Figure Skating is a sport that is also called 'Patinage Artistique' in French, which literally means 'Artistic Skating'.
My impression of what this has meant to figure skating officials over the decades is more that they considered ideal skating to be aesthetically pleasing to watch -- sometimes within a pretty narrow range of possible artistic choices.
By the later years of 6.0 judging, the Presentation criteria were:
a) harmonious composition of the program as a whole and its conformity with the music chosen; b) variation of speed;
c) utilization of the ice surface;
d) easy movement and sureness in time to the music;
e) carriage and style;
f) originality;
g) expression of the character of the music;
h) unison (pairs).
Nothing about authenticity, risk taking, or transcendence there.
If you look at the
6.0 judging criteria on the Skate Canada website and scroll down to the explanation of EASY MOVEMENT AND SURENESS IN TIME TO THE MUSIC for freeskates, it says
Everything angular, violent or stiff shall be avoided. The impression shall be given that the entire program is executed with ease. The high points in the program should be placed to coincide with the high points in the music. Rhythm and easy movements to the music shall be observed.
I don't know what year that explanation was written. I think more recently we have seen some choreography in which angular and violent movements have been intentionally chosen and performed with control as authentic and creative artistic choices. But at some point the skating Powers That Be either couldn't conceive of why a skater would choose to move in those ways and thought such movements could only result from poor technique, or they felt that demonstrating smooth controlled movement was important enough to denigrate contrasting choices, or they were trying to impose a specific range of artistic meanings on the sport and to exclude others. Your guess is as good as mine.
Going back further, in a 1960 USFSA rulebook I've seen excerpts from, the equivalent of the "Artistic Impression" or "Presentation" score was then called "Manner of Performance" and gave very explicit descriptions of how various body parts should be held, but made no reference to music or originality. I'd almost think these descriptions were written for school figures only, except that the last criterion states "There should be no visible strong effort and the impression should be given that the entire
program is executed with ease."
Male skaters from the 1970s and earlier have stated that they were advised verbally (if not in actually rules) not to raise their arms above their waists or shoulders because that was considered too feminine. But some, such as Toller Cranston and John Curry, had their own artistic visions that were outside the sport's ideal, and by introducing their own styles were able to expand the possibilities for the sport as a whole.
In general, I think that a minority of artistically minded skaters have pushed the artistic boundaries, and the rules have only slowly caught up over the years and raised the bar for what's expected.
The concept of a "skating choreographer" was still pretty new in the 1980s. Often just coaches put together the programs, whether they had any off-ice artistic training or not.
Sure, many judges especially those with outside artistic interests felt they recognized artistic qualities such as you list when they saw them and rewarded them when they did, as is also true under IJS.
But in general, historically, I'd say that a minority of skaters with artistic aspirations have pushed the possibilities of the medium, including within the rules of competitive programs. Sometimes they have been rewarded for those innovations and sometimes penalized.
Some of the greatest performances in the history of the sport came to be because they have reached artistic new heights beyond just a technical routine. They may not win a medal on the day, but they are among the greatest performances that out last time, being celebrated through repeat viewing and improves the popularity of the sport. More than anything, they have also shaped the sport in some way.
Very true.
A handful of great artistic skaters who were also strong technicians and athletes have won big titles on the strength of their artistry combined with other assets, sometimes ahead of skaters with more difficulty or athleticism.
The ones who could do it all and win the big titles are the ones the most people remember.
And sometimes there have been great artistic performances by skaters who didn't win gold or any other medals because they were much stronger artistically than technically/athletically.
Along with some thrilling technical tour de forces that have excited audiences and won titles with only average artistry by the standards of the day.
But most of the time, most skaters in an event are just trying to get the best mix of technical content executed with the best technical quality and performance quality they can muster. When I watch most competitions all the way through, not just the medalists, from most eras, I see a lot of flawed performances and a lot of boring programs, in some cases peppered with a few interesting and meaningful choreographic ideas.
But getting the technical skills executed almost always seems to take precedence no matter the scoring system.
(Ice dance has sometimes been an exception)
I don't think it is asking too much for the judges simply give credits where credit is due, to reward artistic efforts and artistic difficulty properly as they would do to a technical one.
To do so, you'd have to 1) get the ISU to agree on what constitutes artistic efforts or difficulty that should be rewarded and how to reward it "properly," 2) establish guidelines and wherever possible enforceable rules, 3) train the judging community in general to recognize qualities that rely on knowledge from outside the sport.
As far as I know, judging training never included any specific artistic education, aside from some international seminars about aesthetics to help judges with program components under IJS.
By the way, I hope I am not alone finding the COP guide for PCS explanation wholly inadequate, these guide might as well have been written by a software engineer!! No wonder judges don't really follow or execute according to how they 'should' or 'described', and we often look back at these protocols vs actual performances completely befuddled.
It is hard to write rules or guidelines to standardized rewards for aspects of performance that are purely qualitative, often culturally dependent, and therefore subjective and to turn them into consistent numerical scores.
And then to train the judges from different cultures, different generations, with different educational/professional/recreational backgrounds that may include significant or moderate or next to know arts training, and in different art forms. A judge who is a professional or serious amateur musician or dancer or painter, or one with a graduate degree in an artistic or philosophy of arts field will bring very different understanding to the process than a judge whose day job as a doctor or software engineer, combined with family and skating commitments, hasn't left much time for artistic pursuits.
The one thing all skating judges have in common is that they know skating technique. It's a lot easier to get them all on the same page there than it is for extra-skating considerations.
Why do we feign that they are 5 separate categories when they are practically always aligned with little difference within the program themselves or even the competitors, other than according to their technical ranking/reputation/political components.
At a minimum, it's certainly useful to separate Skating Skills and the technical aspects of Transitions scoring from the more artistic components.
I also think it's useful to give judges the option of reflecting significant differences in the different areas of performance when relevant. But the system is far from perfect, so if you have specific practical suggestions for improving how these areas could better be scored, please share.
Art has nothing to do with perpetuating popularity, mass consensus or being entertaining (depends on the concept of the program), but it just has to answer to itself. Why it came to be, how it got there and was it successful in delivering these original vision as intended. It should always reward less for copies, mass manufactured, templated, tried and tested formulaic routines.
I don't think these are meaningful standards to apply to a sporting contest.
And to get back to the subject of this thread: I don't think it is possible to develop a fair and consistent standard for defining and penalizing what constitutes "repeating" a program. It would take another long post or several to outline the potential pitfalls, some of which have already been touched on earlier in the thread.
Do we or do we not want judges to consider anything about each skater's performance other than the performance in front of them on that day?
And what you said about Ashley helping younger skaters realize they don't need to fit a certain mold is an important aspect of what she contributes to the sport. The Ice Princess stereotype was, or still is, a pretty powerful image, maybe more or less so in different countries.
