1988 Olympic Champion Shushunova, a power gymnast with artistry, who scored three tens in the team final in Seoul.
And the loss of that ceiling and of the idea of the mark as a representation of the 'whole' brought with it the possibility of skewing scores in favour of those gymnasts who attempt high levels of difficulty. I'm fairly certain that this was an unintended consequence. It is a consequence that makes it possible for girls with a mediocre level of gymnastics to contend for medals, provided they can bash together a reasonably high scoring regime of content. They don't have to execute well, perform beautifully or be artistic to gain the benefit of their higher D score, they just have to avoid error.
Even so, the principle of judging whole routines has disappeared from the sport only gradually. There has always been an extent to which difficulty quotient and execution deductions have been part of the scoring system. In the 1989 edition of the Code, there is this introductory section:
'It is the responsibility of the judges, based upon the present Code of Points, to grasp in its totality:
- the construction of the exercises as a whole
- the difficulty value of elements and connections
- the flow of the movements
- the synchronization of the music with the floor exercise
while sufficiently considering, aside from the technical perfection of execution, the harmony and strength of expression as well as the aesthetics of presentation'
For me this somehow encapsulate so much of what is missing from the current version of the Code. Today the writers of the Code (who on earth are they? By whose authority do 'they' write the Code? A most undemocratic process if you ask me ...) increasingly attempt to deconstruct artistry, in a misguided and bureaucratic effort to make the process of marking seem 'objective'.
The outcome of this effort is a list of operational examples of artistry. By their very nature, these examples aren't up to their job. Gymnastics artistry is a construct of the aesthetic set within a sporting context. The aesthetic is an intangible concept intricately linked to individual, collective and cultural perceptions. You can't create a tick list of right and wrong. Bureaucracy is bound to fail. What we need is education, and democracy.
And as the Code has become more and more prescriptive, in an attempt to control quality through a bureaucratic process, the judges' freedom to judge whole routines has gradually diminished. As artistry is a quality embedded in sport, and not an add-on or component part, it has particularly suffered as a consequence of the rather wooden, two-dimensional Code, and poor judging.
I note that the whole of the FIG Executive Committee meeting seems to have passed without much comment on President Grandi's vow to improve the marking system. I very much doubt anything of consequence will materialise following his announcement shortly after Nanning, that changes were needed to enhance the value of artistry. But at this stage I did want to revisit a proposal by Dr Clive Palmer for a new framework for judging the aesthetic in men's gymnastics. This includes a suggestion for quality management by education which I think could be useful for the individual judges, even if the Code doesn't change at all; I also don't see why it shouldn't be applied equally to women's gymnastics. I am quoting it here verbatim from his 2003 PhD thesis.
"The whole evaluation system should be rethought to include the range of possible evaluation areas : Technical, Aesthetic and Compositional: all three areas considering various levels of aesthetic form in gymnastics performance.
A technical jury would be analysing, with the applied use of technology, aspects of execution which can be measured in minute detail such as degrees of angles, finishing positions and seconds of hold in each element and combination.
An aesthetic jury would be assessing aspects of skilfulness and technique in a performance when the gymnast may be able to demonstrate his special ability to individualise a routine, this being a synthesis of his aesthetic persona and a balance in routine construction to demonstrate a wide gymnastic vocabulary. The aesthetic jury's assessment of form would be considered in a linear fashion when the aggregation of actions makes up the routine. That is to say they would comsider what elements were performed in relation to the abilities of that gymnast to utilise the space and time on the apparatus available to him.
A composition jury would be assessing the aesthetic of performance from a deeper sense of form as may result from notions of standards, skilfulness and technique in gymnastics. They would be observing qualities of composition, structure and design and theme and variation in performance as may become evident from a choreographic process and 'polishing' a performance;. They would be eager to consider the gymnast's clever use of dynamic rhythm, phrase and use of gesture as these might contribute towards the overall aesthetic effect of performance. Composition Jury members, being educated and in tune with these areas, would be observing how well a gymnast is able to self-express his gymnastic character to meet the demands of demonstrating unity in variety in gymnastics which may become an aesthetic ideal for this jury to assess their view of performance qualities.
To achieve the latter, judges, coaches and gymnasts need to be educated in aesthetic appreciation. Aesthetic awareness should be tutored, not just left to be intuitive. The tutored view will resulted in a reasoned view and it is the status of aesthetic reasons which should be considered valuable for making an evaluation system objective. The reduction of logical reasoning into numbers (under 10.00) may filter out important facets of reasoning, which could contribute to the aesthetic assessment of performances. Also, the sensible contribution towards aesthetic reasoning and final judgements which gymnasts and coaches could make should be integrated as it appears that at present (2003) two thirds of expert opinion who attend at competitions may be overlooked. ...
The FIG should encourage cultural diversity in performance. Competing nations may want to speak the same gymnastic language but in different ways. Further research into the aesthetic of gymnastics needs to be carried out and should include investigation of cultural perception, aesthetic value in the sport and motivational drives to compete and perform at the highest level. This kind of research will inform the educational process and could indicate alternative value systems for ascribing aesthetic value within the sport.
The FIG should not 'throw out the baby with the bath water'. Some of the old rules were good and worthy of being maintained for the compositional features in performance they appeared to bring about. ...
The reasons why practitioners seem to reject artistic criteria and artistic notions of qualities in their sport as subjective (perjorative, 'anything goes' sense) may be because they don't see how they relate to their context. This is by no means a travesty or shortcoming ... as similarly artists who paint, sculpt or dance may not understand gymnastic [sic - read 'aesthetic'] criteria as there is no apparent need for them to do so to improve the quality of their work ... in assessing the quality of performance many practitioners utilise informally what they conceive to be artistic notions of understanding to account for and appreciate pleasing qualities of gymnastics. Therefore, there may be a problem of translating aesthetic emotions and personal aesthetic assessment into a format which can contribute towards formal assessment ... it is a recommendation of this research that the FIG consider further investigation in to the aesthetic understanding of their sport in order to expand their current means of assessment."
Palmer, C (2003) 'A qualitative investigation of aesthetic evaluation in men's artistic gymnastics'
In my view the subject of artistry and it's fixing is becoming far too complicated. I agree that creating so many rules surrounding artistry actually hinders it and not encourage it. People will tick boxes if they have to making routines too similar and reduces individualism.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be two arguments:
1, artistic style gymnast have a ballet style performance. This is argued by people who say " what makes a different style not artistic?
2, artistry should show all different base styles " some people say this is not pure artistry
The key point is that both are right and both are wrong . The solution is so so simple:
1, base artistry IS execution. All routines of any style should have execution requirements - leaps with straight legs stretched feet height and amplitude. Shoulders in dance should be down, chasers and steps should be in rise etc etc etc. Have strict execution deductions within the dance increases artistry
2, from these basic execution rules within dance ANY dance style nit just balletic can be performed with individual preference from judges taking over.
Secondly and easily is how much passion a gymnast places within any style I'd dance.
So to increase artistry in gymnastic again, it is very simple:
1, deduct more heavily for basic execution errors with dance and leaps etc ( this will increase artistry
2, reward or deduct fir passion within any style of dance
What do others think of my view?
Why such a separation between artistry and execution?
Don't we already have this? In this case Biles will still win because she manage to hit the 180 and manages to complete her ugly turn on beam and floor.
Delete"Secondly and easily is how much passion a gymnast places within any style I'd dance." Okay, but how you will define a style? American fans claim their girls do "hip-hop" and "contemporary" but they are not even close or not doing those right.
I have never heard an "American fan" say anything about US WAG doing hiphop or contemporary (do you mean modern?). Biles' piece is a Latin beat. I think you are grossly mischaracterizing "American fans." The problem with this whole debate about artistry is that it conflates artistry with dance technique. Someone can have decent dance technique and still be lacking artistry. Spiridonova, for instance, has decent dance technique, but is not that artistic (watch her FX from worlds). Her lines are lovely and her style is "balletic" (which I argue is just a guise for saying a gymnast is slight and thin). But, there is no real connection to her music. She doesn't seem to interpret it into some kind of persona or character. She doesn't make a connection with the audience or judges. She just goes through her choreography, albeit beautifully, but with no real performance quality. Mykayla Skinner and to some extent Kyla Ross is also lacking artistry in the way I am speaking of it as performance quality and connection to music. You cannot say Simone Biles lacks here in the way I describe artistry, though her basic dance technique could use improvement (shoulder carriage, fluidity in movement, etc.). Mustafina is obviously one of the most artistic gymnasts around. She also has very good dance technique. But, that is not what makes her artistic, just like Simone Biles lack of great dance technique does not make her lacking artistry. I think the problem with all of these articles and comments I read about artistry is that no one defines it, or at least everyone defines it in different ways. I think if you are going to criticize Americans, it is not really a matter of artistry, but of actual dance technique (fully extended toe point, shoulder carriage, core alignment, etc.) Speaking as a fan of gymnastics, who happens to live in the US, but who also cheers for the Romanians, Russians, Brits, Aussies, Canadians, Chinese, and everyone else, I think we really need to move beyond the US vs Soviet style cold war mentality. It's silly. It doesn't even apply anymore, especially when you have the likes of Nastia Liukin and Simone Biles (or watch up and comer Emily Gaskins) coming out of the States and you have little powerhouses Seda Tutkalyan coming out of Russia alongside the balletic Komova. Let's move past the ridiculous and false binaries and have a real discussion about artistry.
DeleteArtistry (for me): performance quality, "wow", connection to audience, connection to music, showmanship
"I have never heard an "American fan" say anything about US WAG doing hiphop or contemporary (do you mean modern?)."
DeleteNope! I'm telling you because I have heard/read it.
"Biles' piece is a Latin beat." Yeah, and it wouldn't kill her to learn some real Latin. I can say that about the Russians as well who can learn from their RG team.
"Someone can have decent dance technique and still be lacking artistry."
"Spiridonova, for instance, has decent dance technique, but is not that artistic (watch her FX from worlds). Her lines are lovely and her style is "balletic" (which I argue is just a guise for saying a gymnast is slight and thin). But, there is no real connection to her music. She doesn't seem to interpret it into some kind of persona or character. She doesn't make a connection with the audience or judges. She just goes through her choreography, albeit beautifully, but with no real performance quality."
Like someone here said artistry can't only be technique/skills and it has to be all what you said but I don't see how can you look at all this when the technique/skills/base, etc. is missing. Like I wouldn't even bother. I wouldn't even consider worth to judge. If we are going to compare all this I would do it between all those gymnasts who have good dancing skills and see who excels in all.
"It doesn't even apply anymore, especially when you have the likes of Nastia Liukin and..." Oh, come on! Biles may move terribly but at least she moves and I will give her that LOL
"you have little powerhouses Seda Tutkalyan coming out of Russia alongside the balletic Komova. Let's move past the ridiculous and false binaries and have a real discussion about artistry."
And yet Seda doesn't seem to lack a base at all. She is young and Russians get better with time and of course choreography is also another issue.
"Artistry (for me): performance quality, "wow", connection to audience, connection to music, showmanship."
Yes, of course... no wonder people like today's terrible musicians. Funny how many of the music from the American team is usually repetitive and loud.
Artistry (for me) starts with the skills (with the company of everything you have said) but it seems that now people rather skip that part.
Careful there. Your dislike of the US is showing. Lol! And we all know that Russians never have loud, "bad" (non-balletic?) music...you know, like a Dirty Dancing medley or Amy Winehouse. Way to engage in a substantive argument!
DeleteAre we going to compare Komova's music with Douglas music? Yes, I know Komova's choice of music wasn't classical for 2012 and neither was her "swan lake" routine from 2011 and that's because her routine wasn't "balletic" in fact many of the Russian routines would be consider "modern" since they are not doing classical ballet out there.
DeleteFunny how you didn't address the "repetitive" part because you know what I'm trying to say with repetitive and again loud or hype.
Sorry I meant to add, it is the increased emphasise on execution in mens gymnastics that actually means now they are far more artistic that the women
ReplyDeleteTotally agree.
ReplyDeleteI always loved Elena Shushunova. Because of their fantastic performances, but always creative and artistic routines, I fell in love with this fantastic sport. She was my childhood idol.
I even blinked when he saw the performances of Shushunova on television.
A while later, it was time to snatch Boguinskaya fans again, with all perfection, art and virtuosity.
I would like to see compulsory exercises and note ten again.
If the perfect 10 system was so perfect, we would not have had to move away from it. Every system has its flaws and the flaw of the perfect 10 system was that it was not rewarding difficulty enough and was leaving too much room to subjectivity. The current code of point has reduced these issues but has its own flaws. I, for one prefer the current system to the old one. It is much more fair. I'm all for rewarding artistry (although in my view, this should be covered in the execution part of the score), but more importantly, I want judges to be more accountable and being able to explain exactly why they have given a score and being able to justify every point given or every deduction inflicted. More transparency is what we need.
ReplyDeleteChanging the code of point won't make the Russians win. Russia still has to hit their routines, which why they are having problems. I guess only benefit of a new code will be that Biles will have to make her routine watchable. You also forget that vault is a part of gymnastics and their is nothing artistic about vault. Vault is about brute strength and this is where the Americans are beating the competition. You have Biles doing a 6.3 vault and getting 5.9. Other countries are doing a 5.8 vault and getting at most 5.1. This is the problem.
ReplyDeleteMay I remind you that Nastia Luikin won the 2008 Olympic AA with a less difficult program. Here is how she won. She completed her routine as perfectly as she could and she stuck 3 out of 4 of her landings. Also Kyla Ross seems to consistently be on podium despite having much less difficulty than many of the top gymnast.
Changing the code won't change the result , Russia has to be more consistent. Also, part of being aesthetically pleasing is not making errors.
Liukin also won during a time when the uneven bars was the highest scoring event. I believe this also helped China win that same year. This is not the case anymore. An Amanar was not necessary in 2008 if you were exceptional on bars. Personally, I think they should keep the current code, but reduce the number of counting elements to 6. Less skills would force gymnasts to be more artistic to some extent - they'd have more time to fill.
DeleteAll gymnastics is about artistry, including vault. The work of such gymnasts as Uchimura, Laschenova and Maroney are a case in point.
DeleteI would even go so far as to say that the whole point of gymnastics is artistry.