What marks an "artistic" skater? | Page 2 | Golden Skate

What marks an "artistic" skater?

Alli Anzell

Spectator
Joined
Jun 30, 2013
Long time lurker as well, and prompted by some interesting comments in this thread to join.

Artistry has always been such a challenge to define across so many different mediums. To put a numeric value on it the way an athletic competition inevitably must always struck me as especially dependent on the ones whose eyes were doing the beholding (the judges).

Mathman, whatever did happen to Joe Sitz?
 

cosmos

On the Ice
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
If skating is a pure form of art, it would not be a sport and would not have been chosen as an olympic sport. First, it is a sport and then perhaps a performing sport. Personally, I believe that performing is a form of art. I think fans usually refer to " art" every subjective part of skating.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Welcome, Alli Anzell. Thanks so much for joining in. Post often, post long. :)

Alli Anzell said:
Mathman, whatever did happen to Joe Sitz?

I don't know, but I really miss his contributions to the board. He was getting along in age (as we all do).
 

Robeye

Final Flight
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
This is an important question, and one that doesn't get enough systematic attention, I think, in view of the fact that almost a third of the total competitive score (the PE, IN, and CH) can be considered heavily and, in my view, deliberately "artistic" in their matter, if not, indeed, wholly. And this doesn't even take into account the possible subconscious influence that may be exerted by the (perhaps unlooked for) impressions of beauty that "technical" elements (including jumps, spins and steps) can create.

I would suggest the following sub-questions as a way of grappling with the subject in an intelligible and digestible way:

1) Do we believe that the descriptions and the bullet points of the relevant components satisfactorily define and capture the essential aesthetic qualities as they have to do with skating?

2) Then we come to what I consider the alpha and omega of the question: can we understand the standards for figure skating artistry to be objective, rather than subjective?

I see posts all the time which claim with an astonishing assurance that "artistry is subjective" or "in the eye of the beholder", or some variation on these. Many of them then go on, without the least hint of hesitation or self-consciousness, to vigorously argue why their favorite skater was robbed in IN or CH, or to present detailed, tour-de-force analyses of why skater X deserved an 8.5 instead of 7.5 for IN, while the reverse was true for skater Y, and the judges were imbeciles or corrupt poopheads ;).

So, which is it? That artistry is "subjective", or that judges are imbecilic and corrupt poopheads? We cannot reserve our right to say the latter when we feel like it, and still also retain the former. :p

IMO, there are very good arguments as to why artistry in skating can/should be considered "objective". As per the example above, in practice (if one excludes those times when the question is raised in the abstract), people act and opine as if artistry is measurable and demonstrable. In practice, the idea of subjectivity, more often than not, is used to explain situations where the scoring does not agree with you.

In my view (liberally paraphrasing one of my favorite authors), when practical demonstrations in the belief of a thing's existence are so general and universal, we should be very careful in dismissing it on objections that are, on closer examination, merely assumption, pure and simple. I have yet to see, from those who say that artistry is "subjective", an argument that inescapably or persuasively demonstrates why that is so.

Here is another practical demonstration that, at minimum, the benchmarks for skating artistry (as enshrined in the PCS components of PE, IN, and CH) work in the real world: in the decades since figure skating substantially attained its modern form, there has been no wildly popular or successful movement to remove aesthetic considerations from competition.

Let's consider that for a moment. Why is that? Given how opinionated and partisan and fractious we figure skating viewers can be, one would think that there would be armed insurrection if we really thought, in our heart of hearts, that the scoring of the "artistic" components was based on nothing more than purely personal, unsupported whimsy.

3) I suspect (that is, I hope) that what many might mean is that the qualities defined in the artistic components of PCS are marked by limitations on the precision with which they can be applied. I personally agree that this issue deserves ongoing scrutiny (for instance, in the current system, is it really possible to distinguish between a performance deserving an 8.25 and one that should receive an 8.50? And how do we justify a system of "absolute" standards with a "cap" of 10.00? What should persuade me that there will never be a performance that deserves a higher score?). In my view, it is fair to ask whether the current system of criteria and rules for application can be improved.

But this is a very different issue, an issue analogous to a practical engineering problem. Saying, on the other hand, that skating artistry is "subjective" is saying that the results of the application of the criteria are neither explainable nor repeatable. It would be like saying that skating artistry is like a tachyon, and any equations in which they enter are therefore completely figments of the imagination.

If we were really committed to such a belief, it would be the death of figure skating as we know it.

(I realize that this doesn't address my specific views on what artistry is in skating, but I've opined extensively in the past. This subjectivity thing, though, has always been a pet peeve of mine, and one that I think is somewhat insidious to the foundations of skating, like termites.

Besides which, this post is already getting a bit long, so I'll rein in my enthusiasm at this juncture. :biggrin:)
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
2) Then we come to what I consider the alpha and omega of the question: can we understand the standards for figure skating artistry to be objective, rather than subjective?

I see posts all the time which claim with an astonishing assurance that "artistry is subjective" or "in the eye of the beholder", or some variation on these. Many of them then go on, without the least hint of hesitation or self-consciousness, to vigorously argue why their favorite skater was robbed in IN or CH, or to present detailed, tour-de-force analyses of why skater X deserved an 8.5 instead of 7.5 for IN, while the reverse was true for skater Y, and the judges were imbeciles or corrupt poopheads ;).

So, which is it? That artistry is "subjective", or that judges are imbecilic and corrupt poopheads? We cannot reserve our right to say the latter when we feel like it, and still also retain the former. :p

This is an interesting question.

My thoughts, speaking only for myself...

A few of the criteria for the PE-CH-IN components could be objectively quantified, if we had appropriate instruments to do so: e.g., how much of the ice surface does the skater cover and how are the elements and other highlight moves distributed in space and time; how much of the time do are the skater's movements executed in time with the musical beats?

In practice, though, they're not being measured, but scored by human beings estimating what they see.

The rest of the criteria, for the must part, are not really measurable in the sense of "how much" but rather rely on evaluations of "how well."

In that sense, they are by definition subjective judgments. Each individual observer (judge, fan, etc.) perceives the various aspects of the performance and determines for herself how well it met the various criteria.

For one thing, there will probably be some differences in the way each person uses numbers to reflect their perception of the actual phenomena. Do they tend to use wide or narrow ranges to reflect between different components for the same skater, and between different skaters on the same component? Do they start from mental benchmarks for each number (e.g., 7.0 vs. 8.0) that are on the high or low end of the consensus of what constitutes "good" or "very good" -- do they tend to be generous or stingy with the marks?

Even if everyone perceived exactly the same details about the performance, started from the same benchmarks, and weighted the separate criteria for each component exactly the same, there would likely still be differences in the way the individuals use the numbers. But that's more an issue of how reliable measuring tool is human judgment at perceiving holistically, analyzing, and translating those perceptions in to numbers.

But the perceptions and the weightings will not be identical.

Different judges, and fans, will bring different levels and emphases from outside-skating knowledge of music, dance, and other arts, both in general and from the specific sources/inspirations behind any specific program.

In addition to differing knowledge, they'll also have differing preferences. If one loves violin music and hates electric guitars, and vice versa for someone else, they're going to have different emotional reactions to programs to music featuring those instruments.

Knowledge of skating history and skating technique will also affect the understanding of choreographic choices.

Where a judge or fan is sitting to watch a performance will affect what they can perceive. E.g., if a program is "judgecentric" so the judges get a lot of facial expression from the skater, their response might be very different from that of a fan sitting on the other side of the arena who mostly gets to see the skater's back. Fans sitting high in the arena may not see facial expression at all, whereas those watching at home on TV with lots of closeups may see more than the judges. The TV producers' decisions about camer angles and the method of switching from one camera to another can also affect home viewers' perceptions in ways that have no effect on viewers in the arena.

Who each observer is rooting for, what they know about a skater before the performance and what they want or expect from the skater in this competition, will affect their emotional response.

Given the multiple criteria for each component, different judges and different fans might put heavier weight on some of the criteria and pay little attention to other aspects.

So there are always going to be different responses from different judges, as well as from different fans, and between fans in general vs. judges in general. Scoring these components will never be an exact science.

But I don't think that judges, or fans, who disagree with me are imbecilic or poopheads. I think disagreements are inevitable given the complex subject matter. That's why there are 9 (or however many) judges on a panel -- to bring different points of view to the process and to arrive at a consensus not based on perfect agreement.

The judges have to be well educated about skating technique and about how the skating establishment defines and values the artistic side of the evaluations. Some of them are also well educated about performing arts, and others have little knowledge in those areas aside what they have had to learn for their judging duties.

Fans come from a wider range of backgrounds. Some have a lot of knowledge about other performing arts, more than most judges, and place more emphasis criteria that are common to those artforms. They may have less knowledge of the skating rules and traditions and place less emphasis on those kinds of criteria than most judges do.

So there will inevitably be differences of opinion between these groups about how to score performances that are strong on the more skating-specific criteria and weaker on the more general artistic criteria, or vice versa.

And then there are others who really don't bring much knowledge of skating or performing arts criteria and don't really analyze the performances, but they know how they personally respond to each performance.

Everyone's emotional responses are equally valid, but they can easily be influenced by details that really have nothing to do with any of the written criteria. So I think it's important that emotional response remain only a small percentage of the judging criteria, even if it's the most important reason that many fans enjoy watching skating.
 

zschultz1986

Final Flight
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
For me, CoP makes artistry harder, as it is NOT tailored to making programs "cohesive" or "thematic" but just an evaluation of a string of elements, which is how we have gotten to this bland, monochromatic uniformity (in my opinion). I also blame myself for the loss of some of skating's luster... as I no longer try and take in programs, but I scrutinize every element for mistakes, which takes away something than when I was a kid/teenager, and just watching.

CoP's "second mark" doesn't adequately address artistry, but it tries to quantify it, which does it a disservice. Also, I disagree Robeye. We CAN say that both artistry is subjective, and that judges are imbecilc poopheads. Slutskaya was the perfect example. She was not an artistic skater. She just wasn't, and don't TRY to argue the point. Miki Ando wasn't, isn't, and will never be. Joannie Rochette, though I love her, was never an "artistic" skater. So, then, WHY were these people given very high PCS in figure skating: reputation. Also, CoP did away with artistry as we knew it from the 80s and 90s. However, I digress:

Here's some blatantly obvious artistry (and some of MY favorite programs from CoP):

Buttle's Nagoygatsi 05 Can Nats LP http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYv170n84Tw (This program made me fall in love with Jeff's Skating. Alot has to do with the Choreo for sure, but it was performed exquisitely. Transitions that were in there went with the music, and weren't in there for transitions sake *cough*LYSACEK*cough*)

Stephane's MAGIC ZEBRA! 06 Worlds LP http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvZ-KDWK4NY (The first quad jumping pass ALWAYS gets me, as its pretty much PERFECTLY in time with the music. Most EVERY movement in this piece is highlighting the music and isn't superfluous. That's what makes a good artist, to me: Movement not for movement's sake, but because it is what the music calls for.)

Savoie's "The Mission" 06 US Nats LP http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRqY2Q2WUl8 (This was the program of the season, for me. Again, the movement MATCHES the music and the combination... its just, something you FEEL in your gut. The emotion he evokes from me in this program is very reminiscent of what Michelle did to me. Crying tears of Joy, because what he did on the ice was EVERYTHING. He is the most underrated skater in US History.)

Stephane's "Poeta" 07 Worlds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE1_0xd9A4k (Another example of movement that brings the character of the music to life. Stephane COMMITS to a program. He IS the program. That's why he is a great artist. He takes the choreography, and makes it his own. The character of the program is undoubtable. He IS a flamenco dancer in this moment. The last footwork sequence into the spin, I get chills, its that good.)

Sasha's "Romeo and Juliet" 06 Olys LP http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMJaam4ldxA (It's funny, I look back at this and I say, "Only Sasha would be helped, artistically, by falls." She WAS Juliet in this program. You can tell she felt the music. I don't know if the program would have been as good without the falls. Romeo & Juliet was about forbidden love, and how it killed them. The falls at the beginning, just hit that home for me. Sasha has some AMAZING Short programs. But this one takes the cake: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI-cbt1u1uc Malaguena. I'm not a Sasha fan, and this was after Kwan's horrendously underscored short, but this was, as Simon and Nicky say "SPOT ON".)

Yuna's "Tango de Roxanne" 07 Worlds SP http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTCAsSGgFWc (Nicky and Simon really are the best, as they totally read my mind, nearly every time. I always go back and forth with my favorite SP from Yuna, between this one and Danse Macabre http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zkn8nyFoKd8 "Danse" was amazing, but for me, artistically, "Tango de Roxanne" really takes the cake, as she is SO "on song" in it, it's really marvelous. To be honest: Yuna's artistry is different, for me. I think Yuna's strength is that she is an amazing competitor, and that she can produce wonderful performances on BIG stages. She has the Yagudin strain of artistry, to me. It may not be the most aesthetically pleasing (Balletic) but it is art for DAMN sure.


Pre-COP:

Any of these from Michelle: (Romanza: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1imuQWeIi4Q Rach: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHfgjszz_Tk Lyra: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okPRcajUQrM Aranjuez: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfluAux0Sf0 Tosca: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzcUIuD4xfo And, maybe the most bittersweet, poignant program of all time, for me: Fields of Gold http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wazOhkRuySI )

Yagudin: (Revoulationary Etude for the RAW PASSION: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haM0aBq4aj4 Winter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3epqHXQUeHY )

Ruh: (1999 LP "Gliere Harp Trio": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0fvU4wnp34 2000 World Pro "Mercy Prayer Cycle": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG8tfmkvGDc )

Wylie's "King Henry V" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzxrQSbaCRU

B&S's "Chaplin" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlb1wdxfq0k

The thing you HAVE to understand is: that ART IS SUBJECTIVE by its very nature. Art is made to induce either: Emotion and/or Thought. For me, this is how it should be in figure skating. Movement for movements sake, without a purpose BESIDES garnering points (Lysacek, Joubert, Plushenko) is the most heinous crime one can commit in skating. I get that it is a competition, but it is also art. Which is WHY I have such a problem with the current state of figure skating, as it does NOT reward true artistry. Of course, now I'm going off on my CoP rant, so I'm going to leave it at this:

Figure Skaters could do well with COMMITTING to the intention of the movement and of the choreographer and evoking that. I think many of you have seen my posts on how I feel about Chan. This is what I always point to. There's no reason that Chan shouldn't be an AMAZING artist. He has EVERYTHING. Yet, it seems like, for me, there is a wall between myself and what he is doing out on the ice. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTSgo2KbeT8 Simon says "He's not engaged" by Chan, and that's EXACTLY how I feel whenever he skated. Everything in that program is amazing, BUT I'm NOT emotionally engaged, and THAT'S why I always point to Chan as the difference between an "amazing skater" and "an artist". I can appreciate what he does, technically, but it's not, for me, an artist. It's just a perfect replication of choreography to music. <----- (Does ANYONE Understand what I'm trying to say here? LOL)
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
CoP's "second mark" doesn't adequately address artistry, but it tries to quantify it, which does it a disservice. Also, I disagree Robeye. We CAN say that both artistry is subjective, and that judges are imbecilc poopheads. Slutskaya was the perfect example. She was not an artistic skater. She just wasn't, and don't TRY to argue the point. Miki Ando wasn't, isn't, and will never be. Joannie Rochette, though I love her, was never an "artistic" skater. So, then, WHY were these people given very high PCS in figure skating: reputation.

I will argue with you. I hope we can avoid name calling.

First of all, the high marks that these skaters received were measures of how well they met the criteria for the Presentation mark (under 6.0) and for the various program components (under IJS). They were never intended to measure how "artistic" the skater or the performance was and only how artistic the skater was, according to a narrow or non-skating-specific definition of artistry.

It's possible for a skater to do quite well at all or most of the skating-specific criteria for those marks and poorly at all or most of the more general criteria. So if you're working from a more general definition of artistry, you might believe that those performances were not artistic at all, but judges working from the actual written criteria within the traditions of the sport might believe that those skaters were not very artistic but did present the programs very well and therefore deserve high scores for presentation.

Or they might define actual "artistry" differently than you do, or weight the different criteria differently than you do.

Different emphases in what should be valued are not necessarily wrong -- as I mentioned earlier no skater is going to do everything equally well, and different observers bring different backgrounds to how they appreciate the various criteria and which they value most highly. But I do think it's wrong to go around calling people names just because their weightings, their final scores and results, are different from your personal conclusions.

Also, I think it's a mistake to think of artistry as a yes-or-no quality that some skaters have and always have to the full degree, and other skaters do not have at all and never will. Skaters with long careers tend to improve artistically as they mature -- although some don't, and some even regress for various reasons -- and have more artistically successful programs and performances of the same program. I think it's a continuum, not an either/or question.


Speaking for myself, I thought that some of Slutskaya's programs were well choreographed and had performance qualities that deserved to be rewarded under those marks, whereas other programs were more generic and throughout her career, to different degrees, she was visibly lacking in some areas that contribute to a sense of artistry.

I was less impressed with Ando's programs and performances, although sometimes she showed glimpses of improvement, and clean confident programs certainly deserved to be rewarded for the non-art-related aspects of "Presentation."

Rochette, however, especially by the end of her career, had excellent choreography and understanding of music. As programs, Rochette's were my favorites of 2010, even if her movement qualities were not as effortless as Kim's or Asada's. I would argue that Rochette was more artistic than Kim, for example, and when Kim earned higher PCS it was because of stronger presentation based on athletic qualities.

But it all comes down to how you define "artistry," or which criteria you value more highly than others.

Maybe I will bump up my Analyze a competitive program you admire thread to share my appreciation for Slutskaya's and Rochette's best examples of what I would call artistry, when I get a chance to put together the analyses.

Also, CoP did away with artistry as we knew it from the 80s and 90s.

From the hundreds of 1980s programs I have seen, I would only choose a handful of classics as being more artistic than the average IJS program. Most were just opportunities to show off technical skills -- with generally good posture (figures training helped there) and general timing to the music, but less of a coherent artistic purpose.

The few 80s programs that did go beyond that and achieve artistic coherence were exceptions that moved the sport forward, so we saw more of that kind of coherence in the 90s.
 

Moment

Final Flight
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Didn't Irina receive very high "artistic" marks in the 6.0 era as well? And I disagree that she was so artistically dead as some people say. I know she was not the most beautiful skater, but some of her performances had some satisfying presentation qualities.

when Kim earned higher PCS it was because of stronger presentation based on athletic qualities.

No, the judges preferred Yuna's artistry over Joannie's. End of story.
 

Moment

Final Flight
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
The same question should come to yourself first. How do you know the judges gave out Yuna higher PCS than Joannie because of technical execution, without getting into their heads? Because that's they way you think it should have been?

My argument is that she has always received top level presentation marks even when she did not so supremely execute her tech content, say 2009 SA and 2009 GPF.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
The same question should come to yourself first. How do you know the judges gave out Yuna higher PCS than Joannie because of technical execution, without getting into their heads? Because that's they way you think it should have been?

I never claimed that I did know. And I certainly never dismissed dissenting opinions with a cavalier "End of story."

I said "I would argue that Rochette was more artistic than Kim, for example, and when Kim earned higher PCS it was because of stronger presentation based on athletic qualities."

I could make that case, but I wouldn't claim to know it for a fact.

I suspect that some judges might say "Kim was more artistic" but that others might say "Rochette was more artistic, or Rochette had better choreography, but Kim presented more strongly that day."

It depends how they define "artistry" and whether they distinguish it from "presentation."


Another example.

At 2013 US Nationals, Max Aaron earned average PE-CH-IN component scores of 8.39, 7.96, and 8.07, respectively, for his first-place freeskate.

Jonathan Cassar earned averages of 7.93, 7.89, and 8.00 for those components for his fifth-place freeskate.

Three of the judges were quite enthusiastic and gave Aaron scores of 9 or above for two or all three of those components. Cassar earned no 9s or even any 8.75s, but some of the judges did score him higher than Aaron on those components.

So the average/consensus of the judges was that Aaron's performance was just a tiny bit stronger on Choreography and Interpretation, but significantly stronger on Performance/Execution.

If you asked any one of those judges which of these two skaters had better "artistry" that day, how many of them do you think would choose Aaron?

I don't know -- I'd have to ask them -- but I'd be very surprised if even all three who gave Aaron 9s did so because they thought he was more artistic. Even less likely the ones who scored Cassar higher in those areas even though the averages came out in Aaron's favor.

You can't just look at the numbers for components that measure a mix of artistic and general performance criteria and conclude that "the judges" as a group preferred Aaron's artistry to Cassar's, end of story. Unless you have gone to the trouble of asking them personally, or reading each of their minds, and can present the results of your research as evidence.
 

miki88

Medalist
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Artistry is hard to quantify. For me, it is a combination of masterful choreography and superb interpretation, with an added depth of emotion in the delivery of the performance. In my opinion, the competitive programs of Michelle and Lulu in the late 90's consistently brought out this magical combination.
 

Pepe Nero

On the Ice
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
This is a really lovely thread. Please post a lot, sk_pizazz! Your question is a philosophical one, and though I am a philosopher (professionally; I'm not a weirdo who engages strangers at coffee shops -- only on the internet, of course), aesthetics is not my area. Still, I share your intuition that merely performing however skillfully or impressively-to-an-audience someone else's creation is not itself an act of producing art.

In response to some critics of this view here, there is no implication (just speaking for myself, but perhaps you share this view, sk_pizazz) that performance is less valuable (in whatever general terms that may be valued) than art-production.

I do not agree with the original poster either. That way a conductor, a pianist or a singer cannot be perceived as an artist and only composers can...? I so think "performers" can actively engage with the already written piece (or choreography, in figure skating) with their own interpretation. No musical piece or choreography is complete without being actually performed, and no same choreography will make the same performance with different skaters performing or even different occasions with the same skater performing.

Just my thoughts.

I don't find these counterexamples compelling. Why not distinguish between artists and performers? I could understand an objection to devaluing performers relative to artists, but that's not what was suggested by the OP.

Artistry means engaging the public in the performance, no matter the skater's style.
It does not mean to deliver a complicate choreography, this is for collecting points, not for impressing the audience. Daisuke Takahashi, Jeremy Abbott, Mao Asada impress me very much and to me they are artistic skaters. :thumbsup:

I love watching Jeremy Abbott skate. Doesn't he choreograph some of his own competitive programs, making him (in those instances) an artist, by the OP's criterion?

But surely it is false that "artistry means engaging the public in the performance." Perhaps (though even this would be controversial) *good* artistry does this, but this is not part of the definition of art.

Are opera singers not artists? Are ballet dancers not artists? Are musicians in a classical symphony not artists?

I see fans of a lot of singer-songwriters trying to demean people who are simply singers as not "true artists". But if a singer is a skilled musician, their interpretation of a song someone else wrote is in its own way their creation.

Skating, beyond being a sport, also features elements of dance and drama. Those are the artistic aspects. Depending upon the individual viewer's personal tastes and perception, some skaters perform the dance-drama aspects better than others, thus developing reputations as "artistic skaters". By the way, some skaters, even if they hire choreographers, sometimes contribute choreographic flourishes to a program themselves alongside their team. It's sometimes a grey area not well defined.

I understand part of the point of the OP and the thread to engage in defining. Perhaps you mean by "grey area" that it is undefinable, but I see no reason to think that. Again, one could distinguish conceptually between artists and performers without denigrating the latter.

Long time Golden Skate stalwart Joesitz always used to insert into these discussions about "what is art?" the following.

What about the art of plumbing? My plumber is a master of this art. My faucet doesn't leak any more. The audience gave him a standing ovation. :yes:

What humorous metaphors, Mathman. :)

I find Judy Collins' performances of some of Joni Mitchell's works to have more impact than Mitchell's own renditions.

OMG, I totally prefer Judy Collins' recording of "Both Sides Now" to Joni Mitchell's. (In fact, I had been meaning to suggest on whatever thread it seemed most relevant that someone should skate to it, as soon as lyrics are allowed. Thank you, season finale of Mad Men.) But, even if it were in some sense objectively true that Collins' recording were better, that in itself would not make Collins an artist simply because (by sk_pizazz's criterion) Joni Mitchell is.
 

pointyourtoe

On the Ice
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
In response to some critics of this view here, there is no implication (just speaking for myself, but perhaps you share this view, sk_pizazz) that performance is less valuable (in whatever general terms that may be valued) than art-production.

I don't find these counterexamples compelling. Why not distinguish between artists and performers? I could understand an objection to devaluing performers relative to artists, but that's not what was suggested by the OP.

I understand part of the point of the OP and the thread to engage in defining. Perhaps you mean by "grey area" that it is undefinable, but I see no reason to think that. Again, one could distinguish conceptually between artists and performers without denigrating the latter.

There clearly is a tendency to downplay people who are just "performers" - for example: people commonly denigrate singers when comparing them to singer-songwriters.
Even looking beyond that, we can just look at the history of the word artist and how it has been used. The singer-songwriter is a relatively new phenomenon when you look at the history of music as a whole and the history of pop/modern music in particular. On the other hand, the term "artist" as it refers to performers (musical or otherwise) is long and predates the tradition of the modern singer-songwriter as we know it today (which largely has origins in a folk or rock tradition). It's like these singer-songwriters and their "rockist" fans usurped the "artist" label and twisted the definition to become more exclusive. It's silly.

I find the claim that any random singer-songwriter is an artist while an opera singer is just a performer because they're not creating anything to be ludicrous. To many classical music fans, the opera singer is the supreme vocal artist. Their technical skills and training aside, they DO have creative license in how they choose to musically color the established piece. Another example is Ella Fitzgerald, legendary for her improvisations and scatting which were based in her supreme musicality. Her scats were masterpieces on their own. But she rarely wrote her own songs.

And the "grey area" I was talking about was that some skaters hire choreographers but work actively with them and contribute to the choreography, but on paper the choreographer might get full credit. In pop music, even contributing one line will get your name on the credits as a co-writer, with the public none the wiser as to how much you actually contributed.

We can argue about differing opinions on what constitutes an artist but historically the term is much more broad and inclusive than some people try to make it out to be. It is a fact that the word artist can and has (and will continue) to be used to refer to performers, even those who don't write/create their own material. And those who disagree on what makes a true artist can't deny that.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
There clearly is a tendency to downplay people who are just "performers" - for example: people commonly denigrate singers when comparing them to singer-songwriters.
Even looking beyond that, we can just look at the history of the word artist and how it has been used. The singer-songwriter is a relatively new phenomenon when you look at the history of music as a whole and the history of pop/modern music in particular. On the other hand, the term "artist" as it refers to performers (musical or otherwise) is long and predates the tradition of the modern singer-songwriter as we know it today (which largely has origins in a folk or rock tradition). It's like these singer-songwriters and their "rockist" fans usurped the "artist" label and twisted the definition to become more exclusive. It's silly.

I find the claim that any random singer-songwriter is an artist while an opera singer is just a performer because they're not creating anything to be ludicrous. To many classical music fans, the opera singer is the supreme vocal artist. Their technical skills and training aside, they DO have creative license in how they choose to musically color the established piece. Another example is Ella Fitzgerald, legendary for her improvisations and scatting which were based in her supreme musicality. Her scats were masterpieces on their own. But she rarely wrote her own songs.

And the "grey area" I was talking about was that some skaters hire choreographers but work actively with them and contribute to the choreography, but on paper the choreographer might get full credit. In pop music, even contributing one line will get your name on the credits as a co-writer, with the public none the wiser as to how much you actually contributed.

We can argue about differing opinions on what constitutes an artist but historically the term is much more broad and inclusive than some people try to make it out to be. It is a fact that the word artist can and has (and will continue) to be used to refer to performers, even those who don't write/create their own material. And those who disagree on what makes a true artist can't deny that.

Yes, yes, yes! If we don't think the singer is an artist, listen to me perform Schubert's "Ave Maria," and then listen to Joan Baez. (Don't worry; only Baez is linked below....)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ6cz08pzNI

I think we are taking too individualistic a view of art, as if there is a sole proprietor. Rather, art often has a communal element in some aspects. For example, a poet may share his or her art with others without intermediary by printing the poem where others can read it. The same is true of a painter with a picture. (I'm not going to split hairs by crediting the inventor of the pigments or the manufacturer of the canvas.) But a symphony, an aria, a dance, or a movie cannot go straight from the artist to the audience. Without interpreters, it's just a concept. In this situation, others participate in creating the work of art. Their contributions have a direct effect on the impact of the work, and by me they're artists.

Another example: a building such as a Medieval cathedral. A Gothic church such as, say, Rheims or Chartres was the conception of some architect or master builder. But these edifices took sometimes a generation to build. Wouldn't you say that all those nameless stonecutters and other artisans participated in the creation of this enduring work of art, which the architect may not have lived to see. (In other words, there is such a thing as art by committee.)

I don't think any skating choreographer can take sole credit for the artistry of any piece. Art isn't a mechanical entity. It depends on a personal element: not only the inspiration of the originator but the emotional participation of the interpreter and also the receptivity of the viewer. We'll leave the judges out of the equation for now. :)
 

dorispulaski

Wicked Yankee Girl
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Country
United-States
I've hesitated to respond to this thread because I generally think that the terms "artist" and "artistry," when applied to subjects other than the graphic arts, are bludgeoning labels applied by fans & critics to defend their personal preferences rather than something intrinsic to the performer.

The label is particularly used when the fan's preferred skater is the one that fell down several times or had several very serious flaws in their program or markedly less technical content, and the fan's non-preferred skater managed to stand up on all their skills and earned a standing ovation.

Let's take someone none of you know, my grandson. He just turned 15. He is a pretty good guitarist. He writes quite a few of his own songs. He made himself up some business cards. They say "Cam Pulaski Musician" not "Cam Pulaski Artist." Just because Cam writes songs doesn't make him more of an "artist" (or as I would rather say, a better performer) than Elvis Presley, who did not write his own songs. In fact, I don't think I've met a musician or skater who regarded their profession as "artist." The label is applied by critics (and fans).


And in the case of critics, I think I agree with Mark Twain:

The public is the only critic whose opinion is worth anything at all.
Mark Twain
 

bebevia

On the Ice
Joined
Jun 22, 2011
I don't think the OP intent to devalue performers in general. What I see is that the OP is trying to distinguish the "highly artistic performers" from the rest of the performers; the OP didn't necessarily point out that the "artists" are a SUBGROUP of "performers", because it's a PRECONDITION :) (and the OP did hint it in the post).

Keep in mind that, with the artistry level expected in dance genres, or even in ice dance, most single skaters are a wreck. I admire them, but we have to be honest that in acrobatic sports, purely artistic performers are WAY less likely to pass the technical filter of international stage; you can be robotic, but you can't fall on triples every time. What we call "artists" are the most artistic ones out of the bunch that passed technical tests, which happens in ANY artistic genre, just harder; and harder the techniques, lower the average level of artistic expectations.
 

dorispulaski

Wicked Yankee Girl
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Country
United-States
To each his own, as the old woman said when she kissed the cow. I'd say that people call their favorite performers artists. They call the ones they don't enjoy mere technicians, hacks, and other derogatory terms. I think the term "artistry" is a subjective judgment with no real fixed criteria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_(musician)

But I did forget The Artist Formerly Known as Prince, however.
 

BravesSkateFan

Medalist
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Artistry is in the eye of the beholder.

For me, I view artistry as programs that lift the spirit and allow the spectator to get lost in the moment. I want to feel some sort of emotion when I watch a skater. It can be joy, or sorrow, or loss, or redemption... but I need to feel something. Competition programs need technical content, but I want the technical content to be incorporated into the arc of the program, rather than dominate it.

I want the music to be meaningful, not just background noise.

For me, artistic also means "clean." A ballerina may be exquisite, but if she splats on the stage, it ruins the moment. Same with a skater. The performance aspect of the program suffers.

An artistic program has "small moments," and that might be something as simple as an unexpected edge change, a well-placed little spiral, a flourish of some sort during a spin or footwork. Small moments don't appear on the list of elements... but they can lift a program from "good" to "great."

None of the current crop of skaters, including the Big 3, are exceptionally artistic on the level of John Curry or Michelle Kwan. I suppose Mao comes the closest on occasion.

^^^This!^^^ An artist makes you feel something, has some connection. This is one reason why there is so much debate over which skaters are artists, skater may make you feel something, but does absolutely nothing for me. I think Mao, Carolina and Yu-na are all great skaters, but I don't find any of them to be artists. For me personally I find Kwan and Shen & Zhao to be great artists.
 

shine

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
^^^This!^^^ An artist makes you feel something, has some connection. This is one reason why there is so much debate over which skaters are artists, skater may make you feel something, but does absolutely nothing for me. I think Mao, Carolina and Yu-na are all great skaters, but I don't find any of them to be artists. For me personally I find Kwan and Shen & Zhao to be great artists.
What makes Kwan and Shen & Zhao great artists?

And also, what makes John Curry an artist? I can see he that he was a very elegant skater, but is being elegant alone enough to make a skater an artist?
 
Top