7 FEBRUARY 1964, Page 16

INSULTS AND IMAGES

SIR,—I love the casualness with which Clive Barnes admits that he didn't bother to refer back to my article on ballet before attacking it. ('That:s probably not the exact phrase, yet it's near enough . . .'—really!) In fact, the piece dealt with classical ballet, a minor art which I described as 'essentially a court entertain- ment which the nineteenth-century bourgeoisie adopted in order to raise themselves to the level of kings. ...' Mr. Barnes seems to think that this view is incompatible with the admiration I have elsewhere expressed for Martha Graham. He misses the point: Miss Graham is not a classical dancer. Indeed, it is her supreme achievement to have invented a language of movement that contradicts classical ballet a: almost every point.

In his second paragraph Mr. Barnes wanders off into a private wilderness. 'If I followed Mr. Tynan's argument correctly, it seemed that the only art forms that appealed to him were narrative, so his intelli- gence must be taking umbrage every time he goes into a concert hall or art gallery.' That is nothing to the umbrage it's taking right now. I have re-read my article with great care (and some pleasure) and it contains nothing remotely resembling 'the argument' that Mr. Barnes ascribes to me. The value of narra- tive in art forms isn't even mentioned; in fact, the

only reference to plot is a capsule summary of the action of Giselle, expressly designed to expose its fatuity. I can only suppose that Mr. Barnes is so deeply immersed in ballet that words have ceased to have any meaning for him.

120 Mount Street, W1

KENNETH TYNAN