What marks an "artistic" skater? | Page 4 | Golden Skate

What marks an "artistic" skater?

bebevia

On the Ice
Joined
Jun 22, 2011
I do understand the frustration of fans of other "athletic" sports - and it has a valid point on objectivity vs. subjectivity. I sometimes think ice acrobatics could be a separate genre from modern figure skating (6.0 compulsory "figures" was very technical, so should be included in that). That way, the current programs would be more technical than is now, like rhythmic gymnastics and synchronized swimming. However, it feels good to be included in a global party, and a less frequent one (4yr term vs. 1yr).

I suggest we have Rhythmic-Physical Performing Olympics :)
There are already many dance-related Worlds, locals, and World Cups (b-boying, particularly); they are big enough to be consistently held, but not enough to arouse mass attention. Why not tie them together? A more art-oriented synchro swimming could be part of it (a more artistic rhythmic gymnastics is only a variety of contemporary dance, so could be a crossover). Now, the question is the funding, which may or may not be easy. I'm not gonna host the funding or establishment, but will be glad to show emotional support and sign a small cheque.
 

dorispulaski

Wicked Yankee Girl
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Country
United-States
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.)

Flatt is now choreographing her own stuff. And Charlie White cuts the music for D&W. Some of the moves D&W add are their own, rather than the choreographers. MK seemed mostly to remove moves from her programs, although she may have created some too, IDK. But honestly, if skaters don't practice in your rink, I don't think any of us can say which skaters contribute to the music and choreography they are given with any surety, unless they either list themselves as their own choreographers (like Jeremy Abbott or Rachael Flatt) or composers (like Timonthy Dolensky & Eric Radford) or their contributions are detailed in articles (like Charlie White). Just because we don't know their contributions doesn't mean those contributions do not exist.

What is your reason for thinking this?

Many people generally considered great artists today were thought to be mere hacks or even completely untalented by the critics of their day. For example Van Gogh. In my own lifetime, I have seen respect for Norman Rockwell grow after he died. Meanwhile, some gallery person actually allowed Yoko Ono to hang a toilet seat on the wall as an example of art.

I think art exists, but I just believe the guidelines for what is considered art by people who claim to be experts in the field are incredibly fluid.

Maybe because Vermeer and Jackson Pollock are both considered art?

This doesn't bother me as much, for the reason Robeye said. They are both in the cathedral of art, just not in the same pew, IMO.
 

thinspread

On the Ice
Joined
Aug 8, 2013
To give my simple layman thought on the original post, I think a performer (a skater) is an integral part of the artistic experience/endeavor as envisioned by a choreographer, even when the skater does nothing but following the routine. In my life I've had as much satisfaction with fine works of craft, in music or else, as with the "artistic" prototypes.

I think all works of performing arts are basically technically oriented, thus making the judgment on performance (rating or scoring) acceptable in most cases. If not, dance companies would have an impossible task in picking their principal performers and skating judges would have the same challenge in marking the PCS.

Many fans have sentimental preference for the old 6.0 system over the IJS, but I think the current system is fundamentally better as it's more accountable. The IJS also provides the link between the technical elements and performance quality, as it values the integration of the TE into the overall performance. I can live with the judges' scores as they are averaged out by a panel of judges, with the only caveat being the political bias in scoring.

Treating subjectivity as an inevitable constraint in judging performance quality in skating is flawed, I think. A piece of fine art is different in many ways from a figure skating performance. The medium and dimension of forms are different and the range of artistic freedom is also vastly different. One can say a Pollock is as meaningful as a Vermeer, but can't say the same amount of equally appreciable range exists with the figure skating performances, regardless you skate to a Bach or a Led Zeppelin.

In fine arts like painting, you recreate the inspiration on a flat surface (constraint), with infinite combination between subject matters and styles/forms (freedom). In current figure skating, a skater is presented with a small window of interpretation/creativity with a given music, choreography, and TE to satisfy (constraint), but with a chance to recreate the inspiration in three-dimensional movements with passage of time/music (freedom).

I think a skating perfomance, even without the required technical elements, would be reasonably easy to score. Unlike the fine arts, the performing arts are carried with human bodies, no variance like in, say, abstractionism and hyper-realism, and the human eyes are genetically programmed to tell intuitively the quality of movements in real life as to which is nimble or which is mundane or harmless. A skating performance WITH the required TE incorporated is even easier to judge on the performance quality, as the differences in the level of skills/crafts are magnified when one's performing the routine while clearing demanding technical hurdles and at the same time bringing out the tension and flows, movement nuances and definition, rhythm and pace/flow of the program. Thus I think the quality of perfomance depends largely on a technical merit. I remember Mathman pointing out in an old thread the strong correlation between the skating skill marks and the overall PCS, and it's not a surprise. I think the "extra" connection with the audience as Gkelly mentioned, or "emotional experience" is more problematic to define or quantify, as the perceptions/experiences on those qualities will vary widely among groups, cultures, eras, or even decades. Not all are fans of Michelle, or YuNa.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Flatt is now choreographing her own stuff. And Charlie White cuts the music for D&W. Some of the moves D&W add are their own, rather than the choreographers.

Very cool. However, this sort of artistic endeavor is its own reward. In competition the performance must be judged as a performance.

*whole post*

:clap: :clap: Certainly there is a well defined, even a quantifiable, commonality of opinion among experts as to what constitutes graceful movement to music.

But performance art is a two-way street. Satisfy the customer, satisfy the customer, satisfy the customer. As the CoP rule book puts it, the skater is expected to "radiate energy resulting in an invisible connection with the audience." I think that is why the live audience often has a different opinion as to who deserved to win than do people watching on TV, or on YouTube after the fact.

Tara versus Michelle at the 1998 Olympics. Watching at home, for the second mark I thought Michelle was far ahead of anything Tara could hope to do. Yet the spectators in the arena pretty much agreed with the majority of the judges -- that Tara "generated energy that resulted in an invisible connection with the audience" and Michelle did not. I think this phenomenon also plays a big role in what is perceived as home-town judging.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
I suggest we have Rhythmic-Physical Performing Olympics :)

:rock:

We are knocking our heads against a brick wall in trying to convince people that figure skating is a sport. All the righteous indignation we can muster on this issue will not make any impression on anyone's opinion.

Nor should it. Figure skating is a discipline that mixes astonishing athleticism with performance art. To crouch hat in hand at the door of "real sports" begging to be let in -- phooey on that.

Take this, real sports!
 

Nigel

On the Ice
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Flatt is now choreographing her own stuff. And Charlie White cuts the music for D&W. Some of the moves D&W add are their own, rather than the choreographers. MK seemed mostly to remove moves from her programs, although she may have created some too, IDK. But honestly, if skaters don't practice in your rink, I don't think any of us can say which skaters contribute to the music and choreography they are given with any surety, unless they either list themselves as their own choreographers (like Jeremy Abbott or Rachael Flatt) or composers (like Timonthy Dolensky & Eric Radford) or their contributions are detailed in articles (like Charlie White). Just because we don't know their contributions doesn't mean those contributions do not exist.



Many people generally considered great artists today were thought to be mere hacks or even completely untalented by the critics of their day. For example Van Gogh. In my own lifetime, I have seen respect for Norman Rockwell grow after he died. Meanwhile, some gallery person actually allowed Yoko Ono to hang a toilet seat on the wall as an example of art.

I think art exists, but I just believe the guidelines for what is considered art by people who claim to be experts in the field are incredibly fluid.



This doesn't bother me as much, for the reason Robeye said. They are both in the cathedral of art, just not in the same pew, IMO.

IIRC, both Abbott and Flatt have been doing their own choreography on their exhibition programs for a number of years. Abbott is credited for choreographic contributions on his exhibitions back in 06/07 "Save the Last Dance For Me", and the first works that I recall Flatt choreographing were back in 08...."One Day I'll Fly Away", and "Your Song" fom Moulin Rouge. All good efforts for developing their choreographic skills.

And, to be fair......skaters of the current generation, under CoP, have been trained to think about their skating in a different way than someone like MK, who as a poster above said....tended to remove choreography from her programs.

Different times, different styles, different constraints.
 

dorispulaski

Wicked Yankee Girl
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Country
United-States
That doesn't mean I didn't just love :love: MK's performances.

And, in fact, I don't think you have to be a choreographer or a music arranger or composer to be an artistic skater.

I agree with Mathman, I think. The customer is always right. If the audience is giving a wild standing ovation in a country that is not the skater's own, then IMO, that skater is an artist, no matter whether they choreographed their program or arranged their music or even composed their music.
 
Last edited:

Ladskater

~ Figure Skating Is My Passion ~
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
Simple explanation:

an Artistic skater - Kurt Browning for example - can skate to any type of music; emotes; is expressive; dazzling foot work and perfect line

Technical skater - Elvis for example - great jumper; athleticism also good at foot work; most technical skaters are also good at tracing figures - Trixi Schuba comes to mind - she was outstanding when it came to tracing figures, but was not an artistic skater
 

Cherryy

On the Ice
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
But saying that someone is artistic only when he can skate to different types of music is wrong. If a skater performs extremely well to soft, lyrical and elegant pieces of music but does not feel like skating energetic, funny and sassy programs does this mean he's not artistic? Alissa kept skating to soft and rather slow pieces yet she's considered artistic, she just stayed in her comfort zone but still progressed. Moreover, how should a skater be judged if performing repeatedly to the same kind of music would not be welcome? Should judges give lower marks based on skater's music from past seasons? That would mean we're not judging just the sole performance. You can't say by just looking at 2 programs if a skater can manage evoking different emotions.

For me the most important thing is the connection with the music that's visible everywhere. Even if you look at someone's crossovers they may be doing them with the rhytm or without any connection. Skating slowly while music gets quieter, opening your body and making more dramatic, distinct moves to the cresendo is what makes a program more artistic in my eyes. The character of the music has to be visible in your every move.
One example is Patrick's FP from 2012 worlds. He landed the 3A just with the note (probably by accident, but still), the step sequence was ok but then something went wrong or the choreography was just blah, because he does these big moves while there's almost total silence. Deathdrop could have been done earlier when the music got louder but that's not so important. He raises his arms before the 3Lo as if to underline something but in the background you hear literally nothing. For me it shows that you can actually learn to be artistic because if he had done this the way it was probably meant to be I would have appreciated this program a whole lot more.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
This line of thinking makes a lot of sense to me, Cheryy. Both aspects of your argument--the fact that a skater doesn't have to skate to different moods to be artistic and that the connection to the music is the hallmark of artistry--are important. There are moments during an artistic skating program when I feel as if the skater is the first one ever to perform to that music, and also that the music means more to me because of the skater's movements. My most extreme example would be Michelle Kwan skating to Lyra Angelica. That music by itself wouldn't do much for me. It's a bit too ethereal, and it doesn't have a strong enough melodic narrative to move me. But when I see Michelle's program, the music becomes mysterious, triumphant, and textured. Other pieces that favorite artistic skaters have used were beautiful to me with or without the skating, but the skater brought out extra meaning in them. An example of that would be the Dvorak cello concerto that Caroline Zhang used recently.
 

FlattFan

Match Penalty
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
There is no recipe to be an artist. Thus, no quantifiable measures to say if someone are artistic.
If you follow a recipe, you're just a poser.

Some girls just can't be artistic, they can try and try and maybe find programs that hide their deficiency. Miki, toward the end of her career, put out some nice programs. Those programs made her "look" more connected to the music. Inside, she's just thinking about the next element.
 

sky_fly20

Match Penalty
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
well one thing, being artistic is definitely not measured by your PCS
especially in Ladies where it is overused and is used more as a buffer and reputation based
 

fairly4

Medalist
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
for me art is the object and artistic is the person/persons doing the art whether be a singer, painter, sculpture, poet, skater, opera, even objects from trash is considered art in eyes of person.

what each individual likes in the art/artistic.

for me it is how i feel, what i see when i look at the art, see it, hear it.

for me alot of skaters can skate and even put movements to the music, some people feel it better from some skaters some don't.

michelle kwan got me when she was young. and yes i didn't feel her 1996 salome better
however with certain skaters it takes time to evolve for me like sasha in 2000 was stiff but after she got on soi, her joy, artistic showed through for me (others) was earlier.

irina skated to music but after 2003-2004; her artistic ability to move me with her music, to try to show me what she was seeing and feeling when she skated happened in laters years, like sasha.

sad to say i never felt it with tara, sarah, it doesnt mean wasn't artistic/art. it they didn't move me the way michelle did, sasha, irina.

best example is Kristi doop-doop program . it showed her artistic side and range she coulde reach. unfortunately for me she way back to what felt comfortable for her. which was her artisic /. i felt she could showed and do more with that program. if she had a hard time, she didn't show it. she showed fun, enthusiam, willing to try new things for the public
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
well one thing, being artistic is definitely not measured by your PCS
especially in Ladies where it is overused and is used more as a buffer and reputation based

This is true. Artistry is not measured in the CoP. But performance is. I think the discussion would get farther ahead if we talked about whether it is possible to identify and quantify performance values'

I am no fan of the CoP. But if you read the breakdown of bullets for P?E, CH. and INT, the ISU has actually done a creditable job of it. Complete objectivity will always be a distant goal, but here are a couple of points from the Performance/Execution component that are relatively specific and, I would think, useful tot eh judges.

Carriage is a trained inner strength of the body that makes possible ease of movement from the center of the body.

Alignment is the fluid change from one movement to the next.

Clarity is characterized by the refined lines of the body and limbs, as well as the precise execution of any movement.

Variety and contrastVaried use of tempo, rhythm, force, size, level, movement shapes, angles, and, body parts as well as the use of contrast.[/i]

Here is Choreography in its entirety.

Purpose: (Idea, concept, vision, mood)

To reward the intentional and quality design of a program. Proportion (equal weight of all parts)
Each part and section has equal weight in achieving the aesthetic pursuit of the composition.

Unity – purposeful threading of all movements

A program achieves unity when: every step, movement, and element is motivated by the music. As well, all its parts, big or small, seem necessary to the whole, and there is an underlying vision or symbolic meaning that threads together the entire composition.
Utilization of Personal and Public Space

Movement phrases are distributed in such a way they communicate from every angle in a 360 degree skater-viewer relationship.

Pattern and Ice Coverage

Movement phrases are designed using an interesting and meaningful variety of patterns and directions of travel.

Phrasing and Form (movement and parts are structured to match the phrasing of the music)

A phrase is a unit of movement marked by an impulse of energy that grows, builds, finds a conclusion, and then flows easily and naturally into the next movement phrase. Form is the presentation of an idea, the development of the idea, and its conclusion presented in a specific number of parts and a specific order for design.

Originality of Purpose, Movement, and Design

Originality involves an individual perspective of movement and design in pursuit of a creative composition as inspired by the music and the underlying vision.

I think this is a pretty good attempt at providing a skeleton on which the judges can hang their marks.
 

fairly4

Medalist
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
for me art is genere/ artistic is the type of art or the person doing the art like singer, songwriter, poet, painter, skater.

for me i have be able to feel, make an impression on me when i see the picture, hear the music, look at the object, watch a skaters.

art is the sheet of ice & artistic is the skater interpreting their piece of art on ice,
they may have a choreographer helping with moves, but how they interpret it with their feelings, jestures, smilie face, sad is up to them at them time on the ice.

you can tell when in the zone they come up with impromtu moves in jestures/smiles when it is going well.

younger skaters take time to know they can interpret their own moves, by eyes, smiles, slight jestures. My feeling when young they think they have to do jump, not let the audience see what they feel in the music. maybe they dont, maybe they dont but afraid to show it.

you can have skater skate to same music, but interpret it differently because each skater doesn't see the same thing or hear the same thing as the other skater with same music. choreography the same and comes across the same, i am not seeing/sensing the individual music coming through while skating.

Michelle, did a great job of letting me into her emotions,

sasha not at first but later on she did. what a good job.
irina showed her musicality and artistic side later on, when i think she felt comfortable doing it.

artisic for me is what i feel, impression i get.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
well one thing, being artistic is definitely not measured by your PCS
especially in Ladies where it is overused and is used more as a buffer and reputation based

I am no fan of the CoP. But if you read the breakdown of bullets for P?E, CH. and INT, the ISU has actually done a creditable job of it. Complete objectivity will always be a distant goal, but here are a couple of points from the Performance/Execution component that are relatively specific and, I would think, useful tot eh judges.

I agree. I think there's a significant correlation between the criteria judges use to score those three program components and the criteria that we would use to evaluate how "artistic" a given performance is. But the purposes are not the same.

In standard ISU skating competition, the main goal is to demonstrate mastery of skating technique by executing those skills to music through use of the whole body while skating on edges.

In an art-on-ice context, including some kinds of pro competitions, the main purpose would be to communicate emotionally and intellectually to the audience. Greater skating skill would give the skater more options for how to do so, but that also means s/he can leave out some fundamental competitive skills if they don't support the specific needs of this particular program, because in a non-sport context, the meaning of the program is more important than showcasing technical skills.
 
Top