The Death of Figure Skating as Art

[Interspectator]

Anyone interest in this quiz about art? http://www.buzzfeed.com/jenlewis/quiz-can-you-tell-the-difference-between-modern-art-and-art#1tnrcu7

7 of 11 RIGHT! Pretty dismal though.

 

[Alba]

--on the subject of Modern Art and Figure Skating, they come together in my mind as Jeremy Abbott.
NOT that he's like an ugly piece of modern art, it's just that I'm sure he's a great artistic skater, everyone tells me so, but I don't understand it at ALL.
Art can move people immensely and go right over another person's head.

About Piero Manzoni and his Merda d'Artista (Artist's ****.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDWPH_jCjn8

In May 1961 Manzoni created 90 small cans, sealed with the text Artist's **** (Merda d'Artista). Each 30-gram can was priced by weight based on the current value of gold (around $1.12 a gram in 1960).
The contents of the cans remain a much-disputed enigma, since opening them would destroy the value of the artwork. Various theories about the contents have been proposed, including speculation that it is plaster.
In the following years, the cans have spread to various art collections all over the world and netted large prices, far outstripping inflation. The most recent can to be sold, #83, sold in October 2008 for £97,250. It was described as:

"It is a joke, a parody of the art market, and a critique of consumerism and the waste it generates."
—Stephen Bury

Also from him: Artist's breath: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piero_Manzoni#mediaviewer/File:Artist'sbreath.jpg
Body of air: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpo_d'aria#mediaviewer/File:Corpod'aria.jpg
Lines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linee#mediaviewer/File:Manzoni-linee.jpg


Now, I don't like them at all. But for many these are masterpieces, including my boyfriend who calls me a barbarian because I hate them.

 

[Interspectator]

About Piero Manzoni and his Merda d'Artista (Artist's ****.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDWPH_jCjn8



Also from him: Artist's breath: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piero_Manzoni#mediaviewer/File:Artist'sbreath.jpg
Body of air: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpo_d'aria#mediaviewer/File:Corpod'aria.jpg
Lines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linee#mediaviewer/File:Manzoni-linee.jpg


Now, I don't like them at all. But for many these are masterpieces, including my boyfriend who calls me a barbar because I hate them.

Heh, heh, I know about him. It's a way to fleece the rich of their money in my opinion. If an artist is clever enough to do it, good luck to them!

 

[Blades of Passion]

Here we've steered right back into subjectivity. I happen to think that Daisuke's program was beautiful from start to finish and if he had landed his jumps cleanly he should have a medal.

I can name at least 10 ways his program would have been more beautiful if he had more freedom to do so. Saying somebody would have deserved a medal if they skated cleanly doesn't really say anything at all about the quality of the program. This is what people mean when they say the artistic standard needs to be raised. Anyone can take a picture at a nice beach with their phone these days and it will look "beautiful". What does that mean in comparison to other works, though? The point is in recognizing truly accomplished work and getting something from it rather than just saying "oh that was nice" and moving on.

Tell me this, after watching Daisuke's program, did it make you want to suddenly tell many people you know about it and say "you must see this!!"? Did it fill you with an overwhelming sensation of some sort? That's the effect a great performance should have on someone.

You choose to label Patrick's program unimaginative formulaic when many others may disagree completely. Yet your argument on the decline of Art in figure skating is based in part on this. Whose opinion has more weight?

To have a valid opinion you need to have a basis for it. If someone "disagrees completely" then I highly question their ability to look at music in comparison to movement. The program contains him reeling off his 3 most difficult jumps at the start of the program without any real thematic buildup beforehand or payoff afterward, then doing a very long step sequence with seemingly random movements throughout, then a spin which concludes with a position that looks like a dog peeing sideways, and then doing 4 more jumps in a row (including two Lutzes back-to-back directly after the halfway point), most of which again have no real payoff afterward, but instead just some kind of random turn on the ice. That is the definition of formulaic. His movement is based upon an arbitrary system outside of the music. His movement is not exactly as it is because OF the music.

If you were to ask someone "what does your soul feel like when you listen to this music?", they would not describe something that looks like his program. Which means it was not a great artistic accomplishment. Never before CoP would anyone do an incredibly long footwork sequence with hardly any facial expression throughout. Nor would they put two Lutzes back-to-back directly halfway through a program. Why would you possibly want to do these things? It's not good choreography. It doesn't serve a purpose.

Of course, since Patrick has such amazingly perfect skating skills, people can find admiration in watching that. But just because one aspect is amazing, doesn't mean the rest is. That is again the problem of where the sport is at - everyone is focusing on the technical. Yes people are skating with more blade movement than ever before these days, but what exactly does that have to do with the artistic?

 

[Interspectator]

I can name at least 10 ways his program would have been more beautiful if he had more freedom to do so. Saying somebody would have deserved a medal if they skated cleanly doesn't really say anything at all about the quality of the program. This is what people mean when they say the artistic standard needs to be raised. Anyone can take a picture at a nice beach with their phone these days and it will look "beautiful". What does that mean in comparison to other works, though? The point is in recognizing truly accomplished work and getting something from it rather than just saying "oh that was nice" and moving on.

Tell me this, after watching Daisuke's program, did it make you want to suddenly tell many people you know about it and say "you must see this!!"? Did it fill you with an overwhelming sensation of some sort? That's the effect a great performance should have on someone.



To have a valid opinion you need to have a basis for it. If someone "disagrees completely" then I highly question their ability to look at music in comparison to movement. The program contains him reeling off his 3 most difficult jumps at the start of the program without any real thematic buildup beforehand or payoff afterward, then doing a very long step sequence with seemingly random movements throughout, then a spin which concludes with a position that looks like a dog peeing sideways, and then doing 4 more jumps in a row (including two Lutzes back-to-back directly after the halfway point), most of which again have no real payoff afterward, but instead just some kind of random turn on the ice. That is the definition of formulaic. His movement is based upon an arbitrary system outside of the music. His movement is not exactly as it is because OF the music.

If you were to ask someone "what does your soul feel like when you listen to this music?", they would not describe something that looks like his program. Which means it was not a great artistic accomplishment. Never before CoP would anyone do an incredibly long footwork sequence with hardly any facial expression throughout. Nor would they put two Lutzes back-to-back directly halfway through a program. Why would you possibly want to do these things? It's not good choreography. It doesn't serve a purpose.

Of course, since Patrick has such amazingly perfect skating skills, people can find admiration in watching that. But just because one aspect is amazing, doesn't mean the rest is. That is again the problem of where the sport is at - everyone is focusing on the technical. Yes people are skating with more blade movement than ever before these days, but what exactly does that have to do with the artistic?

For me, Just looking at Daisuke makes me want to tell other people about his skating and his general wondefulness. And I do! All the time.
If 2007 signaled the decline of art, was 2006 the peak? I personally don't think there is a program like you describe. Do you have one in mind? If so, I want to see it.
Also, I've still to hear your ideas of how to promote art in figure skating?

If you were to ask someone what does your soul feel like when you listen to this music? then would they even describe a dance? Would they describe a figureskater?
Would they describe a Zebra seeing snow for the first time?

Since figure skating is a sport how would the way your soul feels be judged if someone were to try to skate to it? If we want Great Artistic Accomplishments then take it to the Gala at the end of the Competition. There are no rules there.
For Competition artistic accomplishment is a bonus.

 

[cooper]

i thought Figure skating is 50 art and 50 sport.. there should be a balance.. that's why figure skating is different/unique if you compare it to a typical "sport".. but then again it is subjective...

 

[Interspectator]

In an alternate universe where figure skating is an Art first and a Sport second, like classical leads to modern, we'd start to get some very INTERESTING artistic programs.
Some modern skating themes might be:
-A bassoon learning to skate to the music of Wagner
-What black feels like to the music of Nickelback
-Introspection on the Great Outdoors to the music of Queen

It's happened in sculpture, painting, dance and every other creative, artsy discipline.
Art is ALIVE you can't make it stop changing.

 

[Interspectator]

I do agree with you, BOP that Daisuke's program could indeed be better, --even in 10 ways! It still does not mean that It is not a beautiful and artistic Program which I enjoyed the whole way through.

 

[gkelly]

There is no set standards regarding artistry, but I come up with this alternative standard: Is the skater a good dancer if not on ice? or imagine he/she is not wearing skates when skating. And that should be judged by a dance judge.

How do we (or how does a dance judge) define what makes a good dancer?

How do we define dancing? Are there numerous kinds of dancing, or numerous aspects of dancing, that should be rewarded? Is any single dance judge capable to evaluate all possible forms of dancing on ice?

Are there ways of being artistic on ice that would not qualify as dancing?

Are there degrees of goodness to dancing, or is it either or, yes or no? (I.e., should it be scored as 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, with decimal places, or would it be just as accurate to score it with 0 and 10 being the only possible scores?)



For me, most of the presentation/program component criteria are really measures of mastery of the skating technique, including things like body line/form/clarity of movement, using the whole ice surface, or timing the movement to music.

Art lovers may also love figure skating because it provides some of the same aesthetic pleasures, but I wouldn't say that necessarily makes figure skating an art form, as practiced in competition, any more than unintentional beauty (e.g., a sunrise or a wilderness, or a pretty child) or beauty that is incidental to another purpose (e.g., diving competition) is art.

Even if we make no pretense that competitive skating is art or anything more than a sport in which form, timing, and control demonstrate mastery, it's still worth rewarding those qualities because of the mastery they represent.

Many of these are subjective because they're qualitative. Even if we all agree that Skater A does one of these things better than Skater B, just how much better and how to turn that into numbers on a scale of 0-10 or 0-6 is going to vary. And then when you get multiple such criteria contributing to the same score, different judges' or fans' perceptions of how they balance out will vary even more.

Is it possible to be artistic without being beautiful -- by telling stories, playing characters, matching movement to music, including a coherent theme, connecting to the audience? E.g., think Philippe Candeloro's Conan the Barbarian, Godfather, d'Artagnan.

I would say that the current judging criteria allow for something more than just demonstration of good skating technique in the "purpose," "unity," and "originality" criteria of the Choreography component, "finesse to represent nuances of the music" under Interpretation, and maybe the "Projection" criterion under Performance/Execution are more relevant to the question of "Is it Art?" And I love it when skaters transcend the competitive format to include those qualities in their programs. But I don't think that they are necessary components of good skating -- I think they're extra.

The "purpose" and "originality" criteria are even more subjective because they depend so much on each observer's previous life experience. E.g., if you know the music that a skater has chosen comes from a particular ballet, Broadway show, or movie, and you recognize that some of the skater's choreography is quoting/imitating moves from the original stage choreography, or acting out a character from the movie, will you give more credit to the program for having Purpose than an observer who just hears music and sees movement that have no outside connections for them? More or less credit for Originality -- does it take creativity to translate stage movement to ice? Or is it just copying?

If certain choices, certain moves, have been done before in skating, but not often, a fan or judge who has never seen them before may think this skater is being very original. One who already associates them with a past skater or group of skaters may see them as just copying or recycling. Does the judge need to guess whether the skater and choreographer are familiar with the previous use?

When does using the same body shapes repeatedly (case in point from another thread, arm overhead in all jumps) represent Unity and when does it represent lack of Variety? Can it be both at once?

I was discussing with a friend recently who thinks that maybe those criteria shouldn't be considered at all in scoring competitive skating, because they're so subjective and hard to quantify. I don't think it does any harm because those qualities alone make up such a small percentage of the total scores, but the pleasure they provide for those skaters and fans who do care about them makes them worthwhile.

Now, if we want to watch skating where artistic coherence (unity and purpose), originality, and beauty are the most important criteria and technical mastery merely a means to those ends, then Ice Theatre is the place to go. Which has nothing to do with the ISU or with competitive rules. Is there enough of an audience to support that art form at a level to make it readily available?

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Artistry, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I've never considered figure skating to be dying due to CoP. If anything it finally credits skaters for what they execute and how well they do that, and it feels less like a popularity contest - except, notably, when PCS marks are unnecessarily elevated for top tier skaters... although even under 6.0 skaters would receive 5.8/5.9 for artistry with falls.

As for Chan's Olympic program, it showcased every aspect of what good *skating* is. And that to me is more important than creating some subjective work of art. Many consider his Four Seasons a masterpiece, and of course many won't.

Skaters shouldn't be measured by how much of an "artist" they are or how their program makes you feel because that is personal to everyone. IMO a skater/their program is defined by difficulty, skating skills and choreography. And then that is enhanced by the skater's "artistic ability"/interpretation/expression. For ice dance it's a bit different because there is greater emphasis on conveying a mood or a theme.

The reality is, most skaters aren't "artists" like Dai or Kwan. No reduction of jumping passes or shorter spins/footwork will change that.

Ice dance is a prime example of how a sport shifting to a more technical emphasis actually has a beneficial effect, where difficulty is lauded and it's not just arbitrary pre-determined placements.

Yes the "art"/"drama" has suffered a bit but now skaters are actually *skating* more. Their job is to be the best skater, not the best artist (especially when that is so rare and so subjective).

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

And I agree with gkelly. You want pure artistry, go to an ice theatre or watch exhibitions. As I say, it's the Olympics not the Oscars. The sport of figure skating should be just that, a sport - and that's what will make people watch. Olympic medals are fundamentally determined by athletic ability, not artistic ability (whether skating, gymnastics, synchro swimming).

The popularity of the sport will rise with a greater understanding of its technical intricacies and with the technical envelope being pushed. There's still room to be "artistic". And half of a skater being "artistic" is people's perception of them.

Karne made a good point too about the death of skating is due to differences between skaters not being embraced. Personally I would rather skaters be themselves ... if anything, they should strive to develop their actual skating skills and difficulty rather than attempt to be "artistic". No amount of choreographic changes will turn Aaron into an Abbott or Mura into a Takahashi.

 

[Skater Boy]

I know this is cliche but what is art. And as many people point out figure skating is still a sport with rules =- good or bad. COP really has "changed" things good or bad. There are so many requirements that admittedly sometimes things are done - even awkward spin positions or willing to fall on a harder jump just to get the points - for points rather than any artistic perspective or point. A simple spin may be more effective but that is not the game under COP.

 

[karne]

As for Chan's Olympic program, it showcased every aspect of what good *skating* is. And that to me is more important than creating some subjective work of art. Many consider his Four Seasons a masterpiece, and of course many won't.

I didn't realise falling on your behind was what "good skating" is.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

I didn't realise falling on your behind was what "good skating" is.

Uh, FYI, Patrick didn't fall on his behind once during last season - his Four Seasons season - during the Olympics or otherwise.

Had he repeated his TEB performance, it would have been arguably the best Olympic FS of all time (contrary to BoP's rather bold assertion that none of the Olympic FS - even if skated clean - would have been noteworthy... I mean look at Kostner/Kim/Asada's clean under-CoP Olympic freeskates - they were extraordinary both technically AND artistically).

Regarding your cheap shot, though ... I suppose "good skaters" like Takahashi/Kostner/Kwan/etc. have never fallen on their behinds? I suppose you think when Farris consistently falls on his quad we should automatically disregard him being a "good skater"?

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

I know this is cliche but what is art. And as many people point out figure skating is still a sport with rules =- good or bad. COP really has "changed" things good or bad. There are so many requirements that admittedly sometimes things are done - even awkward spin positions or willing to fall on a harder jump just to get the points - for points rather than any artistic perspective or point. A simple spin may be more effective but that is not the game under COP.

While it is a points game, it's not impossible to incorporate good skating/difficulty/and choreography. That's up to the skater. There are skaters who power into their quad from the very beginning and skaters who establish a mood. There are skaters who don't do 8-revolution spins (which can be counted only once anyways) and force their Biellmann and others who opt not to do it. Some skaters will take breaks to interpret (Kostner's Bolero was a good example) and others will interpret while they are moving. Some skaters do a single 3-second spiral and others (eg Edmunds) take the time to do an actual spiral sequence. And what works for some doesn't work for others and vice versa.

 

[gotoschool]

First of all, I agree that the athletic basis is of fundamental importance to figure skating and that for me this often impacts my perception of the more subjective artistic side. Therefore, I believe there is a connection between the increased technical difficulty in figure skating under the COP and my appreciation of it as art because the first time I ever thought of skating artistically was when Mao Asada did 2 triple axels, the one handed Biellmann, and super flexible spirals in Worlds LP 2010. But, it was the frozen poses with so many desperate and wild expressions, the mask like peek-a-boo moves and the moon walk glide and stagger in the step sequence that transformed the athletic feats into true art for me. The problem with this is that while many under youtube videos praised the program as a great work of art, many internet articles and broadcasters said the exact opposite, that the program was lacking in passion and artistry while Kim's was superior that season. I know which I like better as art, but I don't believe that gives me the right to impose my views on others or to make some universal pronouncement about which is better. I get suspicious when what Bob Dylan called "guardians and protectors of the mind" stand up to proclaim the degeneration of art or that one program is obviously superior artistically to another when skaters have reached world championship or even world medalist level, for example.

I soon realized that I also really liked Chen Lu, Kristi Yamagaguchi (who Chen looked up to) and Midori Ito artistically from the non-COP level as well, and Plushenko who straddled both, but the connection was not quite as strong. Also, Hanyu and Chan have an artistic style I really liked in the COP era. Kim and Kostner are obviously artistic as well. While I like them, they are not quite my artistic style. So, I find artistic or appealing skaters can exist under both systems. Ito also showed me the degree to which supreme athletics (beautiful towering jumps) and supreme skating skills in and of themselves could be artistic. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I don't know for sure, but I think people's dissatisfaction may be more due to the anonymous scoring system and highly suspect results than to the "lack of artistry" under the COP system.. This is what I find difficult to deal with. One artistic feature I actually prefer under the COP system is the required step sequence.

 

[Tavi...]

I agree that COP constrains artistic expression but I do think that some skaters make art in spite of the constraints. An example for me (and I realize others may have a different view) is Jason Brown's skating. When he performs A Question of U, he's dancing as much as he is skating-every movement in that program is beautiful, as are the moments in between-and on top of that he creates a fascinating persona and connects with the audience viscerally, much as Pavarotti did. It helps that the choreography is an almost perfect expression of the music. On the other hand, much as I loved his Riverdance, there were some moments I found unsatisfying, such as a spiral he holds much too briefly-which I attribute to the constraints of COP.

Interestingly, I just watched Rudy Galindo's LP posted in the Kiss & Cry thread (great reaction!) and although he was a lovely skater, I was really surprised at the general emptiness of the choreography, and the number of times he just stopped & posed or moved his arms a bit.

 

[GF2445]

The great thing about skating is that it can manifest in a number of ways.
Figure skating is both sport and art.
But depending on if you sre attending a competiton or and exhibition, either the sport/athletic aspect or the artistic aspect would be highlighted.

There has to be distinctions between competitive and non competitive skating as competitive skating needs to continuously evolve in order to progress and be a sport that lasts and can keep up with other sports.

 

[Icey]

I am stunned in recent years that everyone who does some kind of performing is referred to as "an artist". The terms art and artist and artistry have become diminished over the years.

 

[Interspectator]

Well, I don't call skaters artists but artistic. There is a difference.
Having or revealing natural creative skill...which is applicable.
Saying someone is an 'artist' is to high-brow for me.