![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
I enjoy the Olympics despite the scores
One observation from last night: it reminded me, once again, that I find the judging and scoring to be my one real beef with the figure skating.
This time, there was a skater (didn't catch where from) whose routine was based on Gene Kelly's classic number from An American in Paris. For my money, it was brilliant: not just good skating, but good nods to the original routine peppered throughout. He actually managed to get a bunch of little nuances of Kelly's movement idiom in there -- not easy when you're moving on teeny little blades at high speed.
Of course, the commentators were full of, "Oh, it's not very hard; it won't score well; blah blah blah". And that proved true -- from a scoring POV, it was mediocre. Which is a damned shame, because from a purely artistic POV (as opposed to an athletic one), I thought it completely stole the show.
This seems to happen about once in each Winter Olympics for me. Sometimes it's a solo, sometimes a pair, but there's always *somebody* who just clearly gets the idea of Skating As Dance, and as Art, far better than the rest of the field. And they *never*, ever, win...
This time, there was a skater (didn't catch where from) whose routine was based on Gene Kelly's classic number from An American in Paris. For my money, it was brilliant: not just good skating, but good nods to the original routine peppered throughout. He actually managed to get a bunch of little nuances of Kelly's movement idiom in there -- not easy when you're moving on teeny little blades at high speed.
Of course, the commentators were full of, "Oh, it's not very hard; it won't score well; blah blah blah". And that proved true -- from a scoring POV, it was mediocre. Which is a damned shame, because from a purely artistic POV (as opposed to an athletic one), I thought it completely stole the show.
This seems to happen about once in each Winter Olympics for me. Sometimes it's a solo, sometimes a pair, but there's always *somebody* who just clearly gets the idea of Skating As Dance, and as Art, far better than the rest of the field. And they *never*, ever, win...
no subject
Figure skating is not a sport, by my lights. You can tell something is not a sport if it needs a judge. Don't need a judge for the speed skating - first skater over the finish line wins. Shooting? Obvious to everyone who was the best - the guys who hit the most targets.
I like dance more than I like any sport. But I don't confuse myself into thinking it is one, just because it is athletic.
no subject
Otherwise, don't confused "first past the post" with sports.
no subject
Now these days the olympics are, no doubt, a collection of athletic events. Some of those events are sports, and some are competitive art forms. Is competitive swing dance a sport? It is athletic and competitive. But my feeling, as I said, is that there is a real difference between competitive athletic events like figure skating and swing dance, where professional judges disagree constantly (which is why we have to take a consensus and the consensus frequently disagrees with a large number of the other observers), and sports, where the winner is the one who ran the swiftest, jumped the highest, or lifted with the most strength.
no subject
For instance, I think most people would accept that baseball and football are sports -- yet they have umpires and referees making judgment calls.
On the other hand, Scott McCloud, in _Understanding Comics_, proposes a theory of Art that definitely includes most Sport. IIRC, "Art is any activity not directly related to survival or reproduction." Rather broad, but I often find it useful.
no subject
Though McCloud's definition is lovely, (and I like his work from what I have seen of it - isn't he the guy who did the 'closure' strip you have on your mantle?) it doesn't agree with my definition (if I had one) in that it includes a lot of things that I would bar, like reading livejournal, and especially facebook, playing video games (though creating them does fit in my definition), and blowing out candles on a birthday cake, to name 3 of the millions of things that people do that are not directly related to survival or reproduction. And of course survival is related to reproduction, in a prerequisite sort of way, and reproduction to survival in a species sort of way. And also, for professional artists, art _is_ directly related to survival, and come to that, in a species sort of way art is necessary to survival, and .... on and on. Lovely sentiment, but it doesn't stand up to any real thought for me.
no subject
And I admit that his definition is too radical to stand up all the time. But it does present an interesting perspective that, as I said, I often find useful.
no subject
Think of it like gymnastics. Scoring for technical elements is more important than scoring for artistry - but the balance has changed quite a bit over the years. Ten years ago Plushenko would have won just for that quad, imperfect landing and all. (And he made other mistakes.)
A quadruple jump, a triple-Axel *are* MUCH harder than the artistry involved. Even ballet has difficult techniques which do not necessarily improve the looks of the performance but are required of the top dancers.
All the skaters (and their coaches) "get" the artistry - it's only hammered into them at every single competition they attend, but there are so many hours in a day, and they have to take the time to learn the jumps and spins. Those world-class skaters are on the ice 6 or so hours a day, six days a week. All the artistry in the world is worthless if the skater cannot complete the technical elements.
no subject
Figure Skating occupies a very weird space these days. It's become *the* showpiece event for the Winter Olympics -- that's why they show the broadcast till freaking *midnight*, because it's the one thing they can get people to stay up for.
But for me, 90% of the interest is the artistry, and I don't think I'm all *that* weird in that -- the artistic element is a good chunk of why it occupies the exalted position it does. Yeah, the technical bits are cool, but past a certain point they begin to actively detract, from my POV. The first people to throw triples (and then quads) into their routines were impressive, but now that you have to do so Over and Over and Over again -- honestly, the most technically challenging routines are becoming more and more boring to watch, IMO. There is necessarily a sameness, if you really intend to win gold.
This is a messy tension, that really cuts to the heart of the difference between Olympics As Competition and Olympics As Entertainment. Cause let's be real: they *are* entertainment, and the organizing committees care quite passionately about that, since it's where much of the supporting money comes from.
None of which is to say that you're wrong -- indeed, I think you and Rick are both essentially correct. The problem is mostly that those "B-level" routines that *do* get into the artistry underscore the artistic potential, and remind me that it *could* be so much more interesting from my POV. But at that point, it wouldn't really be a sporting event, and probably wouldn't belong in the Olympics at all...
no subject
no subject
When done well, the Ice Dancing *can* occasionally be truly great. But I have to say, I've probably seen more serious and interesting art from the "b-list" Pairs than from the Ice Dancers, because I've seen more experimentation there...
no subject
no subject
The "sport" wants to be dance, but it didn't start that way. It's not very old.
Something I hate about the Olympic and World's skating is how tense the skaters are; it always ruins their routines. The best skating is after the competition is over, at the exhibition.
no subject