Figure Skating's Popularity Decline | Page 3 | Golden Skate

Figure Skating's Popularity Decline

ImaginaryPogue

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
In general, I think it is true that those composers, novelists, playwrights, and the like who wrote for the box office produced work of more lasting value than those who sat down and proclaimed to themselves, "Now I am going to compose Great Art."

Hmm... How many artists were derided by audiences and ignored only to be highly acclaimed later? Start with Van Gogh and go from there. Today we have Michael Bay. I don't think I could live in a world where Transformers is deemed to be of more lasting value than the work of the Dardennes or Haneke or Kar-Wai; where Harry Potter is preferable to Bolano or Murakami.

I don't care too much for Dickens, to be honest, for that very reason.
 

koatcue

Medalist
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Country
Russia
I think popularity depends on success...Just saying:cool:
In Russia it's VERY popular)
 

evangeline

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Hmm... How many artists were derided by audiences and ignored only to be highly acclaimed later? Start with Van Gogh and go from there. Today we have Michael Bay. I don't think I could live in a world where Transformers is deemed to be of more lasting value than the work of the Dardennes or Haneke or Kar-Wai; where Harry Potter is preferable to Bolano or Murakami.

I don't care too much for Dickens, to be honest, for that very reason.

Am I an utter philistine if I'd rather watch the first Transformers movie again than 2046 or My Blueberry Nights?

But seriously, I don't think anyone (including ardent fans or even Michael Bay himself) pretends that Transformers is some sort of artistic triumph or has any lasting value whatsoever. Movies of that ilk are just mindless fun, like watching bad reality TV or reading Harlequin romance novels. There's no point to comparing them to the works of the Dardennes, Haneke or Wong Kar-Wai.

Anyway, the flip side of your question is, how many artists were enjoyed and praised by contemporary audiences (even if not entirely understood by them) and continue to be highly acclaimed today? Start with Beethoven, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, etc., and go from there. :)
 
Last edited:

Serious Business

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Did someone order a Burger King burger? Because I see some dead horse beating here (for those who don't know, Burger King has been caught in the horse meat scandal). Anyway, I have nothing against beating a dead horse. Gotta make glue somehow.

And like the pony we're flogging, dead is what figure skating's popularity in the US is. DEEAAAAD. Look at the recent ratings for the US championships. Last year's ratings were awful, this year's is down from last year's. At this point, figure skating is a zombie lurching around in America in search of eyeballs, and none are forthcoming.

It's funny that you guys are discussing high vs. low art. That's related to my theory on figure skating's US demise, though not quite the way some of you frame it. It's not the profit-motive alone that distinguishes some art from others. Yes, as Mathman pointed out, a lot of what is now considered classic works of art were done for mass profit back in their day, the most prominent example being Shakespeare. But where Mathman and others are wrong is to think commercially orientated artworks in the past are similar to the commercially orientated artworks we have now. Corporate culture/laws have changed drastically in the US. The media delivery system, too. To use movies as one example (and there are many others), the blockbuster movies we have now are designed to make a huge profit in the short term, and not off of maximizing viewership.

To wit: Michael Bay movies, some of them at any rate, may be considered blockbusters now. But adjusted for inflation, or looking at actual box office attendance, or looking at ongoing home video sales, they don't even rank. Adjusted for inflation, Doctor Zhivago (something all figure skating fans should be painfully familiar with, at least music-wise) is one of the most successful movies ever. I'd wager its ticket sales, i.e. the number of people who actually saw it in theaters, are higher than all of Michael Bay's movies combined. This is partly because ticket prices have been jacked up much higher than the rate of inflation in recent years. And that is a symptom of the short term profiteering that plagues business culture today.

Another symptom is WHEN a movie's profits are made. Time was, a movie would trickle out to theater for months, and people would keep going out to see it. And it would eventually build up into a massive hit. Starting with Jaws in the 80s, Hollywood discovered the rush of the blockbuster. That is, a movie that makes a huge bundle of cash in its first weekend. Nowadays, all the top grossing Hollywood films make the majority of their box office money in the first weekend it debuts! Hollywood execs like it this way because A) They want to know they're successful right away. This is necessary for their own survival as the next quarterly report is just around the corner, and the stock market is opening right the next day, and investors are more fickle and myopic than ever. B) This preempts the possibility that a crappy movie will torpedo its long term prospects when bad word of mouth gets out.

This kind of short-term, grab the cash while you can mentality applies to other commercially orientated art, too. Think back to when album-orientated rock was a viable format for radio. That's commercial radio that succeeded by playing 7 minute songs that aren't heavily promoted singles. Nowadays, radio stations are all owned by the same two companies, and the biggest hits are 3 minute songs that have the good fortune of being attached to a viral video on YouTube.

It's not that artists didn't try to make bank back in the day. It's how they go about grabbing that delicious cash that's different. If they don't make a huge amount of money immediately, they're a failure and who ever's bankrolling them will pull the plug. Just think how much that changes the kind of art artists make. Artists can no longer wait for an audience to come to them. They cannot afford to make art that relies on the audience's patience, understanding, deep knowledge or sufferance.

All of this started in the 80s, more or less. Corporate deregulation unleashed the corporate takeover of the US. The de-funding of public education increasingly removed the study of art in school, where people may have otherwise learned the patience, knowledge, etc. required to be rewarded by some art.

How does this relate to figure skating's success in the US? Well, while figure skating isn't pure art, the art part is a fundamental part of it. In the US public consciousness, as I mentioned above, the space for art that requires study and patience has shriveled to nothing. Figure skating doesn't require that much effort to enjoy, but it's still a bridge too far for modern Americans, who are now positively pavlovian to instant gratification and won't get up for anything else. Sports entertainment needs to be visceral to hold American interests. Figure skating is not.

And then there's the business culture. Figure skating isn't producing the numbers it used to? It gets the axe. It's instant gratification all over again. The post-whack success of skating can't and didn't last. So skating gets shafted, which leads to less attention and appreciation for skating, which leads to more of skating getting shafted, and so on.

There is, however, some very long term hope. This kind of corporate culture has actually caught up to a lot of the content industries now. Like I mentioned earlier, Michael Bay movies, and really most modern blockbusters, are actually not very successful by historic standards. Movie theater attendance in the US is plummeting. The record selling industry in the US is a joke and a cautionary tale cited by executives in all the other media, but one they have yet to learn from. The pendulum has swung too far. The public has been milked too hard, too fast and now all that's puffing out is dust.

Education and arts funding is going to make a comeback, as our three decade long experiment with trickle down economics seem poised for a long overdue backlash.

I don't believe that the beauty and value Americans found in figure skating for so many decades are irretrievable. It will be adapted and changed a bit to suit newer tastes, but eventually, it will be back.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
I sure hope so, Serious. Your argument is very intriguing.

In terms of movies, it's interesting that two successful franchises these days, Harry Potter and Tolkien, were efforts by filmmakers who really believed in their subject matter, and they were based on books that were created by their authors in a totally individual way that happened to strike a chord in the public. These days it's easy to think of the Harry Potter films as a successful franchise product, but the books were innovative (though based on traditional elements such as the British "school story") and well-written works based on the author's own imagination and individual creativity. As for Tolkien's works, you can't get any less "gee, this will hit the bull's eye of American public interest" than an Oxford don who based his books on things like eighth-century Anglo Saxon literature. (I once went through the names of the Riders of Rohan with my Old English dictionary, and Tolkien got them straight from sources like Beowulf. Oh, by the way, all the dwarfs in The Hobbit got their names from a passage in the Old Norse epic the Elder Edda.) And yet crowds line up to see these films again and again. I know that Barnum said no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public (Kardashians prove that to be true), but you can clearly get masterpieces in front of them if you do it right.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Hmm... How many artists were derided by audiences and ignored only to be highly acclaimed later? Start with Van Gogh and go from there.

I don't think that instituting a paint-by-numbers evaluation system in the art world, like the CoP, would help future Van Goghs.

Anyway, why can't we have both, Mozart and Kagel Nacht? (Admission: I have never heard of Kagel Nacht. I Googled "obscure avant garde composer" and his name popped up. :) )
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
There's always John Cage, Math. He used to perform with a topless cellist. Part of his music involved I think plucking the strings inside a grand piano.

Rock it, Amadeus!
 

ImaginaryPogue

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Am I an utter philistine if I'd rather watch the first Transformers movie again than 2046 or My Blueberry Nights?

But seriously, I don't think anyone (including ardent fans or even Michael Bay himself) pretends that Transformers is some sort of artistic triumph or has any lasting value whatsoever. Movies of that ilk are just mindless fun, like watching bad reality TV or reading Harlequin romance novels. There's no point to comparing them to the works of the Dardennes, Haneke or Wong Kar-Wai.

Anyway, the flip side of your question is, how many artists were enjoyed and praised by contemporary audiences (even if not entirely understood by them) and continue to be highly acclaimed today? Start with Beethoven, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, etc., and go from there. :)

1. Yes, you are an utter philistine. Completely and utterly hopeless. Though I'd definitely be interested in debating with you.

2. Ah, the no point assertion. My least favourite debating tactic. But I'd argue there is a point and it goes back to Mathman's premise.

3. Entirely true. There is going to be something of worth regardless.

---

4. Mathman, you know that's not what I'm asserting. But I don't believe that if all art catered towards an ignorant audience, it would be better for it, as you asserted.
 

LRK

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 13, 2012
Well, but if your Art only caters to the few Elect - well, then you shouldn't surprised that it isn't popular with the "ignorant audience" - or the "hoi polloi", the "riff raff" &c. Which I thought was the question this thread was discussing - whether it was declining and if so, why? Are you saying that you actually PREFER it to be unpopular? And I don't think your HP versus Bolano comparison works very well - do you actually expect children to read Bolano? And do you despise them for not doing so?
 

ImaginaryPogue

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
1. Do I prefer it to be unpopular? No. I do prefer that popularity isn't the goal, however.

2. Of course I don't expect children to read Bolano. But I'd argue that more adults have read Harry Potter as adults than have read Bolano (and really, His Dark Materials is just so much better than Harry Potter anyway). Do you believe that to be false?
 

evangeline

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
1. Yes, you are an utter philistine. Completely and utterly hopeless. Though I'd definitely be interested in debating with you.

2. Ah, the no point assertion. My least favourite debating tactic. But I'd argue there is a point and it goes back to Mathman's premise.

3. Entirely true. There is going to be something of worth regardless.

Then so be it! I am utterly a philistine, and will proudly spend the rest of my life reading Fifty Shades of Grey and watch nothing but Uwe Boll and Michael Bay movies.

On a more serious note, I adore some of Wong Kar Wai's films. I'd rather watch ten minutes of Chungking Express than the entirety of anything Michael Bay has ever touched. However, I feel as if Wong Kar Wai has lost his way somewhat after In the Mood for Love....both 2046 and My Blueberry Nights seemed like sad retreads of his greatest hits and overused motifs to me.
 

noskates

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
I believe it is already on the rise in Canada again.

And this speaks to my point about the fact that there is so little television coverage of US competitions - or even the Grand Prix series, Europeans (which we saw none of) and Worlds. Canada has GREAT coverage of their own events as well as others. My friends in Canada saw more of US Nats than I did this year. Forget the skaters coming up - we hardly saw the top 10 in any discipline! It irritates the snot out of me when someone says -"well there just isn't any money or interest in figure skating!" That's like what came first, the chicken or the egg. If someone would take the leap and start broadcasting more the interest would build up! I've often that that the decine of interest in SOI is due to the fact that the average viewer doesn't know the skaters anymore (and the cost of the tickets......) There is no attachment or interest in following their professional careers because they were barely seen as amateurs!
 

drivingmissdaisy

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
It irritates the snot out of me when someone says -"well there just isn't any money or interest in figure skating!" That's like what came first, the chicken or the egg. If someone would take the leap and start broadcasting more the interest would build up! I've often that that the decine of interest in SOI is due to the fact that the average viewer doesn't know the skaters anymore (and the cost of the tickets......) There is no attachment or interest in following their professional careers because they were barely seen as amateurs!

I see your point, however you must remember that there was a time when skating did have the television coverage and interest still stagnated. The viewers don't know the skaters because there isn't much longevity for many of the skaters at the top. Hughes is an Olympic champion and is completely out of the competitive picture two years later, same with Meissner. Only recently has the US had a woman able to defend her national title when most champions struggle to even medal the following year. COP, in additional to making things complicated for the casual fan, has also made skating more difficult for the competitors and rather than skating with freedom the skaters are trying to cram as many point-earning elements as possible. This is great for the purists, who want to see better skating skills rewarded, but terrible for casual fans who can't understand why programs with multiple falls beat clean looking programs. I think people naturally tune out sports they don't "get" and I suspect you see this happening with casual fans who aren't going to sit around the water cooler and rave about Ashley's title-defending, two-fall long program.
 

ice coverage

avatar credit: @miyan5605
Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
@SashaCohenNYC
On my way to @nasdaq to ring the closing bell to celebrate one year out from the next @Olympics. #finance #closingbell #sochi2014
11:55 AM - 6 Feb 13

A small sign that figure skating has not completely fallen off the national radar in the U.S.

I realize that the one-year countdown to Sochi has all kinds of hoopla going on today, but someone (the USOC?? NBC??) was smart to arrange this opportunity. And with her growing expertise in business, Cohen is the perfect choice for it. (I'm curious to see whether other skaters will be with her too.)
 
Last edited:

glam

On the Ice
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
I realize that the one-year countdown to Sochi has all kinds of hoopla going on today, but someone (the USOC?? NBC??) was smart to arrange this opportunity. And with her growing expertise in business, Cohen is the perfect choice for it. (I'm curious to see whether other skaters will be with her too.)

I think it would have been better to use someone current skater, who might actually compete in Sochi. People already know Sasha Cohen but they don't know any of the possible competitors in Sochi.
 

ice coverage

avatar credit: @miyan5605
Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
^ glam, great minds think alike:
Turns our that three of the athletes [but not skaters] at the NASDAQ closing bell event are 2014 Olympic hopefuls. One already was a 2010 Olympic bobsledder; the other two are hopefuls for slopestyle skiing [whatever that is??].

But in addition to Cohen, the other figure skaters participating were Olympians of the past: Tara Lipinski + Sarah and Emily Hughes.

Photos here:

Too bad that the Shibutanis and Davis/White are in Osaka for Four Continents. They would have been great ambassadors for Team USA, as they always are.

In any case, I'm happy for Cohen, who has big things ahead of her in the world of finance as her "second act." Today must have been an especially big thrill for her. :)
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
When Evan Lysacek rang the closing bell at NYSE a couple of years ago, the Dow Jones went up 62 points the next day. :)

I'm counting on you, Sasha! :yes:
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
@SashaCohenNYC
On my way to @nasdaq to ring the closing bell to celebrate one year out from the next @Olympics. #finance #closingbell #sochi2014
11:55 AM - 6 Feb 13

A small sign that figure skating has not completely fallen off the national radar in the U.S.

I realize that the one-year countdown to Sochi has all kinds of hoopla going on today, but someone (the USOC?? NBC??) was smart to arrange this opportunity. And with her growing expertise in business, Cohen is the perfect choice for it. (I'm curious to see whether other skaters will be with her too.)

How great that Sasha got to take part in such an event. It doesn't bother me that they invited Sasha--after all, she's a New Yorker and is studying finance. Also, she's at this point better known than any other lady they could choose short of Michelle. Better known even than Tara or Sarah, with their OGMs. Unless the NASDAQ decides to go as far back as Dorothy, this is the best choice, and the most glamorous.
 

Layfan

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Funny, just as this thread came up, a colleague at the office randomnly mentioned Tara Lipinski. The conversation had nothing to do with skating and this colleague is definitely not a figure skating fan. But her name came up as part of something else. So, I thought, huh, he read Tara Lipinski randomnly and immediately knew who she was. I asked him, out of curiosity, do you know who the 2002 Olympic ladies gold medalist was? He looked blank and said uh.... Michelle Kwan never won Olympic gold did she? I said "correct!" And then I told him it was Sarah Hughes. Blank look. Okay, do you know who won in 2006 (yeah right). Nothing. 2010? Nope.

So this guy, who is in his mid thirties and most definitely doesn't care about skating, knew exactly who Tara and Michelle were. He also, I figured out later, knew who Osksana Baiul was and Kristi and of course Tonya and Nancy.
So, his knowledge drops after 1998.

What's the point? I don't know... I definitely think the decline has a lot to do with the lack of a U.S. ladies star. The COP doesn't help probably but I think the networks would still be inclined to cover figure skating more aggressively if there was a compelling story line. But I also think figure skating is one of those things that is suffering from the modern pop culture world of endless sources of entertainment on the internet, netflix, reality tv etc. in the 1980 and 90s there still weren't as many choices so Tonya-Nancy and then Michelle-Tara were among the best reality TV shows around.

Incidently, I didn't think to ask him if he knew who Sasha Cohen is. That would be interesting.
 
Top