When we look at the map, it reveals just how far and how frequently the company travelled – a fact that is often overlooked by the general emphasis on first nights and on Paris. The scale of their travels becomes all the more impressive when we remember that this was a time far less globalised than the present. It also shows just how hard dancers and staff must have worked.

Interestingly, Pritchard calculates that only 9% of Ballets Russes performances took place in Paris (and only about 11% in France as a whole) whereas about 47% took place in Great Britain, the majority of which were in London. Performances ‘abroad’ from Paris were also richer: the focus in Paris was on novelty, but on longer tours the company offered a more varied repertoire.

If we look at just a few examples of other cities in which the Ballets Russes performed, Monte Carlo occupied a special place in Diaghilev’s heart. It was there in 1911 that he founded the company as a permanent troupe, and in the 1920s it became a sort of creative workshop for the group. It was a space for rehearsal in the lead up to the important Paris and London seasons, and a number of ballets were created there: Le Spectre de la Rose, Narcisse, Daphnis et Chloe, Les Noces, La Chatte, Le Bal.

Travelling was key to the Ballets Russes aesthetic. Someone like Mikhail Fokine had already travelled a great deal before the company was even formed: he went all through Russia, to Italy, Vienna and Budapest, collecting postcards and recording details of local customs, folklore and dance. You can see the same fascination with non-Russian folk ballets in Goncharova’s designs. The company had spent much time in Spain, yet it was in Rome that Goncharova created designs for Espana. There she socialised with Diaghilev, Jean Cocteau, Satie, Picasso, important Italian composers and, of course, the Italian Futurists. Melting pots of artistic creativity formed wherever Diaghilev went, and many a ballet came out of this.

A lot of the ballets from this time on, during WWI and afterwards, featured music from foreign composers – the music of Gregorio Martinez Sierra for Le Tricorne, the work of Ravel for Goncharova’s Espana. I believe this movement away from the earlier Russian/Parisian core was made by choice, but also by necessity. Artists and dancers kept their eyes open throughout the company’s travels and were genuinely inspired by the immense variety of what they saw. The outbreak of the First World War, which pushed the company away from Western Europe to a certain extent, and forced Diaghilev to base himself in Rome and to launch a North American tour, also made a big difference. Four years seems little when thought of in retrospect; but when you consider how long four years actually feels, you can understand how cut-off they must have felt. This is especially the case after the Revolution, which separated the dancers from their homeland.

I believe you can look at ballet much as you would a painting. A painting’s meaning changes depending on time, location and who exactly is viewing it. The same idea of reciprocity between audience and performers exists in ballet – and here I wonder in particular about the importance of location.

We need to think more about what it means to be a travelling company and how this affects artistic inspiration. This ties in with an important theme in twentieth-century Russian art history – that of the émigré artist. What is the difference between moving once and moving constantly? Do you become more nationalistic, or do you absorb the different cultures that you encounter?