The Death of Figure Skating as Art

[Interspectator]

I have completely different impression. It seems to me that many “older” fans, are able to appreciate both skaters from the past and current skaters. But on the other hand, some younger fans don’t even bother to watch older programmes, not mentioning even appreciating them.

Forgive us for being young!
I admit it, it took me awhile before I went back and looked at programs that were skated before I was born and an even longer time before I could appreciate it.
To be honest, some old programs still look a bit empty to me. But I can see the freedom of having fewer technical check-boxes gives a program space to breathe. I believe COP can still be a vehicle for great programs though, with a few tweaks and properly enforced rules. What if they made the step sequence shorter and took out a spin? What practical things can be changed to help programs be more creative? or does it not have to do with the rules so much as the choreographers getting lazy or too busy?
Or is it that competitive skaters for the most part (being young) put technique before artistry because at least technique is clear cut and therefore less confusing to learn?
It seems to me that each quad, there are a few stand-outs in creativity and then there are the rest.
Was there a time that anyone can point out where there were a lot of creative figure skaters and programs existing at once?

 

[[email protected]]

Her spins in the SP and LP were exactly the same...they even came in the exact same order in each of those programs.

That's half truth. She had 3 identical spin groups - that's true. But in the SP the 3rd one came exactly after the 2nd one limiting the impact significantly. That's one of the factors why it is widely believed that SL is a masterpiece while her short was an action-packed jaw-dropper but without any great artistic value. In SL there is a lot going on between the 2nd and 3rd spin groups including a fantastically expressive Ina Bauer followed by a spiral. Then the fact of the same order has nothing to do with the notion of "programmed performances".

I would agree in Lipnitskaya's case with one point of criticism: her ending sping group does seem to be labored. I just assume that it is so crazy difficult and she invested so much effort to bring it to life that she just cannot but leave it as is. On the other hand, the famous Yuna's camel which she used everywhere for me is aesthetically awkward and to be used only to show vulnerability. I just guess that the sports element makes it necessary to use one's own trademarks every time (e.g. Sotnikova has her own spin, which she will use for sure in every program). The thing is to look in between. I believe that there is a lot of art in SL despite the spins identical to SP.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Gosh I love this thread. Both for the earnest seekers or preachers of the true importance of art and/or artistry and for people who shrug their shoulders and say, "Wha?"
Figure skating is complex but also instantly gratifying. You can break it down to edge-work, lines, jumps and spins and go on endlessly into the workings of each, but in the end, I just watch the program as a whole and see if it 'works' for me. Sometimes it will, even with some 'integral' skill lacking, sometimes, even when everything 'should' work because the skater is 'all that' it doesn't. Judging skating, however, is a big responsibility and the judges can't be swayed by things like that. It does annoy me when (even my favorite) skaters get high PCS just so it can match their technical merit. If PCS was rewarded accurately, I think the incentive to raise the quality of the 'in between' things would rise.

:agree:

 

[gkelly]

It seems to me that there are changes that could be made to the well-balanced program requirements or to how elements (especially those currently based on levels) are scored that could allow for and encourage more emphasis on aesthetic impact rather than just adding features to earn points regardless of quality or relation to the rest of the program.

But the real place for encouraging artistry is in the PCS, especially PE, CH, and IN.

I'm interested in how judge training could be improved so that judges worldwide, including both those with outside training in the arts and those who were primarily athletes or technicians themselves, can get on the same page as to what constitutes 3.0 or 5.0 or 7.0 or 9.0 choreography or interpretation.

Dorispulaski suggests more detailed written guidelines for singles/pairs, as has been the case for ice dance.

Krunchii mentions the ISU videos, specifically for Skating Skills:

There is actually a playlist on youtube about skating skills that show the difference between good and bad skating skills. It's really old but I think it's really helpful for a beginner, it's a bit long so unless someone is super interested or it's their job I think it's super useful, they have mens, ladies, dance and pairs examples of weak, average and good, I've been toying with the idea of making my own example video for singles but with recent performances from the last quad because I think watching HQ would be more helpful
You can watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu1TFFHNZ7o&list=PL723B645BA5A421EF

I think those videos are very helpful. Videos have better reach than in-person discussions, so everyone can get exactly the same information.
And even more helpful to have them accessible to skaters and coaches (and fans) so everyone knows what judges are looking for.

In-person seminars and ongoing discussions in judges' rooms also have value, but how much value will be much more variable.

And well-meaning discussions on boards like this, brainstorming possibilities, thinking outside the box, not focused on insulting skaters or officials or each other.

What if there were separate judging appointment for technical skating (GOEs and Skating Skills, and maybe Transitions) vs. presentation/artistic impression (Performance/Execution, Choreography, and Interpretation)?

Financially and logistically it might be a problem to train judges separately and to require separate panels even at the smallest B events. But just thinking ideally with practical considerations to be worked out later...

Would it make sense to recruit potential presentation judges from the arts world who would volunteer to be trained to evaluate figure skating and make themselves available to travel to competitions. Performing artists with active careers would likely not be willing to volunteer the amount of time it would take to be sufficiently trained.

In-rink training would be necessary, especially for newcomers to the sport who have only ever watched on TV, and would be at the trainees' own expense (or that of their national skating federation if these judges would be members of and appointed through federations.

And they would have to be competent enough in English to participate in international training in that language, although initial training and training for national-level judges would be in the native language.

So most artists and educated arts fans who also love skating and believe they could do a better job of judging the artistic components would not feasibly be able to take advantage of this opportunity. But maybe enough would to inject some new enthusiasm and new expertise into the judging ranks.

They would need to learn enough about figure skating to bring them up to speed with the basics of what judges need to know to judge PE, CH, and IN, without necessarily needing the more detailed technical knowledge needed for judging GOEs, Skating Skills, and Transitions.

Existing judges who are already trained in evaluating skating would need to demonstrate some additional knowledge in the arts, whether in their professions (e.g., musician Joe Inman) or in college or studio training, or by self-education and passing a more detailed exam about principles of composition, music, dance, etc.

Then bring these skating experts with some arts knowledge and arts experts with some skating knowledge together, in person and with videos and online discussions, to develop consensus about what's artistically possible within the constraints of skating technique and competitive requirements and develop benchmarks for what constitutes poor, weak, fair, average, above average, good, very good, outstanding, doesn't-get-better-than-this for the various criteria for these components.

Can experienced judges who have spent the past 10 years judging all components under IJS learn to separate their evaluation of these components from their impressions of the technical skating quality?

Will arts judges without skating background evaluate the PE, CH, and IN components more independent of the skating quality?

How can all PE/CH/IN judges separate these three components from each other? Do the criteria need to be rewritten at all to avoid overlap?

Share these conclusions, share the training videos, with skaters and coaches (and fans).

Will we see judges refusing to give 8s and 9s in CH and IN for poorly constructed programs just because they were well skated technically?
If skaters find themselves and losing medals as a result, will that encourage them to pay more attention to those areas?

 

[OS]

But the real place for encouraging artistry is in the PCS, especially PE, CH, and IN.

I'm interested in how judge training could be improved so that judges worldwide, including both those with outside training in the arts and those who were primarily athletes or technicians themselves, can get on the same page as to what constitutes 3.0 or 5.0 or 7.0 or 9.0 choreography or interpretation.

The judges can have all the 1 week training and 3 day seminars they want, but if they can't pass a quality assurance test/evaluation in each specific PCS fields every 2 years, then they shouldn't be allowed to judge in that particular field of PCS.

Children have taken them in music and dance before getting their accreditation, so why can't the judges? ISU can consult with various specialists in each PCS field (include those outside figure skating) to come up with modules and exams specifically for figure skating judges. I'd be genuinely interested to know how much % of the current ISU international judges manage to pass all of them.

Each examine should be given a grade. The higher the stake the championships, the higher quality of judges are are enlisted. Only grade A or A+ judges are allowed at world/Olympics level competitions. Questionable judging/major error at previous event can drop their grade by 1 level. Those who have a high turn over rate should also be penalised. These prevent the system being abused. The exams every 2 years reset the levels, but their previous grade are part of their public record.

How many warnings can the judge receive before they are reprimanded? If is 3, that is more than enough to cheat and boost momentum for home skaters, over a season: Home GP, GPF, WC).

Such grade A+ judge should be a star, a sport treasure, and should be showered with praises, respect, reputation and and all that jazz along with as much publicity as possible for the sport. They basically need to instil public confidence and trust. Anything to prevent the judge going AWOL and do something odd at the biggest competitions.

Oh dear. Where to begin, where to begin?

I don't think the artsy brigade makes fans feel unwelcome or pushes them away from the sport. I personally am not afraid of BladesofPassion or os168 (OK, maybe a little bit, in the case of os168)....

LOL...oh come on... I am not that different than the average fan okay... My fav skaters too can "touch my heart, make me throws my hands (and hair) in the air and wave'em like I don't care".

 

[gkelly]

The judges can have all the 1 week training and 3 day seminars they want, but if they can't pass a quality assurance test/evaluation in each specific PCS fields every 2 years, then they shouldn't be allowed to judge in that particular field of PCS.

ISU can consult with various specialists in each PCS field (include those outside figure skating) to come up with modules and exams specifically for figure skating judges.

Interesting suggestion. What specifically might these evaluations/exams might consist of?

How much should be based on actual judging in real competitions, how much on written exams (multiple choice or sentence/paragraph responses?)?

Should judges be evaluated on scoring or discussion of live performances that they're not officially judging?

To make things standard, it's necessary to use video so that everyone can be looking at the same performances.

But ultimately, a lot of what judges need to judge in real-life practice is only apparent live and up close -- and not everyone can attend all the same events. Even when they do, where they're seated can make some difference.

Who decides what constitutes a "correct" or "incorrect" answer?

 

[dorispulaski]

I like using the jgpf/gpf to give a view of a range of pcs values and of skills, all evaluated by the same judging panels.

 

[gkelly]

I like using the jgpf/gpf to give a view of a range of pcs values and of skills, all evaluated by the same judging panels.

For what purpose?

I think it's a great way to show fans a range of scores as awarded by an existing judging panel.

Even so, the juniors who make the final are still going to be above "average" (5.0) on most components. Knowing what average is also requires familiarity with below-average -- which active judges have plenty of exposure to but fans often have less access to or interest in.

But if we think judge training and re-certification, as os168 suggests, requires a standard, does it make sense to single out one panel consisting of some of those judges who need to be recertified to serve as that standard?

And how could the other judges be test against it except by having them all watch and respond live in real time (on video if not on site) so they couldn't look up the official scores in advance?

I don't think you can accurately evaluate judges' scoring of Skating Skills by video only, since so much of what's scored under that component doesn't translate to video.

Some of Choreography also relies a lot on factors that don't translate well to video and can be skewed by choice of camera angles.

 

[dorispulaski]

As a teaching tool. Obviously not as a test packet.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

It seems my earlier statement about the motivation behind your writing was correct, btw. Your entire post was an empty slander attempt. It's getting very tiresome, so I'd appreciate some actual reasoning if you want to keep "discussing" in a thread where other people are trying to have a real, meaningful conversation.

Oh, and calling me empty-headed isn't slander [sic: libel]?!

There's no issue discussing what makes skating an art, but as has been pointed out, the way it comes across is pretentious and reeks superiority complex. If that is the voice that you choose when trying to convince this forum, or the rest of the skating world, that skating is dying as an art, you won't get anywhere -- and I suspect you haven't, even though some of your points are good, the delivery of them is off-putting and nobody will listen to you if you think you know better.

Saying skaters aren't committed to artistry because they don't understand it is a wide sweeping, rather insulting statement, and frankly, isn't giving skaters any credit. Judging by your posts, you make it seem like skaters/choreographers don't anything about good choreography/artistry. They're the ones on the ice, not you. They are professionals, not you. And they optimize programs to win competitions - i.e. be athletes first and foremost - not to make art pieces to appease the snoots out there that wish skating was art gallery worthy more than Olympics worthy.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Who decides what constitutes a "correct" or "incorrect" answer?

BoP, of course. :sarcasm:

Yeah, exactly. There's no right and wrong answer. Some people think Laurent Tobel is awkward as hell, some think he's artistic as hell. Some people find T/D's Bolero to be boring, others find it to be brilliant. I'm sure there are people who don't like Lyra Angelica or Casablanca (as some people have mentioned).

 

[Mathman]

Some people think Laurent Tobel is awkward as hell, some think he's artistic as hell.

Let's take a vote!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA9hQh1IUHk

 

[OS]

For such an accreditation and training, you clearly need to get the real experts in. I realise SS may need live observation to truly appreciate, but with choreography, performance and interpretation? I really don't think it is as subjective as people think. To tell when a movement is off, the choreography is not utilising music fully, where the interpretation is poor and don't match the music intentions etc. Which skater clearly understand the music and clear about what they are trying to express vs someone just want to get from point A-B and perform the money jumps.

What if all the video are shot from the judges seat at HD cams (make zoom in possible) and to make everything a standardized from the same vantage point, so the judgement can be objectively measured against the principle judge(s) mark like a bench marker. Answers in multiple choices, but also verbal presentation or notes format should be considered.

Brain storm idea as a starting point only

- 3 skaters (does't matter if they are known or unknown. Actually they could all be newly performed programs by legends, e.g Michelle Kwan, Irina Slutskaya, Lu Chen for ladies. Kulik, Kurt Browning, and Stephane Lambiel for men, or how about Alissa, Joanie, Laura Lepisto? etc.),
- 3 programs of diverse theme/music.
Each skater perform the same program twice times with small degrees of variance.
- All 3 skaters also perform to the same music program once but with different sets of choreography (pre determined quality. Great. Good. Poor).

That is a total of 9 short programs being examined all together per session.

The skaters are instructed to deliberately make mistakes to throw the judges off at specific point at specific version of the performance, i/e Slight delayed in choreography at particular phrasing, or make certain movements less clear, concise, less/more interpretation, projection at key intervals, uneven pacing/emotional connection, totally inappropriate expressions etc. Have some of the clips to have a section of the music sync off by 1 or 2 seconds, and see if the judges notices. Have a sequence highlighted and ask for literal interpretation. Have one of the performance with no interpretation, one suitable interpretation, one with exaggerated interpretation to see if the judges notices. The version the skaters are instructed to perform are randomly pre ranked, the skater and choreographers are instructed to deliver the performance approximate to that rank standard .e g MK, you will have to try to aim for a ranking of 3rd, 5th & 7th p This can really mess with the subjectivity in judges mind) The final performances are then finally recaliberated again according to the principled judge (s) mark for model answer purposes.

Each of the video performance are shown in their entirety only once before each set of examination questions.

Skater 1. Performance 1. Part 1 (5 minutes)
Judges are expected to present their feed back in notes format, or verbalise them. How they feel about the performances, interpretation and choreography. What are the strength and weakness, which part are mistakes, area can be improved upon, which are the best highlights.

Skater 1. Performance 1. Part 2 (5 minutes)
5 Multiple Choices. Questions specifically about the performance in greater depth. Could be trick questions.
e.g There are 2 parts in the performance that is out of sync, which are they. A) None. B) first half only C) middle and second half D) The whole performance.

---

At the end of each of the 3 performance from one skater, the judges are asked to score them in the 3 categories.
At the end of the 3 skaters (pair of 6 performances), the judges are asked to rank them.
Then finally after all 9 performances (3 choreography will be to the same music), the judges are asked to rank which should be the top 3 performance overall, in terms of the 3 categories. They are given a choice to modify their scores if needed. They will need to provide explanations if they chose to amend their scoring. This may help them to became more self aware of personal tendencies, and subjectivities that may be affected by skating order.

[Actually I have always thought the judges should be allowed to modify their score due to the possibility of human error and cognitive latency effect, and their perception changes. It seems more fairer to the earlier flight skaters.]

Their marks are measured against the principled marker (selected from the most experience, prestigious, widely respected). If majority of the marks disagree with the principled judge, then external enquiry can be dealt with. Finally, they are asked to provide some valuable insight to improve this sort of evaluation method. Or what they are concious of. This helps to improve the COP marking methods, to see if anything need to be tweaked as part of the process that can help to optimise objectivity.

The order of the skater's performance are shuffled per different exam sessions that makes it really hard to cheat even through word of mouth.

 

[Meoima]

I am sorry but I have to say this: This thread is entertaining.
Reminds me of all the talks about "true music" in a classical orchestra once I worked for. hwell:

I am sure if Kwan performed some of Yuna's program (not with the jumps okay), it wouldn't be too bad. In fact it might be artistic to some extent, and Yuna could try some of Kwan's programs as well. They are, after all, great skaters. But does it has the same magic?

There is something only one or two people can be suitable to. The thing is, it's not the choreography, not the music piece itself that make a program great, it's the harmony between all these elements, but most of all it's all depends on the skaters themselves.

Frankly, I remember in the 6.0 era, 21/24 programs were dreadfully boring that I couldn't wait for the last group to come to the ice. Sometimes all were totally boring. And frankly it's the same in CoP. Nothing has changed much, except the technical side.

This reminds me of the dreadful days in every piano/violin competitions. oh dear I remember siting in the music hall for hours and hours each day in those competitions to wait for the best musicians to appear (sometimes they never came). And to my horror when Bach starts to sound like Chopin I know I have been overdosed.

With FS it's technically the same. I am sure when you have to sit all days to watch 30 skaters with all the required elements to be executed, you might not notice "artistic value" any more.

Too much art can kill your love for "art", for sure. Ironically, they are all "art".

 

[gkelly]

For such an accreditation and training, you clearly need to get the real experts in.

Who are the real experts?

I realise SS may need live observation to truly appreciate, but with choreography, performance and interpretation? I really don't think it is as subjective as people think.

Fair enough.

We're talking about training for the PE, CH, and IN components specifically, right?

What I mean about choreography is the way the program is laid out spatially on the ice. It's easier to tell when you can see the whole ice surface whether all the spins take place in the same spots, or too close to the boards, or none of the elements and very little of the skating get near the boards at all, or most elements are at one end of the ice and very few on the other end, etc. It's almost impossible to tell watching a TV broadcast that switches cameras in the middle of the performance or relies a lot on closeups/medium shots following the skater around without showing much of the background.

A single camera with a wide enough shot that it doesn't have to move much to keep the skater in the frame would split the difference.

Which skater clearly understand the music and clear about what they are trying to express vs someone just want to get from point A-B and perform the money jumps.

We're not mind readers. We can guess what the skater is thinking about, but we can't know for sure.

E.g., if the skater is concentrating very hard on timing the execution of technical moves/steps to music, she may not have extra energy to give toward facial expression. But that doesn't mean the music isn't important to her.

E.g., I remember watching an intermediate lady skating her step sequence with an absolutely blank face and initially thinking that she was ignoring the music. Then I realized that she was being very precise about timing those complicated steps to the rhythm of the music. Should that be worth as much or more as a skater who shows deep emotion or projection with her face and arm movements but is not in time with the music?

If the skater has a pained expression on her face we can't always tell if she's trying to emote a dramatic story or if she's experiencing physical pain.

What if all the video are shot from the judges seat at HD cams (make zoom in possible) and to make everything a standardized from the same vantage point, so the judgement can be objectively measured against the principle judge(s) mark like a bench marker. Answers in multiple choices, but also verbal presentation or notes format should be considered.

Sure.

- 3 skaters
- 3 programs of diverse theme/music.
Each skater perform the same program twice times with small degrees of variance.
- All 3 skaters also perform to the same music program once but with different sets of choreography (pre determined quality. Great. Good. Poor).

By great, good, poor, do you mean deserving scores of approximately 9, 7, and 2? What about the more average range?

The skaters are instructed to deliberately make mistakes to throw the judges off at specific point at specific version of the performance, i/e Slight delayed in choreography at particular phrasing, or make certain movements less clear, concise, less/more interpretation, projection at key intervals, uneven pacing/emotional connection, totally inappropriate expressions etc.

This set of videos is for Interpretation specifically? The mistakes you refer to are mistakes in phrasing etc., not mistakes on technical skills? So the programs have to be easy enough for the skaters that they can perform without worrying about technical errors, unless you want them to mess up jumps or stumble on steps on purpose.

Have some of the clips to have a section of the music sync off by 1 or 2 seconds, and see if the judges notices. Have a sequence highlighted and ask for literal interpretation. Have one of the performance with no interpretation, one suitable interpretation, one with exaggerated interpretation to see if the judges notices. The version the skaters are instructed to perform are randomly pre ranked, the skater and choreographers are instructed to deliver the performance approximate to that rank standard .e g MK, you will have to try to aim for a ranking of 3rd, 5th & 7th p This can really mess with the subjectivity in judges mind)

There's no need for ranking in IJS. That's not how the scoring is supposed to work, so the training shouldn't be designed in those terms either.

Better to try to give examples of programs that deserve specific scores for specific components. If we're not looking at the technical elements or the other components, there's no need to worry about how the skaters would rank against each other.

One of the ISU videos used two skaters (from memory I think it was one of the sections on Transitions by Johnny Weir and Jeremy Abbott) as examples of programs who deserved similar scores (IIRC they mentioned scores around 8.00) for different reasons because they were each better at different criteria under that component. So there was no real need to rank those two performances against each other in terms of that component, just to discuss what they were OK, good, or very good at and come up with an appropriate score for each on the basis of those evaluations.

So the real question is whether elite skaters who are capable of demonstrating performances worthy of 8s and 9s can also perform at a 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 level.

I think the existing ISU videos also have this problem of drawing most of their examples from the top levels.

Skater 1. Performance 1. Part 1 (5 minutes)
Judges are expected to present their feed back in notes format, or verbalise them. How they feel about the performances, interpretation and choreography. What are the strength and weakness, which part are mistakes, area can be improved upon, which are the best highlights.

Is this for group discussion? Or is someone going read/listen to this feedback from every judge being tested and grade the judges on how well they verbalize?

Will there be consideration of judges who have to do so in a second language?

Skater 1. Performance 1. Part 2 (5 minutes)
5 Multiple Choices. Questions specifically about the performance in greater depth. Could be trick questions.
e.g There are 2 parts in the performance that is out of sync, which are they. A) None. B) first half only C) middle and second half D) The whole performance.

I'm dubious about this particular question. Unless you mean that the skater performed well to the music and then the video was manipulated to be significantly out of sync.

At the end of each of the 3 performance from one skater, the judges are asked to score them in the 3 categories.

OK

At the end of the 3 skaters (pair of 6 performances), the judges are asked to rank them.

Then finally after all 9 performances (3 choreography will be to the same music), the judges are asked to rank which should be the top 3 performance overall, in terms of the 3 categories.

Only if you're training judges for 6.0-style ranking.

Training them to think in terms of ranking undermines the whole point of IJS.

[Actually I have always thought the judges should be allowed to modify their score due to the possibility of human error and cognitive latency effect, and their perception changes. It seems more fairer to the earlier flight skaters.]

However, it works against the need to announce scores right after the performances. And could be seen as a form of cheating. So there are arguments both for and against.

Their marks are measured against the principled marker (selected from the most experience, prestigious, widely respected). If majority of the marks disagree with the principled judge, then external enquiry can be dealt with.

Which is great for training new judges and those moving up to higher level judging appointments, and similar to the trial judging and seminar procedures already in place.

Just, as far as I know, getting more specific on the performance components.

But for those who complain that the experienced judges are the ones who are doing it wrong and marking out of bias, there will never be any respected standard.

 

[dorispulaski]

Another set of points.
Live performances have a different artistic impact than video. Some skaters seem better live, some better on video, and some uniformly good (or bad) either way.

for me, and perhaps me only

Jason is good either way.
Kwan and Slutskaya were both more enjoyable live to me.
Sasha Cohen and Caroline Zhang were better on video.

I find Alissa Czisny soporific whether live or on video.

Slower skaters with nice body lines are apt to be more pleasant to watch on TV than live.

Also, on tv or video, the sound is often not perfectly sync-ed to the video, which does not improve the viewing experience.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

Dorris I typed this up and then checked the thread and I think you and I are on the same wavelength here.

I've noticed a real difference when watching a program unfold live during an event even thru internet feeds than when watching the video later in replay. There is something felt deep inside stirring anticipation and excitement as you watch a competition unfold. It's something that blurs lines and confounds reasoning. I don't know how to explain it any better and honestly I'm glad I can't. Not everything needs to be identified.

The point is no training in the world can or maybe even should prepare someone to judge something that is best just felt in the moment.

 

[Meoima]

The point is no training in the world can or maybe even should prepare someone to judge something that is best just felt in the moment.

Yes, that's is why I find some connection in FS (with music live performance): the performance only exists in that exactly moment, after that...all are memories.

 

[gkelly]

The tension of watching a competition unfold in real time, the suspense about who will rise to the occasion, who will make mistakes, who will win, is a big part of the excitement of watching a competition for pleasure.

The suspense can be just as real watching on video, but I think the visceral and kinesthetic reaction to the skating, especially to risk moves -- will he land that triple axel safely or will he crash?, the nervousness in my gut while the skater is in the air -- is much stronger in person.

But none of that should factor into the judges' considerations. They shouldn't care who wins -- especially with IJS where they're not supposed to be comparing skaters, they should be doing their best to evaluate each performance when it happens without regards to final results. (Of course they're human and even for the majority who would never consider manipulating the results, they do feel curiosity and tension about who will win, they do often have skaters they are more invested in, they do notice the crowd reaction. There's just no place in the scoring for those factors.)

But I do think the higher energy of faster skating, bigger jumps, etc., is supposed to count and is much more palpable in person.

 

[LittleLotte29]

E.g., if the skater is concentrating very hard on timing the execution of technical moves/steps to music, she may not have extra energy to give toward facial expression. But that doesn't mean the music isn't important to her.

Sure, it doesn't. That is why we have to ask "what is an interpretation"? Facial expression only? I don't think so. Some programs requires it but it's not everything, ba! it's not even the most important part. Interpretation - in my opinion - should be mainly: timing and body movements control, not only of upper body. Just look at some Shen/Zhao performances. They often had blank faces but superb control, feeling and gesture. On the contrary is - for example - Plushenko at the moment: some hips' movements, a smile to judges and he's crediting with 10's. Just look at our reigning Olympic Champion among ladies: she smiled, she waved and she got 8's and 9's. How on earth?
Waving, smiling and swaying is not everything. I think, judges should differentiate the music: is it easy to interpret or is it difficult? Not only basing on: oh, Mozart. Let's give XYZ 9, he was skating and flapping hands but OMG it's Mozart, it was so much more difficult than what ABC did, because ABC was only skating to Jennifer Lopez.