Artistry under CoP

What is artistry in FS under CoP? I find most criteria that relate to "artistry" are vague and the PCS is not artistry as a whole. I think even SS should belong to the technical side.

I think there has been no definition of artistry even during 6.0 era. People often say "this skater has better artistry" but what is "artistry" when you don't have deep edge and great speed on ice?

In most cases, do people often see "good upper body movements" as "good artistry"? But having good posture does not mean that skater is a great skater.

Meoima said:

What is artistry in FS under CoP? I find most criteria that relate to "artistry" are vague and the PCS is not artistry as a whole. I think even SS should belong to the technical side.

I think there has been no definition of artistry even during 6.0 era. People often say "this skater has better artistry" but what is "artistry" when you don't have deep edge and great speed on ice?

In most cases, do people often see "good upper body movements" as "good artistry"? But having good posture does not mean that skater is a great skater.

Click to expand...

Well, it is in the eye of the beholder. One famous choreographer-dancer was noted for bad posture and physical imperfections but became famous and respected for his craft by cleverly working around/with his imperfections. His style is a 'must-teach' in dancing school. Ever heard of Bob Fosse? Anyway, I believe, artistry has more to do with right blending of interpretative/presentational skills and technical elements of the art in question.

I spend less time than most looking at feet and edges. In fact I spend very little time doing that. I instead focus on the overall movement of the body and how a skater uses momentum. Not that good edges aren't a great quality but I've always felt the less you feel a need to look at a skaters feet the better they are at conveying a program and not just showing trickery with their feet. This is probably where I'm at most odds with figure CoP. StSeq's by even the best skaters are still horribly restricted and rarely show the artist/skater's true artistic ability.

I sort of feel as though under code of points, a skater is unable to really hold out anything because they don't get points for that. You see so much movement and people are so focused on going from one move to the next that nothing is held. It makes everything predictable and boring because there is no variety of movement. Everything is done FOR THE POINTS and not because it would embody the music. If there's one thing that I've learned from dance, it's that stillness can speak volumes. I also agree with Sam-Skwantch about focusing on the full movement of the body and not just a portion of it. It isn't just about the arms. You can't move your arms without your back and shoulders and your head, and the variety of ways you can manipulate all of that movement is what dance and what artistry is. Artistry has to do with the music; it's the relationship to the music, and how the skater is embodying or portraying the music or the feel. Artistry is not about technique or cleanliness. It is about the feeling and how the music conveys a feeling and how the skater feels that and embodies it and radiates it. It is more complicated than points or calculating rotations. I think PCS is not artistry. The transitions mark is one of the stupidest things I've seen in a long time. You can pack as many unnecessary movements into a program to get the points, but they don't necessarily have a purpose or contribute to the choreography. Sure, if skaters didn't have movements throughout the program it would just become a drill, but that's bad choreography. It's not transitions. It's great if you can put your leg above your head, but that's all it is. Unless you do it with intent it doesn't mean anything. Anyway, that's a lot of different things...hope I didn't rant too much

Sam-Skwantch said:

I spend less time than most looking at feet and edges. ... I've always felt the less you feel a need to look at a skaters feet the better they are at conveying a program and not just showing trickery with their feet.

Click to expand...

samm22 said:

...I also agree with Sam-Skwantch about focusing on the full movement of the body and not just a portion of it. It isn't just about the arms. You can't move your arms without your back and shoulders and your head, and the variety of ways you can manipulate all of that movement is what dance and what artistry is.

Click to expand...

I am not a skater, so I am not completely sure that this is true -- but it seems to me that blade technique, crisp and well-controled edges, effortless variation in speed, and the like must underlie everything else? I would think that if you are entranced by the skater's upper body movement, connection to musical phrasing, etc., without even noticing that he/she has feet -- that would be a symptom that you are watching, well, at least a technical virtuouso if not an artist.

Regarding samm28's point about choreographically useless transitions and step sequences, I have mixed feelings. It is a sport, after all, and the purpose of a sport is to say, "Hey, look, I can do this! -- can you do it better?"

It's exactly the same as not-under-CoP: what a poster wants it to mean to win an argument.

Moria Polonius said:

It's exactly the same as not-under-CoP: what a poster wants it to mean to win an argument.

Click to expand...

Haha this exactly. I sometimes wonder if some of the people who criticize CoP realize that it's not like it was that much better under 6.0......you still had plenty of champion skaters with lacklustre skating skills just like today, and skaters who were better at artistry held up when they fell multiple times....

The technical side has more requirements now, imo that's pretty much the only difference. That and that skaters benefit immensely from the detailed feedback of IJS protocols.

Get rid of PCS, more emphasis/criteria for receiving GOE = problem solved

Artistry is about conveying an interpretation of your music, with an attention to aesthetic quality. It's about seamlessly integrating elements so that your program transcends just being a reel-off of elements. It's about showcasing the intricacies of skating, and the diversity of movement you can do on two blades. There's also a sense of originality and creativity wherein a piece of music isn't just presented but actually performed in a way that is unique and appropriate for that skater.

I think artistry for me is 40% what you do with your body/arms/legs, 50% what you do with your skates, and 10% what you do with your face.

During a skating performance, I'm usually looking at a skater's feet and also their hands (which are particularly critical for picking up nuances in the music and creating forms/space/positions that make a program interesting to watch). Expression and musicality are important, but for me, the ideal figure skater should be able to have a paper bag over their face with the music turned off and you should still get a sense of aesthetics, character, and interpretation.

I think under CoP, there is greater pressure to have intricacy/harder elements and choreography, and while some feels that this is at the expense of artistry, this pushes the sport forward and forces skaters to exhibit greater diversity in their skating. Not to mention, there have been plenty of IJS skates which have been a great balance of artistry and technical. That's the point - it shouldn't be easy to skate a perfect program these days -- skating would be very boring if everyone did clean, easy programs and only focused on artistry (which, let's be honest, is incredibly subjective and prone to judging influences/politics/etc.). If anything IJS is ensuring skaters with difficulty are getting at least some credit instead of top skaters getting held up by de facto 5.8/5.9 for artistic impression regardless of how poorly they skate.

I largely agree with CanadianSkaterGuy. As a matter of fact he stated almost what I was going to say that artistry is about interpretation and presentation. Interpretation should be, at a minimum, disagreeable. In other words, I may disagree with an interpretation but the interpretation has to make sense internally. You cannot just skate nonsense connecting movements and then claim it is an interpretation. Presentation is about quality, fit and finish. It is like the difference between iPhones and, say, Blu smartphones. One may or may not like the design of iPhones, but their quality is undeniable. The same applies to skating. It is about packaging your skating to the highest quality to your ability.

usethis2 said:

I largely agree with CanadianSkaterGuy. As a matter of fact he stated almost what I was going to say that artistry is about interpretation and presentation. Interpretation should be, at a minimum, disagreeable. In other words, I may disagree with an interpretation but the interpretation has to make sense internally. You cannot just skate nonsense connecting movements and then claim it is an interpretation. Presentation is about quality, fit and finish. It is like the difference between iPhones and, say, Blu smartphones. One may or may not like the design of iPhones, but their quality is undeniable. The same applies to skating. It is about packaging your skating to the highest quality to your ability.

Click to expand...

But what is an interpretation that makes sense? for example take Jason's new LP. I see no sense in it. Many of my friends also think the same. But his fans are saying it's a masterpiece. I like Jason very much, but at this moment his SP makes more sense to me than his LP.
The point is what is an interpretation that makes you understand?

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

Artistry is about conveying an interpretation of your music, with an attention to aesthetic quality. It's about seamlessly integrating elements so that your program transcends just being a reel-off of elements. It's about showcasing the intricacies of skating, and the diversity of movement you can do on two blades. There's also a sense of originality and creativity wherein a piece of music isn't just presented but actually performed in a way that is unique and appropriate for that skater.

I think artistry for me is 40% what you do with your body/arms/legs, 50% what you do with your skates, and 10% what you do with your face.

During a skating performance, I'm usually looking at a skater's feet and also their hands (which are particularly critical for picking up nuances in the music and creating forms/space/positions that make a program interesting to watch). Expression and musicality are important, but for me, the ideal figure skater should be able to have a paper bag over their face with the music turned off and you should still get a sense of aesthetics, character, and interpretation.

I think under CoP, there is greater pressure to have intricacy/harder elements and choreography, and while some feels that this is at the expense of artistry, this pushes the sport forward and forces skaters to exhibit greater diversity in their skating. Not to mention, there have been plenty of IJS skates which have been a great balance of artistry and technical. That's the point - it shouldn't be easy to skate a perfect program these days -- skating would be very boring if everyone did clean, easy programs and only focused on artistry (which, let's be honest, is incredibly subjective and prone to judging influences/politics/etc.). If anything IJS is ensuring skaters with difficulty are getting at least some credit instead of top skaters getting held up by de facto 5.8/5.9 for artistic impression regardless of how poorly they skate.

Click to expand...

I hear you. I do think the intention of IJS/COP was to try to make figure skating marking more objective and fair so that it would attract more viewers instead of a subject artsy event with little credibility (Harsh but many thought of "figure skating/skating" as really and artsy fartsy non relevant, non explainable event with no rational for who won. the average person doesn't know what makes a salchow easier than a lutz etc. The perceived unexplainable biases still persist with COP versus 6.0. Sadly in some way while they tried to codify things as to difficult and points it means a skater will no longer necessarily do a choreographic mood or a simpler move ie a simple spiral or spin with no change or whatever because of -the point system. Remember it was just a couple of years ago when we were forced to watch the ugliest spirals just in the name of garnering points, ditto for spins. I saw an old youtube of Brian Orser (Hanyu, Fernandez and Ngyuen's coach). He beautifully put in a single axel but now that would have to be a double or triple because it is all about points. I guesa IJS has broken down artistry in PCS including choreography and performance. PCS really or arguably are not all about artistry they literally are component scores ie for skating skills and transitions. That arguably is more technical but the words program component scores suggest these are skills for the entire program versus each element that make up tes. IN PCS there are arguably the "artistry" marks or components

You cannot have a fully principled definition "making sense," because that is impossible. I think we have to acknowledge that much, but also assume that skaters prepare their skating in order to appeal to wide audience. Once we agree on that, there are certain common grounds of proper interpretation, such as skater's attempt at interpretation, and timing of the movements to the music. An empty choreography is out, no matter what the skater's claim is. Repeating same easy movements/expressions over and over again throughout the ups and downs of music can also be properly regarded as bad or non-existing interpretation.

Cannot speak for Jason's program for I have not seen it but I will take a look when I get a chance.

Meoima said:

What is artistry in FS under CoP? I find most criteria that relate to "artistry" are vague and the PCS is not artistry as a whole. I think even SS should belong to the technical side.

I think there has been no definition of artistry even during 6.0 era. People often say "this skater has better artistry" but what is "artistry" when you don't have deep edge and great speed on ice?

In most cases, do people often see "good upper body movements" as "good artistry"? But having good posture does not mean that skater is a great skater.

Click to expand...

There is no artistry under CoP. CoP is about doing many difficult moves as quickly as possible, whether they fit the music or not. Every now and then someone manages to come up with an artful program that can pile of points but it's so rare it's not really worth waiting for anymore.

RobinA said:

There is no artistry under CoP. CoP is about doing many difficult moves as quickly as possible, whether they fit the music or not. Every now and then someone manages to come up with an artful program that can pile of points but it's so rare it's not really worth waiting for anymore.

Click to expand...

And the music today is crap too...

Skater Boy said:

I hear you. I do think the intention of IJS/COP was to try to make figure skating marking more objective and fair so that it would attract more viewers instead of a subject artsy event with little credibility (Harsh but many thought of "figure skating/skating" as really and artsy fartsy non relevant, non explainable event with no rational for who won. the average person doesn't know what makes a salchow easier than a lutz etc. The perceived unexplainable biases still persist with COP versus 6.0. Sadly in some way while they tried to codify things as to difficult and points it means a skater will no longer necessarily do a choreographic mood or a simpler move ie a simple spiral or spin with no change or whatever because of -the point system. Remember it was just a couple of years ago when we were forced to watch the ugliest spirals just in the name of garnering points, ditto for spins. I saw an old youtube of Brian Orser (Hanyu, Fernandez and Ngyuen's coach). He beautifully put in a single axel but now that would have to be a double or triple because it is all about points. I guesa IJS has broken down artistry in PCS including choreography and performance. PCS really or arguably are not all about artistry they literally are component scores ie for skating skills and transitions. That arguably is more technical but the words program component scores suggest these are skills for the entire program versus each element that make up tes. IN PCS there are arguably the "artistry" marks or components

Click to expand...

I see what you're saying but now choreographic footwork sequences can have elements of 2-rotations or less and not have them counted as jumping passes! Hopefully we'll see some tano doubles or interesting axels thrown in there. Imagine a ChSp1 with an Ina Bauer going into a huge tano single axel and a back spiral on the axel landing.

Point being over time I think the ISU will start to implement more ways for artistry to be incorporated, but it's nice that for now there's a tangible method of differentiating the difficulty skaters did. Everyone knows that a top-tier skater who does 6 triples and 1 fall will get a -0.1 deducted from their technical mark, and a second-tier skater would lose -0.2 or -0.3 for the same jump.

That still hasn't changed with CoP, since judges manipulate the GOE/PCS and tech panels just make calls on a whim.

Misha Ge scoring 10 points higher in his SP for the exact same performance between Cup of China and Cup of Russia is such a great red flag to wave around. The points and results will end up being largely what the establishment wants them to be, until the judging itself gets better.

I loved samm22's post! "Artistry" can be rewarded in CoP, it just isn't very much. The problem of inconsistent judging was there in 6.0 as well, with someone like Slutskaya getting 5.8's/5.9's on the second mark just for skating decently, although the difference in 6.0 is that the potential for greatness (such as a top Michelle Kwan performance) still existed and WOULD beat Slutskaya in the event that it happened. These days there is less of a concrete reward for an amazing program and performance, so people don't focus on it as much. I mean, in 6.0 there wasn't even a guarantee of the reward either, but people were actively creative and really put their souls into in the performance in hopes of being rewarded. The overall technical ability of the skaters has improved with CoP, but those abilities aren't being funneled into the correct package and in other ways they are being held back.

There needs to be reinforcement and allowance of competitors being rewarded for creating something beautiful and musical and expressive, not just "we're going to do a step here before the jump to make it more difficult, a short spiral here to show it as a transition, turns out of this jump to show a difficult exit, these spin positions because they are the easiest way to get max levels, and all of this random movement in the footwork sequence because we need to get the max level." The footwork sequences are one of the biggest barriers right now. Even when people can make them look good, they still usually aren't particularly great choreography/interpretation on an objective scale, because they take up too much time to express a particular idea/feeling and it's almost impossible to express the music entirely throughout while adhering to such laborious requirements of movement. They also look too much the same since too many of the same turns are required.

Blades of Passion said:

That still hasn't changed with CoP, since judges manipulate the GOE/PCS and tech panels just make calls on a whim.

Misha Ge scoring 10 points higher in his SP for the exact same performance between Cup of China and Cup of Russia is such a great red flag to wave around. The points and results will end up being largely what the establishment wants them to be, until the judging itself gets better.

I loved samm22's post! "Artistry" can be rewarded in CoP, it just isn't very much. The problem of inconsistent judging was there in 6.0 as well, with someone like Slutskaya getting 5.8's/5.9's on the second mark just for skating decently, although the difference in 6.0 is that the potential for greatness (such as a top Michelle Kwan performance) still existed and WOULD beat Slutskaya in the event that it happened. These days there is less of a concrete reward for an amazing program and performance, so people don't focus on it as much. I mean, in 6.0 there wasn't even a guarantee of the reward either, but people were actively creative and really put their souls into in the performance in hopes of being rewarded. The overall technical ability of the skaters has improved with CoP, but those abilities aren't being funneled into the correct package and in other ways they are being held back.

Click to expand...

Agreed. 6.0 was all about placements and using the 6.0 scale to rank skaters (ordinals) based on that. If a top skater had a poor performance, the artistic mark would be raised higher to make up for -0.1 or 0.2, or another skater wouldn't be given marks as high.

Well, that's not necessarily what would happen, but yes it was a possibility...and it happens just as much with CoP. The usage of "the second mark" has always been problematic but, again, at least in the 6.0 system judges could directly reward an amazing performance (or at least the best performance of the competition) and absolutely place it ahead if they think it was deserved. Because of this, the skating itself usually reflected the need to give a great performance.

Now we have Patrick Chan winning 2013 Worlds because the judges don't know how to use the numbers and/or are too afraid of marking outside a corridor. It's not a flaw in the idea of CoP itself, but rather a mistake in ISU rules and the judges themselves. In the old days they would have given Chan an average of 5.6 for tech and 5.8 for presentation and Dennis Ten 5.8 on tech and a mix of 5.7/5.8 on presentation and Ten would have won. There would have been no doubt. To do the same thing in CoP requires a much better understanding of math, but the judges mostly don't understand how it works. We just see a general notion of GOE/PCS, largely dictated by reputation and momentum, and thus skaters don't focus as much on the performance itself because that's no longer what is primarily being rewarded.

I think under COP that artistry is DEAD. It has seriously taken an unfortunate toll on my enjoyment of skating. How I define artistry, is probably what Uncle Dick once said. Don't just skate to the music that is there, skate to what ISN'T there. It's a thing called nuance and musicality. I mean, Kwiatkowski can go clean, and you're left going "So what?". Blech. I am not a YunaBomber by any stretch but I remember her Olympic performance. I cannot remember even one thing about Sotnikova's program or music. There isn't any artistry awarded in skating anymore. Mao Asada is a gem, and so was that other Japanese skater who missed out on the Oly's because the powers that be insisted that Miki Ando go, hell or high water. Yukari Nakano. What a disgrace she didn't have her Olympic moment. It's hard staying a fan of skating, if you have any sense of music, dance or just good taste.