6000th post!!
Sorry for the delayed reply
GKelly, what a crazy week!!! (work/play/trumpverse).
I wouldn’t trust any old artist of the street with judging Skating Skills or probably Transitions.
With some kind of standardized rubric, adapted from the existing component criteria or built from scratch, I could see letting artists with no skating background evaluate what’s currently covered under Performance, Composition, and Interpretation.
Absolutely! Art should not be for art's sake, this is still a sport. In-depth skating knowledge, figure skating/figure skater history, as well as basic skating skills should be required to ensure these experts are true experts of their specialization; all encompassing, best of the best, creme of the crop etc. No different than elite judges of any art field with appropriate knowledge and awareness of the history/movements/political/social/cultural factor/technique of their times etc.
The 5 components experts can come from their respective field in Performance, Composition, and Interpretation etc.. but it should not be necessary. Their ability to judge should prioritize over their background as long as they can prove they are best in the field in a series of advanced exams. Reason being, there are professional musicians/dancers that do not have the best musicality/interpretation just as there are composers out there can't play as well to convey interpretations etc..
Composition exams can look something like this: 1 skater skate 5 pieces of individual choreography per the same music edit. The expert should able to rank these 1-5 and gives good reasons why. The highest scoring judges get to be the expert of that component score. The best judge should able to distinct on quality of choreography, construct, difficulty/complexity of choreography movements, intricacy, originality, creativity, music+choreography cohesion, realisation of concept, art direction, how it fit the skater (complementary/confining/limiting/expanding/advancing, or just optimised for the sake of technical delivery etc..) How it compares to what the skaters/choreographers previously did, how it compares to the field, how it compares with figure skating history etc..
PE exam can look something like this: 1 skater skate to the same music edit with 5 version of the same choreography with subtle differences/variation (simplified choreography, out of synch with the music, highlight the music, don't respond to the music, missed cue, perfect, deliberate technical delivery mistakes and see if it impact on the overall impression of the performance as intended).
Judges then have to able to rank them 1 - 5 according to the quality of realization, able to note instances by the seconds, choreograph movements for each version of the performance, where noticeably wrong, of great highlight, or where can be improved. This is designed to ensure the judges can spot various nuances in terms of quality, musicality, and depth of realization etc...
I would prefer best judges mark in their specialized component(s) field only, certainly not specialized more than 2 components at the same time. Ideally judge 1 component only per competition. This should then give a more balanced break down of the components score, rather than have them aligned with each other, usually similar order to reputation/skating skills.
How do you define “easiest” and “hardest choreographed”?
Easiest could mean recycled from last year, or finally for the first time adopting a movement style that works best with this skater’s natural movement qualities instead of trying to force them into a more traditionally accepted mode, or including the most demanding contrasts and variety within the same program, or including easier technical elements or easier transitions and basic skating between the elements, etc.
As with everything in art, it is never either/or, black/white etc..
The Same piece of choreography with improved detailed improvements or a more refined performance/interpretation can be more difficult than the same piece of choreography done technically well for example.
However, repeated program (or similar type/structured/styled program just to different music track) which one has already mastered/accredited would be easier 'overall' to replicate than a brand new program that is outside the skater's comfort zone that they need to learn from scratch. These are the differences between art vs design vs craft.
The reinvention of the same theme for example can also be a worthy artistic challenge with added difficulty if they are striving for something new and never seen before with advanced choreography styles. e.g Tessa/Scott's Carmen. That is why creativity, originality, authenticity are such important values in art vs something manufactured or more or less the same, and stagnation is often seen as the death of art.
So you do think that skaters should be judged on their body of work every time they compete, and not just what they perform that day?
In art, the highest form of realization, refinement/polish can be
less is more but for it to be true,
there must be more in the first place. Processes takes time, otherwise it is just immitation/copies.
Diversity, versatility, experimentation, reinvention are all necessary processes to 'develop and improve' artistry... since they are the necessery steps to develop creativity, originality, authenticity, a journey to discover oneself and developing own unique style/voice. That is what I mean by a body of work and why historically they have proven to have weighed heavily along with what they did on the day (among other political component reasons) . For any art to be credible, they need to have processes to develop awareness of the self. Always in the works, alive, ever changing, not stagnant, not just an end result, not tracing the steps. Artists need to develop meaning and purpose behind the aesthetics, otherwise, it is just paint by numbers.
These aspects should all count towards weighing artistic 'difficulty' (not just repeated vs new programs). New programs can be artistically easier too, afterall!! Especially if you have previously delivered a risky, challenging, complex and experimental program. The current judging system makes no distinction which music/choreography edit are harder and require more effort to realize, and certain pieces of choreography are indeed more advanced and risky, or that skaters who strive to develope different styles are doing more advanced choreography vs one that is simplified for technical delivery. That is why music (along with other skilled based arts) exams are graded according to different advance levels.
Imagine if TES guideline is created by someone who has limited knowledge on technical elements and decides all triples and quads are worth the same as long as they are rotated, it is like how judges are marking the PCS now. That usually falls under the judging pattern of
Reputable skaters/Strong federation:
No fall, good, inflate, especially if you skate at home/friendly competitions.
Fall a little bit, no good, but we will inflate a bit than you deserve to keep you in.
Falls alot, terrible, but we won't deflate you too much to keep you in, especially if you are country no.1
Contenders/weak federation:
No fall, no penulty, no advance until you get consistent 2 or 3 times consecutively.
Fall a little bit, no good, we will deduct you from podium contending even if you are your federation no.1
Fall alot, terrible, we will penalise you today AND for the next 2 or 3 competions until you get consistently good again.
General pattern: Reputation/= Skating skills = all other components aligned up to SS with little differences.
