Evaluating the artistic: ambiguity and the FIG

Can judging ever be objective? Part 2

Now that the flurry of World Championships is well and truly over, I have been cogitating on the different perspectives on gymnastics discussed earlier in this blog and attempting to analyse what we can learn from the latest developments. The thing that repeatedly strikes me right in the eye is the prescriptive approach of the Code which seems to try to apply a painting-by-numbers type formula for good gymnastics. I believe that this alienates judgement of the aesthetic dimension of the sport and imposes a set of assumptions which not all of us share. In turn, this disadvantages those gymnasts who attempt to express artistry and discourages the development of an artistic approach to the sport. It facilitates an approach to gymnastics marking that favours verbal reasoning over aesthetic judgement, thus opening the door to all forms of behind-the-scenes nit-picking and making the sport increasingly political. Finally, it reinforces a kind of cultural imperialism on the part of those who control the Code and therefore implicitly control the direction of the sport, arguably putting too much power into the hands of officials and judges, and too little into the hands of coaches and gymnasts.

The Code itself is constantly under evolution but at present seems dominated by a scientific methodology that suggests that exercises can be evaluated mathematically. Coming with this is the assumption – misplaced, in my opinion – that the system needs to be wholly objective. In past times (author taps walking stick for emphasis) we saw a less structured approach to judging in which more subjective assessments were encouraged, characterised by the Risk, Originality, Virtuosity bonuses adopted during the 1980s. These two methodological approaches seem to reflect a spectrum of philosophical differences in understanding the sport’s identity, and are reflected in evolving political struggles over the detail and means by which the sport is evaluated.

This struggle may be defined geo-politically as a conflict between the former Eastern bloc nations and the powerful Western states led by the USA. We have to acknowledge that many of the Western states are now represented by head coaches who emanate from the Eastern bloc nations, but then all generalisations are marked by anomaly and these coaches are naturally under the control of their Western paymasters. There may well also be generational issues involved.

Most of us would agree that gymnastics has an artistic dimension. The sport itself is known as ‘artistic gymnastics’ almost everywhere, except for in Russian-speaking languages where they call it ‘sportivnaya gymnastika’ or ‘sporting gymnastics’. Problems arise, though, when attempting to define what ‘artistic’ means. The current Code of Points says:

When you are thinking about “artistry” you need to consider also such things as body alignment. The shapes or positions, that a gymnast makes should be pleasing to the eye. The transitions between elements should flow easily and smoothly. The choreography must not only express the music, but enhance the performance. In the same way as a gymnast learns to perform an element with good technique, they must also spend training time on body alignment to improve the ease and fluency of movement throughout the choreography. Movement paths will then become automatic and the toes will be pointed, back straight, shoulders down etc and look very natural.

(FIG, 2010: 52)

The phrase ‘pleasing to the eye’ acknowledges the subjective viewpoint of aesthetics, and reference to shapes and positions is, I would suggest, applicable across all four pieces of apparatus, as well as to men’s gymnastics. There is, however, a hint of emphasis (through the reference to ‘music’) on the floor exercise. Yet artistry is about more than pleasing dance elements. When one considers the staccato nature of many top rated beam exercises, one wonders if specific artistry deductions are ever made on the apparatus. I would also argue that the stiff-legged, stiff-backed work we so often see on bars, whilst fulfilling requirements for good ‘form’ and being technically precise, is actually far from aesthetically pleasing.

Ancient Greek philosophers held that the aesthetic was something that was essentially held apart from the observer; that beauty essentially existed within its own frame of reference. More recently however, aesthetic theory acknowledges the idea that beauty rests ‘in the eye of the beholder’ and encompasses felt quality of experiences (eg Kant’s work as discussed in Broad, 1978). I prefer the second view, and in accepting that I must therefore acknowledge what I consider to be a requirement for a subjective dimension to gymnastics marking that simply doesn’t seem to exist at present.

The FIG seems to be a long way from considering this. Nelli Kim talks of the inadequacies of verbal description when she makes mention of the use of video or imagery in communicating artistry deductions to judges (Crumlish, 2010). However, she then goes on to discuss ‘objectively’ judging artistry. Why? Perhaps a further problem the FIG faces is the need for transparency in gymnastics judging: the idea that all decisions should be verbally accountable by reference to the letter of the law. But, surely, we need to be more confident in our sport’s identity than that. The methodological limitations of the current Code do not allow for the open interpretation of artistry that is fundamentally demanded by the nature of judging aesthetics.

‘Evaluating the aesthetic’ is an oxymoron. The problem the FIG faces in incorporating an aesthetic dimension in its sporting code derives from this basic ambiguity. The WTC’s stated goal of ‘reduc[ing] different interpretations of the rules, therefore provid[ing] a more objective work of the judges (FIG, 2010: 1) is well intentioned, but completely inappropriate in as far as artistry is concerned. One cannot judge aesthetics ‘objectively’. The Code attempts to enumerate artistry from the perspective of form deductions, body alignment and so on but is negatively charged in that it focuses on deduction rather than bonus, only introduces layer upon layer of complexity, rendering the judgement of the artistic increasingly difficult, limiting the interpretation of artistry to the lowest common agreeable definition and relying on the assumption that all deductions should be justifiable by a specific mention in the Code. Thus, slowly, the aesthetic dimension of gymnastics withers on the vine.

References

Broad, C D (1978) Kant: An Introduction Cambridge: CUP

Crumlish, J (2010) 'IG Online Interview: Nellie Kim (Belarus/FIG)' 25th June 2010 available at http://www.intlgymnast.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1660:ig-interview-nellie-kim-fig&catid=3:interviews&Itemid=56 accessed 27th September 2010

FIG (2010) WAG Help Desk 2^nd edition, May 2010 Lausanne: FIG