There is a really good comment on my post 'Maybe it's the end'. It is from Cami, and I didn't want it to remain relatively hidden at the bottom of the post as it is full of ideas for discussion. Thank you, Cami ...
Cami says -
'You make excellent points, about how the identity of artistic gymnastics is changing. that’s the nature of sport though. i feel artistic gymnastics is still unique from any other branch because it is gymnast and apparatus, and nothing else. they are artists with their own bodies (no balls/hoops/or partners). a gymnast must be entirely focused on their physical, emotional, and mental self-awareness.
but if you are to give a gymnast a numerical score, there must be objectivity. in hockey, soccer - all goals are worth the same regardless of how much style they have. in basketball, “easy” shots are 2 points and “hard” shots are 3, regardless of whether they’re jumpshots or layups, half-court or right at the 3point line.
Gymnastics has tried to mimic this with the dichotomous d- and e-scores. but ultimately we cannot be like that because our athletes don’t just complete, they perform. as an american, I argue that Simone Biles is artistic because her gymnastics performance is a reflection of her, like painting reflects its painter or a composition reflects its composer. you see it in the way she quirks her hips or throws her shoulders back or directs her line of vision, not just in her flips and jumps. It’s what makes her difficult gymnastics different than say, Aly Raisman’s difficult gymnastics; it’s a difference not just in toe-point and leap-extension but in the ability to draw people in. I feel Aly’s lack of artistry gave her zero cushion in her scores today (especially on BB…), where as oppositely her unique big tricks gave her cushion room in 2012.
my current favorite american floor routine actually belongs to Bailie Key, one of our non-travelling alternates to worlds. in 2015 she’s struggled some with skills due to a growth spurt, but her floor artistry is loads better. I can tell that she has dedicated a lot of time into how she can best use her body and her strengths to tell the story of her routine. if you haven’t seen it yet, there are several online videos of her on FX this past summer, and I’d love to know your opinion. another american i’d like to know your opinion of is Brenna Dowell (she competed on floor today without her music), who just finished the 2014-2015 year competing on the american university level. it’s a whole different environment for gymnasts, with lower difficulty but many more contests/performances. she’s back on the elite stage now with nothing to lose, and I’d love an outsider’s before/after opinion.
I won't pretend to know as much about gymnasts from countries other than my own, but some of my recent favorites are vika komova (i thought for sure she was going to win AA in 2012, watching rotation by rotation...), jessica lopez of VEN, several JPN gymnasts, and i'm totally in love with this new crop of NED ladies. if russia and romania represent the "old guard" of artistry, i tend to prefer romania - no offense to you - simply because they seem to have more variety, at least among the girls chosen for worlds/olympics/etc. this is just my opinion watching the competitions, the finalized versions of each routine, not knowing their stories or how they individually approach gymnastics.'
I would just like to add my own take to this -
Objectivity is not the same as fairness. Objectivity is a philosophical stance, a way of seeing the world that involves measurement and calculation. Fairness is a state of making judgements that are even-handed and free of bias.
It is important to understand objectivity if we want to adopt it in any methodology. I am simplifying here but want to try to make this clear. Objectivity takes the position of viewing the world from a distance, as if individual phenomena can be observed as a separate entity from other phenomena and from the person doing the observation. It assumes that phenomena can be MEASURED and CALCULATED. Objectivity seeks to identify the phenomenon in detail according to existing knowledge and is dependent on a set of assumptions we call a 'paradigm'. These assumptions are critical because they are the basis of the objective view of the world and if they are off, can lead to continued misconceptions and a skewing of the vision and measurements. So for example if our paradigm (assumptions) is that the world is flat and we want to calculate how to travel from one side of the world to another, we would have to take into account the possibility that at some point we would fall off the edge of the world. If we assume (it is our paradigm) that the world is round, then we can calculate our distance in a straight continuous line.
Since the early 1990s the FIG has repeatedly emphasised their opinion about the importance of objectivity to fair judging, but WITHOUT STATING THE ASSUMPTIONS or making clear its world view/paradigm of gymnastics. A fair description of what was the intended meaning of 'artistry' appeared in the Code of Points as recently as 1989 but at some point was removed without discussion or debate and was never replaced with anything else. There has never, to my knowledge, been a clear statement of what the FIG believe the sport is, nor of the assumptions behind the decision to pursue a stance of objectivity in the marking. I believe that the FIG blithely uses the term 'objectivity' as a synonym for 'fairness' without really considering the implications, or operationalising the Code in a way that is consistent with its world view, assumptions or paradigm of gymnastics. I also think they would find it very hard to articulate their paradigm without conducting some significant research amongst their members or at the very least undertaking a thorough literature review.
As you mention, gymnastics' identity has always been fraught with creative tension and it changes all the time - that is why we have so many different forms and sub-forms of the sport. At present though, women's artistic gymnastics is being torn apart in various ways by the many forces to which it is subjected (too much to write now but there are whole fields of thought involved and while this era isn't yet provoking a rich vein of literature, hopefully it will soon and not just me).
At the end of the day, are people happy with the way the sport looks? Is the competitive field deep and rich and diverse? (I know it is internationally, but I mean in terms of the gymnastics - look at the floor final for a start.) I understand why fans are delighted to see the artistic presentation of the NED and BEL teams - they are making strides forward - but get real - they finished in 8th and 11th respectively as teams - this is hardly likely to transform the sport.
Finally, you make a fair point about the relative measurability of hockey and football compared to gymnastics and the idea that the aesthetic doesn't really count there. The big question is - do we think the aesthetic counts in gymnastics at all? Your point therefore is really about deciding our chosen paradigm of gymnastics. If we don't want it to be artistic, it doesn't have to be ... But then isn't that another sport? Do we want acrobatic gymnastics to replace artistic gymnastics at the Olympics? We really have to think about this!
I really enjoy the debate around artistry in WAG but please stop calling it "acrobatic gymnastic" (as a reference to the massive tumbling, I understand). Acrobatic gymnastics already exists and is indeed artistic in my opinion. In this discipline, there is an emphasis on the music choice, the correlation with the movements, the originlaity and variety of the choreos, ...
ReplyDeleteAs a former acrobatic gymnast I find it a bit "insulting" (the word is too harsh but I can't think of another). I hope you will take this in account and know that this message is not meant to insult you or your work of course.
Thanks for blogging about artistry and many other subjects!
Hi Clemence, when I talk of 'acrobatic gymnastics' here, I am referring to the sport of acrobatic gymnastics which already exists, and in which you already participate, I am just pointing out that if people want a sport that purely focuses on the measurable aspects, then this already exists and is a different sport. Hope this clears things up a little but for you.
DeleteOkay! I really didn't understood it this way. Sorry for the misunderstanding!
DeleteSo, about thinking of replacing artistic gymnastics by acrobatic gymnastics in the Olympics : I feel like this is not going to happen before a long time. Acrobatics had its biggest chance to be introduced in the Olympics in London because GB is really great in this sport. Plus, they won the "Great Britain has talent" show which gave a boost to the popularity of the sport. But still, there is not a big pool of gymnast and many countries don't practice it at all (many south american countries, many african countries,...) So I don't see any change about this soon. We also have to take in account the popularity of WAG (yes, money, politics and everything) : it is quite unlikely to be supressed of the Olympics. Even with all the artistry debate nowadays, I wouldn't want a replacement. Both sports are unic and deserve to be in the Olympics imo.
What I do think is that the FIG should get inspired by the acrobatic gymnastics code concerning artistry. Sure it is very codified and all but at least we get a show at each acro competition! And there is a real artistry note visible! I think this point is very important because at the moment it's mixed with the E score and that can get confusing ("how is her E score so low??" "Wow, her E score was so inflated"...)
And finally, on the measurable aspects : yes artistry is more codified in this sport but still not exactly measurable and as a consequence it is still subjective. Just a little less.
First of all, good job Russia you are the best
ReplyDeleteI wanna express my disappoint as the erosion of artistry is obvious for instance looking at the routines especially on FX it’s a sheer dominance of power tumbling and stamina!! I’ve enjoyed some parts in some routines though.
The new tide of alternation of Artistry in favors of power has transformed and condensed any routine into STUCK LANDINGS, SOLID ROUTINE, WOBLES, CHECKS, STEPS, FALLs and we now see what I call “Fast-to-forget Gymnastics” ( it’s like the fast food, you taste it but it’s unhealthy) as the true artistic routine leaves a trace in your memory.
So what I hope from the Russians is to stick with their traditional one and not capitulating to that tide, I know that they will be antithesis to FIG’s code of points and judges but that is their role to preserve that kind of artistry from that temporary (at least I hope so) insanity that turned Artistic Gymnastics to Acrobatic Gymnastics…
John
Artistry is and always will be subjective no matter how people describe it. If gymnastics is to forever conform to the balletic artistic expression then you lose the progression that gymnastics must undergo to be considered a real sport like many others where numbers matter.
ReplyDeleteWhat people fails to consider are the different kinds of artistic dance available in today's culture. The Americans, British, and numerous nations follow the same format where urban dance is the primary form. If they were to stick to the format with that of the Russians then we are left with repetitive and boring repertoire, and most agree that it gets boring. I am not saying that the Russian form is boring, but if everyone were to perform the same way they do it will get boring.
Most on here complain about the difficulty destroying the artistic side of gymnastics, and that is absurd! Look at Simone Biles, her execution is perfect. I would rather see her perfect execution rather than the cross legs that most Russians are known to do. People are quick to look at the past as the perfect example of what gymnastics should be, but have you really watched and analyze their routines to the standard that we are used to today? Their dancing is nothing but short of mediocre; chicken dance for example is so rampant among the Europeans back in the 80s and 90s, yet people fail to ignore them.
Complaints about the new code is getting annoying. Its been shown that the Romanians and the Russians have benefited in the past with these codes given medals they have gained, but once other nations start to catch up and get ahead of them people are up and arms about how it is ruining the gymnastics. The reason I say this is that it is proven that the code is working. Why? Because gymnastics is now considered to be on top tier alongside swimming and track at the Olympics. Other nations are starting to come out where new talents never before seen like Lieke Wevers (my favorite). What you are seeing is the progression of Gymnastics. All ATHLETES not NATIONS have different artistic form. When you open your eyes, and become less bias towards the Russians then you will see that routines performed by the British, Swedish, Americans, and the Italians are just artistic as the Russian.
Now tell me where Mustafina's artistry is on the floor with her stop and pose dance and doesn't even connect with the music. Everyone knows she's a boring performer. Afanesyeva on the other, perfect.
Artistry is subjective but subjective sports can still be judged fairly. It is a question of finding the appropriate methodology.
DeleteI do appreciate your points and detailed comments. It is true that this is a blog about Russian gymnastics. But nowhere on this or the preceding post do I suggest that there is any particular nation who is more artistic than the other - this is not the point of the post and you have misunderstood.
I do say that the sport has been Americanised - as the dominant culture in sport at present is North American. America is the centre of the drive to globalise sport which has progressively led to changes in gymnastics. (Its influence is visible in a broader way in the media and world politics.) Since the abolition of compulsories so much of the gymnasts' work has become prescribed by the Code, all concentrated in the optional routines, that there is little freedom for the gymnasts to express themselves any more. On floor, there is little time or energy for anyone (including Afanasyeva) to do much more than wave their arms creatively. Beam routines are staccato and lack variety in rhythm, bars tend to be repetitive. Vault is exciting and spectacular but progress has been slow.
I have never suggested that ballet is the only form of 'dance' that is artistic, nor do I consider dance to be the only artistic or aesthetic element in gymnastics. On the other hand, Simone's explosive and flighty leaps could be considered to be balletic, flamboyant and exciting, like Mukhamedov. And they would be even more spectacular if she had better carriage and leg line - something she could learn through ballet.
There is definitely scope for a discussion of what 'difficulty' means in gymnastics. We seem to have been hoodwinked into considering it quantity of content rather than the rich complexity and variety of mood, flight and shapes that once made the sport so attractive.
In general, gymnastics has been considered to be a construct comprising complexity, economy of line and the manner in which the gymnast overcomes gravity. Not one of these ideas is embraced by the idea of adding up element values and deducting for errors (only those errors described in an exhaustive and excessively detailed list provided by the Technical Committees). I would suggest that we need to redefine and clarify if we are to move forward.
I have been watching gymnastics for over forty years. I do believe that gymnastics will get better again, and probably quite soon. I do not think it has ever been boring and the only times my eyes have ever closed during one of the many gymnastics competitions I have attended have been during the breaks. I do believe that there is a generational and cultural gap in the understanding of what is good gymnastics but I do not think that this needs to suggest that people are closing their eyes. There is a general consensus amongst many of us oldies that women's gymnastics has lost its spark recently and that opinion has some validity. It doesn't have to be the same; change can be exciting. Gymnastics can be inclusive of different tastes without dumbing down.
Finally, you accuse me of bias and I would say to that - yes, please read the many posts where I have discussed my assumptions and sources of bias, and read the title of the blog. But where are the FIG's statements of their assumptions and sources of bias! What biasses do we all bring to our judgements, evaluations and opinions? What are yours, and where do they come from?
Finally, your post emanates from an assumption that we need to discuss things in a my gang versus your gang kind of way. These two posts do not even begin to address this as an angle on the subject, so this is you bringing your bias to the discussion. Let's not get stuck in such a narrow way of thinking.
Totally misunderstood. This is not about having or not a CoP that benefits this one or another country, and it's not about promoting or rejecting the balletic style aside other styles. This is about disscussing the vision, priorities and principles the sport has now and from now on and the evaluating system designed from that. Of course the traditional style has been part of that priorities in the past and it's unavoidable to bring it into disscussion.
DeleteI am not in any way invalidating your claims, but giving my own opinion. There’s a reason why I read your blog; I enjoy Russian style as much as any other person. I have an affinity towards Chinese gymnastics style where Russian and Americans comes second. But it is sometimes hard to understand how Americans are dismissed/frowned upon based solely on their aesthetics, which can be seen in the comments section of your blog. You may not say it in exact manner, but you are in retrospect alluding to it, and that is where my argument/opinion lies.
Delete“Since the abolition of compulsories so much of the gymnasts' work has become prescribed by the Code, all concentrated in the optional routines, that there is little freedom for the gymnasts to express themselves any more.”
It is my understanding that compulsory in gymnastics is a routine that every gymnast must perform in addition to the optional category. This in my opinion dismisses the very basic part of your argument because it prevents any form of freedom and individuality, because what you see is one routine done over and over. It is (compulsory) by definition repetition, which inhibits progress.
“On floor, there is little time or energy for anyone (including Afanasyeva) to do much more than wave their arms creatively. “ Actually I disagree. Afanasyeva epitomizes an amazing floor routine (2012) because she captivates the audience, hence personifying artistry with difficulty. If she hits there’s no doubt in my mind that she would’ve medalled in London.
“Beam routines are staccato and lack variety in rhythm, bars tend to be repetitive.” Here is where you assert/allude to that repetitiveness lacks imagination, whereby making a routine boring. That is why the code is perfect in its implementation. The code brings about connection values where moves become more than just performing a skills, but with an additional connection it becomes something else. This is why I love Chinese gymnasts. They have created some of the most spectacular skills both on beam and bars. What we have today are skill progressions started by the Chinese, and everyone are adding skills on top of them to create more varied routines.
“Simone's explosive and flighty leaps could be considered to be balletic, flamboyant and exciting, like Mukhamedov. And they would be even more spectacular if she had better carriage and leg line - something she could learn through ballet.” Biles is on a league of her own. There is no way she can become balletic given her body structure. She is muscular in form, which differs greatly from the slender body needed to be balletic. Where she shines is through power and her exceptional dance routine that flows and synchronizes with the music.
“I have been watching gymnastics for over forty years. I do believe that gymnastics will get better again. I do believe that there is a generational and cultural gap in the understanding of what is good gymnastics but I do not think that this needs to suggest that people are closing their eyes. There is a general consensus amongst many of us oldies that women's gymnastics has lost its spark recently and that opinion has some validity. It doesn't have to be the same; change can be exciting. Gymnastics can be inclusive of different tastes without dumbing down.” Its been getting better. A lot more talents are entering the sports. The code has given more countries and athletes a chance to shine. Like I said before, Gymnastics is considered now to be a top tier sports at the Olympics, rivaling that of track/field, and swimming. That’s the beauty of the code. The beauty of Gymnastics is seen through the various styles of each gymnast. Although I am partial to the accuracy in movement of the Chinese, I can easily admire those of other countries. There is a cultural and generational gap in gymnastics. The first Olympics I ever watched was Barcelona, and I believe gymnastics have made great progress since then. It never lost its sparks, in fact, with the new skills and difficulty it captures the very essence of excitement, bringing more audience to the sports. It makes the audience want to watch more. I have watched more routines from the last decade from youtube than I have watched routines from the 80s and early 90s where routines are clearly boring, with the exception of the close bars which I think should be another apparatus on top of the bars we have today.
Delete“Finally, you accuse me of bias and I would say to that - yes, please read the many posts where I have discussed my assumptions and sources of bias, and read the title of the blog. But where are the FIG's statements of their assumptions and sources of bias! What biasses do we all bring to our judgements, evaluations and opinions? What are yours, and where do they come from?” I have to admit my bias towards the Chinese gymnasts. Even with their mistakes I think they are the team to get the least credit. They have continued to invent new skills which makes gymnastics exciting. Even if they make mistakes I can surely say I am a fan, because what they are doing is progress for the sports. The Americans is a powerhouse and have precision that other countries lacks.
You haven't really said anything here that pertains to the topic.
DeleteBallet is not about body type - see the video posted earlier today.
Very much interested in the debate on this blog. I've been watching the warm-ups on youtube and after watching all of the American girls on beam and then Komova and Afanasyeva the difference in extension, line and elevation is obvious. Only problem is Komova fell off! The Americans rarely fall off the beam. Kyla Ross, is I think a gymnast in the classical style but she is not at Glasgow.
ReplyDeleteThese debates rage in ballet, too. I saw Sylvie Guillem's debut in this country and the critics called her leg extensions vulgar and showy. Now that she has just retired at 50 I see those same critics calling her a great artist.
For me Viktoria komova in 2012 and the current Dutch gymnasts are the ones that I see sparks of the old glory days when artistry was the main point in routines.
ReplyDeleteFor me, artistic gymanstic (as well as dance) has to do a lot with design figures in the space. So, in order to that specific figure be clear and pleasent to the spectator, must be totally define (there is where the extensions and point feets helps a lot). It should be easy to know the complete trajectory of the step (wherever tumb, lips or jump) and that it´s what I feel like a nice and sharp execution. Thats why I just can not like of gymnast as Aly Raisman; for instance, when she does a series of jumps in floor I can´t hardly tell exactly what she do. I saw just a hot mess of arms and rebounce. In the opposite side, Simone Biles is really clean. For me, cleaness and amplitude should be regarded as well as dificult and that will improve actual WAG. About the choreography, I´m whit those that think that is totally loose. Are few the routines that really work with the music. And this has nothing to do with ballet. For example, Fragappanne (GRB) 2013´s floor routine has a really insipiration on break dance and I find it really nice to watch (even when she is not a clean gymnast). This year I´m in love with Ethydora (NED) choreography.
ReplyDelete"And this has nothing to do with ballet. For example, Fragappanne (GRB) 2013´s floor routine has a really insipiration on break dance..." No, that wasn't near break dance or hiphop or popping. If it was then it was mediocre because she couldn't even do basic movements with her arms that even Afan and other Russians could have done. I suggest you to check some videos on YT about ballet dancers doing other type of dance because that shows how complete ballet can be when it comes to body movement.
DeleteThe Americans keep getting bigger. Just look at Raisman. She is a mass of muscles and power but lacks control. This is what gymnastics has become. Body building literally. I wouldn't even call it acrobatic gymnastics because even that has more grace now than artistic gymnastics.
ReplyDeleteIt's her style, the question is the opportunity for choreografic gymnasts and not the explosive gymasts suppression.
DeleteQueen Elizabeth, after the past few posts, I am curious of what your opinion is then on the role of expression in artistry? There is as you say, the technical aspect combined with the aesthetic that are both combined masterfully into art. A painter can paint a technically perfect painting of a flower, be aesthetically pleasing, but if there is no soul or meaning behind the work, is it still good art? Isn't expression one of the core principles of art?
ReplyDeleteExpression is integral and vital to artistry.
Delete