What marks an "artistic" skater?

TontoK · Jul 8, 2013

shine said:
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?

Picking Curry's most successful program, his Olympic long skate to Don Quixote. The music was balletic, and so were his lines... a perfect match of style to music. There were many, many nuances and steps within that program that added immeasurably to the viewing experience... that were not technical at all. I was mesmerized the first time I saw it, and I still am when I see it today. I was completely lost in his performance. The technical content was woven into the program, and it was competitive for it's day, when three triples from the men were the standard. The last time I watched it, I noticed for the first time that a one-foot axle was included in the program, but it was so seamless that I didn't notice it for years.

I contrast Curry with Robin Cousins, and I recommend his Olympic Short Program. It was completely different in style from Curry, but the same musicality and expression were evident. I was also completely absorbed in this performance... less so with his Long Skate, but there's where personal preference comes into play.

When skaters like these, and Kwan, and S/Z skated, I never drifted during the performance. I was spellbound.

chloepoco · Jul 8, 2013

I found these words from Yuzuru about Akiko (taken from the Yuzuru Hanyu Fan Fest thread), so spot on!

Yuzuru: Akko has a lot of exhibition numbers that are memorable! ‘Libertango’ (first performance at DOI 2009), for example, sent me straight into thinking ‘How can you dance to that extent?!’ It’s not that you’re synchronizing yourself to the music but you’re creating the music itself! It feels like the music’s oozing out from within Akko. I’ve always thought you’re amazing. I always get goose-bumps watching your performance.

plushyfan · Jul 8, 2013

chloepoco said:
I found these words from Yuzuru about Akiko (taken from the Yuzuru Hanyu Fan Fest thread), so spot on!

Yuzuru: Akko has a lot of exhibition numbers that are memorable! ‘Libertango’ (first performance at DOI 2009), for example, sent me straight into thinking ‘How can you dance to that extent?!’ It’s not that you’re synchronizing yourself to the music but you’re creating the music itself! It feels like the music’s oozing out from within Akko. I’ve always thought you’re amazing. I always get goose-bumps watching your performance.

Yuzuru has a bad posture, he needs to improve... I find him very artistic in the Romeo and Juliet program, he had real passion.

zschultz1986 · Jul 8, 2013

Shen and Zhao (and Kwan) had to work at it, though (as do most skaters). I think THAT, too, is what is missing, now-a-days. The focus is so technical oriented, that the artistry has been mostly left behind. Of course, the reason Kwan (and S/Z and most every other great artist figure skater) have in common is great confidence IN their technique. They don't have to worry about "what am I doing next" and instead and focus of the "why and how much" and other things that make the choreography come alive.

Pepe Nero · Aug 24, 2013

pointyourtoe said:
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.

I want to strongly agree with Olympia's "Yes, yes, yes!"!

In my time posting on GS, I've felt schooled only a few times (by gkelly more than any other, and once by (if my memory serves) Serious Business, in a thread I started on figure skating and... let me not say the word). Your post makes me feel somewhat schooled too.

But, correct me if I misunderstand, pointyourtoe: we agree that a performer is an artist only if she adds some creative content, no? That is what your examples seem to suggest. Am I wrong? Yes, sometimes the person understood initially as the "mere performer" contributes to the creation. As an eternal devotee of Madonna (Ciccone), I understand this. But this, I suspect, is rare among figure skaters. Kwan, Abbott, and Takahashi? Of course. Yes!

Flatt, Plushenko, Joubert? No! (I considered this comparison carefully. Decided, if anything, I was being unfair to Rachael Flatt.)

(Okay, folks. Disagree with my examples. We can have differences of opinion.)

Pepe Nero · Aug 24, 2013

dorispulaski said:
I think the term "artistry" is a subjective judgment with no real fixed criteria.

What is your reason for thinking this?

Olympia · Aug 24, 2013

Pepe Nero said:
What is your reason for thinking this?

Maybe because Vermeer and Jackson Pollock are both considered art?

Robeye · Aug 24, 2013

Olympia said:
Maybe because Vermeer and Jackson Pollock are both considered art?

A grub and an Alaskan King Crab are both arthropods. Is this a subjective judgment with no fixed criteria?

To say that surface characteristics are not everything is decidedly not the same thing as saying that there are no demonstrable criteria to determine relationship.

And I keep returning to this point because it is really of paramount importance in the definition of figure skating: if we really think that the artistic is subjective (i.e. there is no fixed criteria, and anyone's opinion is, as a matter of first principles, as legitimate as anyone else's), then there is no place for it in competition. None. It is tantamount to saying that a third of the score is based on the completely arbitrary opinions of a handful of individuals (judges), which are, at one and the same time, neither justifiable nor refutable.

The ruling meta-principle of competition is that we can communally and consistently determine what is greater, lesser, or equal to among the things being judged. There is no such thing as a genuine competition without this being true.

If I were to say that the TES rankings at Worlds were completely wrong because I had a different view of what height, length, edge orientation and rotation meant, and further, that these things could legitimately mean different things to different people, then wouldn't you agree that there are only two conclusions to be drawn: either people agree that I am a deeply idiosyncratic individual, or that TES needs to be scrapped as meaningless?

cooper · Aug 24, 2013

dorispulaski said:
I think the term "artistry" is a subjective judgment with no real fixed criteria.

exactly.

and not to mention some non fans of a particular skater would never find another skater artistic because they have their own biases.

Olympia · Aug 24, 2013

Robeye said:
A grub and an Alaskan King Crab are both arthropods. Is this a subjective judgment with no fixed criteria?

To say that surface characteristics are not everything is decidedly not the same thing as saying that there are no demonstrable criteria to determine relationship.

And I keep returning to this point because it is really of paramount importance in the definition of figure skating: if we really think that the artistic is subjective (i.e. there is no fixed criteria, and anyone's opinion is, as a matter of first principles, as legitimate as anyone else's), then there is no place for it in competition. None. It is tantamount to saying that a third of the score is based on the completely arbitrary opinions of a handful of individuals (judges), which are, at one and the same time, neither justifiable nor refutable.

The ruling meta-principle of competition is that we can communally and consistently determine what is greater, lesser, or equal to among the things being judged. There is no such thing as a genuine competition without this being true.

If I were to say that the TES rankings at Worlds were completely wrong because I had a different view of what height, length, edge orientation and rotation meant, and further, that these things could legitimately mean different things to different people, then wouldn't you agree that there are only two conclusions to be drawn: either people agree that I am a deeply idiosyncratic individual, or that TES needs to be scrapped as meaningless?

Oh, dear, that's an excellent point. So somehow, skating must figure out a way to measure this aspect, or heaven help us, there will be no room for it in competitive skating. You're right to continue to explore the issue, and you've expressed the components of artistry very well. I think, though, that judges must be able to have some leeway in considering an element that is, if not subjective, at least partly intangible. As Mathman has said, skating is different from other sports, and we will lose out if skating attempts to make itself exactly like other sports by dispensing with the intangibles.

skatingfan4ever · Aug 24, 2013

zschultz1986 said:
Shen and Zhao (and Kwan) had to work at it, though (as do most skaters). I think THAT, too, is what is missing, now-a-days. The focus is so technical oriented, that the artistry has been mostly left behind. Of course, the reason Kwan (and S/Z and most every other great artist figure skater) have in common is great confidence IN their technique. They don't have to worry about "what am I doing next" and instead and focus of the "why and how much" and other things that make the choreography come alive.

You know what? People were very surprised and skeptical last year when Chan said he wanted to focus on artistry. They said, "Oh no! He will lose his jumps! He should get a jump coach." and yada yada. (DISCLAIMER: Chan happens to move me every time he skates and I could watch him skate all day, but I know many of you disagree and that's fine. DO NOT turn this thread into a bashing/defending exercise). What I wanted to bring up was how nowadays, people were shocked that Chan even WANTED to focus on artistry. They thought he was crazy, because COP is so technically-driven. What might that say about our evolving expectations as fans and the evolution of skating in general? As zschultz1986 said, Shen/Zhao and Kwan had to WORK on their artistry. With all the technical demands of COP, there isn't as much time to develop artistry unless skaters make that as a specific goal. So, my question is, has it become more important under COP (in the minds of judges and fans) that skaters are innately artistic? It seems to me that in the 6.0 days, people were more forgiving because they figured skaters would have a long career anyway in which to develop their skating over time. Is it that, nowadays, people value instant gratification and quickly write off what they dislike? Sorry I am rambling in this post. zschultz1986's post just got me wondering whether fans' and judges' expectations regarding artistic development have changed at all since the inception of COP. What do you think?

bramweld · Aug 24, 2013

It is not something that can be explained but must be experienced through movement. Case in point look at these programs by two very different teams skating to similar themes. You can tell which is more artistic but sometimes putting into words is just....(I/K)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTFeDz6ijXo&list=PL9B5C37E8E7F24C76 and (B/S)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKtucY6xJJM and (Oksana Baiul)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bH0CAPzef8 and (Julia )http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCDpBfyUXDs. To me its the ability of a skater to capture the essence of a piece of music completely

Robeye · Aug 24, 2013

Olympia said:
Oh, dear, that's an excellent point. So somehow, skating must figure out a way to measure this aspect, or heaven help us, there will be no room for it in competitive skating. You're right to continue to explore the issue, and you've expressed the components of artistry very well. I think, though, that judges must be able to have some leeway in considering an element that is, if not subjective, at least partly intangible. As Mathman has said, skating is different from other sports, and we will lose out if skating attempts to make itself exactly like other sports by dispensing with the intangibles.

I'll tell you why this issue is a source of frustration for me. It seems to me, when I read your comments, that some skating fans are operating under the belief that the assertion of subjectivity in figure skating competition is somehow a benefit, that it assists in carving out an argument for skating's uniqueness, as a bulwark against the philistines who follow other sports.

In my view, the cure is far worse than the disease. Every sport is affected, to some degree, by limits to accuracy and precision, caused, more often than not, by human frailty or error. But these are practical issues, not conceptual ones. It is possible, at least in principle, that if the humans involved were more attentive or careful or methodical, that imperfections of judgment and scoring would be eliminated.

What people who don't care for figure skating mean when they say that skating isn't a "real" sport is exactly that the aesthetic components cannot be judged in any communally verifiable way, even in principle, and that all of the elaborate pageantry of flashing PCS scores to the second decimal place is a kind of self-deluded mummery, that actually means absolutely nothing.

What, then, are people to think, when figure skating's strongest supporters willingly attest to the subjectivity of a huge chunk of what skating is supposed to be about, which, by a very clear chain of logic, means that it is meaningless as competition, let alone as sport, because the inexorable conclusion to be drawn is that the hierarchy of placements is to a large extent meaningless? Is this not clear?

I do have my own views on how the legitimacy of artistry in skating (as enshrined in PCS), as a competitive endeavor, can be, and is, justified. Before sharing them, I would like to ask the following question: in your mind, is there any plausible way of justifying the retention of the artistic components of PCS in competitive skating if we assume, for the sake of argument, that they are, indeed, subjective and admit of no fixed criteria? I cannot think of any.

bramweld · Aug 24, 2013

This is why it cannot be described by written rules. It's too subjective. Ice dancing, all figure skating has now become a technical sport no more no less. So for me who wins is irrelevant, it's a matter of who moves me and whose programs are watched over and over years after the fact

PCS is used by the judges to promote and protect the skaters in their collective albeit subjective opinion are "artistic" or the "best".

RABID · Aug 24, 2013

Robeye said:
A grub and an Alaskan King Crab are both arthropods. Is this a subjective judgment with no fixed criteria?

To say that surface characteristics are not everything is decidedly not the same thing as saying that there are no demonstrable criteria to determine relationship.

And I keep returning to this point because it is really of paramount importance in the definition of figure skating: if we really think that the artistic is subjective (i.e. there is no fixed criteria, and anyone's opinion is, as a matter of first principles, as legitimate as anyone else's), then there is no place for it in competition. None. It is tantamount to saying that a third of the score is based on the completely arbitrary opinions of a handful of individuals (judges), which are, at one and the same time, neither justifiable nor refutable.

The ruling meta-principle of competition is that we can communally and consistently determine what is greater, lesser, or equal to among the things being judged. There is no such thing as a genuine competition without this being true.

If I were to say that the TES rankings at Worlds were completely wrong because I had a different view of what height, length, edge orientation and rotation meant, and further, that these things could legitimately mean different things to different people, then wouldn't you agree that there are only two conclusions to be drawn: either people agree that I am a deeply idiosyncratic individual, or that TES needs to be scrapped as meaningless?

Couldn't have said it better. And the argument is an old one. The only thing I would add is that people can be confused and/or fooled by what they think is good art. Picasso and Pollack CREATED art; people who can make exact copies of their artwork might be talented but they are not CREATING art. Art is an ACT OF CREATION, pure and simple. In figure skating this still holds true but is measured akin to dance aesthetics which favours beauty. Just start all judgements from there.

Mathman · Aug 24, 2013

bramweld said:
It is not something that can be explained but must be experienced through movement. Case in point look at these programs by two very different teams skating to similar themes. You can tell which is more artistic but sometimes putting into words is just....(I/K)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTFeDz6ijXo&list=PL9B5C37E8E7F24C76 and (B/S)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKtucY6xJJM and (Oksana Baiul)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bH0CAPzef8 and (Julia )http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCDpBfyUXDs. To me its the ability of a skater to capture the essence of a piece of music completely

Oh gosh. I am the world's worst Philistine. I liked both of the dance couples equally well. :eek:

:

As far Oksana Baiul, her Swan is deliberately ballet on ice, so it is a different kind of performance than Julia's "just plain ice skating" program.

Mathman · Aug 24, 2013

Robeye said:
I do have my own views on how the legitimacy of artistry in skating (as enshrined in PCS), as a competitive endeavor, can be, and is, justified. Before sharing them, I would like to ask the following question: in your mind, is there any plausible way of justifying the retention of the artistic components of PCS in competitive skating if we assume, for the sake of argument, that they are, indeed, subjective and admit of no fixed criteria? I cannot think of any.

I think this is an argument against CoP scoring and in favor of ordinal placements. I look forward to your analysis of how artistry in a competitive skating performance can legitimately be quantified, but I will eat my hat if you can tell me why a particular performance deserves a 5.75 instead of a 5.50 in Choreography.

With ordinal placements I do think it is possible for a judge to supply cogent, detailed, and defensible reasons why this performance captured the soul of the music better than that one did.

As for whether non-fans classify figure skating as a sport or as something else, meh. No amount of preaching is going to make people like figure skating if they don't. Certainly no amount of explaining how wonderful the scoring system is will. (The famous "is will" construction.

)

bramweld · Aug 24, 2013

Mathman said:
Oh gosh. I am the world's worst Philistine. I liked both of the dance couples equally well. :

As far Oksana Baiul, her Swan is deliberately ballet on ice, so it is a different kind of performance than Julia's "just plain ice skating" program.

Exactly that is why artistry is not something that can be captured in words only admired. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Olympia · Aug 24, 2013

I don't think I can contribute anything sensible, but I'm fascinated by everyone's thoughts on this topic.

gkelly · Aug 25, 2013

No time to go into detail now. But my general feeling is that what should count in the scoring is those things that can be quantified to one degree or another, even if it's just by digitizing the analog experience on a scale of 1-10 (or 1-6 as the case may be).

Some of those quantifiable details turn out to be the kinds of details that contribute to an emotional experience in viewers. There isn't a 1-to-1 correspondence between technical mastery and successful emotional/artistic performance, but there is a positive correlation. It's hard to be artistic on the ice when struggling with technique.

However, I don't think that the emotional experience is what should be measured. Or if it is, it should remain a tiny part of what determines the results.

I think that what makes skating special is that it allows for artistic expression and emotional experience in ways that can (in rare instances) transcend the competitive context. We can watch exciting technical feats, and demonstrations of mastery by timing those feats to music . . . and then occasionally we see something that goes beyond just demonstrating mastery that actually touches our hearts.

But competitive skating is not a competition about who can best touch our hearts. There are or should be other venues to make that the primary purpose of performance. In athletic competition, it's an extra. But an extra that isn't available in the same way in most other sports.

What marks an "artistic" skater?

TontoK

Hot Tonto

chloepoco

plushyfan

zschultz1986

Pepe Nero

Pepe Nero

Olympia

Robeye

cooper

Olympia

skatingfan4ever

"Our blade takes us in the most amazing places."

bramweld

Robeye

bramweld

RABID

Mathman

Mathman

bramweld

Olympia

gkelly

Similar threads

Connect with us