Mathman gave Chan 9.0 and I gave him 9.25 for his artistry. Those are high scores, Skatefiguring. Your posts came right after ours, so what exactly were you arguing about if it wasn't about the scores? Even if it was just a general impression of yours, most of the points you made could apply to Plueshenko's artistry or even Stojko's as well. "It's hard to do quads and perform at the same time, so I deserve high marks for artistry"---something Stojko might have said to himself. "It's hard to do all those difficult transitions and sell the program at the same time, so I deserve a high mark for presentation and interpretation."---It sounds like a copy of Stojko's logic.
A pianist's interpretation skills and technical skills are correlated positively but not perfectly. And the higher the level, the weaker the correlation. Some seasoned performers find Mozart's simple concertos challenging because there is no quick finger to hide the interpretation. I often wonder if there are no quick feet, can Patrick still create the so-called magic? Can he skate to Buttle's "easy" programs that oozed an unearthly feel? Or Lambiel's and Dai's elegant dance?
I think highly (9.25) of Chan's artistry, so it is redundant to tell me that his level is "beyond the capacities of most" and make a big argument about it. I'm talking about the best against the best, not the best against the vast average.
Honest atheleticism and pure quality skating do not always translate into honest performance (interpretation). They are correlated but not identical.