I enjoy the Olympics despite the scores

[jducoeur]

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...

Comments

[calygrey.livejournal.com]

It started as an athletic sport. Learn to do an Axel, do it in competition, you win. Do a double-Axel, you win more. There was zero style, especially for the men. Music began as an accompaniment. Actual choreography didn't start until later, and serious choreography in the 80's. The sport has evolved a great deal in the 40 years I've been paying attention.

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.

[jducoeur]

Fair point, but seriously: *I* don't care about the technical elements, at least not nearly as much. I understand why it works the way it does -- but that's really not what I watch for.

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...

[dreda.livejournal.com]

But - isn't that why Ice Dancing is also at the Olympics? For the people who want the pure artistry?

[jducoeur]

Interesting point. Honestly, I often find the Ice Dancing surprisingly dull, but that's probably because the rules around it are *tighter* than for the Figure Skating forms. The result is that it doesn't leave as much room for exploration of the art. (Also, it by definition is only for couples.) While it's nominally artistic, it's within pretty tight constraints: more like a competition for a specific dance form than for dance in general.

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...

[calygrey.livejournal.com]

No. It's there because it is skating, and the other forms were in. Its rules are even more rigid than free-style, and as Justin has observed, less likely to result in real art.

[calygrey.livejournal.com]

I know I'm not wrong. I was a figure skater for a decade, 4 of my five siblings were serious skaters as well.

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.

[jducoeur]

Yaas -- even as a casual observer, I've always found the exhibition to be the best part, not least because everyone actually looks like they're enjoying themselves...