I must confess my first reaction to Dvora Meyer's article on gymnastics and artistry, which has appeared in a mainstream US website Deadspin, was exasperation. It's just so flawed and misconceived.
The whole premise of the article is that Shawn Johnson's lack of artistry was attributable to her body type and 'looks' (actually, I rather liked Shawn in her early days, all energy and charm, and relative to many of her team mates wouldn't consider her particularly to lack artistry). There is the strong suggestion throughout that a willowy body type (like Liukin or Khorkina) is necessary to artistry and is favoured by international judges over the more athletic body types of American gymnasts (Meyer's assumption), and a rather clumsy attempt to downplay the importance of artistry to the sport.
But then there is a link to the inimitable 1989 Rites of Spring routine as performed by Olga Strazheva. I should congratulate the author on choosing such a fantastic routine, perhaps the epitome of artistic expression in sport, but Strazheva hardly had a classical line or wispy physique - the artistry was in the composition and expression, and in Strazheva's body alignment which was a result of dance training, not body type. Seems a bit contradictory, really.
The distortion continues when 1996 Olympian Dominique Dawes says :
'In America, we'll score the stocky, athletic builds normally; internationally, there still remains a stigma to that type of body type.'
So Wieber enters the London Olympics carrying the stigma of a stocky, athletic body type??? The more willowy Komova was favoured by judges in Tokyo at last year's World Championships?
The author adds that : 'Dawes's remark illustrates how the evaluation of performance is still entwined with evaluating gymnasts' bodies'
Hang on a minute ... since gymnasts perform gymnastics with their bodies and not their minds, isn't it rather difficult to avoid doing this? Heaven forbid that we should actually mark gymnastics according to how it looks.
We are told that, thankfully, it has become unacceptable to comment on the size and shape of gymnasts' bodies (I agree) but then :
'USA Gymnastics has worked hard to improve the education and nutrition of its athletes, so that contemporary American gymnasts, for the most part, look like very fit and healthy teenagers, not like underfed nymphets.'
Who are these underfed nymphets, I wonder? And how do they feel being thus labelled, on the basis of ... their body type?
A commentary on the author's preferred artistic style follows (she doesn't like Komova or Liukin much), concluding that
'It is next to impossible for judges to evaluate and reward this. Nor should they, especially when the scales seem to be tilted toward one style of artistry—the balletic, elegant type—and a resultant body type.'
I'm really not sure which competition the author has been watching - I wish I had been there!
Artistry, its importance to the sport and its place in the sport's history, is dismissed in two sentences:
'Gymnasts, by training, are not dancers. It's unfair to expect a girl who has excelled at the sport because she is fast and strong and powerful and fearless to also be a ballerina. If she competes with proper technique and clean form, then artistry, while nice to watch, is a bonus for viewers, nothing more.'
We are reminded that :
'Johnson, throughout her career, had few rivals in form and technique. Whether this means she was also artistic is more difficult to assert. Gymnastic artistry is like the old characterization of "obscenity"—you know it when you see it'
It all made me feel a bit sick.
I think the worst of it is, the misrepresentation of America as injured heroes of gymnastics, proposing a sport that has the artistic value of cheerleading as a preferable option to the sport we follow, artistic gymnastics. A sport we all know has been spoiled by countless measures introduced by the FIG which have reduced the value of artistry and made it almost impossible to receive credit for good artistic work. A sport where artistry is categorically NOT defined by body type.
The author cannot really be blamed for her countless misunderstandings and misrepresentations: they are only openly expressed perspectives of the sport that reflect the implicit thinking adopted for many years by the FIG and countless others in the sport. Don't forget Marta Karolyi's recent stance on this.
I could talk about this endlessly but instead I'll ask :
What do you think?
There are quite a few other posts on similar subjects on this blog. I'll provide you with links here to the most recent related reading, in case you are interested :
A qualitative investigation of the aesthic in men's gymnastics
A new framework for marking gymnastics
How the FIG has killed gymnastics
(With muted thanks to Brett Davis, whose Facebook post linked to this article, thus forcing me to read what I would rather have missed.)
 |
| Dvora Meyers thinks that athletic gymnasts like Alexandra Raisman should not be penalised for their lack of artistry. Picture courtesy of Madamejojosamazingtrampoline.blogspot.com |
The whole premise of the article is that Shawn Johnson's lack of artistry was attributable to her body type and 'looks' (actually, I rather liked Shawn in her early days, all energy and charm, and relative to many of her team mates wouldn't consider her particularly to lack artistry). There is the strong suggestion throughout that a willowy body type (like Liukin or Khorkina) is necessary to artistry and is favoured by international judges over the more athletic body types of American gymnasts (Meyer's assumption), and a rather clumsy attempt to downplay the importance of artistry to the sport.
But then there is a link to the inimitable 1989 Rites of Spring routine as performed by Olga Strazheva. I should congratulate the author on choosing such a fantastic routine, perhaps the epitome of artistic expression in sport, but Strazheva hardly had a classical line or wispy physique - the artistry was in the composition and expression, and in Strazheva's body alignment which was a result of dance training, not body type. Seems a bit contradictory, really.
The distortion continues when 1996 Olympian Dominique Dawes says :
'In America, we'll score the stocky, athletic builds normally; internationally, there still remains a stigma to that type of body type.'
So Wieber enters the London Olympics carrying the stigma of a stocky, athletic body type??? The more willowy Komova was favoured by judges in Tokyo at last year's World Championships?
The author adds that : 'Dawes's remark illustrates how the evaluation of performance is still entwined with evaluating gymnasts' bodies'
Hang on a minute ... since gymnasts perform gymnastics with their bodies and not their minds, isn't it rather difficult to avoid doing this? Heaven forbid that we should actually mark gymnastics according to how it looks.
We are told that, thankfully, it has become unacceptable to comment on the size and shape of gymnasts' bodies (I agree) but then :
'USA Gymnastics has worked hard to improve the education and nutrition of its athletes, so that contemporary American gymnasts, for the most part, look like very fit and healthy teenagers, not like underfed nymphets.'
Who are these underfed nymphets, I wonder? And how do they feel being thus labelled, on the basis of ... their body type?
A commentary on the author's preferred artistic style follows (she doesn't like Komova or Liukin much), concluding that
'It is next to impossible for judges to evaluate and reward this. Nor should they, especially when the scales seem to be tilted toward one style of artistry—the balletic, elegant type—and a resultant body type.'
I'm really not sure which competition the author has been watching - I wish I had been there!
Artistry, its importance to the sport and its place in the sport's history, is dismissed in two sentences:
'Gymnasts, by training, are not dancers. It's unfair to expect a girl who has excelled at the sport because she is fast and strong and powerful and fearless to also be a ballerina. If she competes with proper technique and clean form, then artistry, while nice to watch, is a bonus for viewers, nothing more.'
We are reminded that :
'Johnson, throughout her career, had few rivals in form and technique. Whether this means she was also artistic is more difficult to assert. Gymnastic artistry is like the old characterization of "obscenity"—you know it when you see it'
It all made me feel a bit sick.
I think the worst of it is, the misrepresentation of America as injured heroes of gymnastics, proposing a sport that has the artistic value of cheerleading as a preferable option to the sport we follow, artistic gymnastics. A sport we all know has been spoiled by countless measures introduced by the FIG which have reduced the value of artistry and made it almost impossible to receive credit for good artistic work. A sport where artistry is categorically NOT defined by body type.
The author cannot really be blamed for her countless misunderstandings and misrepresentations: they are only openly expressed perspectives of the sport that reflect the implicit thinking adopted for many years by the FIG and countless others in the sport. Don't forget Marta Karolyi's recent stance on this.
I could talk about this endlessly but instead I'll ask :
What do you think?
There are quite a few other posts on similar subjects on this blog. I'll provide you with links here to the most recent related reading, in case you are interested :
A qualitative investigation of the aesthic in men's gymnastics
A new framework for marking gymnastics
How the FIG has killed gymnastics
(With muted thanks to Brett Davis, whose Facebook post linked to this article, thus forcing me to read what I would rather have missed.)
This article really seems to be written by sb who doesn't really know gymnastics (Meyer's article not yours). Yes, not every gymnast has the bodytype to be balletic but wait a minute, since when ballet is the only form of artistry? Let's take a look at one of the most artistic gymnasts of all time, Lilia Podkopayeva. Does her body type reminds you of Liukin's? NO. In a sport where gymnasts like Produnova, Lobaznyuk or more recently Patrascu, Moors and Peng Peng Lee have been complimented for their style while others like Tunney, Jetter or Racea who have the ballerina body type are not considered artistic it's stupid to say that people though Shawn wasn't artistic because of her body type. Shawn (and I love her) isn't considered to be an artistic gymnast because, well, she never was one, and in her 2008 choreography she actually ignored the music. Look at an other example of artistry, Enus Mariani (jr european champion), is she a ballerina? NO but she has style. Is Mai Mukarami a ballerina? NO but she has style. Julie Crocket is not even a natural dancer but she has style too. And in my opinion the reason why people don't think Jordyn's floor routine isn't artistic (in my opinion it is) is that every other routine she ever had was painful to watch. whatever
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with your take on the Deadspin article. There is a reason that it is called "artistic" gymnastics. I also think that it is no coincidence that almost all the routines that the author included in her piece are more than 12 years old. With the current code of points, there is no time to dance anymore.
ReplyDeleteLinking artistry to body type is a lazy argument and doesn't take into account any intangibles like musicality or performance quality that have nothing to do with stature. Lilia Podkopayeva was far from a waif, but was arguably one of most beautiful dancers gymnastics has ever seen and awkward, robotic "dance" didn't keep Carly Patterson from winning the Olympic AA in 2004.
Although Ksenia winning FX at Worlds give me some hope, the FIG needs to reach some level of balance between difficulty and artistry so that gymnastics doesn't totally lose its aesthetics forever!
-Jennifer
It seems there are two main points:
ReplyDelete1. Judges equate a "willowy" body type with artistry, which is a "fallacy". I agree with this actually, except it's more fans than judges. Liukin and Strazheva are good opposing examples. I cringe whenever the Liukin-"ballet" connection is made.
2. Artistry cannot be measured and hence should be ignored. Which is obviously half rubbish ;0
In any case, the article is quite muddled and not worth the twisted knickers.
Thanks Luda. I shall rearrange my underwear. O:-)
DeleteI think the writer should be referring to the gym fans rather than judges. Read the IDIOT comments on youtube, when people comment "What wonderful artistry and elegance this young lady has." No, she has pretty lines but watch that again, where is the artistry? Jordyn Weiber has more artistry with that. Gymnastics fans are the ones that don't know artistry from "pretty"
ReplyDeleteI agree but I believe people can't see Jordyn as artistic because of her previous routines. The one she has now is great, every other she ever had was painful to watch
Deletei checked out the author's personal blog, and found this lovely:
ReplyDelete"I'm the type of gym fan who has always preferred the athletes to the artists. While the two aren't mutually exclusive (many very lovely gymnasts also happened to be excellent competitors with marvelous tricks), the most important quality in a gymnast or any athlete for that matter is hitting under pressure in competition. Of course, unpointed toes are ugly. But you know what's even uglier, even more disruptive to the quality of an exercise? Falling."
clearly, she let her personal preferences get in the way of her writing a more logical, impartial piece.
Just because you don't agree with the article, doesn't mean you have to personally attack Dvora Meyers, who is one of the few people in America who attempts to cover gymnastics with some impartiality and a lot of knowledge. I think you missed her point entirely, but if you'd like to break down her argument and disagree with it, on a point by point basis, fine. But attacking her credibility, her impartiality and any other personal attack is unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteI don't think we really have attacked Dvora personally. And if you take the time to read the materials suggested, you might find there is some break down of her 'argument'.
ReplyDeleteThere is a difference between an attack and a disagreement ... I don't think Dvora, or any writer for that matter, would expect everyone to think she is beyond reproach.
The whole idea of impartiality is flawed anyway when you consider the subject matter :-) ... have you seen my article on Wieber and Raisman?
Let's keep on topic - discuss the issues. If you agree with Dvora, then you break down your arguments and explain why.