. We all know about the importance of ballet to ice skating, and didn't Sylvie Guillem, the great etoile formerly with Paris Opera Ballet, begin life as a gymnast? Or ballet and theater. Just recently all the dancers in the road company of Phantom of the Opera, when it was in Charlotte, N.C. for two weeks, took ballet classes every day with Patricia McBride and Jean-Pierre Bonnefoux, two former stars of New York City Ballet who are now directors of North Carolina Dance Theater. And, yes, the trend toward the establishment of first-rate classical ballet companies across America provides work for talented professional dancers such as was never dreamed possible just a generation ago. Does this suggest a decline? I don't think so.

Classical training is important. It provides marvelous physical and emotional discipline, beauty of line, musicality. It produces strong coordination and balance. It strengthens muscles while adding suppleness and elasticity, vertical alignment, and endurance. For modem dancers, training in classical dance is invaluable for developing the lower half of the body.

Classical dance is still about possibilities, about firing our imaginations with a sense of what might be, of our potential. With only a little preparation, a single grand jete can momentarily transcend human limitations - not so much about technique as it is about a spiritual condition, about the imperfect attempting perfection.

For now, and I suggest for the foreseeable future, we need as much of this sort of thing as we can get.