Arabesque 2026 has reached its midpoint, completing the second stage of the competition. Following the first round, the jury admitted 28 contestants in the junior group and 42 in the senior group. Their task was to perform one classical variation and one contemporary dance piece.

At first glance, this combination may seem unusual, yet it is quite logical. If the first round provided a comprehensive view of the participants’ physical condition and technical abilities, the second reveals other facets of their artistry. In this context, the key word is “artist.” It defines the essence of what is taking place: each participant demonstrates the ability to adapt their physical technique to different choreographic styles without compromising the quality of performance. Paradoxically, transitioning to contemporary dance requires even greater concentration, self-control, and significant emotional investment. The phrase “know thyself” seems an appropriate motto for this stage.

The beginning of the classical program was somewhat disappointing: there was a sense that the participants had remained static. One expected the level of performance to surpass that of the first round—after all, there had been time to work on mistakes. Gradually, however, it became clear that most contestants were deliberately avoiding raising the bar. Their goal was simply to confirm the level already demonstrated and the expert opinion already formed. In general, this approach is understandable: if nothing has worsened, that is already a success. A certain degree of “energy conservation” is likely necessary for the contemporary segment. Still, some participants did attempt to go further, though not always successfully. The very effort to grow deserves recognition.

Against this backdrop, many senior contestants performed convincingly, maintaining the level of the first round: Alexander Mikhalev (Perm), Ann-Juliet Pinheiro (Brazil), Yulia Mandzhieva (Perm), Radim Shaygardinov (Perm), Elina Nasyrova (Ufa), Abdugappor Kuchkarov (Uzbekistan), Adilzhan Rakhmanov (Kyrgyzstan), Shinichiro Ebe (Japan), Artur Libertini, Maria Eduarda Cabral, and Wesley Santos (Brazil).

The junior group, however, stood apart from this cautious approach. Due to their age, managing psychological pressure is more difficult for them. Some succeeded, others did not. Among those who coped well were Batyrkhan Dandagariev, Abilmansur Syrmanov, and Tolegen Zhanabekuly (Kazakhstan), Andrey Kaverznikov (Belarus), Lev Kachaev (Perm), Valeria Dmitrienko, and Andrey Grachev (Moscow).

As for the quality of the performances, the same tendencies persisted: either technically driven “showpiece” variations or numbers imbued with academic elegance. The emotional range fluctuated from “faster, higher, stronger” to “pleasant enough.” Yet what is truly needed is a balance between technique and artistry. Only then does dance acquire meaning and become a полноценное сценическое действие—a true stage performance.

Classical heritage reflects its historical era. Therefore, not only technique but also style of execution is essential: the positioning of the arms, the carriage of the body, the gaze, and subtle details. Ballet also remains one of the few theatrical forms where performer typecasting still matters. Some contestants attempt to embrace roles beyond their capabilities, which ultimately works against them.

Unfortunately, it is often coaches and répétiteurs who undermine the stylistic integrity of classical performance. A widespread trend is the use of slowed-down musical tracks. Their intention is understandable: to better showcase technique. However, the jury is fully capable of evaluating virtuosity at natural tempos. Slowing down leads to a loss of style: phrasing disappears, movement fragments. As a result, the Lilac Fairy begins to resemble Giselle, Odile turns into the White Swan, and Laurencia into Kitri. This is especially puzzling in the senior group. Perhaps it would be wiser to select repertoire appropriate to the performer’s current level.

If one cannot surpass oneself in classical dance, why not try in contemporary choreography? This anticipation surrounded the second part of the round—and it proved justified. Those who succeeded were the ones who reached a new creative level. Contemporary choreography largely clarified the overall picture.

Pieces in the modern style were particularly compelling. Freedom of movement, expressiveness, and eloquent gestures allowed performers to reveal emotions suppressed in classical dance. Contestants from Mongolia stood out: Tenuun Nemdorj, Oyu Buuveibaatar, and Burte-Yuzhin Davaadorj. Tolegen Zhanabekuly (“Arachno”) and Turmunkha Batjargala (“Alters”) demonstrated a precise understanding of modern style.

Notably, many of the strongest works were choreographed by international creators. In contrast, a number of domestic pieces suffered from formulaic structures, weak dramaturgy, and a lack of original ideas. As a result, performers often had to demonstrate their abilities despite the choreography rather than through it.

This makes the few successful examples all the more valuable: “Syrynx” (choreography by Konstantin Semenov), performed by Shinichiro Ebe, and “Chimera” (choreography by Yulia Repitsyna), performed by Natalia Ryzhkova. These works stood out for their clarity of concept and expressive language.

An ethical issue also deserves mention: on the first day, two pieces with almost identical themes of a first date were presented. Without determining authorship, it is worth noting the strong performances by Andrey Grachev and Andrey Kaverznikov.

Neoclassical choreography proved to be a successful choice for many participants. However, it offered no opportunity to relax: technical demands remain high. In duets, additional challenges arise—partner interaction, emotional connection, and complex lifts. Any flaw becomes immediately visible.

Nevertheless, most performers managed to stay within the stylistic framework. Memorable performances included Ksenia Belova and Arseny Baranovsky, Ann-Juliet Pinheiro and Alexander Mikhalev, Elina Nasyrova and David Tsertsvadze, Arina Timergalieva and Roman Lobas, Maria Eduarda Cabral and Wesley Santos, Emilia Zubairova and Ruslan Anvarov.

Among soloists, Lev Kachaev, Abilmansur Syrmanov, Radim Shaygardinov, Valeria Dmitrienko, Alena Morozova, Nikoloz Paradashvili, Artur Libertini, Svyatoslav Moiseev, and Adilzhan Rakhmanov stood out.

Overall, most contestants had to compete not only with themselves but also with the choreography they were given. Their success, therefore, is all the more significant: they overcame these challenges through skill and training.

This is how we saw the second round of the Arabesque 2026 ballet competition. Many participants confirmed that they are true artists—continuing to grow and to search.

Yury Kondratenko,
Doctor of Arts,
Member of the Press Jury.