Seeking The Perfect Combination Between Sport And Art

MoonlightSkater said:

I really don't understand why so many people want to bring in "arts experts" from various fields to judge figure skating. Artistic impression, though it can be nuanced, is something that is not so difficult to understand and really should appeal to the general population. You don't need to grasp the intricacies of a Van Gough to understand that a Sasha Cohen spiral was well done or that the way Nicole Bobek was able to interpret her music and relay that interpretation to the audience was quite artistic.

Programs can be artistic in different ways. I've seen raging debates about the "Russian style" of ice dance vs. the current "North American style" of ice dance. I don't see why both can't exist side-by-side. The avant garde is not necessarily better than, for example, the Shibutanis' Fred and Ginger approach. They're just different. There will always be those who prefer one to the other. For instance, while I appreciate the skating in the first free dance example above and I understand it was artistically performed, it really wasn't my cup of tea. Others think it is amazing. It's a matter of taste, but it's also not impossible to judge it as artistic even if it's not your favorite style.

If we bring in arts experts, what would they be looking for in a program? Would a devoted modern arts specialist expect all programs to be a bit more abstract? Would a ballet master want them all to be classical? Is beauty in movement really something so complex that you must be an expert to know it when you see it? I'd argue not.

Click to expand...

Art Field Experts are valuable because they bring a higher degree of quality, experience and credibility judging than the average person plus the ISU judges. In art as anything in fashion, it is the 0.001 % of knowledge populations that determines and drives art (the artist, the critics, the buyers/industry leaders). They determine what is artistically credible and valuable, that it is not merely contrived imitation, and is more about the thought that goes behind it, affect it, what comes out of it and impact of it.

Do you think Van Gough, Kandinsky, Munch were all well acknowledged in their day by the average audience while most are still likely preoccupied by Romantics sense of aesthetics? Should that make them any less credible in their days?

Beauty is only one component of Art and it is not stationary. A credible judge 'should in theory' able to distinguish whether something artistically true and credible, and one is not. Sasha's glorious spirals deserve to be recognized on its own, and the art judge panel may decide to award a her a distinguished Star of their choice even if she did not rank in the top 3.

There's nothing wrong with Russian style, American Style (The argument likely to be more political driven than artistic driven, typical in art) and if you consider Shibutanis as avant garde, then frankly this sport require a bit more shaking things up : It is literally too Red or Blue.) The sport is sooo slow to have diversity - the necessary ingredient in any healthy environment for something claimed to be art to thrive. For example, I found it interesting a Chinese blogger that picked up the political subtext in the Olympics Ladies final is really a battle of American vs Russian culture (Gershwin vs. Rachmaninov) regardless the performer is actually Korean Vs Japanese (or that Gershwin is of Russian heritage even he is known as a great American composer) which bring it extra poignancy to the battle, and explains why Mao is far more popular in Russia than Yuna.

And contrary to many I actually really like Grand bell of Moscow as a program, yes it is heavy but it is mean to, Tat tried to do something brave, epic and legitimate and generously gave it to her student of non-russian orign, problem is her own's artistic aspiration(& prob. ego) overwhelms someone who has not yet the emotional maturity to bring it to justice. In art, maturity can come from a wide range of things, in which personal suffering and struggle is almost a necessity. I personally think has she been patient and wait a bit longer, Mao in Sochi with that program would go down a storm (assuming she bring 3A or/and 3:3)! (We already seen how suffering brought a more mature Mao through her Jupiter)

Bluebonnet said:

I have never said that Takahashi has chosen artistry over sport. I just said that what Takahashi has been showing on ice was not the best example of the perfect combination of sport and art. I know Takahashi is trying very hard and I respect him for that immensely. Who knows? He might be the first one ever in the world to land 4F in competition in the near future. That doesn't make what I have said wrong in any way you slice it.

Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see if a clean Dai with mature aristry and a 4F Versus a clean PChan. Dai has maxed out his technical scores given his condition, while PChan has still somewhere to go in his artistry, even though he imo already made very good progress from last year.

Bluebonnet said:

That'll be scandalous. Any example/examples?

Eta:

Will you agree more because the result was judged by so called "world famous art experts"? I don't think so. No matter who judge it. It'll create almost equal amount of controversy. The fact that so called "art experts" might have far different ideas from the average viewers would have created more controversies. Take a look at the fashion world with those expert created weird clothes. I've watched Oscar red carpet discussions by fashion experts many times. The more I listened, the more I was confused. There is no standard. what they have judged the best might be what I thought the worst or at least not the best. Am I fashion blind? At least I don't think so. I absolutely trust my own judgement on the matter and proud of it, though I'm perfectly aware that I am generally conservative and traditional. And I am proud of that too. I don't care what the expert say. I'll have my own ideas. And I know that almost everyone here on this board does the same. That's the source of controversy.

Click to expand...

Scandalous... not really.

When you consider possible behaviour faults that came from human judging, the psychology behind it and possible inaccuracies (due to learning experience, knee jerk reaction from previous undermarking, on top of that possible political, national, personal biases and influences they try to keep in check but are unaccounted for), it is understandable. I am sure I am not the only one who sees the pattern. Perhaps a more seasoned long term skating fan can give better examples.

Why do you think things like momentum and impressions matters? Why do you think there are things like RP scandals? Is it an accident Judges tends to up hold those who came 2nd., 3rd or 4th compare to their previous marks? Why do you think Judges went from stingy to generous marks in a matter of one Olympic competition difference to Mirai at her 2nd ever ISU competition. Why the generous scores to Alena, Kozuka, Gachinski this year compares to before? Why do you think there tends to be a one or two competition delayed reaction from giving someone PCS they deserve from a newbie who might deserve better marks then at her 2nd competition? Akiko has been deprived and now compensated properly with PCS back home because Japan wanted Mao and Ando (who I'd argue the marks were off the scale generous, a 2nd best LP scores ever generous in the history of ISU ladies program for a program without a 3A, 3:3, with little transition and balanced choreography, and I'd argue musicality). When you have faulted judging system like this, it is open to all sort of funny business.

Yes Art could be controversial, that is why it should be accountable. Not acknowledging it, and make it appear invisible doesn't mean it doesn't exist (e.g Alena's latest PCS mark at her LP you have a 4.5 something next to 9. Crazy no?) Yes it is subjective, but it is not truly subjective to a 20 years experienced professional expert who have better knowledge to tell you why out of the 2 similar 'beautiful' performances all 'performing' to the same music, only one is better and why.

os168 said:

COP exploited, reigns of the optimised template programs

The introduction of 10% jump bonuses for example have already resulted in the deterioration of original, creative and balanced choreography and discourage artistic intangibles which the COP is said to encourage, but NOT really awarded in any tangible means. Following a scoring strategy, choreography structure therefore became optimized / templated with just a matter of accessorizing and packaging typifies by most of Morozov's formula programs since Ando's last year, and is seen in Arthur Gachinski, Alena, Florent's program this year. Sad thing is this trend appear to have caught on. We begin to see less detailed and challenging choreography in ladies and some men, and just basic delivering of the required elements with an emphasis to ability to 'complete' and 'lessen risks' as 'effortlessly' as possible.

I generally found Morozov programs artistically and transitionally deprived, and highly 10% bonus incentivised. There are clear segmentation and little attempt of integrating the elements which makes it easier for the skater to focus on during their performances. It usually begin with big open jump(s) followed by lots of slow moving pose-ography and spins that are generally about killing time with little actual ice coverage or speed (therefore lessen the effort to skate and save energy) leading up to the half way mark = the 10% bonus time. Then fire away 5 to 7 jumps (as many as the skater can manage) sequentially one after another at each end of the arena, with little transition or choreography in between. Then finish up everything with footstep sequences then a spin.

It is no longer figure skating when it feature so little effort into actual skating and pushing the boundaries of choreography, artistry and figures, but 100% focussed on skate scoring. Are the skating fans fine with this mass production formula approach? Or this bring the death of art, originality and creativity? Why do skaters need choreographers at all?

Click to expand...

You see, I'm very slow, but I'm getting there closer and closer.

I have worshiped Morozov's programs in Alexei Yagudin time. After he splited from Tarasova, he has still made a few outstanding choreographs for other skaters. In resent years, his choreographs are just getting weirder and weirder. I disliked almost all Amodio's programs and his style in general. Morozov's programs are side effect of this half-way-mark bonus rule. Before this rule was introduced, there were out cries on front-loaded programs. So we can't go back to there. What I'm thinking is just like covering the wounds where the wounds appear. I'm thinking...should we introduce a rule that requires no more than 4 jumping passes shall be performed after half-way-mark? Will that solve the problem you mentioned?

As of frequent pulses in the middle of the programs, I don't know where the marks should be taken off. But it definitely should be discouraged. However you can't eliminate them. It doesn't mean that if a program has one or two pulses in the middle somewhere, it's not a good program. It should go with the music. If the music requires a pulse, then a pulse is the best way to interpreting it.


ETA:

os168 said:

It has always been crazy to me how judges can equalize hard and intricately choreographed routine that contains more technically challenged delivery, musicality with good variation of mood, changes in tempo, speed, risk taking that requires greater deal of emotional and physical effort and then compete it to a easier routine with a simple regular structured music that is just about sustain one tone of soft mood throughout and little actual choreography. How is this fair and equal in a sport or art competition?

Click to expand...

To me, I don't think anyone could find any mathematically equalized music. We can put music into seperate groups. That's about as close difficulty as we can find. However, I think the critical thing is how the skaters use their body language to interprete them. The judges are judging the skaters, neither judging the music choices which someone else helped them to pick, nor judging the choreographers who mainly did the work and the thinking. I think CH in PCS is mainly about judging choreographer, even though it cannot be seperated entirely from IN. I hope someone could correct me if I'm worng. I think CH should not be given equal weight. It should weigh less than the rest of other 4 criteria in PCS.

Bluebonnet said:

Morozov's programs are side effect of this half-way-mark bonus rule. Before this rule was introduced, there were out cries on front-loaded programs. So we can't go back to there. What I'm thinking is just like covering the wounds where the wounds appear. I'm thinking...should we introduce a rule that requires no more than 4 jumping passes shall be performed after half-way-mark? Will that solve the problem you mentioned?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't want to make the requirements even more rigid than they are now, in effect forcing everyone to do the same program template that has been predetermined as the ideal "well-balanced" program.

I think the rules should require minimum expectations only. Then if there are qualities that are deemed more valuable, there should be ways to reward those qualities. But don't actively punish (or worse yet disqualify) a skater who is able to meet the minimum expectations but who is not able to achieve the ideal. E.g., if you require no more than 4 jump passes after the halfway point, the 3rd (ladies) or 4th (men) jump pass is scheduled shortly before the halfway point, the skater got behind the music because of a problem earlier in the program and instead of executing that last jump pass toward the end of the first half of the program it ends up falling just into the second half. There will already be sufficient penalty for whatever the problem was earlier in the program. No need to compound the penalty by completely throwing out one of the later jump passes and/or taking a deduction or whatever you had in mind for punishing programs that didn't meet your "requirement" of maximum 4 jump passes in the second half.

And certainly don't punish a skater who chooses to take a somewhat different approach that fits their skills and their concept for the program better than the predetermined generic template does. (pre-IJS example)

I think CH in PCS is mainly about judging choreographer, even though it cannot be seperated entirely from IN. I hope someone could correct me if I'm worng. I think CH should not be given equal weight. It should weigh less than the rest of other 4 criteria in PCS.

Click to expand...

Program component explanations

Some of the Choreography criteria rely heavily on the creativity of the choreographer. But others depend much more on the skill level of the skater -- a good choreographer isn't going to give a skater choreography that s/he can't execute, just because it meets some platonic aesthetic ideal. A lot of the decisions that go into constructing a program and that get measured in this component are more coaching decisions about what can best showcase this skater's current skill level -- and hopefully help them to raise that level -- than artistic decisions.


By the way, to os168, would something like this young choreographers showcase be what you have in mind for the artistic competition with feedback? Extend it or limit it to elite world-class competitors, include judges from outside the skating world, maybe offer a prize equivalent to a world championship?

I'd love to see that. But I think it needs to be separate from the top athletic contest. Skaters and choreographers are going to make different decisions about how to structure a program if the top priority is artistic coherence than if the top priority is demonstrating maximum technical content with maximum quality, which is what the current championships are about and what the Olympics (with pressures from sports officials outside skating) will always be about.

os168 said:

Art Field Experts are valuable because they bring a higher degree of quality, experience and credibility judging than the average person plus the ISU judges. In art as anything in fashion, it is the 0.001 % of knowledge populations that determines and drives art (the artist, the critics, the buyers/industry leaders). They determine what is artistically credible and valuable, that it is not merely contrived imitation, and is more about the thought that goes behind it, affect it, what comes out of it and impact of it.

Do you think Van Gough, Kandinsky, Munch were all well acknowledged in their day by the average audience while most are still likely preoccupied by Romantics sense of aesthetics? Should that make them any less credible in their days?

Beauty is only one component of Art and it is not stationary. A credible judge 'should in theory' able to distinguish whether something artistically true and credible, and one is not. Sasha's glorious spirals deserve to be recognized on its own, and the art judge panel may decide to award a her a distinguished Star of their choice even if she did not rank in the top 3.

There's nothing wrong with Russian style, American Style (The argument likely to be more political driven than artistic driven, typical in art) and if you consider Shibutanis as avant garde, then frankly this sport require a bit more shaking things up : It is literally too Red or Blue.) The sport is sooo slow to have diversity - the necessary ingredient in any healthy environment for something claimed to be art to thrive. For example, I found it interesting a Chinese blogger that picked up the political subtext in the Olympics Ladies final is really a battle of American vs Russian culture (Gershwin vs. Rachmaninov) regardless the performer is actually Korean Vs Japanese (or that Gershwin is of Russian heritage even he is known as a great American composer) which bring it extra poignancy to the battle, and explains why Mao is far more popular in Russia than Yuna.

And contrary to many I actually really like Grand bell of Moscow as a program, yes it is heavy but it is mean to, Tat tried to do something brave, epic and legitimate and generously gave it to her student of non-russian orign, problem is her own's artistic aspiration(& prob. ego) overwhelms someone who has not yet the emotional maturity to bring it to justice. In art, maturity can come from a wide range of things, in which personal suffering and struggle is almost a necessity. I personally think has she been patient and wait a bit longer, Mao in Sochi with that program would go down a storm (assuming she bring 3A or/and 3:3)! (We already seen how suffering brought a more mature Mao through her Jupiter)

Click to expand...

Why would an arts expert bring a higher degree of credibility to a skating competition?

They may have spent a lifetime studying their respective field (e.g. modern art, music and composition, fashion), but they have not spent a lifetime studying skating. Internationally ranked skating judges have spent most or much of their lifetime studying skating. They have a much better understanding of what types of movement are possible in skating and how to see certain nuances (for example, the difference between clean basic technique and a skill that has an extra flourish added on top of necessary technique). An arts expert may have an opinion on what looks good, but to expect them to learn in a year or a few years' time what a judge has learned over decades is silly. All they can do is offer an opinion on how something looks without a full understanding of the mechanics that go into it, and that opinion is really no more credible than that of the average fan.

I also take umbrage with the idea that something artistic such as figure skating can only be appreciated by someone with an arts background. If we are trying to appeal to the general public but take an elitist attitude towards what is appealing then we are likely to lose the attention of the mainstream audience all the more quickly.

The general public may well gravitate towards something that is more mainstream. This means their taste differs from some experts, but it doesn't necessarily mean that their taste is bad. Just as the public may develop a taste for something that they are more often exposed to, an arts specialist probably develops a taste for their area of expertise. When Stravinsky came out with "The Rite of Spring" there were riots in the streets after the first performance because general sensibilities were offended. Now the work is generally seen as quite artistic- it is certainly very original, complex, and creative. However, if you have a chance to study classical music and listen to some of the early modern compositions after having listened primarily to baroque, classical, and romantic era music for much of a school year, then you might get a taste of what it was like to hear that after having been used to more harmonious works. It's quite shocking and abbrasive in comparison. Does that mean it's not artistic? No, it does not mean that- of course it is still artistic. It does mean that what critics might laud may be offensive to others because of taste.

Variety in skating is a good thing, but I'm not sure the skating world is ready to recognize something that is purely inspired by a quirky branch of modern dance, for example, as inherently better than something more traditional just because it is different. Is encouraging variety for the sake of variety the route you'd like to go in using art experts? Because that seems to be the most likely outcome of the scenario. The experts would be able to recognize something creative and perhaps point out what artistic areas it may have been derived from, or lacking intentional derivation, what areas it might be similar to. They will not understand what is entailed in doing a smooth choctaw with additional uppper body movement added or the difficulty of working "off center" (as perhaps Jeffrey Buttle might) during a step sequence. Quite frankly, I don't think most "arts experts" would be willing to spend the time learning about skating and perhaps learning to skate the basics that might be required to understand the sport. Remember the (rather badly done) Skating with the Stars reality show with a dance choreographer for a judge? She didn't usually "get" skating, and sometimes was way out of left feild with her comments because of that. She'd say something that the skating experts (Dick Button and Johnny Weir) would immediately contradict simply because she didn't understand the sport.

In gymnastics only retired elite competitors are allowed to judge at the elite level because only they fully have an appreciation of it. Figure skating is a bit more lenient in choosing it's judges in that they do not necessarily have to be former competitors, but there is still a rigorous and time consuming path to becoming an internation senior level judge. The reasoning is that it takes years and years of experience and practice to understand the job.


Edit~ I feel I should clarify. I am by no means against variety and originality. I simply feel that they should be combined with solid skating technique and also will be, to an extent, limited by the requirements of skating technique and that skating judges are the best individuals to understand this.

I also did not call the Shibutanis' programs avant garde- at least for this season, I used them as a contrast to the programs that are avant garde.

Finally, though it might be interesting to have various experts weigh in on skating artistry, I feel that is the realm of show skating and tv specials, and not the realm of competition (where I think it is necessary to have trained skating judges for the reasons stated above).

MoonlightSkater said:

Why would an arts expert bring a higher degree of credibility to a skating competition?

They may have spent a lifetime studying their respective field (e.g. modern art, music and composition, fashion), but they have not spent a lifetime studying skating. Internationally ranked skating judges have spent most or much of their lifetime studying skating. They have a much better understanding of what types of movement are possible in skating and how to see certain nuances (for example, the difference between clean basic technique and a skill that has an extra flourish added on top of necessary technique). An arts expert may have an opinion on what looks good, but to expect them to learn in a year or a few years' time what a judge has learned over decades is silly. All they can do is offer an opinion on how something looks without a full understanding of the mechanics that go into it, and that opinion is really no more credible than that of the average fan.

I also take umbrage with the idea that something artistic such as figure skating can only be appreciated by someone with an arts background. If we are trying to appeal to the general public but take an elitist attitude towards what is appealing then we are likely to lose the attention of the mainstream audience all the more quickly.

Click to expand...

You made many valuable points and I agree with many in theory, but the popularist approach (itself debatable, given amount music used in the last 50 years of figure skating can probably only take up to dozens of CDs in a CD store, and just how 'popular' are they? Unless you count cheese fest skate show music) does not seem to be working otherwise the sport, when given many of its unique attributes, it should be a healthier and popular shape than now.

Without variety, diversity, even a little bit of good controversial judging (does't have to be elitist... just someone with better and credible and accountable taste) bridging outside interest may have better chance to expand the sport than what it does now? Headline news whether good to bad works in marketing.

I really doubt with even if the proposed field expert judging system, skaters are going to suddenly be brave trying something too avant garde, they know it is still a skating competition, and they might need to bring it to sell skating show afterwards. Obviously I agree about expertise in skating techniques should by foremost the most important thing in judging a skating competition.

I would humbly suggest rethinking the PCS make up, or may be scale of value mark out instead out of 10, expand it to 100.

The current scale of value for choreography component aspect of PCS marking is a joke really. Take a really bad, lazily conceived choreography - at worse they get 5 instead 7 or 8 or 9 (a general 2, 3 and max 4 points threshold seems to be the norm). So at worse a bad choreographed program will only loose out 2 to 4 points with a gamble you can score far more going for the scoring optimised format. By expanding the value, the severity of loss is more extreme, and I'd argue it should be, because it relate directly to how difficult a program is even with more or less the same technical element. At the moment the difficulty of the program is unaccounted for.

The degree of 2-4 points difference a skater they loose out on the easier program due to bad choreography, they can easily regain them one out of the many mid level difficulty jump base score + good goe. The scale of value is clearly lob sided towards those just want to score.

Why pretend to have choreography at all? Might as do the entire first half with spirals, spins, some form of interpretation poseography like a warm up, and then do all the hard bit, like some sort of sequential endurance marathon of mini jumps from for the 10% bonus mark with literally no penalty with no choreography or transitions. A high quantity of mediocre jump done well is better is worth more than one big risky hard combination. So how is that pushing the sporting aspect? Finally footwork/step sequences, big wow spin to finish up, welcome to the 21st century figure skating!!?

The current PCS make up

1. skating skills (SS)
2. transitions (TR)
3. performance/execution (PE)
4. choreography (CH)
5. interpretation (IN)

Broke it down and make 2 categories of marking. One with the existing skating judges with sound technical knowledge would able to make sense of.
The 2nd category, the art expert judges (with some skating knowledge, tests and qualification) to judge purely on the performance artistry aspect.

So the NEW Program Component Score (out of 100 instead of 10) that look after the technical aspect could look something like

1. skating skills (SS)
2. transitions (TR)
3. performance/execution (PE)
4. choreography balance and technical difficulty

Things like precision, difficulty and imagination with flair should be included.

The new Art Component Score (ACS) may look something like this (out of 100 instead of 10), and I'd add one more category

1. Art performance / Aesthetic execution
2. Choreography from aesthetic sense
3. Program Interpretation
4. Musicality Interpretation

I'd argue The TES should account for 60% (with integer grade of execution -5 to +5 instead of -+3), New PCS 20%, New ACS 20%. Values adjusted to emphasis more on quality and difficulty.

So that makes the sport and skill aspect account for 80% instead of 70%, but the art aspect is 20% but more accurately marked. Plus the Distinction Star merit system that is not accounted in the total competition marking, but like a bonus recognizing special qualities a skater bring to the ice. Hopefully can motivate skaters to be more thoughtful, original and creative with their work, to be more substantial at least.

Those who love skating for arts sake and like to do more skate shows afterwards, this can make use of the Distinction Star system for their artistry reputation and aspirations even if they might not be the highest ranked skater there is. Those who only love skating for sport and competing can totally disregard this and won't care.

------------

Gkelly, thanks for the link, that was a moving tribute that shows the validity of figure skating as a form of self expression and art form. And how lovely it is to see young people get it more than ISU does.

I think Pro Am should offer a very interesting choice of competition to watch. In any form of art competitions the junior level tends to focus on elementary breadth of basic skills, the senior focus on the depth of the skills, difficulty and maturity of presentation, and when you get to pro/expert/elite, it is more of what you do with what you got. I wish Senior ladies would be less elementary in their approach to skating.


Re: Bluebonnet

Yup I am a Yagudin fan myself. I don't blame Morozov for his strategy, he is just smarter and make blatant better use of the system. It is not to say he is incapable of producing a great choreographed program, some of his stuff for Julia Lipnitskaya is interesting because he showed an excessive compulsive showmanship in his latest subject and really 'showed her off'. Yeah Miki's SP is front loaded, to get the hard stuff out of the way then she can concentrate on other things.

I definitely agree about you can't mathematically equalize with music, but at the same time I felt it is used too lazily today. Aim more about masking skater's deficiencies, e.g pace, lack of musicality, unable to interpret. You can always tell, because many skate through their music, so it merely exist in the background for the audience to enjoy while they are not enjoying what they see in front of them. Where as you see how Daisuke and Jeremy uses music in their program scorrectly, it is very much an integral part of their program which they riff off from.