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
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.