The Case for Handwork: Balancing Art and Sport in Figure Skating

[TallyT]

To your first statement, you're right, and I agree google can be Eurocentric. But also, you're googling in English, so you will get answers from English quara threads and articles etc... which are naturally going to be Eurocentric. If you searched in an asian language, the answers would be quite different.

And also yes you're right the original topic of this thread was much more nuanced and sophisticated than what I was arguing. It's just, when I clicked this thread, I saw people all of a sudden making absolute claims that figure skating is not art, which struck me as a strange thing to say... and if people are making claims like that, how can they give a good discussion about the original topic? That's why I was making those posts. But yes, you're right.

Oh, I was not disagreeing with the points you were making, I agree with them

 

[Magill]

But the Russians do love Yuzuru and Shoma (at least, I have read as such) true? Yes, they can jump with the best of them, but they are also admired for their artistic qualities and non-fear of sparkles and beauty.

I have read so, too.

 

[Mathematician]

Well, no, I do not have any any logical proof that figure skating is not and cannot be art. I do not jave any ;logical proof that figure skating is and must be art. That's kind of the point. In my opinion this question cannot be usefully addressed by logical argumentation.

If I wanted (I don't) to object to any part of your position, I might question the reliance on emotion as the factor that defines what is art and what isn't. I am not an expert in the philosophy of estheticcs -- what makes beautiful things beautiful -- but I would imagine that there could be "cool" works of art that, for instance, stimulate the intellect without necessarily evoking any particular emotion in the viewer.

Ok, I think we are basically agreeing about your first point. So I wont beat that horse any further. Like I said, I'm not trying to prove anything, just demonstrating the fallacy of reductionist perspectives especially when it comes to art.

And I wasn't relying on the philosophy of beauty A.K.A aesthetics for any of my arguments. Emotion is self defined by the interpreter and something different. And I didn't say emotion exclusively defined art ( yea you can have "cool" art or "though provoking" art etc... ) I said that conventionally speaking if something is designed to invoke a sentimental idea by some abstract performance or creation most people would call that art (and if you don't, then you would have to argue lots of music and painting isn't art, to which I said is a fair position), and figure skating fits that criteria.

Anyways, we can get back to the original topic now, if we are still interested in debating that.

 

[streams4dreams]

Anyways, we can get back to the original topic now, if we are still interested in debating that.

I understood the OP blog post as saying that we appreciate art both for the technique (like brush strokes in paintings, or blade work in figure skating) and the overall impression, and that the latter aspect is currently undervalued in figure skating. So, my straightforward conclusion would be that the author argues to add more weight when assessing the program as a whole rather than collection of individual elements. There are no suggestions as to how to do this (at least I think!), so for me, the two interesting questions to discuss would be:

(1) Are there modifications to IJS that would better capture the overall impression of the program?
(2) If there are, would we even want to adopt them?

I've only watched figure skating under IJS, and found a number of performances artistic. Given that current rules motivate skaters to produce programs I enjoy, I don't feel a pressing need to overhaul criteria. But I find it interesting to read how other posters feel more strongly about this, so it very well may be that if some criteria were changed, I would enjoy figure skating even more!

 

[Mathematician]

I understood the OP blog post as saying that we appreciate art both for the technique (like brush strokes in paintings, or blade work in figure skating) and the overall impression, and that the latter aspect is currently undervalued in figure skating. So, my straightforward conclusion would be that the author argues to add more weight when assessing the program as a whole rather than collection of individual elements. There are no suggestions as to how to do this (at least I think!), so for me, the two interesting questions to discuss would be:

(1) Are there modifications to IJS that would better capture the overall impression of the program?
(2) If there are, would we even want to adopt them?

I've only watched figure skating under IJS, and found a number of performances artistic. Given that current rules motivate skaters to produce programs I enjoy, I don't feel a pressing need to overhaul criteria. But I find it interesting to read how other posters feel more strongly about this, so it very well may be that if some criteria were changed, I would enjoy figure skating even more!

Good analysis, I agree. I can't think of any rule changes they could add either.

This is just the age old problem of scoring and "objectively assessing" art.

Its funny, this problem actually even moreso demonstrates how much of an art figure skating is:

You can judge a pianist by his accuracy and speed, a painter by his strokes and colours, a writer by his vocabulary and eloquence... but ultimately, every art has the same massive problem in the seeming impossibility of objectively assessing the gestalt piece.

There's a reason people cant stand piano competitions; the favourite performer usually loses, because someone else had more perfect key strokes and score-accurate rhythm.

Figure skating seems to fit right in with the rest of the competitive arts, perfectly.

Regardless, like you said, although scoring may be imperfect the inherent human desire to create art seems to be motivation enough for skaters to develop relatable and beautiful programs which I love to watch. Although of course we all get upset with athlete's placements sometimes, the current state of things is good enough for me, at least as a spectator. Any imperfections in the system at this point seem to be inescapable properties of competitive art which we've seen for decades in every discipline.

 

[icewhite]

Please, if someone is convinced figure skating is absolutey not art, present an argument which counters what I've said.

I don't mean the "its not artistic to me" argument.

I mean, if you think you have actual logical proof for why figure skating cannot be art, please let me know. $100 bounty on anyone who can present this actual argument (its literally impossible ).

When I say "figure skating is not art" I don't mean "it can never be art". Most things in life can become art.
However fs usually isn't. If done competitively it is usually a sport not only first but "only". No question it does have aspects of art, but in my book it's not art, apart from a few programs that we could argue about. (Being artistic and being art are also two different things. It definitely is artistic.)
Most show programs are done for entertainment and there are people who express themselves and entertain and perform. However, art? Rarely to me.
I don't have a clear, waterproof definition of art that I could phrase here. However, like I said, the "l'art pour l'art" thought plays a huge role in it. Something that is done in a strict setting, playing by the rules, using these rules to your best advantage in order to gain faim or money or win goes against it. I am not saying it makes it impossible, but it's a factor I consider extremely important.
Of course you could say that about many contract works of the past - but then the question is, did the artist add something beyond, and even against the expectations, daring to cross borders? If they simply fullfilled the task, even if beautifully and touching, are they then artists? Usually I would say they were highly skilled decorateurs. Then there are artists who did both, boring works nobody would speak about if it wasn't for other ones they did, which brought something more - in that case their other works are usually considered art because they are "done by an artist".

How many skating performances are actually daring to do something new and original, something crossing the borders of old, breaking the rules, that's maybe even detrimental to their score? Hardly anyone does that. Overwhelmingly they will play by the rules and fullfilling the task and getting the most points and the best placing/score is at the center of the thoughts when a program is choreographed and even more so when it's skated, and that's at the heart of sports, not of art.

 

[Mathematician]

did the artist add something beyond, and even against the expectations, daring to cross borders? If they simply fullfilled the task, even if beautifully and touching, are they then artists? Usually I would say they were highly skilled decorateurs.

Interesting opinion but ultimately baseless objectively. At this point you arent arguing with me but with Chopin:

"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties. After one has played a vast quantity of notes and more notes, it is simplicity that emerges as the crowning reward of art."

He himself considered his greatest musical feat to be the famous Prelude in E minor. One of the most uninventive, easy, and standard pieces of music in mainstream piano repetoire. He literally used the most fundamental chords and the melody is, for the most part, a repeating half step.

A lot of people have "progress" as some criteria for art but theres no real argument for that, its so narrow. Expression can be, and at the highest level usually is traditional and banal.

I see zero reason why skaters doing the same moves as everyone else somehow makes it undefinable as art. Thats what happens with 99.99% of all art and the best of it. Needless revolution like Stravinsky is usually just pretentious and unenjoyable.

 

[4everchan]

He himself considered his greatest musical feat to be the famous Prelude in E minor.

Curious about this. Can you provide a serious source for that claim.

 

[el henry]

....

How many skating performances are actually daring to do something new and original, something crossing the borders of old, breaking the rules, that's maybe even detrimental to their score? Hardly anyone does that. Overwhelmingly they will play by the rules and fullfilling the task and getting the most points and the best placing/score is at the center of the thoughts when a program is choreographed and even more so when it's skated, and that's at the heart of sports, not of art.

But it does happen.

Toller Cranston.

Torvill & Dean.

Skaters who were actually breaking the rules, creating something new and truly changed the structure of the discipline. And were beautiful to watch.

Would we agree that these skaters, rare though they may be, are artists? And are only these skaters artists?

I am not trying to be snarky, this is a serious question.

 

[Mathematician]

Curious about this. Can you provide a serious source for that claim.

No I cant. I read that somewhere a long time ago on some obscure forum - could well be false.

Regardless, the point still stands even without that piece of evidence. The quote is well preserved, and thats all thats needed for the argument. Chopin spoke a lot about his dislike for Beethoven's revolutionary influences but loved the conservatism of Bach and Mozart. Tchaikovsky also loved Mozart, Chopin and disliked, for instance, the bravado of Brahms. The idea that innovation is a necessesity for art is incredibly baseless. When you think about it, typically the reverse is actually true. The best artists are rarely pretentious progressives.

Also, according to Wikipedia, of all his piece he chose the E minor Prelude to be played at his funeral. Take from that what you will.

 

[4everchan]

No I cant. I read that somewhere a long time ago on some obscure forum - could well be false.

That's what I thought. I do not take statements like these lightly, so I am not convinced. Chopin is actually a great innovator in chromatic harmony so I wouldn't quite say he was a very conservative composer. I agree with the "simplicity" aura emanating from much of his work (though his music is far from simple), that's as far as I am going to go with this. Back to the topic for those who wish to continue the art vs sport debate. Sorry for the interruption.

 

[el henry]

That's what I thought. I do not take statements like these lightly, so I am not convinced. Chopin is actually a great innovator in chromatic harmony so I wouldn't quite say he was a very conservative composer. I agree with the "simplicity" aura emanating from much of his work (though his music is far from simple), that's as far as I am going to go with this. Back to the topic for those who wish to continue the art vs sport debate. Sorry for the interruption.

100%

where is my dancing GIF. Chopin was of course a great innovator in chromatic harmony.

Well known by everyone, but I can supply quotes later. The point still stands.

 

[4everchan]

Just for fun... one article of a long list...

https://ojs.uph.edu/index.php/JSM/article/download/6054/2760

Vol. 12, No. 2 Oktober 2022 page: 41 - 51 P-ISSN: 1829-8990 E-ISSN: 2580-5371
Received: 02/10/2022 Revised: 18/10/2022 Published: 31/10/2022 Page 41
Evaluating the Harmonic Innovation in Chopin’s Ballade
No. 1 in G minor, Op. 23
Anjelica Reisa
Universitas Pelita Harapan
[email protected]
Mario Santoso
Universitas Pelita Harapan
[email protected]
Abstract
The perfection of Frédéric Chopin (1810-1849) and his exclusive piano music with its
unique personal stamp make his work highly original. His musical style is exceptionally
individualistic, so distinct that some elements are quickly recognized as belonging to him.
Two elements that Chopin revolutionized in his compositions include a redefinition of
many traditional concepts associated with dance music with character piece; and the of
writing harmonic sense that was quite original for that time, which brought such critics
from his contemporaries complaining about those features that are regarded as strikingly
original today – the equilibrium point of chromaticism and diatonicism. The purpose of
this article is to analyse and evaluate the harmonic innovation in Chopin’s Ballade no. 1 in
G minor, Op. 23, as Chopin successfully blended diatonicism and chromaticism to the
point of being equal in use, resulting in early study of tonal expansion; this musical language
had such enormous influence to the later composers in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries.
Keywords: Chopin, Harmonic Innovation, Equilibrium, Chromaticism, Diatonicism

 

[Mathematician]

Just for fun... one article of a long list...

https://ojs.uph.edu/index.php/JSM/article/download/6054/2760

Sure is a shame that Ballade was Chopin's only ever published piece of music. I guess my point has been killed. If only he could've written more music, maybe there would have been an example of conservative and uninventive art. I guess you guys were right all along: art has to be inventive, it can't just be traditionally cathartic; Chopin as a great artist would've never written something like that. Oh well, I guess history has treated us so poorly, thats life... and figure skating is just a sport... cause ubiquitous elements...

 

[Mathman]

I understood the OP blog post as saying that we appreciate art both for the technique (like brush strokes in paintings, or blade work in figure skating) and the overall impression, and that the latter aspect is currently undervalued in figure skating. So, my straightforward conclusion would be that the author argues to add more weight when assessing the program as a whole rather than collection of individual elements. There are no suggestions as to how to do this (at least I think!), so for me, the two interesting questions to discuss would be:

(1) Are there modifications to IJS that would better capture the overall impression of the program?
(2) If there are, would we even want to adopt them?

This is a wonderful post (not that I don't enjoy reading discussions of whether Chopin was banal or innovative). But the blog post that started this thread is just one guy's vague wish that skating could be balanced a little better in terms of PCSs. It really has nothing to do with "What is art?"

 

[Blades of Passion]

That's a very western view of men's gymnastics that you have. It's extremely popular in Russia, China, and Japan

Then why have none of the male gymnasts made nearly as much money as the most successful male skaters in those countries.

In any case, it would at the very least maintain its currently popularity level if they brought more artistry in. There is already a small push to do so that is expected to be in the rules for the next Olympic cycle. Much more is needed though.

 

[Blades of Passion]

If done competitively it is usually a sport not only first but "only". No question it does have aspects of art, but in my book it's not art

Imagine watching Michelle Kwan's Lyra Angelica, Lu Chen's Butterfly Lovers, or hundreds of other prime examples that were widely celebrated in their time as performance art, and drew in far more viewers than what the sport currently gets, and then claiming it's not art.

 

[icewhite]

I'll try to answer some posts and aspects.

(Regarding "performance art": maybe there's also a language aspect in there?? In German Performancekunst means something like happenings, I am thinking of Fluxus, Abramovic, Dada, John Cage.)

Regarding male gymnasts I think the problem is much more sexism than anything else. Just as many people see figure skating or ballet as "for girls, not boys". Here, today people don't care about watching gymnastics in any form. Success of home athletes certainly plays a role, too.

China is definitely very artistic. But to me, I think like Russia art just isn't as intrinsic to the culture of China. For instance, without art, Italy is lost. But, to me, when I think of China I think of philosophy more than the traditional expressive arts - and without art China would still have great substance.

??? You think some countries have art more in them than others? That is... I don't know how to call it politely, but it's complete nonsense.

Interesting opinion but ultimately baseless objectively. At this point you arent arguing with me but with Chopin:

"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties. After one has played a vast quantity of notes and more notes, it is simplicity that emerges as the crowning reward of art."

He himself considered his greatest musical feat to be the famous Prelude in E minor. One of the most uninventive, easy, and standard pieces of music in mainstream piano repetoire. He literally used the most fundamental chords and the melody is, for the most part, a repeating half step.

A lot of people have "progress" as some criteria for art but theres no real argument for that, its so narrow. Expression can be, and at the highest level usually is traditional and banal.

I see zero reason why skaters doing the same moves as everyone else somehow makes it undefinable as art. Thats what happens with 99.99% of all art and the best of it. Needless revolution like Stravinsky is usually just pretentious and unenjoyable.

I don't get your point here at all. Where did I say anything about simplicity or not? How is that relevant? Ignoring your weird assessment of Stravinsky and trying to get why you answer my post with this... I feel we are talking about completely different things.
Yes, my definition of art may be more narrow than that of other posters, but all I can say to this is basically "he?"
I am trying to do better, come up with google now myself because I am not good enough with music, German google sums Chopin up like this: "Seine einzigartigen Werke machen Frédéric Chopin zu einem der außergewöhnlichsten Komponisten der Musikgeschichte. Die außergewöhnlichen, bahnbrechenden Elemente seiner Klangsprache weisen weit über seine Zeit hinaus. Ohne seine Neuerungen in der Harmonik lassen sich Wagner oder Debussy nicht denken." (His unique works make Frédéric Chopin one of the most extraordinary composers in music history. The extraordinary, groundbreaking elements of his tonal language point far beyond his time. Without his innovations in harmony, Wagner or Debussy would be unthinkable.) Is that so? I enjoy Chopin but wouldn't know. But I suppose it shows that Chopin overall is not considered a composer who never brought something unique or original to the table.

Okay, I don't feel the need to prolongue this discussion. Art is definitely one of the most controversial words in the world. My definition doesn't include figure skating for the reasons I already named.

Regarding the success/viewing numbers and how they could go up I think the assessment that it's because it's not enough about performance or art or anything is the wrong way, but I suppose it's better to look at this with scientific evidence. Overall many traditional but smaller sports struggle with viewing numbers. That's mostly due to people having lots of more other (passive) entertainment possibilities, youtube, tiktok, netflix, and much much more.
I think figure skating could get a bigger audience if it was more appealing to young people today with more modern music, modern dance performances, and a more inclusive approach. But that's just what I think, I'm sure marketing companies can do better analyzing this.

 

[Mathman]

Yes, my definition of art may be more narrow than that of other posters, but all I can say to this is basically "he?"

That summarizes this whole discussion. Some people have a narrow definition of what art is, and others prefer to cast a wider net.

 

[Mathematician]

??? You think some countries have art more in them than others? That is... I don't know how to call it politely, but it's complete nonsense.

Yea art is clearly more intrinsic to the global identity of some countries more than others. Thats not even a controversial statement. Now you're just seeing anything I say through some argumentative filter but that was the most normal statement ever.

As for your other points I guess since you now added "in my opinion" or "to me" I can't really argue against it. I still just think its weird to name innovation as a prerequisite to art. Puttinf Chopin aside here I'm basically 100% sure there's plenty of things you've considered art in your life which go against your idea of innovation and progress; this is why its frustrating to see you argue against figure skating with this logic. But oh well, I'm sure theres plenty of people who would argue against writing, or sculpting or whatever else being art which is far more blasphemous than this so I don't know why I've been putting so much effort into this situation.