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

[Diana Delafield]

{They argue even more than figure skating fans, you know... I've heard them }

Do they ever! My PhD field was historical and comparative linguistics, and I just took the degree for fun and didn't really work in the subject, but I've had to sit around at conferences and listen to the grammarians go on about the Oxford Comma and other such absolutely vital topics until I was bored smack out of my mind.

 

[Mathman]

{They argue even more than figure skating fans, you know... I've heard them }

Point taken. .

Still, I enjoy reading such arguments and I feel that I learn something of interest from them. For instance, in "researching" this thread I found the following article, and in particular I was intrigued by the author's first ;point, "Constraints on the definition of art."

The Definition of Art (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Magill]

To me, that's the whole problem right there. This is a question of semantics. The topic of the thread is, "Is it appropriate to use the word "art" in discussing the esthetic features of figure skating, or is this a misuse of the word?" I would be glad to hear from experts on this topic -- that is, from professional linguists and grammarians whose profession it is to study such questions.

This reminds me of my favourite definition of intelligence. "Intelligence is the quality measured by intelligence tests". Even on this one not everyone in the business agreed upon cause, you know...

 

[Mathman]

Definition: Mathematics -- what mathematicians do.

Actually, definitions of this sort, like the "intelligence" one are not without their uses. An intelligence test (unlike the abstract concept intelligence itself) is something that can be held in our hands to be analyzed, studied. and measured. (I hope everyone appreciated the Oxford comma.) It is not out of the question that such study might shed some light on the goal of understanding what we mean by intelligence. At least intelligence tests have the pleasing scientific virtue that they exist.

But to get back to figure skating, what strikes me about this thread is that in terms of substance, there is pretty much 100% agreement among fans that figure skating is a sport with an artistic component. It seems like we are trying to create controversy where there is none.

 

[icewhite]

Definition: Mathematics -- what mathematicians do.

Actually, definitions of this sort, like the "intelligence" one are not without their uses. An intelligence test (unlike the abstract concept intelligence itself) is something that can be held in our hands to be analyzed, studied. and measured. (I hope everyone appreciated the Oxford comma.) It is not out of the question that such study might shed some light on the goal of understanding what we mean by intelligence. At least intelligence tests have the pleasing scientific virtue that they exist.

But to get back to figure skating, what strikes me about this thread is that in terms of substance, there is pretty much 100% agreement among fans that figure skating is a sport with an artistic component. It seems like we are trying to create controversy where there is none.

I appreciate your approach to unite everybody and get rid of all controversy in favour of harmony, but I think there is a serious disagreement and it is not only of academic and theoretical nature, but leads to differences on how we view judging, how okay we are with a certain judging system and which changes we want - basically where this thread is coming from. I fear saying that we are all basically in agreement won't do when we are not.

 

[Mathman]

But I am still perplexed by the following circumstance.

A great poet writes a graet poem. It is a work of art. An actor gets up before an audience and gives a dramatic reading of the poem. In the actor's contribution also a work of art?

Mendelssohn composes a violin concerto. It is acclaimed as among the finest of the genre ever produced. Thousands of violinists, virtuosos all, undertake to reproduce, interpret, and embellish what Mendelssohn has created. Arre these performances also works of art?

 

[Mathman]

I appreciate your approach to unite everybody and get rid of all controversy in favour of harmony, but I think there is a serious disagreement and it is not only of academic and theoretical nature, but leads to differences on how we view judging, how okay we are with a certain judging system and which changes we want - basically where this thread is coming from. I fear saying that we are all basically in agreement won't do when we are not.

Still, I believe that all the tweaking of the rules that we have seen (and propsed) oiver the years has not had much effect on the nature of the sport.

In my opinion, the last 100 years has seen only two changes that have had any major impact. Neither has anything toi do with sport versus art; both have to do with figure skating as entertainment.

The first was the phenomenon of Sonja Henie, who pretty much single-handedly changed figure skating from a man's sport to a woman's sport -- specifically, to a "pretty girls in short dresses" sport. In the 1940s Henie was the highest paid movie star in Hollywood (along with Clark Gable and Shirley Temple). In the 1970s Janet Lynn was the highest paid female athlete in the world. Is figure skating sport, art, or show biz?

The second revolution in the sport was the elimination of figures. Whether figures were sport or art, that was irrelevant -- they were a dud from the show business aspect.

 

[icewhite]

But I am still perplexed by the following circumstance.

A great poet writes a graet poem. It is a work of art. An actor gets up before an audience and gives a dramatic reading of the poem. In the actor's contribution also a work of art?

Mendelssohn composes a violin concerto. It is acclaimed as among the finest of the genre ever produced. Thousands of violinists, virtuosos all, undertake to reproduce, interpret, and embellish what Mendelssohn has created. Arre these performances also works of art?

There's a German book on art I found very interesting and thought provoking when I read it, which is quite some time ago now: Gesucht: Kunst. Phantombild eines Jokers (Wanted: Art. Composite picture of a joker).
Although I didn't necessarily agree it reveals very clearly how the art scene attributes an "aura" of inexplicability to a lot of things/works that are not just difficult to explain, but actually very shallow when you try to pin down what they and their meaning really are.
For me that's still the best book I have read on the question of what art is - nonetheless, ultimately, it doesn't help me to give a clear definition.

If we look at the question at hand (should figure skating return to something like the 6.0 judging system) we need to talk about whether we want more subjectivity in judging. Although I think these questions are heavily linked it's probably more fruitful to look at the discussion from that side.

 

[icewhite]

Still, I believe that all the tweaking of the rules that we have seen (and propsed) oiver the years has not had much effect on the nature of the sport.

So you think it's basically rather irrelevant which judging system is used?

 

[Mathman]

So you think it's basically rather irrelevant which judging system is used?

Yes. In 1998, under ordinal judging, Michelle Kwan was "forced" to upgrade the triple toe in her short program to a triple flip if she wanted to remain competitive with the other ladies. I do not see any difference between this and a skater who works on his quad Sal in order to gain extra points under the IJS.

I also do not really see any overall increase or diminution of what we might call artistry, comparing one era to the other.

The advantage that the IJS has over ordinal judging is that it provides a half-way, sort-of, response to critics who say that figure skating is baloney because of those lying, cheating judges.

In any case, that boat has sailed. We are not going back, or contemplating going back, to the ordinal system regardless of debates about sport versus art.

 

[yesterday]

A great poet writes a graet poem. It is a work of art. An actor gets up before an audience and gives a dramatic reading of the poem. In the actor's contribution also a work of art?

Mendelssohn composes a violin concerto. It is acclaimed as among the finest of the genre ever produced. Thousands of violinists, virtuosos all, undertake to reproduce, interpret, and embellish what Mendelssohn has created. Arre these performances also works of art?

The second questions are not relevant enough because the problem lies elsewhere

Person A: Mendelssohn? No. Only Tchaikovsky!
Person B: Mendelssohn? No. Only Beethoven!
Person C: Mendelssohn? No. Only Brahms!
Person D: Mendelssohn? No. Only Mozart!
.
.
.

(apportionable to the FS discussion)

 

[4everchan]

IJS has allowed two major improvements in scoring.

1) the waiting game is not as awful as it used to be. Newcomers in all disciplines, but especially ice dance, can now aspire to reach the top faster. One clear example, Papadakis-Cizéron from something like 13th to 1st in the world in one year. That would never have happened under 6.0

2) the reshuffling between SP and LP. There is a lot more movement between programs. A bad performance in the SP can at times, be made up with a strong LP and vice versa. Before IJS, we saw way less movements either way.

Both of these points have contributed to recognizing the athletic capacities of skaters, beyond the traditional reputational judging. It's not perfect but it's definitely very different (and better IMHO).

 

[4everchan]

The second questions are not relevant enough because the problem lies elsewhere

Person A: Mendelssohn? No. Only Tchaikovsky!
Person B: Mendelssohn? No. Only Beethoven!
Person C: Mendelssohn? No. Only Brahms!
Person D: Mendelssohn? No. Only Mozart!
.
.
.

(apportionable to the FS discussion)

do not forget Sibelius!!!!!

 

[ladyjane]

But I am still perplexed by the following circumstance.

A great poet writes a graet poem. It is a work of art. An actor gets up before an audience and gives a dramatic reading of the poem. In the actor's contribution also a work of art?

Mendelssohn composes a violin concerto. It is acclaimed as among the finest of the genre ever produced. Thousands of violinists, virtuosos all, undertake to reproduce, interpret, and embellish what Mendelssohn has created. Arre these performances also works of art?

I would say 'yes'. Why?

A drama writer said: 'it's the actor who brings my writing to life'. It's why we call actors, ballet dancers, singers and instrument players performing artists. So are Figure Skaters (although there's the sports element as well). We like/respect certain performers/performances better than others. Otherwise only poets, writers, painters and composers would be artists. What about choreographers?

Sorry, I think I'm going a bit OT here.

 

[icewhite]

I would say 'yes'. Why?

A drama writer said: 'it's the actor who brings my writing to life'. It's why we call actors, ballet dancers, singers and instrument players performing artists. So are Figure Skaters (although there's the sports element as well). We like/respect certain performers/performances better than others. Otherwise only poets, writers, painters and composers would be artists. What about choreographers?

Sorry, I think I'm going a bit OT here.

Choreographers in my eyes are more artists than the athletes. If the skaters do the choreo themselves they also become artists more.

I wouldn't say figure skating can never be art. I would just say it's usually not art and def not art per se. Maybe I'd compare it to a gardener or a cook: what they do can definitely become art (goes for a lot of jobs and works actually, but to clarify I'm choosing these examples) - but usually they aren't artists and I would definitely not consider them artists in the first place. Like I've argued before the intent and mindset seems very important to me for the definition.
Another example: a designer often creates beauty and needs to be creative, they often create something that's actually new. But is it art? In my eyes, in most cases, no. Because they want to sell something in the first place, the artistic side and intention is a second thought and not a necessity.

When I studied writing a professor was adamant that only poems are/can be real art, because stories always think of the reader. Novelists are writing mostly with the reader in mind, while in poems there is actual freedom of mind and words. Hm, I was not convinced, and I am still not, but I see that there is some point to be made about this distinction.

 

[icewhite]

Yes. In 1998, under ordinal judging, Michelle Kwan was "forced" to upgrade the triple toe in her short program to a triple flip if she wanted to remain competitive with the other ladies. I do not see any difference between this and a skater who works on his quad Sal in order to gain extra points under the IJS.

I also do not really see any overall increase or diminution of what we might call artistry, comparing one era to the other.

The advantage that the IJS has over ordinal judging is that it provides a half-way, sort-of, response to critics who say that figure skating is baloney because of those lying, cheating judges.

In any case, that boat has sailed. We are not going back, or contemplating going back, to the ordinal system regardless of debates about sport versus art.

Okay, but this is something I disagree with. Yes, it's still the same sport, but I think changes in the judging system can change the sport a lot, and it's important for several reasons to have the best possible judging system, and they are not all equally good. - what they are good for is at the heart of the discussion, certainly.

 

[ladyjane]

Choreographers in my eyes are more artists than the athletes. If the skaters do the choreo themselves they also become artists more.

I wouldn't say figure skating can never be art. I would just say it's usually not art and def not art per se. Maybe I'd compare it to a gardener or a cook: what they do can definitely become art (goes for a lot of jobs and works actually, but to clarify I'm choosing these examples) - but usually they aren't artists and I would definitely not consider them artists in the first place. Like I've argued before the intent and mindset seems very important to me for the definition.
Another example: a designer often creates beauty and needs to be creative, they often create something that's actually new. But is it art? In my eyes, in most cases, no. Because they want to sell something in the first place, the artistic side and intention is a second thought and not a necessity.

When I studied writing a professor was adamant that only poems are/can be real art, because stories always think of the reader. Novelists are writing mostly with the reader in mind, while in poems there is actual freedom of mind and words. Hm, I was not convinced, and I am still not, but I see that there is some point to be made about this distinction.

I won't discuss the first part, but I happen to have written quite a lot. Not poems, but prose (and essays and articles, but that's not the point here) and I've never written something with a reader in mind, mostly just with a story in my head that wants to be written down. Am I an artist? Absolutely not! So, even with not having the reader in mind, I don't think writing fiction automatically makes someone an artist.

Sorry, I can't help it. I like this OT discussion!

 

[Mathman]

Otherwise only poets, writers, painters and composers would be artists.

Well, this thread has already indulged the view that only poets, painters, sculptors, musicians and archetechs qualify -- and has quoted authorities on fine art in support of this view.

When I studied writing a professor was adamant that only poems are/can be real art, because stories always think of the reader. Novelists are writing mostly with the reader in mind, while in poems there is actual freedom of mind and words. Hm, I was not convinced, and I am still not, but I see that there is some point to be made about this distinction.

Not only writers but composers of music, architechs, portrait painters, scu;ptors -- you name it -- have plied their trades with an eye toward making a buck, buttering up the local nobleman, pleasing an audience, etc. To me, this does not detract from the artistic merit of what was produced (nor add to it).

 

[Mathman]

Okay, but this is something I disagree with. Yes, it's still the same sport, but I think changes in the judging system can change the sport a lot, and it's important for several reasons to have the best possible judging system, and they are not all equally good. - what they are good for is at the heart of the discussion, certainly.

Changes in the judging system can do a lot, but one thing that they haven't done much of is to change the balance between athletic derring-do and artistic expression. I think that we get pretty much the same spectrum of blending that we always have.

4everchan makes two great points (post 472 above) about the IJS: By reducing the effect of reputation judging, skaters can jump to the top of the standings on the strength of their actual performances without waiting in line until the old guard retries, and (2), a bad first period (the SP) can be overcome by an outstanding second period (LP).

Both desirable features, but I don't think that we can rely on them to answer the question, what is art.

 

[Mathman]

By the way, me and my friends take the traditional approach. The advanced "free arts" are astronomy, arithmetic, geometry, and music. These comprise the "quadrivium" -- the proper c ourse of study in "high school."

There is also the Trivium (rhetoric, grammer and dialectic). These "trivial arts" are the subject of grammar school.