And that post just shut it down.
And that post just shut it down.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
I think this is the best post in this entire thread!
:thumbsup: Agreed. enzet, thank you for saying most of what I wanted to say, only much more eloquently
.I agree. I would add that while historical and artistic context are important, a great piece of music is able to stand by itself and can be enjoyed (at a basic level, some might argue) even without previously reading an essay about the composer's intent. Also, performing by portraying a story and performing to the music are both valid artistic approaches and one is not intrinsically superior to the other.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2010
Wow this thread is going all over the place...guess the Olympic season has really started. Well, I am personally looking forward to the hugs at the podium between the two and possibly the fans can finally kiss and make up (maybe?) although there will certainly be alot of crying.
Yes I am aware it is Nocturne no2, but I was questioning whether the music edit in the clip is the same music edit playing inside the arena, because the two don't seem to gel. Mao appear to skate right through many emotional highlight parts. Otherwise it would be an appalling job on Lori's part to put out a choreography program that ignores the basics of timing with movement so completely. My Assumption is based on:
- If it is indeed the correct music edit, then the choreographer or the performer is to be blamed.
- If however it is a fan dubbed version of another Nocturne no.2 track over the Lori’s new music edit that was played in the arena, then most of what I said is simply not applicable and I'd like to reassess the program again.
My first post however was merely trying to defend idea this music is without highlight therefore an excuse for the flatness of the choreography. Or that interpretation is not possible due to the seamless flow without highlights. Of course it got twist and turned outside my control.
The fact is, without timing and referencing to the music, there's no point for choreography, interpretation or even music used to be part of the performance. To put it bluntly, it would no different than just another Miki Ando program with prettier skating, less consistent jumps. Costumes… it is a lucky draw.
-----------------------
Dear CarneAsada, you made me laugh so much at work today. Sorry I just have to refer to your series of posts, with so much warped bigotry and animosity directed at you know who (ie/anyone who is not the skater being discussed on this thread). You seem to have a strong aversion to anything produced by Mao’s rivals, but seriously undermine rival’s strength and pretend them as weaknesses is quite useless and arrogant… it is very childish like sort of tactic along the lines “oh You think I am bad? Well let me tell you, You are TENNNNN times worse, nooo make that 10000000!!!! times worse sort of argument.” I know there are all sort of excuses being made to defend something you are passionately about, but when you ignoring basics 101 so utterly completely with the lamest pseudo-intellectual excuses to justify a poor music interpretation (assuming the music edit is the correct one in the clip).
Your: Nocturne is really night, and that just because Chopin was influenced by Italian Opera which had been sold on the premise of a song, means Mao don’t even have to attempt to interpret the notations in the music except on “nothing but the beauty of her lines and her skating” Certainly no need for expressive arms (are you for real?) as if all hundreds version of Nocturnes pieces by all other composers throughout the years that had been influenced by Italian operas are all the same and therefore would be perfectly suffice with this type of mismatch music choreography as long ‘as they have beautiful lines??!!’ Why not give all the musically deaf juniors Nocturne next year and see their PCS shoot up to Mao level, preferably the ones without expressive arms. I could go on…..but I won’t.
I thought her legacy program Chopin Nocturne no.2 in Eb major 2006 version worked due to a large part of finding the natural fit. At that age Mao already accumulated the rare pre-built lyricism that is definitive classical and her age of innocence was perfectly matched by the romanticism inscribed by the music. It is as creative as finding the right clothes fitting than design the clothes from scratch following any particular creative concept / a theme. I think that might be the biggest difference between Lori and Tat. Lori is an excellent stylist/tailor who happen to be great at accessorizing, finding the package that complements the skater, hides the flaws and bring out the unique selling points, generally conservative in approach, less in experimentation. While Tat seems to be the brave imagineer of the old worlds (The sorts who think they can land on the moon and change the world) who’s perfect capable of being reckless, narcissist and boastful/confident with her grand ambitions/vision. Tat has calmed down somewhat after her last Olympics and try to fit Mao’s style, the price is this new compromised approach ends up being neither/or type of program, and the results can a bit unpredictable (always contain a great section, But also many iffy parts).
I agree with the poster who said back then Mao WAS the music and her performance seamless integrated with the lyrical quality of the music. It was certainly the faster and brisker pace of the two - which I am surprised nobody mentioned (and we are already on page 12), which means interpreting is not necessary in this case when the choreography movements and the spirit of the performer more than filled the void and leaves little room for anything else. However I’d argue this is not the case with the music version heard in the latest clip, which is certainly slower and more truthful to its origin at an interpretative pace; moodier, contemplative, sensitive and introspective and as such, would be make sense to have some interpretation since the pace and the version practically demands it. It is not the only way to go, but it would be certainly miles better and richer than no connection between music and movement. She could have skated to anything.
Should Lori came up with something amazing for Carolina, I’d be seriously complain like crazy if I am a Mao supporter or the JSF.
A couple other points
- Your point about ‘Bolero has no music value because it inherently appeal to the masses therefore begs the tackiest campiest choreography imaginable” really shows the most pitiful snobbery possible. Your over reaction to a harmless comment about the sensitivity needed for Chopin piece ends up somehow denying Chopin’s Nocturne no.2 as one of the greatest Nocturne is frankly preposterous and vindictive. For your interest, your comment about “19th century love” comment is certainly hog wash. So please enjoy letting that comment wash over you, since I clearly meant to describe the art/music period: era of the romantics, which Chopin is certainly one of its greatest leading figures. (no no.. NOT all of a sudden, it happened way before I was born…)
- I have not advocating literal interpretation in any way. You misread that post which was simply about defending the music as a piece of classical without highlight as some sort of valid excuse for the flatness of the choreography. It is a ludicrous accusation and you should have known better, but then it is not the first time you have misread my posts. Key point being there ‘should be’ some interpretation/processing, otherwise you might as well skate to anything. At world’s elite level, I certainly expect something a bit more sophisticated than ‘any background music will do as long as I skate pretty’ sort of premise.
I have always thought if Mao had made better use of her arms, it could infinitely improve her form and lack of expression of the sort of: “ I skate, I jump, I am happy”. “I skate, I jump bad, I am not happy” type of performances. This is ‘figure’ skating, not ballet skating, not my arm do not need to be in sync with the music skating just because I have got beautiful lines and I have a powerful federation. (Okay I tease the last part a bit and yes I am laughing at this idea of you think there are too much excessive arms. Excuse me, who’s the one with the Russian coach?! In any case it is not hard to figure out why you bring it up so much.)
Finally I’d like to see if Mao try Carolina’s Bolero, or just something a bit more rhythmic. risqué and well outside her comfort zone. We can’t all be 16 forever.
Yes I am aware it is Nocturne no2, but I was questioning whether the music edit in the clip is the same music edit playing inside the arena, because the two don't seem to gel. Mao appear to skate right through many emotional highlight parts. Otherwise it would be an appalling job on Lori's part to put out a choreography program that ignores the basics of timing with movement so completely. My Assumption is based on:
- If it is indeed the correct music edit, then the choreographer or the performer is to be blamed.
- If however it is a fan dubbed version of another Nocturne no.2 track over the Lori’s new music edit that was played in the arena, then most of what I said is simply not applicable and I'd like to reassess the program again.
My first post however was merely trying to defend idea this music is without highlight therefore an excuse for the flatness of the choreography. Or that interpretation is not possible due to the seamless flow without highlights. Of course it got twist and turned outside my control.
The fact is, without timing and referencing to the music, there's no point for choreography, interpretation or even music used to be part of the performance. To put it bluntly, it would no different than just another Miki Ando program with prettier skating, less consistent jumps. Costumes… it is a lucky draw.
-----------------------
Dear CarneAsada, you made me laugh so much at work today. Sorry I just have to refer to your series of posts, with so much warped bigotry and animosity directed at you know who (ie/anyone who is not the skater being discussed on this thread). You seem to have a strong aversion to anything produced by Mao’s rivals, but seriously undermine rival’s strength and pretend them as weaknesses is quite useless and arrogant… it is very childish like sort of tactic along the lines “oh You think I am bad? Well let me tell you, You are TENNNNN times worse, nooo make that 10000000!!!! times worse sort of argument.” I know there are all sort of excuses being made to defend something you are passionately about, but when you ignoring basics 101 so utterly completely with the lamest pseudo-intellectual excuses to justify a poor music interpretation (assuming the music edit is the correct one in the clip).
Your: Nocturne is really night, and that just because Chopin was influenced by Italian Opera which had been sold on the premise of a song, means Mao don’t even have to attempt to interpret the notations in the music except on “nothing but the beauty of her lines and her skating” Certainly no need for expressive arms (are you for real?) as if all hundreds version of Nocturnes pieces by all other composers throughout the years that had been influenced by Italian operas are all the same and therefore would be perfectly suffice with this type of mismatch music choreography as long ‘as they have beautiful lines??!!’ Why not give all the musically deaf juniors Nocturne next year and see their PCS shoot up to Mao level, preferably the ones without expressive arms. I could go on…..but I won’t.
I thought her legacy program Chopin Nocturne no.2 in Eb major 2006 version worked due to a large part of finding the natural fit. At that age Mao already accumulated the rare pre-built lyricism that is definitive classical and her age of innocence was perfectly matched by the romanticism inscribed by the music. It is as creative as finding the right clothes fitting than design the clothes from scratch following any particular creative concept / a theme. I think that might be the biggest difference between Lori and Tat. Lori is an excellent stylist/tailor who happen to be great at accessorizing, finding the package that complements the skater, hides the flaws and bring out the unique selling points, generally conservative in approach, less in experimentation. While Tat seems to be the brave imagineer of the old worlds (The sorts who think they can land on the moon and change the world) who’s perfect capable of being reckless, narcissist and boastful/confident with her grand ambitions/vision. Tat has calmed down somewhat after her last Olympics and try to fit Mao’s style, the price is this new compromised approach ends up being neither/or type of program, and the results can a bit unpredictable (always contain a great section, But also many iffy parts).
I agree with the poster who said back then Mao WAS the music and her performance seamless integrated with the lyrical quality of the music. It was certainly the faster and brisker pace of the two - which I am surprised nobody mentioned (and we are already on page 12), which means interpreting is not necessary in this case when the choreography movements and the spirit of the performer more than filled the void and leaves little room for anything else. However I’d argue this is not the case with the music version heard in the latest clip, which is certainly slower and more truthful to its origin at an interpretative pace; moodier, contemplative, sensitive and introspective and as such, would be make sense to have some interpretation since the pace and the version practically demands it. It is not the only way to go, but it would be certainly miles better and richer than no connection between music and movement. She could have skated to anything.
Should Lori came up with something amazing for Carolina, I’d be seriously complain like crazy if I am a Mao supporter or the JSF.
A couple other points
- Your point about ‘Bolero has no music value because it inherently appeal to the masses therefore begs the tackiest campiest choreography imaginable” really shows the most pitiful snobbery possible. Your over reaction to a harmless comment about the sensitivity needed for Chopin piece ends up somehow denying Chopin’s Nocturne no.2 as one of the greatest Nocturne is frankly preposterous and vindictive. For your interest, your comment about “19th century love” comment is certainly hog wash. So please enjoy letting that comment wash over you, since I clearly meant to describe the art/music period: era of the romantics, which Chopin is certainly one of its greatest leading figures. (no no.. NOT all of a sudden, it happened way before I was born…)
- I have not advocating literal interpretation in any way. You misread that post which was simply about defending the music as a piece of classical without highlight as some sort of valid excuse for the flatness of the choreography. It is a ludicrous accusation and you should have known better, but then it is not the first time you have misread my posts. Key point being there ‘should be’ some interpretation/processing, otherwise you might as well skate to anything. At world’s elite level, I certainly expect something a bit more sophisticated than ‘any background music will do as long as I skate pretty’ sort of premise.
I have always thought if Mao had made better use of her arms, it could infinitely improve her form and lack of expression of the sort of: “ I skate, I jump, I am happy”. “I skate, I jump bad, I am not happy” type of performances. This is ‘figure’ skating, not ballet skating, not my arm do not need to be in sync with the music skating just because I have got beautiful lines and I have a powerful federation. (Okay I tease the last part a bit and yes I am laughing at this idea of you think there are too much excessive arms. Excuse me, who’s the one with the Russian coach?! In any case it is not hard to figure out why you bring it up so much.)
Finally I’d like to see if Mao try Carolina’s Bolero, or just something a bit more rhythmic. risqué and well outside her comfort zone. We can’t all be 16 forever.
- Joined
- May 18, 2009
lol at the four person cheering squad. Nothing is being shut down as there is nothing to be shut down.
It is irrelevant in this discussion thus far, who each poster's "favorite" is, as what is being discussed here is the positives and negatives of the components of this specific program alone as posted in the OP. Those components may be the music, the cut of music, the choreography, the interpretation of choreography, the performance, etc. Each poster is allowed to state what he or she likes or dislikes, and provide a rational for that opinion, no matter how ridiculous you personally perceive that rational to be. You in turn can present a counter-argument that adds substance to your position. An outright dismissal of an opinion and its reasoning, however, neither strengthens your own position nor weaken's that of the opposition.
Honestly, I think there has been a drift in this thread that happened a couple of pages ago. The discussion shifted from being purely about Mao's new SP to discussing on a more abstract level, what music means in the context of a performance, and the conceivable limits of what a skater can achieve competitively. The former discussion, if you can believe it, happens all the time among instrumentalists, let alone among dancers and singers. This same debate we're having in figure skating, has been thrown back and forth among conductors and musicians asking how music should be interpreted and performed. How much importance should be placed on the context of the piece's composition, the wishes of the composer, the merits of the music itself. There's a reason why new opera productions (like the god-awful la Traviata that was making the rounds the past few seasons) of old favorites ruffle so many feathers. It is unfortunate that this shift happened within the context of Mao's SP thread. The topic actually makes for a pretty interesting discussion.
I'll come out and say it since a number of posters keep frantically dancing around the same issue. When Yuna Kim's programs come out this fall, you too will be able to put forth your criticisms and spar with rigor on this battlefield that is the Olympic season figure skating forum.
It is irrelevant in this discussion thus far, who each poster's "favorite" is, as what is being discussed here is the positives and negatives of the components of this specific program alone as posted in the OP. Those components may be the music, the cut of music, the choreography, the interpretation of choreography, the performance, etc. Each poster is allowed to state what he or she likes or dislikes, and provide a rational for that opinion, no matter how ridiculous you personally perceive that rational to be. You in turn can present a counter-argument that adds substance to your position. An outright dismissal of an opinion and its reasoning, however, neither strengthens your own position nor weaken's that of the opposition.
Honestly, I think there has been a drift in this thread that happened a couple of pages ago. The discussion shifted from being purely about Mao's new SP to discussing on a more abstract level, what music means in the context of a performance, and the conceivable limits of what a skater can achieve competitively. The former discussion, if you can believe it, happens all the time among instrumentalists, let alone among dancers and singers. This same debate we're having in figure skating, has been thrown back and forth among conductors and musicians asking how music should be interpreted and performed. How much importance should be placed on the context of the piece's composition, the wishes of the composer, the merits of the music itself. There's a reason why new opera productions (like the god-awful la Traviata that was making the rounds the past few seasons) of old favorites ruffle so many feathers. It is unfortunate that this shift happened within the context of Mao's SP thread. The topic actually makes for a pretty interesting discussion.
I'll come out and say it since a number of posters keep frantically dancing around the same issue. When Yuna Kim's programs come out this fall, you too will be able to put forth your criticisms and spar with rigor on this battlefield that is the Olympic season figure skating forum.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2011
Again os168, you are misinterpreting what I said. I have no problem with "everything produced by Mao's rivals." I actually like Yu-na Kim's Bond Girl (not her Bulletproof exhibition though).
? I believe I have only specifically commented on the Nocturne op. 9/2 by Chopin. We may disagree sometimes, but let's not get too excited here. You are free to set up your own little strawmen to knock down when I respond to your vague, broad pronouncements on "the era" with a less idealized and more specific view, but that's not going to serve you well. Nor is purposefully ignoring the fact that you are wrong - ask any musician about the origin of Chopin's nocturnes. (Also, it's Italian bel canto opera - which reaches about from Rossini to early Verdi. It doesn't include, say, Puccini, or Verdi's Aida. If you're going to mock my statements, don't restate them as the blanket statements you would make instead.)
Not advocating literal interpretation? Last year you were up in arms about Swan Lake, saying "you skate to the White Swan you BE the White Swan" (and ditto for the black). And good job attacking my arguments as "hogwash" when you're the one pulling an elaborate interpretation out of nowhere (though I'd be happy to apologize and admit I'm wrong if you can show me evidence that Chopin wrote the Nocturne with your story in mind). Don't try to say "nya nya YOU'RE hogwash" when I'm trying to look for the specific context while you make broad pronouncements about a whole "romantic era" and talk about how life and love happened in those times. You seem to be an enthusiastic music lover so it might be great fun to talk about music with you, but right now you are painting the 19th century with too broad a brush. I won't try to stop you (as if I could) from talking about your preconceptions of the period and how you're disappointed XXX skater's program doesn't match them, but I don't see the point in acting offended when someone pokes fun at them or says your expectations are unattainable. By the way, has anyone managed more than a tenth of those musical nuances?
- I have said I don't like Mao's current use of arms and often, only arms in this program. Right now it's as if she's using them where they aren't needed and not using them where they might go well.
- I have said that she should use her lines and her skating to highlight certain moments in the music (which I didn't think she did).
- In any case, it is not hard to figure out why you like to belittle balletic qualities and lines. There is no dichotomy of "matching the music" and "having good lines" contrary to what you keep repeating in your post. Ballet is danced to music; of course it should match. And yes, in ballet, you use your arms. They're part of the lines.
In the end, we both think Mao's new SP is a bit of a disappointment (yes we agree that the choreography didn't match the music enough), we sometimes have different expectations of skaters' programs (OH GOD THE HORROR), and we like and dislike things for different reasons. It's not an "I'm black and you're white" or "I'm right and you're wrong" situation. I don't see where bigotry and animosity come in when I am trying to take programs for what they are while you are judging programs based on what you think they should be. I may say Bolero was cheesy, but I also say that it's fitting AND I loved every second of it. You on the other hand seem to be getting upset when things don't match the expectations you set based on your own vague preconceptions of the composer's era and the choreographer's personality. Like last season, when you kept talking about how horrible Mao's Swan Lake was as Tarasova failed to imbue a 4-minute program with the undiluted essence of the heroine and villainess of a 3-hour ballet. Your constantly-mentioned image of Tarasova is adorably romantic, so perhaps I can't blame you. This is figure skating, not life and death. Anyway, I look forward to seeing Mao's LP to Rachmaninoff (and of course I'll avidly await your appraisal of it). We can exchange plenty of sarcasm and harsh commentary then too.
P.S. I agree with you; this is figure skating, not ballet skating, and not theater skating either. So where are the figures? Do you think we should bring back the figures?
Where did I say there was no need for expressive arms? I said no need of EXCESSIVE arm movements, which is something very different. After all, you still use your arms to create nice lines. You create memorable highlights by matching your movements with the music. In fact one of the main criteria I listed for a program was that it had to be to the music. You seem to think I'm defending Mao's new Nocturne program when I've done nothing but criticize it. And where have I said that ALL nocturnes by ALL composers are ALL the same
? I believe I have only specifically commented on the Nocturne op. 9/2 by Chopin. We may disagree sometimes, but let's not get too excited here. You are free to set up your own little strawmen to knock down when I respond to your vague, broad pronouncements on "the era" with a less idealized and more specific view, but that's not going to serve you well. Nor is purposefully ignoring the fact that you are wrong - ask any musician about the origin of Chopin's nocturnes. (Also, it's Italian bel canto opera - which reaches about from Rossini to early Verdi. It doesn't include, say, Puccini, or Verdi's Aida. If you're going to mock my statements, don't restate them as the blanket statements you would make instead.)Pitiful snobbery? I'm not passing judgement on Ravel as a music critic; Ravel himself made those comments - things like "there is no music in my Bolero" etc. He knew he had a crowd pleaser, and when a woman said after a wildly successful performance "this man is mad!" Ravel replied that she was the only one who knew what was going on. Besides, I actually enjoyed Carolina's Bolero (very much so - her Worlds performance was probably my favorite LP of the night). But in no world are you going to convince me that blowing a kiss to the judges is anything but a cheesy, crowd-pleasing move (not that I mind - it still pleased me and I wasn't even there). Another thing: I've never liked talk of "greatest XXX" ever when talking about an individual piece of music. I think calling it beautiful or YOUR OWN favorite piece or "one of his most famous pieces" is more than enough. Talking of "era of the romantics" is also problematic when the period lasted so long, had so many proponents, and the movement in music was kept alive for so long - you can call things from late Beethoven to Rachmaninoff "romantic" without trouble.
Not advocating literal interpretation? Last year you were up in arms about Swan Lake, saying "you skate to the White Swan you BE the White Swan" (and ditto for the black). And good job attacking my arguments as "hogwash" when you're the one pulling an elaborate interpretation out of nowhere (though I'd be happy to apologize and admit I'm wrong if you can show me evidence that Chopin wrote the Nocturne with your story in mind). Don't try to say "nya nya YOU'RE hogwash" when I'm trying to look for the specific context while you make broad pronouncements about a whole "romantic era" and talk about how life and love happened in those times. You seem to be an enthusiastic music lover so it might be great fun to talk about music with you, but right now you are painting the 19th century with too broad a brush. I won't try to stop you (as if I could) from talking about your preconceptions of the period and how you're disappointed XXX skater's program doesn't match them, but I don't see the point in acting offended when someone pokes fun at them or says your expectations are unattainable. By the way, has anyone managed more than a tenth of those musical nuances?
I'd wait for you to point out a specific program where such detail is present, but I'm not holding my breath for anything more than a vague "of course people have done it and more." Something where a skater highlights every major-sixth leap (or even a tenth of them) while showing the love and passion (but restrained, like in "romantic era") in the piece.
When did I ever say not being in sync with the music wasn't a problem if you had beautiful lines? Again you're (purposefully?) misconstruing my posts. Let's summarize, in bullet point form:
- I have said I don't like Mao's current use of arms and often, only arms in this program. Right now it's as if she's using them where they aren't needed and not using them where they might go well.
- I have said that she should use her lines and her skating to highlight certain moments in the music (which I didn't think she did).
- In any case, it is not hard to figure out why you like to belittle balletic qualities and lines. There is no dichotomy of "matching the music" and "having good lines" contrary to what you keep repeating in your post. Ballet is danced to music; of course it should match. And yes, in ballet, you use your arms. They're part of the lines.
In the end, we both think Mao's new SP is a bit of a disappointment (yes we agree that the choreography didn't match the music enough), we sometimes have different expectations of skaters' programs (OH GOD THE HORROR), and we like and dislike things for different reasons. It's not an "I'm black and you're white" or "I'm right and you're wrong" situation. I don't see where bigotry and animosity come in when I am trying to take programs for what they are while you are judging programs based on what you think they should be. I may say Bolero was cheesy, but I also say that it's fitting AND I loved every second of it. You on the other hand seem to be getting upset when things don't match the expectations you set based on your own vague preconceptions of the composer's era and the choreographer's personality. Like last season, when you kept talking about how horrible Mao's Swan Lake was as Tarasova failed to imbue a 4-minute program with the undiluted essence of the heroine and villainess of a 3-hour ballet. Your constantly-mentioned image of Tarasova is adorably romantic, so perhaps I can't blame you. This is figure skating, not life and death. Anyway, I look forward to seeing Mao's LP to Rachmaninoff (and of course I'll avidly await your appraisal of it). We can exchange plenty of sarcasm and harsh commentary then too.
P.S. I agree with you; this is figure skating, not ballet skating, and not theater skating either. So where are the figures? Do you think we should bring back the figures?
Here I was, minding my own business...JMHO, but it's simply too early to say that a program is going to win (or lose) the Olympics, or is clearly better (or worse) than someone/everyone else, inasmuch as we have not even seen all of the programs of the major contenders yet.
However, I really must once again be the voice of protest against this whole "artistry is subjective" chanting. This is not a Mao or Yuna or Caro thing. It's a skating thing. I try to take issue with it whenever I see the meme substantively re-introduced. I understand that it is somewhat OT in this thread, but felt a need to respond, since it has such a prominent role in the above post (although my own judgment is that the arguments in this thread have probably run their productive course for the time being, so I don't think I am doing social harm).
1) I've made various arguments at various times. Let me try an angle I don't think I've tried before: do you believe that all skaters are congenital idiots?
If artistry in skating is truly subjective and impossible to communally define and verify, then what do these skaters think they're trying to accomplish, spending endless hours on "subjective" aspects? If figure skating artistry is subjective, then it would be logically impossible for skaters to know what changes will get them higher scores.
And, yet, in the main, and within certain limits of precision, skaters do know, and furthermore, we know they know. Otherwise, and assuming they are not idiots (at least, not congenitally), there would be absolutely no point in spending tens (sometimes hundreds) of thousands of dollars on specialized training and choreography, now, would there?
2) Do you consider yourself a figure skating fan? Those who push the subjectivity thesis always seem to be silent on the following question, though heaven knows I ask it every chance I get: if you really believe in subjectivity, why aren't you making a public and aggressive ruckus to get artistry removed from competitive figure skating? Since the overtly "subjective" (artistic) components of PCS make up roughly a third of the score, any results at the higher levels will fall within the margin the margin of error (e.g. in the ladies discipline, victories will usually be by less than 70 points), which, by your arguments, means that placements are meaningless and therefore skating has absolutely no claim to being a sport at all.
3) The fact that, despite the issues raised above, skating still exists, and is accepted as a competitive and Olympic sport, should lead us to an alternative explanation: your theory of figure skating artistry is incorrect.
It is more likely, I suggest, that your definition of what is being measured in the artistic components may not completely overlap with what is actually being measured in skating competitions.
Furthermore, I would argue that there are, in fact, within certain limits of precision, communally definable and verifiable criteria, which result in competitively acceptable outcomes. (I have written in greater detail on various aspects of this in the past, and so will refrain from doing so more systematically here, unless asked).
4) Here is my personal speculation: the ultimate root of all this fuzziness is that many who opine on artistic subjectivity fail to make a sufficient distinction between Kant's strictly metaphysical standards for subjectivity/objectivity, and Nietzche's explanation that a demonstration from first principles is not necessary for a cultural artifact to be practically viable and sustainable.
Let me attempt to unpack this simply: under the strict formalism of Kant's metaphysics, the existence of God is similarly not provable (by logic), and for similar reasons. However, under Nietzche's epistemology, that does not negate the viability and utility of the belief, given the subsidiary rules that define, govern, and mediate that belief in practice, such as the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, the Five Pillars, etc. I hope that the analogy is fairly clear.
5) Why does this all matter? I'll try to boil this down to its essence, as well.
Belief in The Subjectivity of Skating Artistry=Bad for Figure Skating, Very Bad.
Historians will tell you that, although formally "intangible", the concept of morale is among the most crucial factors for the survival of any organized human endeavor whatsoever. Simply put, the people involved must be imbued with some fervency of self-belief in order for the endeavor to be viable in any lasting way, and, indeed, to increase the numbers of its adherents. This was Gibbon's point re: the Roman Empire through many volumes, and it is something that has been practically demonstrated time and again in the annals of military battles (i.e. those who actually believe in what they are fighting for are generally less likely to run away in the event).
I strongly suggest that an important factor in the current decline of figure skating popularity is exactly this, the erosion of morale and self-belief. When figure skating fans espouse the belief that a full third of the scoring of a scoring performance is "subjective" (which I take to mean impervious to communal definition and verification), anyone who has seen The History Channel will know what happens next: the great unwashed barbarian hordes who can't tell a salchow from a milk cow will take over the joint, laughing at us for ever thinking that skating was a sport in the first place and therefore deserving of substantial Nielsen numbers. And we will go down, not with a bang but with a whimper, because, in clutching to our belief in the subjectivity of our own standards, we have cut out the legs from our own arguments.
Now I'm all tempted to chime in, but I have work tomorrow...
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
IMHO this discussion would zip along faster if we simply agree with the ISU that “artistry” is not part of what is being judged in the program components. This word appears only once in the long document Components with Explanations on the ISU web site. This is under the sub-criterion “Individuality/Personality.” And “artful” is used once in the bullet “Uses finesse to reflect the nuances of the music.”
Otherwise, out of sixteen bullet items each divided into several sub-headings, what the judges are required to evaluate are things like Carriage, Clarity of movement, Variety and contrast, Unity of purpose, Use of space, Pattern and ice coverage, Effortless movement in time to the music, and Expression of the music’s style, character, and rhythm.
Although such things are judged rather than measured, the criteria are neither vague not subjective.
I'll get back to you after I brush up on my Kant and Nietzche.
Otherwise, out of sixteen bullet items each divided into several sub-headings, what the judges are required to evaluate are things like Carriage, Clarity of movement, Variety and contrast, Unity of purpose, Use of space, Pattern and ice coverage, Effortless movement in time to the music, and Expression of the music’s style, character, and rhythm.
Although such things are judged rather than measured, the criteria are neither vague not subjective.
Robeye said:
I'll get back to you after I brush up on my Kant and Nietzche.
If only it were that simple. This was the ISU's preferred solution, to banish the word "artistry" from the skating vocabulary, and this banishment is enshrined, as you say, in the nomenclature of COP.
But this is disquietingly like the little girl in the horror movies who dives under the covers and shuts her eyes when imagining scary things, under the principle that if she can't see them, then they can't see her. But as we horror movie buffs know, they certainly can.
Similarly, one can play along with the ISU and pretend that all of the qualities you listed, from Carriage to Expression, are not artistry, but the plain truth is that it is simply a rose by other names.
And why is this important? Because without recognizing that these are aspects of an established criteria for skating artistry, that is, as a stepchild of dance, there is actually no overall, architectural explanation for why these qualities are included at all, and why these particular qualities, and not others. Why not a requirement for spitting watermelon seeds into strategically placed pots while performing the routine? Or whistling in key, in time, and expressively along with the program music? And why music, even? Why not have an electronic metronome provide guidance? Without the overarching artistic concept, there is no reason, actually, no reason at all.
Hear, hear. The criteria are indeed neither vague nor subjective. Whether they are being judged or measured, however, is not a useful distinction, I feel, under the current system's requirements for "judging" in 0.25 point increments. However, we have already agreed several times in the past, IIRC, that the exercise should be viewed as judgment as opposed to measurement, and that there are possible ways to make that more clear and operative than it currently is.
I'll get back to you after I brush up on my Kant and Nietzche.
If I were Dictator of the World for Life, I would make a study of aesthetics mandatory for high school graduation, which would require, among other things, reading selected sections of Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" as well as from the collected works of Nietzche.It just seems to me that now, more than at any other time in history, this makes sense, given how much time we spend consuming, savoring, collecting, and talking about potentially aesthetic artifacts such as music, films and other visual performances, even figure skating. (By historical standards, as measured by free time and discretionary income, the vast majority of the middle class in the First World have decidedly aristocratic tastes and lifestyles). But we choose to do so without actually bothering to take advantage of all of the fine instruments developed over the centuries to help us understand and evaluate them. It's like insisting that familiarity with an altimeter is entirely unnecessary for taking a Cessna out for a spin.
What makes you so certain? You sound so authoritative, without any reasoning given, that it almost sounds like dogma.
If artistry "as judged by the ISU in PCS" had no substantial relation to "the artistic merit of a figure skating performance as perceived by the viewer", then I don't see how figure skating would could have lasted a month as an organized competitive undertaking, let alone for decades. Perhaps you could shed light on this.
What this sounds like is the desire to banish any possibility that one's very personal and individual (and therefore emotionally cherished) opinion could be considered wrong by others, under any circumstances.
However, I would be interested in reading an intelligible explication of the view, if the explicator could be troubled to include more than just a single-sentence declaration that adds no additional information.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
I emotionally cherish this program. The music is pretty, the performer is pretty, God's in his heaven and all's right with the world.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
This discussion is exactly why I believe we could unmuddy the waters by just not using the word artistry.
If we called it performance values, or something like that, then no one would deny the proposition that there are certain well understood and universally accepted criteria for what constitutes good choreography and interpretation, and that these criteria are more or less the same whether our interest lies in codifying them into the ISU rule book or in analyzing just what it is that compels an emotional response from the audience.
Edited to add: As for the "rose by any other name" argument, I think the name "artistry" carries too much of an emotional charge. "Art" is such a hoity-toity idea that it discourages analysis. Especially "fine art." "Performance art" is a little more plebeian -- after all, it's not fine art.
If we called it performance values, or something like that, then no one would deny the proposition that there are certain well understood and universally accepted criteria for what constitutes good choreography and interpretation, and that these criteria are more or less the same whether our interest lies in codifying them into the ISU rule book or in analyzing just what it is that compels an emotional response from the audience.
Edited to add: As for the "rose by any other name" argument, I think the name "artistry" carries too much of an emotional charge. "Art" is such a hoity-toity idea that it discourages analysis. Especially "fine art." "Performance art" is a little more plebeian -- after all, it's not fine art.
Last edited:
Thank you, Yuki. Contrary to the opinions of some others here, I think Mao skates to this music just beautifully.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2011
It really is beautiful. After looking at it again, I'm getting much less of the Yu-na vibe. BUT I still think it's lacking in the flair and the small highlights that were present in Mao's pre-2010 SPs.
I'm really curious, what kind of Yuna vibe are you getting from this program?
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
When I was in college, on a dare I read all the way through the Critique of Pure Reason from first word to last, as through an obstacle course. That went so swimmingly that next I tried Hume's Treatise on Human Nature. The second section was devoted to proving that there is no such thing as free will. Then the third, on moral philosophy, began by saying, well, there cannot be a philosophy of morals without free will, so from no on we will pretend that free will exists after all. :yes:
I am a Pythagorean-Platonist myself. Pythagorus (his father was either Mercury or Apollo -- there is some confusion as to which) believed in transmigration of souls and could remember all of his previous lives including time spent in hell between incarnations. :thumbsup:
Last edited:
