psst...BoP, your prediction of top 5 at Worlds based on the current GP standing can't possibly be correct because Tuktamisheva can't go to Worlds since she is still too young for Senior ISU Championships.Originally Posted by Blades of Passion
psst...BoP, your prediction of top 5 at Worlds based on the current GP standing can't possibly be correct because Tuktamisheva can't go to Worlds since she is still too young for Senior ISU Championships.
Nono, what he meant was the top 5 is all of them except Tuktamisheva so he's expecting top 5 at worlds to bepsst...BoP, your prediction of top 5 at Worlds based on the current GP standing can't possibly be correct because Tuktamisheva can't go to Worlds since she is still too young for Senior ISU Championships.
1. Asada
2. Kostner
3. Suzuki
4. Czisny
5. Leonova
And he added in Tuktamisheva
Couldn't agree more. Mao's artistry is more or less like that of Alissa. They both show their beauty best in a lyrical music (like Chopin) with pretty posture. But, they do not really show the character of music.
Kim and Asada also had to go through this phase in their career in which Liza is right now, building the reputation and increasing PCS.
Kim's components in her SP in 2006-2007 season:
Skate Canada 24,83
Trophee Eric Bombard 27,52
Grand Prix Final 28,40
Worlds 30,46
Like Irina Slutskaya once said: "The same program, the same dress, different components". Did Yu-Na's choreography or transitions really change so much between SC and Worlds? It's the same with Liza now. If she was allowed to compete et Euros and Worlds her components surely would be higher there.
I have found myself crying when watching some of Mao's performances. Never had that happened to me before. In such moments, 'artistry' is not enough of a word to capture the wonderfulness of her performance.
I think Mao's spins and skating skills have improved over the years, and so she's a more rounded skater now than before.
But I would say that she has always had the ability to embody the music because she has an innate ability to seamlessly coordinate parts of her entire body into a fluid movement.
If facial expression is considered important in terms of defining whether or not someone has 'artistry', then she's been improving every year. If you look at some of the photos of Mao performing Bells, her facial expressions were surely appropriately dark to match the darkness of Bells, and her joyful smile this season is appropriate to the moods of this season's music.
I don't think I am.
What you are saying is: 10 different skating fans of 10 different skaters all think their own favourite skaters is the most artistic, AND they would be right, because it is 'subjective' to their preference and what they think artistic. I disagree with that.
In the bigger world where artistry are often applied (fine art, music, literature, fashion, theatre etc) regardless of my own personal preferences, the ones that qualifies to be called artistic is the one that shows their best work with originality, credible persuasion through all manners of creativity, imagination and expressions beyond what is laid out infront of them, hence in the art circle, we often talk about 'beyond the self'. That is what artist do. They need to visibly seen make progress, realisation, exploration in their journey for new ideas, old ideas, bring forth their own unique thinking, approach, communication that is different from the last to to reach some aspect of transcension and realisation.
While you can be the most successful fashion designer in the world doing the same thing over and over again, but that does not make you the most artistic designer. It just makes you a great craftsman like those Saville Row suits makers who can make immaculately suites but were based on knowledge passed down through generations instead of go out there and become a Paul Smith, who are interested in new fabrics, textures, new techniques, new quirky ideas and styles, individualism etc.
But that's your own definition of artistry. Artistry is only in the eye of the beholder. You can't say that because the world has said such and such to be artistic, that it is the standard, because all those that have been deemed artistic are also determind by human subjectivity. Based on your criteria, roughly 99.9% of all people are not artists, because they are not progressive enough. My mother is an artist, she worked both as a corporate graphic designer as well as creating her own art, and I have learned from her that there is artistic merit in everything. You can find artistry in the strangest things. For example, I recently visited the art museum at my university (which is very large so the art museum isn't some run-of-the-mill gallery) and there was a painting on display that was quite literally cheap paint and nails on a canvas creating two people's heads that looked like a second grader's art. Yet we were told all about it, told it was a fine example of folk art. I didn't think it was artistic, it certainly didn't look "new", but others basically planted that it was art in our heads. And I don't think you can do that.
The question here is: who determines artistry? For example, I don't think Bach's music is "artistic" (if that makes any sense) at all, but as a whole human society has deemed it "art". I don't really find Andy Warhol's work innovative (although I love it), but it too, is art. So how can we say something is artistic or not? We didn't determine that they were artistic, others did for us. So artistry is all about your own interpretation IMO.
Here is the definition of art (noun): the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. Aesthetic principles are created by human subjectivity.
But aren't definitions also created by what humans think "oh, this describes the word best"?We're trapped!
Of course, this is all in my point of view (aka subjective). So take it as you will! Different opinions spice things up.
Last edited by burntBREAD; 11-30-2011 at 11:57 AM.
Yes, they have a two hour drive to get from Montreal to Quebec City, not a transcontinental flight with attendant jet lag. They also scored 115 points at TEB with three falls. There is a serious possibility that they can beat the Zhangs, and if any of the top 3 teams have a bad day at the office, they might even slide in for 3rd, if they can skate a clean LP.
Travel distance is also small for Takahashi / Tran. T&T are also coached by Richard Gauthier, as are D&R, so they are equally as close to Quebec City.
Oooooh... while I enjoy Alissa Czisny's variant of the pretty-pretty, she cannot be compared to Mao Asada! Not the same skater who gave us the Nocturne SP, the Por Una Cabeza EX, the Jupiter EX...!There is versatility behind that sweet, innocent smile.
I sort of agree with what Os is getting at, in the sense that while the Liebestraume LP is beautiful, it is something of the same-ol', same-ol' Mao and I would be ecstatic if she had a program that was like her Jupiter EX: something more savoury, more complex than the saccharin thing we've seen from her before. But still, I know that one day when the girl retires, I am going to miss her and I suspect that there will not be a skater who can replace her for a long, long time. She is one of the skaters who is saving this Ladies' season from being totally in the pitzzzzz.
Inside that sweet demure exterior of Mao Asada is a young woman of iron will. She's still on her trail back to a new improved unstoppable skater but I expect success for her quest and longevity for her career. Her character will show in her performance one day to blow everyone away.
But the artistic standard you're referring to is one set by people which will always be subjective. "Art" itself may be an abstract thought but it is viewed through subjective lenses. And who's to judge what is original or not? As Burntbread pointed out, what someone views as original and amazing can be seen as trite and unimpressive in another person's eyes.
But that's your own definition of artistry. Artistry is only in the eye of the beholder. You can't say that because the world has said such and such to be artistic, that it is the standard, because all those that have been deemed artistic are also determind by human subjectivity. Based on your criteria, roughly 99.9% of all people are not artists, because they are not progressive enough. My mother is an artist, she worked both as a corporate graphic designer as well as creating her own art, and I have learned from her that there is artistic merit in everything. You can find artistry in the strangest things. For example, I recently visited the art museum at my university (which is very large so the art museum isn't some run-of-the-mill gallery) and there was a painting on display that was quite literally cheap paint and nails on a canvas creating two people's heads that looked like a second grader's art. Yet we were told all about it, told it was a fine example of folk art. I didn't think it was artistic, it certainly didn't look "new", but others basically planted that it was art in our heads. And I don't think you can do that.
The question here is: who determines artistry? For example, I don't think Bach's music is "artistic" (if that makes any sense) at all, but as a whole human society has deemed it "art". I don't really find Andy Warhol's work innovative (although I love it), but it too, is art. So how can we say something is artistic or not? We didn't determine that they were artistic, others did for us. So artistry is all about your own interpretation IMO.
Here is the definition of art (noun): the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. Aesthetic principles are created by human subjectivity.
But aren't definitions also created by what humans think "oh, this describes the word best"?
Of course, this is all in my point of view (aka subjective). So take it as you will! Different opinions spice things up.Re: Burnbread
Actually it is more like 99.99999% of all world population are not real artist, but nor are they world class figure skaters competing in competition that is 'art' and 'sport'.
Yes there's art in everything.
Yes people see art subjectively (to a point).
Problem is we are not merely 'appreciating' some galleried exhibition of the garden variety. The work are being judged at a world class level where 'Art' should be judged as well as 'Sport'.
In the real world in appraising art, not all art 'values' are equal, nor should all people's opinions carry the same weight by default of the inequality of knowledge that separate appreciators to the experts.
The true value of the work are not fully realised until time passes, by the amount of knowledge and informed experts/critics/peers/new generations recognise it and pay respect to it, as well as how it is appreciated and replayed by the fans of the sport and beyond throughout time. If the judges got it wrong at the competition, it says more about the quality of the judging than about the art itself.
Art should not be some garnish in the background like some wallpaper used to decorate and make the sport pretty, but there should be value in the content, the quality of ideas, difficulty and depth of realisation, and whether it is successful in what it is trying to do. All these things should be scrutinised in art, that is how judges were able to select 1 best painting from 1000 out there of similar 'aesthetic' quality. (btw itself is an really outdated idea about judging and objectify art, purely by the aesthetics and what is predefined beautiful. In any art competition of any kind, you'd rarely find the winner to be that unless in a pageantry contest. Why? Because it is incredibly lazy and contrived way of thinking.)
Peak sporting perfection like Midori's 3A is art because of its rarity, superiority, originality, purity, perfection and authenticity. Torville and Dean's Bolero, John Curry's innovative skating for his time, Kurt, Michelle's best performances regardless of the colour of medals or whether it is exhibitions etc.. All 4 top performances at the Olympics 2011 ladies are great art imho, by the quality of content what they put out there, being who they are, how far they became, the depth and realisation of their programs, how they were all able to put on life time's best at that competition, and most of all - the unpredictable circumstances, nature and luck that brought out their best work together at that occasion, at that stage all at once that would elevate these skating performances from great art work to something beyond... potential legendary pieces of art work.
How about this? Not all artists are artistic, not all musicians are musical. The richest artist may not be the most artistic, and often the greatest artist are not recognized or appreciate until much later, but on the strength of their work based on how people remembered them, regards them and by how their work are replayed over again and again regardless of medal position. If you ask the average Joe why, they'd think you are quite mad, but if you ask a panel of art judges, critics, historians, or even knowledge collector of art, they can surely all elaborate it more.
Last edited by os168; 12-01-2011 at 05:46 AM.
[B]Ladies Event[B]
Kostner is the most all-round skater. This season she had a powerful team working on her. She is quite musical and with lovely use of skating arms together with some smart 3x3s she would be my choice as the best, but the ice is slippery and Italians never seem to win.
Probably Mao will win who also has had a strong team working on her. For me, her all-round skating comes from more outward than inward.
[B]Mens Division[B]
Patrick, while he looks very much off balance with his style, manages to skate clean and nail those quads. His PC scores will be high because of his dynamic flow throughout despite his off balances. He should win this but the ice is slippery.
Dai, will be an excellent runner-up, but his gyrations do not get to me as much as it does for other fans. Like his counterpart in Ladies he skates as told not as himself (my opinion).
Jeremy, a beautifull all-round skater, but can he hold up to his potential? I doubt it.
Pairs
It will be S&S who are the most acrobatic.
Skate Dance
I see no change in order of finishing except for third place. The winning team should be VM followed very closely by DW. Keep you eye on Third Place.
If you read the official PCS guidelines with their full explanations, I think you will be rather surprised to find how little 'Art' (especially what appears to be your definition) matters in the full scope of PCS and CoP in general.
For the record, I don't think Mao is artistic. But then again, I don't consider Yu-Na, Carolina, Alissa, Joannie, or any of the current/recent ladies skaters as artistic either. They are charismatic performers who follow instructions well, or perhaps have great line/posture that results in an aesthetically pleasant picture on the ice, etc. How I view this whole thing about 'Art' in figure skating is that elite figure skating is first and foremost a sport. Skaters skate to win competitions, and to do so, they construct their programs to get the most points under the current rules of the sport--creativity, imagination, etc be damned. Right now, what can plausibly be construed as 'Art' means relatively little in figure skating (as the criteria and structure of PCS scoring clearly indicate) and so the vast majority of skaters' programs reflect this. You stick those transitions before and after your jumps not because they add to the character of the music or fulfil some artistic vision, but because transitions are very important in getting points as they are needed for positive GOE and the TR component of PCS (remember: harder/more intricate is always better!). Cramming the correct number of brackets, counters and mohawks, etc with vigorous upper-body motion tend to be the main factors in dictating the character of footwork (you need to get those levels somehow), not the music or emotions. Try not to succumb to complete artistic abandon/get lost in the performance, because you might leave out a rotation and lose a level or two on a spin. Throw in the fact that the judges seem to link all the components of PCS quite closely together (within a point, IIRC) and that SS--a very technical component--seems to be the component that decides the rest of the PCS....well, yeah. Hence my less-than-laudatory attitude towards the 'artistic' side of figure skating (except for a very, very few exceptions).
I think this is a very loose definition of art. Those four performances are certainly thrilling life experiences to watch and experience....but that does not art make, IMO.All 4 top performances at the Olympics 2010 ladies are great art imho, by the quality of content what they put out there, being who they are, how far they became, the depth and realisation of their programs, how they were all able to put on life time's best at that competition, and most of all - the unpredictable circumstances, nature and luck that brought out their best work together at that occasion, at that stage all at once that would elevate these skating performances from great art work to something beyond... potential legendary pieces of art work.
Last edited by evangeline; 12-01-2011 at 07:06 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks