Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 76

Thread: What marks an "artistic" skater?

  1. #16
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    305
    On a kind of related note, although Michelle generally utilized choreographers, she choreographed this exhibition by herself in honor of her dead friend, and I think it's stunning

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8i-KY1nuHY

    There's so many cool choreographic nuances. The lunges during "I run off where the drifts get deeper", the arm and leg movements during "mirror mirror where's the crystal palace?", and the wiggle and head bob at the end (I just remembered that the ending to Akiko Suzuki's "O" program is the same).

  2. #17
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,753
    I think originally the term "artistic impression" in reference to competitive skating referred to pleasing body line, smooth movement quality (not jerky from lack of control), and timing of the movements to the music.

    The former are really more reflections of technique than artistry, in the same way that an accomplished diver or gymnast will be more beautiful to watch than a a less skilled athlete performing the same moves.

    And at a certain point the shapes the body can make will be limited by genetics no matter how precise the skater's alignment or how strong their extension. But many skaters over the years have attempted to go above and beyond the basics of just good alignment, to make body shapes that are extra attractive. And some have also attempted to be creative in the shapes that they achieve.

    A pleasing use of space and time (balancing the the use of different parts of the ice surface, different curves and directions of skating, spreading the difficult elements throughout the beginning, middle, and end of the program time, etc.) was also considered more aesthetically pleasing.

    Similarly, many skaters have gone beyond simply skating in time with the music to expressing emotional qualities of the music, with nuances that require a personal connection between the skater him- or herself and the music beyond any instructions from a choreographer. Originally, I would say, detailed emotional connection with the music came from the skaters themselves, and the choreography also came from the skaters themselves or from coaches working with the skaters in the capacity of choreographer.

    The profession of "skating choreographer" (for competition, as opposed to shows) really didn't start to emerge until the 1970s or 80s. But some skaters or technical coaches are interested enough in these qualities to do the choreography themselves.

    So then we started getting programs that were more coherent thematically. Either a single piece of music or several selections that had relationship to each other and weren't chosen just to show variety. So other kinds of artistry became more prominent: creativity with body shapes, with different kinds of musical rhythms and themes, creative use of the technical skills, playing a character or telling a story -- especially if the skater can use the skating moves themselves to do so and not rely merely on posing and upper body movements during simple strokes and glides.

    Costumes also started to become more thematic and more theatrical. But, depending on the specific example, and the eye of the beholder, not necessarily more beautiful.

    Personal charisma can establish a compelling relationship between the performing skater and the audience independent of any beauty in the movement/body shapes or musical expression or creativity. It may be debatable whether charisma alone constitutes "artistry" -- but, like attractive body shapes, it certainly makes the performance more enjoyable to watch. And charisma or projection to the audience usually accompanies confidence in the skating technique -- even if moves are technically flawed, e.g., inappropriate edge changes in turns or jump takeoffs, if the skater can execute with conviction, the artistic impression is no worse than if the technique were perfect.

    So I think there are a lot of different ways to be artistic in skating. It's rare to find beautiful body line and creative use of the body and creative use of the blades and detailed musical expression and charisma and storytelling all in the same performance.

    We might each have different opinions about which of these qualities we consider most important, and so there will often be disagreement about which skaters are "most" artistic.

  3. #18
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,970
    Quote Originally Posted by pointyourtoe View Post
    On a kind of related note, although Michelle generally utilized choreographers, she choreographed this exhibition by herself in honor of her dead friend, and I think it's stunning

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8i-KY1nuHY

    There's so many cool choreographic nuances. The lunges during "I run off where the drifts get deeper", the arm and leg movements during "mirror mirror where's the crystal palace?", and the wiggle and head bob at the end (I just remembered that the ending to Akiko Suzuki's "O" program is the same).
    Her timing is astonishing. Check out how she hits the split jump right on the beat of things, then in the spread eagle that follows she throws up her heads on change, to give cadence to the line "Cause things are gonna change so fast."

    Edited to add: That interview reminded me that Michelle had a Valley Girl accent back then. She lost it as she got older.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    The former are really more reflections of technique than artistry, in the same way that an accomplished diver or gymnast will be more beautiful to watch than a a less skilled athlete performing the same moves.
    Robeye made an interesting point in discussing Yuna Kim's jump technique. "Art" can also refer to an act or object that perfectly matches the ideal in terms of function and economy of effort, even if that function is not in itself intentionally artistic. We get the same sort of artistic thrill when a baseball player meets a pitch with perfect timing right in the middle of the sweet spot, and the ball goes over the fence seemingly all by itself.
    Last edited by Mathman; 06-30-2013 at 05:14 PM.

  4. #19
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    348
    To me an artistic skater is one who interprets the music and choreography, and in doing so touches the audience on an emotional level. That's the kind of performance you want to watch over and over again, just to recapture that magic. Just like a specific mood leads me to re-watch a particular film or to read a particular poem, specific moods lead me to watch particular skating performances. Here are three of my recent favorites--three very different programs (two competitive, one EX), but what they have in common is that the skater doesn't just skate over the music and follow the choreography, but feels every beat, and embodies a character throughout the program, from the first chord of the music to the last.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz0wOzsLVGI
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXNf0ca73Rw
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOuaUMgFOcg

  5. #20
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,452
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    I think he was WAY better than this in future competitions. His LP at 2005 Worlds was quite poor artistically, but after that he really came into his own. His performance at 2007 Worlds is simply legendary.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE1_0xd9A4k
    Thanks, BoP! I agree that Stephane is emblematic of artistic skating, and so much more.

    This is a fascinating and wonderfully provocative (in the sense of thought-provoking) thread. Thanks for starting it, sk_pizazz, and welcome to GS. Though I enjoy the idea, I come down on the opposite side from you for many of the reasons mentioned earlier. If you think of the great ballet stars, such as Baryshnikov or Nureyev and Fonteyn, few would contest the fact that they are artists, even thought their language of movement is even more constrained than that of skaters. They are far more than mere repetiteurs of some offstage creator's genius. They bring something to it.

    I was interested to notice someone mentioning singers vs. singer/songwriters. I am practically a heretic, but I sometimes find Joan Baez's interpretation of Dylan's songs more meaningful than his own interpretations. I find Judy Collins' performances of some of Joni Mitchell's works to have more impact than Mitchell's own renditions. To me this means that the singer adds something to the artistic dimension of the song. (And I emphatically vote for Tom Jones' version of "Tower of Song" over Leonard Cohen's version, despite the fact that Jones never could have written such an astonishing piece, and Cohen actually did write it.)

    If the skater's interpretation has no artistic impact, how does that explain the difference between Michelle Kwan's interpretation of Lori Nichol's choreography and Tim Goebel"s? There is no way that Michelle's work on Lyra Angelica can be considered robotic parroting of repeatedly rehearsed material. Likewise for the skating of many other fabulous competitors.

  6. #21
    Rinkside
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Posts
    2
    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?

  7. #22
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    422
    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.

  8. #23
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,970
    Welcome, Alli Anzell. Thanks so much for joining in. Post often, post long.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alli Anzell
    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).

  9. #24
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    652
    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.

    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. )

  10. #25
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,753
    Quote Originally Posted by Robeye View Post
    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.
    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.

  11. #26
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    340
    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)

  12. #27
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,753
    Quote Originally Posted by zschultz1986 View Post
    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.

  13. #28
    ~high art~
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    636
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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.

  14. #29
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,753
    Quote Originally Posted by Moment View Post
    No, the judges preferred Yuna's artistry over Joannie's. End of story.
    You know all the judges' thought processes . . . how?

  15. #30
    ~high art~
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    636
    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.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •