Christina is like Yulia for me, not artistic, not particularly good on the technique (although for Yulia it's only her jump technique that is questionable), packages stuff well and presents a wow factor well (growling a lot, lots of runs and riffs, screams). It's not particularly artistic while the way Beyonce chooses to embellish her own performances and interpret her own music differently every time works. Christina's sound is distinct and she's a charismatic performer but that's all I'm going to give her. I don't think she's artistic.
Artist, Performer, or Jumper? Ladies Edition
- Thread starter TheCzar
- Start date
Christina is like Yulia for me, not artistic, not particularly good on the technique (although for Yulia it's only her jump technique that is questionable), packages stuff well and presents a wow factor well (growling a lot, lots of runs and riffs, screams). It's not particularly artistic while the way Beyonce chooses to embellish her own performances and interpret her own music differently every time works. Christina's sound is distinct and she's a charismatic performer but that's all I'm going to give her. I don't think she's artistic.
How could anyone not consider a skater who pushed the envelope of this sport by making a world record and an Olympic history of landing three successful 3A in competition which is the most difficult technical element in the women's league. That's just disrespectful.
Anyhow, I consider Yuna Kim as one of the greatest, impeccable, all the superlatives there is. I love her dearly, but I don't think I would put her in the Artistry department. She's probably the PERFORMER and JUMPER.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2014
i mean its a matter of opinion. I agree that Mao should probably be in the Jumper category based on what you said but you can say the same about Yuna with PC records. On that basis, why shouldn't she be considered in the artistic category?
For me just because you get the highest scores in PC doesn't necessarily mean you're artistic. It's how a skater tells the story and gives life to the music through the art of figure skating. But I guess yeah, artistic beauty is subjective. So for me its my opinion that Yuna is a jumper and performer but not so much of an artist. And this is my own opinion. After all, to each his own.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2010
It is interesting you said that. Since your 2nd statement sort of just contradict your 1st statement as well
Actually out of the last 2 quads, I'd put Yuna as the strongest artist/artistic showcased far more complete artistry and artistic credentials out of all the ladies in the pure arts sense for the following reasons:
1. She never repeat herself.
2. She isn't afraid to experiment and diversify. Contrasts and complimentary themes
runs through her seasons programs. Shaking things up, sometimes work on her artistic side, sometimes to highlight her musical side, sometimes to highlight her performer side. Always at the right time and age of her career. Many times it is life's sweet bitter ironies that infringe and can elevate a creative piece of art work into a great unique piece of work. Her programs has many bits and pieces that indicate art imitate life, and life imitate art. How many skaters can truly say that about all their programs... in the order they are best served?
3. She shows wide range of work and take on interesting, risky materials that may not be universal appealing, and her program has far more intricate, complex musical edit to showcase better musicality and interpretation than any ladies out there.
4. She does not compromise her tech downgrade her programs for easy competitions skating for points, and rely on PCS when she totally can. Uncompromising attitude is one of the key artistic traits.
5. Many instances in the last quads shows her program could have maximised them for points, but her focus seems to deliver a well realised artistic presentation. (Although argument can be made that is for points also, but it is an argument where it shows artistry is more important)
6. Many of her later work shows she skate for herself, rather than compromise her programs for points, appease judges, critics, or appeal just to people than the arena for applause. This realisation is the highest form of approaching genuine artistic credentials and maturity. It also shows confidence and self believe that makes her artistic rather than a performer. If you don't like my art, take a hike. How many skater has ever done that? Without changing their package/program half time for popularity and sensationalism. Or even lazily repeat their greatest hits of tried and tested formula programs? How is that any different than commercial art? The lowest denominator in art.
7. She take ownership of her program by sticking with it through out the season to realise it on a more organic approach like the process of artistic pursuit suppose to. She has inputs in every aspect of her programs, theme, music, packaging, costumes, presentation. She is not a product of someone's vision, packaging. She owns her costumes/programs, the costumes/programs does not own/wear her.
8. Her programs are well realised holistically, and maximised to its potentials.
It is not just one part performance with highlights, especially 2nd half heavy skating for points and lasting impression.
9. Historical data established she does earn high PCS for her artistry but she has never won by PCS. The stats are there in b&w. PCS is suppose to be the most subjective part of the cop, yet she managed to earn this coming from a weak federation to show there's enough consensus among the judges that she deserve them.
IMO anyone who compromises their work for
- Points scoring
- Popularity
- Judges's tastes
- Packaging approach based on someone's view instead coming from self
- Unable to show progression in their artistic pursuit in this sport.
- Repeat programs based tried and tested successes, or succumb to fickle minded critics, who are unable to defend their work by working hard to maximise its initial promise fully fails the term being artistic/artistry. If the term is purely an aesthetic one, it is superficial in every way.... if you are to discuss pure art/artistry
Last edited:
Well like artistry and performer it's debatable, Mao may have landed a lot of 3As but she used to have a hammertoe on her 3F, didn't have a true Lutz and her 3S was a an unreliable jump for her. Also she wasn't a huge jumper which is what a lot of people like to use as the biggest argument for what constitutes a good jumper. I'd put her under jumper for her contributions to pushing the technical envelope and always challenging herself. She was inconsistent but in the process of she's had some absolutely stellar performances such as landing every single triple at the Olympics and 3 3As.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2012
- Country
-
In conclusion: Art or beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
:yes:
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2013
In conclusion: Art or beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
:yes:
For my eyes, Midori's jump is a variety of art, as well as Lambiel's spin.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2014
Personally, I would put Yuna and Mao in all three. Both create programs that are artistic (Homage to K; Rachmaninoff) and performance based (007, Danse Macabre; Bells of Moscow) and both pushed the technical side of skating (3-3 and 3A). I agree with gotoschool that Mao OWNS the step sequence/spinning/spiral category.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
Since artistry is so subjective. I am going to go head and say it. Mao is the best artist of her generation (not the same as best skater) perfect lines, movements and positions.
Since I am already talking in absolutes. Kim Yuna is the best all around (balanced) skater.
Carolina Kostner is the best performer of the 3. She can skate to anything and make it work.
Too soon to say about this new generation...
Satoko Miyahara... The artist
Elena Radionova... The performer
Liza... The jumper
Since I am already talking in absolutes. Kim Yuna is the best all around (balanced) skater.
Carolina Kostner is the best performer of the 3. She can skate to anything and make it work.
Too soon to say about this new generation...
Satoko Miyahara... The artist
Elena Radionova... The performer
Liza... The jumper
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2014
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
It is interesting you said that. Since your 2nd statement sort of just contradict your 1st statement as well
Actually out of the last 2 quads, I'd put Yuna as the strongest artist/artistic showcased far more complete artistry and artistic credentials out of all the ladies in the pure arts sense for the following reasons:
1. She never repeat herself.
2. She isn't afraid to experiment and diversify. Contrasts and complimentary themes
runs through her seasons programs. Shaking things up, sometimes work on her artistic side, sometimes to highlight her musical side, sometimes to highlight her performer side. Always at the right time and age of her career. Many times it is life's sweet bitter ironies that infringe and can elevate a creative piece of art work into a great unique piece of work. Her programs has many bits and pieces that indicate art imitate life, and life imitate art. How many skaters can truly say that about all their programs... in the order they are best served?
3. She shows wide range of work and take on interesting, risky materials that may not be universal appealing, and her program has far more intricate, complex musical edit to showcase better musicality and interpretation than any ladies out there.
4. She does not compromise her tech downgrade her programs for easy competitions skating for points, and rely on PCS when she totally can. Uncompromising attitude is one of the key artistic traits.
5. Many instances in the last quads shows her program could have maximised them for points, but her focus seems to deliver a well realised artistic presentation. (Although argument can be made that is for points also, but it is an argument where it shows artistry is more important)
6. Many of her later work shows she skate for herself, rather than compromise her programs for points, appease judges, critics, or appeal just to people than the arena for applause. This realisation is the highest form of approaching genuine artistic credentials and maturity. It also shows confidence and self believe that makes her artistic rather than a performer. If you don't like my art, take a hike. How many skater has ever done that? Without changing their package/program half time for popularity and sensationalism. Or even lazily repeat their greatest hits of tried and tested formula programs? How is that any different than commercial art? The lowest denominator in art.
7. She take ownership of her program by sticking with it through out the season to realise it on a more organic approach like the process of artistic pursuit suppose to. She has inputs in every aspect of her programs, theme, music, packaging, costumes, presentation. She is not a product of someone's vision, packaging. She owns her costumes/programs, the costumes/programs does not own/wear her.
8. Her programs are well realised holistically, and maximised to its potentials.
It is not just one part performance with highlights, especially 2nd half heavy skating for points and lasting impression.
9. Historical data established she does earn high PCS for her artistry but she has never won by PCS. The stats are there in b&w. PCS is suppose to be the most subjective part of the cop, yet she managed to earn this coming from a weak federation to show there's enough consensus among the judges that she deserve them.
IMO anyone who compromises their work for
- Points scoring
- Popularity
- Judges's tastes
- Packaging approach based on someone's view instead coming from self
- Unable to show progression in their artistic pursuit in this sport.
- Repeat programs based tried and tested successes, or succumb to fickle minded critics, who are unable to defend their work by working hard to maximise its initial promise fully fails the term being artistic/artistry. If the term is purely an aesthetic one, it is superficial in every way.... if you are to discuss pure art/artistry
As always beautifully written. But
repeating an old program is not lazy. Apologies in advanced if that was not what you were trying to say.os168, while you make some good points, my eyebrows shot into my hair at point #6. I completely disagree with this. This is not the essence of art:
But secondly, and most importantly... Something is not "art" just because the so-called artist set out to create art. Something is not art because its creator is uncompromising. Those who set out to write the "Great American Novel" often fail. Instead, many works of art come from people did not quite know how their work will be hailed.
Gabriel Garcia Marquez has been quoted in saying that he doesn't quite understand why people love One Hundred Years of Solitude so much. Louisa May Alcott was best known for Little Women, yet that was not meant to be her magnum opus: instead, she wrote it quickly at her publisher's request, to pay the bills.
You seem to portray art as being in tension with the audience, as the realization of some artistic ideal in face of outside pressures. I would argue the opposite: art is the connection of creator and audience. Art is defined not by how it was created--be it to create art for the sake of itself, or just to pay the bills. It is defined by its effect on the audience, and its resonance with the cultural surroundings.
This does not mean "giving the audience what they want," as some kind of lowest common denominator appeal, as you suggest. It sometimes means you give the audience what they didn't expect, perhaps didn't even want, but what they realize in retrospect is what they needed. So yes, often the artist has to ask the tough questions, but they do this with awareness of their audience, not at the expense of it.
By your logic... should skaters fire their coaches, their choreographers, and their support team, since those are just affecting the "pure artistic vision"? :scratch: Or, to use my writer analogy, should writers fire their editors and publish their first drafts? Because I guarantee you, that would leave much weaker novels on the market. Also, weren't you the one who said Patrick Chan can become the greatest artist ever!! ...yet he's already violating your rules by rehashing Take Five one too many times.
I do think Yuna is an artist, btw. But I wouldn't argue it by saying she has some (imagined) connection with her own art that other skaters don't have. I would argue it by looking at her performances themselves, and how they resonated with me as an individual.
Firstly, you're projecting and extrapolating. How do you know that Yuna is in control of her artistic vision, while other skaters aren't? That she's not out there to maximize points and to win, just like the rest of them? I don't see what the problem is, unless it's a) counterproductive to the program as a whole or b) so obvious you can near the points clicking in your head (e.g. the over-'tano-ing by the Russian Juniors).6. Many of her later work shows she skate for herself, rather than compromise her programs for points, appease judges, critics, or appeal just to people than the arena for applause. This realisation is the highest form of approaching genuine artistic credentials and maturity. It also shows confidence and self believe that makes her artistic rather than a performer. If you don't like my art, take a hike. How many skater has ever done that? Without changing their package/program half time for popularity and sensationalism. Or even lazily repeat their greatest hits of tried and tested formula programs? How is that any different than commercial art? The lowest denominator in art.
...
IMO anyone who compromises their work for
- Points scoring
- Popularity
- Judges's tastes
- Packaging approach based on someone's view instead coming from self
- Unable to show progression in their artistic pursuit in this sport.
- Repeat programs based tried and tested successes, or succumb to fickle minded critics, who are unable to defend their work by working hard to maximise its initial promise fully fails the term being artistic/artistry. If the term is purely an aesthetic one, it is superficial in every way.... if you are to discuss pure art/artistry
But secondly, and most importantly... Something is not "art" just because the so-called artist set out to create art. Something is not art because its creator is uncompromising. Those who set out to write the "Great American Novel" often fail. Instead, many works of art come from people did not quite know how their work will be hailed.
Gabriel Garcia Marquez has been quoted in saying that he doesn't quite understand why people love One Hundred Years of Solitude so much. Louisa May Alcott was best known for Little Women, yet that was not meant to be her magnum opus: instead, she wrote it quickly at her publisher's request, to pay the bills.
You seem to portray art as being in tension with the audience, as the realization of some artistic ideal in face of outside pressures. I would argue the opposite: art is the connection of creator and audience. Art is defined not by how it was created--be it to create art for the sake of itself, or just to pay the bills. It is defined by its effect on the audience, and its resonance with the cultural surroundings.
This does not mean "giving the audience what they want," as some kind of lowest common denominator appeal, as you suggest. It sometimes means you give the audience what they didn't expect, perhaps didn't even want, but what they realize in retrospect is what they needed. So yes, often the artist has to ask the tough questions, but they do this with awareness of their audience, not at the expense of it.
By your logic... should skaters fire their coaches, their choreographers, and their support team, since those are just affecting the "pure artistic vision"? :scratch: Or, to use my writer analogy, should writers fire their editors and publish their first drafts? Because I guarantee you, that would leave much weaker novels on the market. Also, weren't you the one who said Patrick Chan can become the greatest artist ever!! ...yet he's already violating your rules by rehashing Take Five one too many times.
I do think Yuna is an artist, btw. But I wouldn't argue it by saying she has some (imagined) connection with her own art that other skaters don't have. I would argue it by looking at her performances themselves, and how they resonated with me as an individual.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
Absolutely agree! :thumbsup:
I would like to add a comment just to disagree with his first point too- "She never repeats herself" I don't think any skater in existence have ever not repeated themselves to an extent. It's impossible. If he meant that she has never repeated a theme or a program before, then I would put forward Roxanne and Adios Nonino. Both are tango programs, though while they differ in tone, they are in fact the same type of music and it requires the same (or if you must, 'familiar') choreography. Has she repeated a jump layout more than once? Yes. Has she skated to the same genre of music? Yes, she has multiple programs from musicals, ballets, film soundtracks......when can go on and on. If he meant that she has never repeated and skated to the same program more than once, so what? That's looking at her career at face value. Did doing so tarnish Asada's Liebestraume? Did it lessen the impact and charisma of Kostner's Bolero? Did Chan's Take Five bore the second time around? Does going to the Louvre a second time around and walking past the Mona Lisa for the 13th time- will it lessen Da Vinci's impact? No. Hence why I would disregard os168's first point.
Does that make her less of an artist? No. When I chose 'Artist' as a category, and I apologise as I should have written what it meant to me, it was meant to represent just what Sandpiper said. It's about the skater and the audience and their ability to listen to the music and therefore move themselves and their audience with their performance, their interpretation of the piece (an internal monologue I suppose) and a projection of their style- their signature on the ice. os168's definition of artistic is basically that Kim is uncompromising in what she did in her career. but like Sandpiper has pointed out- we don't know that for sure. How do we know that Kim compromised with David Wilson over what choreography she used? With Orser on how she should layout her jumps? Also, she skated to a rulebook written by the ISU! There already was a compromise from the beginning because Kim and all the skaters in competition had to skate by the bullet point. This argument would have more merit to it had Kim skated on her own, resisted the ISU game rules, choreographed her own programs, skated without a coach in competitions. I can see where he is coming from, but its a very narrow argument.
Last edited:
Sorry, but that would be a performance, not an artistry. When you make a category for both artistry AND performance, you need to have a clear distinction that can separate those two. IMO, you don't need to draw the audience to be artistic nor have a performance with artistry.
I would say however, that most artists can be performers and performers can be artists as they do collide in certain points. But when you make them into separate categories, you'd need to have a clear definition for one of each.
Then what do you need to do? Surely you can't be much of artist if you put everyone to sleep...?
Would you say Surya Bonaly is an artist? She's definitely isn't on artist compared to elite skaters in the past quad, but she definitely does not put "everyone" to sleep. She may not impress some people as an artistic skater, but she definitely has power and fire that keeps the audience awake.
So in turn, who in your opinion was an artist, but had no connection with the audience?
