The Death of Figure Skating as Art

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Well of course it is evolving technically (although not in every way...we never see people try a combination as difficult as 4Toe+3Toe+3Loop anymore, for example). It's not a good thing that there are less theatrics, however. Results now are not any less controversial. They are actually usually more controversial because a single underrotation call or level call can completely change the placements of a competition. Not only are the results more controversial, they are less understandable to audiences at the same time.

As for "simple stroking", I again must emphasize how it is part of the skating language. This recent quest to remove as many crossovers from programs as possible has destroyed an essential part of choreography in skating. That steady glide across the ice creates the feeling of watching something otherworldly and makes it feel like time is extending. Using different speeds and tempos of crossovers allows you to convey different ideas as well. Masterfully stroking around the ice is a skill actually worth rewarding. Dick Button would always comment on when a skater would "caress the ice". You can't do that anymore.

BTW, you really need to stop saying "maybe you should just watch exhibitions". That's a huge insult to those of us who have actually trained for competition skating and care about competitive skating. Stop acting like there are only two possibilities - "pure sport" (with a little bit of presentation thrown in) and "exhibition". In actuality the skating that most people care about is competitive skating where artistry counts. It's the combination of the technical and the artistic and the aura of competition which creates the perfect storm for skating and lets it achieve its most exciting form.

There is no recent "quest" to remove crossovers. Skaters can still generate speed/steady glide with transitional moves. To say its an integral part of artistry, I just have no idea why basic stroking is more artistic than stroking with transitions that highlight the music, create more visual interest and of course is more difficult. Obviously a program shouldn't be saturated with them but there is a balance.

As for exhibitions, that's in regards to complaints that the sport is less artistic because now the sport is more difficult... I for one am glad there are less theatrical breaks and 3-revolution spins and footwork with a couple of Mohawks and call it a day. If you want to see programs that are striving to be "art", all I'm saying is that an exhibition is a better place to witness that. But in competitive skating, the artistry should be secondary to the athletic performance, which isn't to say artistry isn't important. Obviously I'm not advocating for backloaded jump fests, or transitions filling up a program.

FYI I have "actually" trained for competitive skating -- up to the Junior level. I wish CoP had been around because I always found 6.0 marks so arbitrary, and would have liked to know which elements I was executin well as well as had a points incentive to try more challenging elements/choreo. Certainly my spins and footwork would have been more ambitious.

You have a very personal vision of what would stimulate a better artistic output, and that's your opinion. But reducing the number of jumping passes or shortening spins and footwork isn't going to magically make the programs "artistic". Whether a program is considering "art"/artistic is dependent on the skater and their inherent skating skills and ability to interpret music (and of course the viewer's own opinion). An extra 30 seconds of trying to create abstract body shapes that you find aesthetic isn't going to turn an Aaron into an Abbott. The sport has changed and evolved and is still very artistic. Sorry if it isn't to your liking, but at least skaters are challenging themselves. That to me is more important than another half minute to make programs supposedly more artistic, to whoever deems it as such.

Also, nobody is stopping skaters from putting their hands in their pocket or pretending to smoke a cigarette. It literally takes 15 seconds of a 4:30 minute program. Nobody is saying skaters need to lose the spiral sequence and do just a 3-second spiral in their ChSp (look at Edmunds). Skaters still have leeway (maybe not as much a before) for highlights or breaks or whatever they like. What they do is their choice and it doesn't completely limit their artistry or ability to interpret.

 

[gkelly]

If required elements precluded artistry, then no short program ever in the past 40+ years would have been artistic.

By the last years of 6.0, there were required elements in well-balanced free programs -- minimums rather than the maximums of each type that came with IJS.

The "problem" with IJS requirements/expectations with regard to variety and artistiry is twofold.

One is that the maximum numbers of elements for free programs become de facto minimums, and everyone does exactly the same number of jump passes, spins (and general types of spins), and step sequences. For those couple years when choreo sequences were required to come after step sequences, the structure was even more restricted.

There's no reason in theory that the well-balanced program rules couldn't be rewritten to allow more variety in the number of each kind of element and to allow some different kinds of elements. For one thing, I hope that the current rules for choreo sequences will last long enough to allow skaters and choreographers to figure out how to highlight whatever each individual skater can do best -- steps, edge work, sustained glides in position, low-revolution jumps, etc., and combinations thereof.

The second problem, which affects both short and long programs, is that in pursuing higher levels on spins and step sequences means that if a skill is difficult to do well but possible to do at all and guaranteed to raise the level if executed to a minimum standard, large numbers of skaters will include it even if they can't do it well or meaningfully. If a skill or variation does not count as a feature or is too difficult to execute well or consistently, skaters won't bother doing it at all. So we see fewer unique variations that add little or nothing to difficulty but much to originality, or that were risky wow moves. And if someone does choose to include such moves and gets rewarded consistently, the next year there will be many imitators and it won't be unique any more.

From the point of view of competitive fairness, is it better to define very clearly what will and will not earn higher levels (preferably without changes every year and some inconsistencies between tech panels) and let skaters design their elements around earning the highest possible base values? Or better to let them include their own best variety of their own best skills and leave it up to each separate judge to decide how much to reward them?

Would it make more sense to encourage quality over difficulty just for the sake of difficulty by making the positive GOE points worth more than the higher levels? Or would that just encourage subjective/political use of GOEs, or at least the perception thereof?

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

Would it make more sense to encourage quality over difficulty just for the sake of difficulty by making the positive GOE points worth more than the higher levels? Or would that just encourage subjective/political use of GOEs, or at least the perception thereof?

I think this is a great idea. A lot of skaters focus more on doing things that are hard rather doing things well, because you are better off doing a hard element regardless of how well you execute it.

 

[Interspectator]

If required elements precluded artistry, then no short program ever in the past 40+ years would have been artistic.

By the last years of 6.0, there were required elements in well-balanced free programs -- minimums rather than the maximums of each type that came with IJS.

The "problem" with IJS requirements/expectations with regard to variety and artistiry is twofold.

One is that the maximum numbers of elements for free programs become de facto minimums, and everyone does exactly the same number of jump passes, spins (and general types of spins), and step sequences. For those couple years when choreo sequences were required to come after step sequences, the structure was even more restricted.

There's no reason in theory that the well-balanced program rules couldn't be rewritten to allow more variety in the number of each kind of element and to allow some different kinds of elements. For one thing, I hope that the current rules for choreo sequences will last long enough to allow skaters and choreographers to figure out how to highlight whatever each individual skater can do best -- steps, edge work, sustained glides in position, low-revolution jumps, etc., and combinations thereof.

The second problem, which affects both short and long programs, is that in pursuing higher levels on spins and step sequences means that if a skill is difficult to do well but possible to do at all and guaranteed to raise the level if executed to a minimum standard, large numbers of skaters will include it even if they can't do it well or meaningfully. If a skill or variation does not count as a feature or is too difficult to execute well or consistently, skaters won't bother doing it at all. So we see fewer unique variations that add little or nothing to difficulty but much to originality, or that were risky wow moves. And if someone does choose to include such moves and gets rewarded consistently, the next year there will be many imitators and it won't be unique any more.

From the point of view of competitive fairness, is it better to define very clearly what will and will not earn higher levels (preferably without changes every year and some inconsistencies between tech panels) and let skaters design their elements around earning the highest possible base values? Or better to let them include their own best variety of their own best skills and leave it up to each separate judge to decide how much to reward them?

Would it make more sense to encourage quality over difficulty just for the sake of difficulty by making the positive GOE points worth more than the higher levels? Or would that just encourage subjective/political use of GOEs, or at least the perception thereof?

I like this post very much. It defines what practical things may be standing in the way of more creativity rather than rhapsodies about the soul, and what defines art.
I would personally want the rules to favor clean elements even more than they do now, so increasing the leeway of GOEs seems to be a good way to do this.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Would it make more sense to encourage quality over difficulty just for the sake of difficulty by making the positive GOE points worth more than the higher levels? Or would that just encourage subjective/political use of GOEs, or at least the perception thereof?

Unfortunately, I think this would politicize the use of GOE even more than it is now. The good thing about IJS is that a level is something that's tangible... whereas GOE bullet points are at the discretion of a judge (and is often abused).

Obviously quality should be encouraged and skaters shouldn't perform elements that are difficult but poorly executed just for the sake of a level. However, I think the difficulty of elements is fairly distinct from the artistic quality of a program to some extent (obviously a program with all doubles can be lovely but not very exciting). A position that is unaesthetically performed is the fault of the skater choosing to do that, not the system. It's a bit lame to say this system is making the sport ugly because it's forcing skaters to do positions that are unaesthetic. There are many ways skaters can obtain spin levels, and if a skater wants to have a shorter footwork at the expense of a level 3 instead of a level 4, and spend the time elsewhere, that's up to them.

Spins to some extent can highlight the music, but I'd rather a spin of many rotations/variations than a single flying camel position for 3 rotations that happens to match with the music (if the length of the spin is hindering musicality, then maybe the cut of music or timepoint of that spin needs to be re-evaluated, but the spin should be difficult).

I also think that a footwork sequence that seems to go on forever is not entirely an issue with the level requirements, but also an issue with the choreography. Many footwork sequences we've seen have subtle breaks that really accent the music, whereas other just power through trying to get all the steps in. If you look at some of Suzuki/Chan/Kostner's footwork sequences, it's apparent that you can have a level 4 sequence and still make it look exciting and not laboured. Even a level 3 sequence should still be accenting the music. To me, the onus is on the skater to understand that they're not just performing a sequence, but are showcasing a perfect blend of skating skills in their arsenal and musicality/interpretation.

 

[Alex D]

I think what we shouldn't forget is that everyone defines art in his or her own way. Artistry isn't a pre written book, its a story everyone has to write for him or herself.

I agree that especially in the media and at FS forums people tend to only look at jumps, pirouettes or lifts but a skater does see a lot more in a performance. It can happen that you speak to them off ice and the story makes so much more sense afterwards and you will see the program with totally different eyes.

Some skaters are without a doubt more talented to get the story across, to really be an actor but I think its wrong to assume that some skaters just don't care about artistry on the ice anymore.

What we also need to consider are the boundaries of the scoring system, you need to skate for points in the first place and if you are very good in the so called "A" note which involves the technical elements then you will almost always have a high "B" as well and this skaters do know.

Its also worth mentioning that the scoring system encourages them to "fail high difficulty elements" instead of succeeding "less difficult" ones and this plays a big role as well in how you see a program. A clean program always looks more graceful and is more memorable than one where a skater fell two or three times while being unable to stay in character.

Many programs are so full of difficulty that they just cant perform the story accordingly. This was especially visible at the men's competition at Sochi. Many skaters were limping from the ice totally exhausted - I have never seen that before to be honest and those are professional athletes!

Try to sing a straight tone as a vocalist if you are exhausted like that, its impossible and the same applies to skaters and their artistry. Personally I do wish the ISU could take note of that and take some pressure from them but for this TV stations also need to talk less about jumps only because this is what they do in every preview. Its all about those 7 triple, the quads etc.

In conclusion I think that FS does indeed focus a lot on technical aspects right now maybe too much for my liking but there is still a lot of grace and beauty out there and as I said before this everyone has to discover for him or herself.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

ITA, especially the last statement.

However, the men's competition wasn't necessarily a product of difficulty but also pressure. We've seen many of the skaters deliver strong performances within the year of the Olympics -- Machida performed perfectly at Worlds 2014, Ten was "perfect" at Worlds 2013, Fernandez was much better at Euros, Chan was perfect at TEB, Reynolds did well at 4CC, Brown was better at Nationals, and Hanyu had cleaner skates at GPF/Worlds 2014. In those performances, they did exhibit a great deal of artistry (particularly Machida at Worlds 2014, Hanyu at the GPF, Brown at Nationals, and Chan at TEB).

I think many are equating an unclean performance with a performance that isn't inherently artistic. Takahashi/Kostner/Chan are skaters who still blow the field away in terms of artistry and program content, regardless of their errors.

Basically, errors (due to difficulty or otherwise) certainly diminish the overall artistic quality of a performance, but doesn't entirely negate it.

 

[LRK]

I for one don't blame commentators for talking more about the technical aspects such as jumps - after all, that is the tangible, objective stuff. If, as many here say - and I agree - art is subjective, then the appreciation of it is subjective as well. In which case, what do you think the commentators ought to say about it? Sometimes they talk about their own feelings about a program - or a particular performance of that program - after the program, and whilst waiting for the scores. Which, in my opinion, is the proper place for such discourse anyway. How can they talk about it BEFORE the program, when they haven't seen that particular performance? And I certainly don't appreciate constant chatterbox-ing all through a program. And then ending with: "I didn't feel a connection to the music and performance." To which I reply: "You don't say? If you'd shut up for two milliseconds straight, you might."

Note: This is just a side-note, by the way. I'm not sure I have much to add about "art", as such. In general, I don't hanker back after 6.0 - but on the other hand, I don't think COP is a heaven-sent perfect system either. It's especially let down by such nonsense as "anchoring" and "corridors" and what-not - which also, in my opinon, defeats the whole purpose of it being a fairer system. But, again, this isn't necessarily about "art".

Still, I think it is an interesting discussion to have - I just don't feel I have much to contribute to it.

 

[gotoschool]

ITA, especially the last statement.

However, the men's competition wasn't necessarily a product of difficulty but also pressure. We've seen many of the skaters deliver strong performances within the year of the Olympics -- Machida performed perfectly at Worlds 2014, Ten was "perfect" at Worlds 2013, Fernandez was much better at Euros, Chan was perfect at TEB, Reynolds did well at 4CC, Brown was better at Nationals, and Hanyu had cleaner skates at GPF/Worlds 2014. In those performances, they did exhibit a great deal of artistry (particularly Machida at Worlds 2014, Hanyu at the GPF, Brown at Nationals, and Chan at TEB).

I think many are equating an unclean performance with a performance that isn't inherently artistic. Takahashi/Kostner/Chan are skaters who still blow the field away in terms of artistry and program content, regardless of their errors.

Basically, errors (due to difficulty or otherwise) certainly diminish the overall artistic quality of a performance, but doesn't entirely negate it.

Your assertion that ".....Kostner...... blows the field away in terms of artistry and programs content, regardless of error," especially without the use of the word "I think," shows a high degree of bias and a blatant disregard of the highly artistic qualities and superior competitive records of Mao Asada and Yuna Kim at least the very least. I openly admit that Kim and Kostner are quite artistic. Even though I am not a big fan, I still like the way they skate.

 

[gkelly]

I for one don't blame commentators for talking more about the technical aspects such as jumps - after all, that is the tangible, objective stuff. If, as many here say - and I agree - art is subjective, then the appreciation of it is subjective as well. In which case, what do you think the commentators ought to say about it? Sometimes they talk about their own feelings about a program - or a particular performance of that program - after the program, and whilst waiting for the scores.

I agree.

In general, I think that commentary during the program should be kept to a minimum, so that viewers can appreciate the aesthetic value of the program and hear the music uninterrupted.

I also think that most of the commentary should focus on points that will have direct impact on the scores and results, which is one reason why most of the comments we get are about jumps. (Another reason is that it's very easy for viewers to obvious success and obvious failure on jumps, although subtle mistakes like underrotation, two-foot landings, and incorrect takeoff edges are harder to see.)

I would like it if commentators could point out difficult transitions or variations, or good or bad aspects of the basic skating and program layout. Some of the pattern issues are hard even for experts to note on first viewing, but the commentators do often get to watch practices or get notes from researchers who watch for them, so they could point out if a program is notably above or below average in complexity. And if they're there at rinkside, they can see and hear much more easily than TV viewers who's fast and who's slow, who has exceptionally deep or shallow edges, whose skating sounds silent or powerful or scratchy, and mention that to viewers as partial explanation of Skating Skills scores.

They could also mention if a spin is exceptionally well centered or travels considerably, since TV viewers may not know to look for that and may not have a good camera angle to tell by.

I don't want commentators going into detail about choregraphy during the performance, but an occasional Wow, that move really highlighted the music exceptionally well would be welcome. Before the performance they could tell viewers anything they know from the skater/coach/choreographer themselves about the intention behind the program and comment on specifics after the performance. Even if the skater's team has not shared an intention, a quick summary afterward about what they saw as clear strengths or weaknesses in carriage/body line, projection, staying in character, telling a story, expressing details of the music, etc., would be useful.

There isn't time to cover all these areas for all skaters. But making a point to include discussion about at least one or two non-jump-related strong or weak points for each skater -- preferably at least one of each -- would be a good idea for educating viewers about what kinds of things judges look for as well as conveying information about this specific performance, especially the aspects that viewers can't just see for themselves without being there.

Commentators are human too and have their own preferences and interests. I think it's great if they share some of their personal opinions -- if commentators are enthusiastic, that helps fans feel enthusiastic as well -- as long as it's clear when they're speaking for themselves and when they're speaking for the sport.

 

[unico]

Your assertion that ".....Kostner...... blows the field away in terms of artistry and programs content, regardless of error," especially without the use of the word "I think," shows a high degree of bias and a blatant disregard of the highly artistic qualities and superior competitive records of Mao Asada and Yuna Kim at least the very least. I openly admit that Kim and Kostner are quite artistic. Even though I am not a big fan, I still like the way they skate.

The nature of "art" is such that every opinion, even if expressed as a statement, is always invisibly prefaced by the words "I think". Anyway, CSG is surely not being biased or "blatantly disregarding" anyone's artistic merit by not listing more than Chan/Takahashi/Kostner, they're just examples.

 

[Alba]

I for one don't blame commentators for talking more about the technical aspects such as jumps - after all, that is the tangible, objective stuff. If, as many here say - and I agree - art is subjective, then the appreciation of it is subjective as well. In which case, what do you think the commentators ought to say about it? Sometimes they talk about their own feelings about a program - or a particular performance of that program - after the program, and whilst waiting for the scores. Which, in my opinion, is the proper place for such discourse anyway. How can they talk about it BEFORE the program, when they haven't seen that particular performance? And I certainly don't appreciate constant chatterbox-ing all through a program. And then ending with: "I didn't feel a connection to the music and performance." To which I reply: "You don't say? If you'd shut up for two milliseconds straight, you might."

:agree:


@gotoschool: shingalas is right. They're just examples, and of course CSG is speaking based on his opinion.

 

[gmyers]

The demands have COP have basically made every single second part of a technical exercise. I would like to see less mandates. It's so clear and true that while some can do a step sequence very musically or maybe one position of a spin there's far too much demanded of reaching levels that buries sparks of artistry under ridiculous requirements.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Your assertion that ".....Kostner...... blows the field away in terms of artistry and programs content, regardless of error," especially without the use of the word "I think," shows a high degree of bias and a blatant disregard of the highly artistic qualities and superior competitive records of Mao Asada and Yuna Kim at least the very least. I openly admit that Kim and Kostner are quite artistic. Even though I am not a big fan, I still like the way they skate.

Oh lord. I was just picking examples of skaters who are superior to the field. For the record, however, I think Kostner is artistically superior to Mao, and Kim is about on par with her (but not quite... Kostner has better extension and lines). Also, I don't think competitive record has anything to do with artistic ability, necessarily. Janet Lynn and Michelle Kwan are two of the most artistic skaters ever, but I don't think not winning the Olympics somehow negates that... same goes for Browning and Chan.

As for a high degree of bias - we're talking about skating as an art, so of COURSE people will be bias about something subjective as a skater's artistic merits.

 

[skatedreamer]

Oh lord. I was just picking examples of skaters who are superior to the field. For the record, however, I think Kostner is artistically superior to Mao, and Kim is about on par with her (but not quite... Kostner has better extension and lines). Also, I don't think competitive record has anything to do with artistic ability, necessarily. Janet Lynn and Michelle Kwan are two of the most artistic skaters ever, but I don't think not winning the Olympics somehow negates that... same goes for Browning and Chan.

As for a high degree of bias - we're talking about skating as an art, so of COURSE people will be bias about something subjective as a skater's artistic merits.

FWIW, absolutely agree re: almost all of the above. The "almost" has to do w/ Chan -- not so much for me. But that's just my highly subjective opinion.

 

[snowflake]

Definitely! I'm a new fan (1+ years only) but I don't think that I would be a fan under 6.0, where everything jump, spin, etc wasn't clear(ish)ly scored (or at least recorded in protocols) as in COP. I personally enjoy many current programs much more than renowned "older" programs I see on youtube too... in fact, so much so that I wonder if a part of it might be nostalgia for the older fans. But then again, I'm one of those who consider FS an "aesthetically pleasing sport" rather than an art. I certainly wouldn't watch FS if I wanted to watch an art (and I wouldn't be a new FS fan! )

I think you are spot on :agree:

And I certainly don't appreciate constant chatterbox-ing all through a program. And then ending with: "I didn't feel a connection to the music and performance." To which I reply: "You don't say? If you'd shut up for two milliseconds straight, you might."

spot on 2

 

[shine]

BTW, you really need to stop saying "maybe you should just watch exhibitions". That's a huge insult to those of us who have actually trained for competition skating and care about competitive skating. Stop acting like there are only two possibilities - "pure sport" (with a little bit of presentation thrown in) and "exhibition". In actuality the skating that most people care about is competitive skating where artistry counts. It's the combination of the technical and the artistic and the aura of competition which creates the perfect storm for skating and lets it achieve its most exciting form.

This!

Would you watch skating with the same amount of interest or passion if it was just an accumulation of TES?

 

[gkelly]

I had skated for a couple years as a kid, but I first became obsessed with figure skating both as art and as sport in the early 1990s and went out of my way to find videos of as many past and present performances as I could find (and also to attend as many live events as I could afford).

Many of my all-time favorite programs from an artistic standpoint date from the 1990s/early 2000s, as well as a few classics from earlier eras and a few IJS-era programs.

I think one reason why I have so many favorites from that era has less to do with the performances themselves and more to do with my experience watching them. I had seen hundreds of programs, the majority were fairly boring, but the few dozen most artistically successful ones that I watched over and over again on VHS tape stood out and stuck in my mind.

Twenty-plus years later, with the help online videos and more involvement at local competitions, I've probably seen tens of thousands of programs over the years. The majority are fairly boring -- in large part because I see more lower-level skating -- and the most artistically successful ones do not stick in my mind to the same extent as those from 15-20 years ago.

How much of that is because my brain is just too full of programs? Performances that I would have considered masterpieces if I'd watched them 20 years ago seem like the norm to me now.

How much is because I have access to so many programs to watch now, I don't spend as much time rewatching the same ones as I used to?

After accounting for those factors, how much is left for "IJS kills artistry" to explain?

I think I do see at least as much "artistry" in lower level events now as I did 15 years go. But I can't share and discuss examples of programs that were never televised or posted online, maybe never videotaped at all.


In my own opinion, I'd say that the average singles and pairs program from 2014 would beat the average program from 2004 or 1994 in my sense of artistry. There have always been specific exceptions that stand out in any era, with some years producing more masterpieces than other.

For ice dance, though, I think more depends on the rules and expectations of a specific era. It seemed that 1991-92 was an especially artistic era because teams were finding that great choreography could really set them apart from their competitors. Especially one of my favorite teams the Duchesnays, who wouldn't have won the medals they did without choreography to compensate for mediocre technique. But then 1993-96 got really boring to me because of rule changes.

In general, IJS has seemed to encourage dancers to focus on difficulty and execution quality of the elements and less on telling a coherent story, so I do tend to find free dances less artistically interesting to me lately. Short dances seem about the same as most OD years and more interesting than OSPs.

From a sporting point of view, I think IJS has given ice dance much more credibility as sport.

I'm still waiting for more teams and choreographers to figure out how to get the technical points and also make a strong artistic impact.

 

[unico]

I had skated for a couple years as a kid, but I first became obsessed with figure skating both as art and as sport in the early 1990s and went out of my way to find videos of as many past and present performances as I could find (and also to attend as many live events as I could afford).

Many of my all-time favorite programs from an artistic standpoint date from the 1990s/early 2000s, as well as a few classics from earlier eras and a few IJS-era programs.

I think one reason why I have so many favorites from that era has less to do with the performances themselves and more to do with my experience watching them. I had seen hundreds of programs, the majority were fairly boring, but the few dozen most artistically successful ones that I watched over and over again on VHS tape stood out and stuck in my mind.

Twenty-plus years later, with the help online videos and more involvement at local competitions, I've probably seen tens of thousands of programs over the years. The majority are fairly boring -- in large part because I see more lower-level skating -- and the most artistically successful ones do not stick in my mind to the same extent as those from 15-20 years ago.

How much of that is because my brain is just too full of programs? Performances that I would have considered masterpieces if I'd watched them 20 years ago seem like the norm to me now.

How much is because I have access to so many programs to watch now, I don't spend as much time rewatching the same ones as I used to?

After accounting for those factors, how much is left for "IJS kills artistry" to explain?

Very interesting point. :yes:

 

[shine]

I think one reason why I have so many favorites from that era has less to do with the performances themselves and more to do with my experience watching them. I had seen hundreds of programs, the majority were fairly boring, but the few dozen most artistically successful ones that I watched over and over again on VHS tape stood out and stuck in my mind.

Very interesting. What if you went back now to watch those programs which you considered masterpieces 20 years ago - would they still have the same artistic impact on you that you once felt?