Are Skaters really Artists ? (Long)
P. D. Goldberg
After reading and participating in several threads recently regarding skaters/Artistry &
Artists, I started wondering if perhaps the terms artists and artistry are being misused
within the context of skating.
Here's why, it seems to me that most forms of art (music, painting, sculpture etal,
dance) have the following items in common, but skating (in most cases) does not. Note
in many cases there is some overlap from one item to another..so bear with me.
1. Permanent vs. Transitory:
Music exists in a permanent medium - the composition is written down and is "set in
stone" by the composer. Painting, sculpture etc. obviously exist in the exact form in
which they were created. Dance again exists in a set of steps (ie choreography) made
specifically for the use with a single piece of music. In this case, skating bears the
closest resembalance to dance, in that it to is a series of steps set to a specific
piece of music. But,as we know all too well, music is often (too too much) reused in
skating, but it is considered at best bad manners to re-use another person's
choreography. So that choreography is used only for that program.
2. The original can be seen or has the ability to be reproduced by others
Hard art can be reproduced in many forms (posters, lithographs even postcards) which
allows is to be seen and appreciated by many. Music can be played (and indeed is meant
to be played) by many different people. Dance cheorography is often danced by several
different dancers both over the course of years and within the same productions by
understudies etc. As with the reproduction of music- dancers and musicians must learn
to execute the composers notes or steps. They (for the most part) are not altered for
the musician or dancer. So we are able to see or hear a composition exactly the way it
was composed or a ballet exactly the way in which it was cheorographed. That is not to
say that each performer does not imbue it with their own personality or interpretation.
But those differences are the intangible which makes watching different performers so
interesting. They do not fundamentally change the work itself.
On the other hand, a skating program exists only for one skater and generally only for a
relatively short period of time. For obvious reasons many skaters can not perform
programs that they did earlier in their careers due to physical limitations and as noted
above it would be unthinkable that another skater would try to duplicate their program.
(Gosh, they get pilloried enough just for picking music that another skater *may* be
identified with...and yes I do it too.). So as an example, we will not see Dan
Hollendar skating to Scott Hamilton's 1984 Olympic program or Nicole Bobek reproducing a
Kristi Y. program. Indeed we often critique skaters or cheorographers for reuseing
moves or sequences either for the same skaters or differenct skaters. Also, not all
skaters are of the same style so in some ways it would be like comparing Gene Kelly &
Fred Astaire..both great dancers, but totally different styles. Indeed one of the
main problems in really trying to compare skaters of different era's is inability to
directly compare the two skaters if one of them did not skate during the video era. You
can look at two paintings or two ballets or listen to two different composers and make
judgements. Also, due to the nature of skating, it often times has obviously flaws
(falls, trips, bad positions) which effect the program. While it is not unheard of for
a dancer to fall, it is very rare in professional level perfomances for that to happen
or for an Orchestra to miss notes etc.
3. Orignator v. Executer & ability to compare execution
In the cases of music & dance the composer/ choreographer creates the music or the
steps. The artist obviously creates the painting etc. The skater (most times) does not
create the program. The execute the program which has been created for them. Now many
skaters do a wonderful job at this and some are so naturally gifted that it appears as
if *they* are simply interpreting the music. But in reality they are very carefully
executing a designed series of steps. This really hit me recently, I was re-watching
Carment on Ice along with a prequel "making of" thingie. Anyway, they were showing
Sandra Bezic working with Katerina Witt on a particular series of gestures for sort of a
toss of the head and a flip of the skirt. They showed them working on it over and over.
Then when you see it in the production, it looked totally natural to the point that you
would think that it just happened. But of course it was very carefully choreographed.
So in a (very big) nutshell my contension is that if if isn't permanent, if the original
can't be seen or reproduced by others and the person in question is only an executer not
an originator....they may be great but the may not really deserve to be artists.
I welcome your imput..thanks for reading.
Pat
Revjoelle
Pat:
>So in a (very big) nutshell my contension is that if if isn't permanent,
if the original
can't be seen or reproduced by others and the person in question is only
an executer not
an originator....they may be great but the may not really deserve to be
artists.
>I welcome your imput..thanks for reading.
Oh my. I thought I didn't know what art was before this. Now I KNOW I
have no idea what art is. :-(
Joelle
"I feel 100% confident that I can overcome this disease and be
back on the ice within a few months" - Scott Hamilton
Mary E Tyler
too long to quote...
you missed something. skating is expression. and as a former skater, i
can tell you that the manner in which the moves are performed and the
feeling that goes into them is artistic. no, it is not "great art," just
like "pour some sugar on me" (def leppard) is not great music (not like
beethoven anyway). but it is art.
perhaps i have a more open definition. an artist creates beauty (or some
other emotion or soemthing). if you more your arm with grace. it is art.
and you are an artist.
i have questions for you. was music art before notation was developed?
is a statue art if you only hear about it? was dance art when the second
person learned how to do it? do any 2 people actually perform a dance
the exact same way?? is art concrete, definable; or is it in our
perception? can soemthing be art to one person and not art to another?
(of course, if you are jesse helms)
does it really matter?
dejah
PegLewis
In article <338A20...@worldnet.att.net>, "P. D. Goldberg"
<ices...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>After reading and participating in several threads recently regarding
>skaters/Artistry &
>Artists, I started wondering if perhaps the terms artists and artistry
are
>being misused
>within the context of skating.
>
>Here's why, it seems to me that most forms of art (music, painting,
sculpture
>etal,
>dance) have the following items in common, but skating (in most cases)
does
>not. Note
>in many cases there is some overlap from one item to another..so bear
with
>me.
>
>1. Permanent vs. Transitory:
>2. The original can be seen or has the ability to be reproduced by
others
>3. Orignator v. Executer & ability to compare execution
>So in a (very big) nutshell my contension is that if if isn't permanent,
if
>the original
>can't be seen or reproduced by others and the person in question is only
an
>executer not
> an originator....they may be great but the may not really deserve to be
>artists.
>
>I welcome your imput..thanks for reading.
Okay, that's an interesting theory.
Where do the following *other* kinds of acknowledged arts fall? These
don't fit your categories, so they can't really be art, can they?
-Performance Art
-Improvisation of music
-Improvisation of drama/comedy
On the other hand, nothing is stopping any skater from using another
skater's choreography. In competative situations, I suspect that Michelle
Kwan would be perfectly capable of performing Carol Heiss, Peggy Fleming,
Dorothy Hamill, Katarina Witt and Kristi Yamaguchi's "winning" Olympic
free skates, with her own interpretation, but she wouldn't *want* to do
that because not only is it considered bad etiquette, but the programs are
no longer competative. (I suspect she'd have problems with some signature
moves in Baiul's programs, or with Denise Biellmann's World Championship
programs, because she's emphasized other areas of flexibility.)
As for exhibition performances, I believe most skaters would be capable of
recreating previous programs by other skaters, but traditionally
exhibitions are showcases for an individual's strengths &/or favorite
moves, or used as etudes or for experimentation with some technique or
move the skater chooses to explore..
Also, skating programs are short, hence easy to create & learn. Most
ballets are significantly longer, so creation of a dance is more involved,
and with a corps rather than one, two or four skaters (precision aside).
Serious music, too, is usually long in duration: multi-movement works such
as symphonies, or collections of vignetted, like Scenes from Childhood or
Pictures at an Exhibition. Maybe, if a program lasted more than four point
five minutes skaters would consider utilizing other skaters' or
choreographers' works.
But also, the first thing that pops into my head when we talk about a
skater doing someone else's choreography is "competative programs..., and
in this case the skater not only has to keep up with the technical cutting
edge, he has to keep up with the currently favored approach to the sport -
jumping, now, and the skater wants to emphasize your strengths while
minimizing your weaknesses, or at least showing the weaknesses in the
best/most advantageous manner so they don't *seem* to be weaknesses at
all. Dancers don't have to do that for the sake of "pure"art.
Ultimately, though, I think that art *is* something different to
everybody. Just as I find some pianists to be artists and other piano
players to be typists/workmanlike & emotionless, I find some skaters
absolutely exquisite, and others to be void of anything of emotional depth
while the next fan may have the opposite opinions about the same skaters.
To me, then, some special skaters are genuine artists. If it is efforless
& moves me in some way, if the program has zipped by in what seems like no
time at all, chances are I'm watching an "artist" as I would define it.
Not everybody can fill those criteria. ;-)
Peg
(PegL...@aol.com)
===========
"Losing to Tara isn't a nuclear blast; it's life, it's sport. Michelle's
not always going to be perfect, she's not the queen of May, she's not
wearing a crown like some Venus de Milo. We're talking about Michelle Kwan
skating the best she can for herself, not for mommy or daddy or Frankie."
- Frank Carroll at Champions Series Finals pre-event press conference,
February 28, 1997
===========
"Treading on your own dreams is truly insane." - Kenneth Atchity, "A
Writer's Time" (p.23)
===========
“It’s a wonderful feeling to fly again.” - Michelle Kwan, '97 Worlds,
March 1997
Caryn Kato
P. D. Goldberg wrote:
>
> After reading and participating in several threads recently regarding skaters/Artistry &
> Artists, I started wondering if perhaps the terms artists and artistry are being misused
> within the context of skating.
>
>
> So in a (very big) nutshell my contension is that if if isn't permanent, if the original
> can't be seen or reproduced by others and the person in question is only an executer not
> an originator....they may be great but the may not really deserve to be artists.
>
> I welcome your imput..thanks for reading.
>
> Pat
Well, it really, really depends upon how you define art. In this
postmodern age, some would say that the greatest artistic masterpieces
we are creating are our lives. Therefore, any form of expression,
anything you do really, can be considered art. Personally, I'm not sure
whether I agree with this--I haven't made up my mind yet--but I couldn't
resist throwing this one out there.
Caryn
(who has just come from a discussion/lecture on what makes an artist in
her 20th century British women writers class)
PegLewis
Yesterday Ronald asked me to clarify a point in this thread, which I did.
He and I both agreed to make this exchange public, mainly because I goofed
again and I wanted to own up to it.
I - Peg - had posted this paragraph (among many;-) ! ) :
>> On the other hand, nothing is stopping any skater from
>> using another skater's choreography. In competative
>> situations, I suspect that Michelle Kwan would be
>> perfectly capable of performing Carol Heiss, Peggy
>> Fleming, Dorothy Hamill, Katarina Witt and Kristi
>> Yamaguchi's "winning" Olympic free skates, with her
>> own interpretation, but she wouldn't *want* to do that
>> because not only is it considered bad etiquette, but
>> the programs are no longer competative. (I suspect
>> she'd have problems with some signature moves in
>> Baiul's programs, or with Denise Biellmann's World
>> Championship programs, because she's emphasized
>> other areas of flexibility.)
By private mail, Ronald Narciso (97-05-27 19:10:22 EDT) asked me why I
included Kristi Yamaguchi's Olympic program in that list.
Peg's reply to Ronald, also by private mail :
Oh, Ronald, I just fell victim to Peg's Inexplicable Kristi Yamaguchi's
Amateur Career Blind Spot again. I'm sorry about it. I don't know why I
can't remember any of the really *good* stuff she did in those days. You
may remember this Blind Spot problem flared up once before when I was
trying to come up with the last lady skater to repeat as World Champion,
and missed correctly naming the skater because I just didn't remember
Kristi won back to back titles.
See, I got your note a couple hours ago, and thought about it, then
thought about how I goofed with the repeat-champion thing, and decided to
watch my tape of 1992 Worlds, since I actually *do* remember the problems
at Albertville [like I said, I seem to be blocking out the *good* things
she does, not the "unfortunate" things ;-P]. Same long program, different
dress.
And a much better performance.
Ronald:
> Perhaps if you consider that Kristi fell on her 3
> loop and doubled the salchow, then yes, the program would probably not
have
> enough (jump) content.
Peg:
That's what I was remembering. The result, instead of the plan.
Ronald:
> But the jumps as planned (esp. the 3 lutz-3 toe) are
> definitely comparable to anything that Michelle has performed to date,
as is
> the variety of spins and steps.
>
> Just wondering!
Peg:
And thank you for wondering!
Of course, I'm thinking that the spins weren't really very strong - some
of the positions shoot by too quickly, and there were several
uninteresting round-the-end-of-the-rink vanilla crossovers... but
aesthetic impressions aside, I've got to agree with you that the *planned*
Olympic free program would still be competative.
Sorry to have confused the skated program with the planned program. It's
just something in my brain where Kristi is concerned. You're very kind to
have pointed this out to me...
..........and that's what we said........... Like I said, I wanted to
include this info in the thread. I had a mind lapse, I guess, and did not
intentionally dis' Kristi.
Thanks everyone...!
Notdeby
Are you comfy? Got your milk and cookies? Settled in for the ride? I hope
you will not go unrewarded for your valour and determination to proceed to
the end of this post ").
First of all...just a small aside...I keep forgetting to mention this
tidbit...
Dick Button, on the Collins Tour broadcast, called Oksana Baiul a "premier
danseur." Well...Dick, ma dear...hardly...she doesn't have the
correct...ahem...equipment. I s'pose the female equivalent in the French
would be "premiere danseuse," however, 'round these here parts we like
mixing our French and Italian terminology ")...just call her "prima
ballerina," if that's what you're meaning to convey about her. Needless to
say...I got a good chuckle out of that.
We start this journey as a responsive reading ( ") ) to various posters
and various points from various places on related threads, hopefully
wrapping them up in some sort of revelatory way (it was for me, at
least...your mileage may vary ") ), all with regard to artists and
artistry and art and what, if anything, this has to do with skaters and
skating and how skaters go about the business of their art and craft.
Got all that ")? Begin...
In article <338A20...@worldnet.att.net>, "P. D. Goldberg"
<ices...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>After reading and participating in several threads recently
>regarding skaters/Artistry & Artists, I started wondering if
>perhaps the terms artists and artistry are being misused
>within the context of skating.
I'll bite...probably, but 'I' think not in the way 'you' are thinking ")
(Snipping merrily, as I go...)
>Here's why, it seems to me that most forms of art (music,
>painting, sculpture etal, dance) have the following items in
>common, but skating (in most cases) does not...
>
>1. Permanent vs. Transitory:
>
>...Dance again exists in a set of
>steps (ie choreography) made specifically for the use with a
>single piece of music.
Ah, but...the rub is this...the steps/choreography 'needn't' be made
specifically for use with a single piece of music...or any music at
all...although it 'generally' is.
>...But,as we know all
>too well, music is often (too too much) reused in skating,
And the same musical pieces are sometimes used over and over for different
choreography and different ballets/dances. Sometimes the 'same' dance or
ballet is re-choreographed and/or re-staged.
>but it is considered at best bad manners to re-use another
>person's choreography. So that choreography is used only
>for that program.
It needn't be, however. That is not an ‘inherent’ quality of skating. It
is a 'practice' of skaters and skating choreographers, because of the
competitive face of skating, as well as due to the entertainment face of
skating (The Three Faces of Skating - tee-hee).
>2. The original can be seen or has the ability to be
>reproduced by others
>
>...Dance
>cheorography is often danced by several different dancers
>both over the course of years and within the same
>productions by understudies etc.
And by different casts in any given season.
> As with the reproduction
>of music- dancers and musicians must learn to execute the
>composers notes or steps. They (for the most part) are not
>altered for the musician or dancer.
Not always true. In the case of variations within a ballet, the variation
'is' altered, at times, to showcase the particular talents of any given
dancer. This practice used to be 'very' common and seems to be ever less
so. Perhaps due to the increased technical capabilities of dancers...not
only the principles are technically capable, the level of all dancers,
down to the corps, has been raised. Perhaps there's no longer such a
pressing 'need' to do this...and, these days, dancers seem to have a
tendency to be more "ego-less" than their predecessors.
>On the other hand, a skating program exists only for one
>skater and generally only for a relatively short period of time.
Again, this doesn't 'need' to be so. Skating programs could become
repertory and could be handed down to other skaters, just as dances are.
If there was a "will" for it.
>For obvious reasons many skaters can not perform programs
>that they did earlier in their careers due to physical
>limitations
The same with dancers.
> and as noted above it would be unthinkable that
>another skater would try to duplicate their program.
But, I say that is solely due to these program’s traditional function as
competitive material and entertainment.
>... Indeed we often critique
>skaters or cheorographers for reuseing moves or sequences
>either for the same skaters or differenct skaters.
But...while the critique may be valid for competitive material and works
of only entertainment value, it really is not 'necessarily' a valid
criticism regarding a choreographer’s work for skaters. It 'may' be you've
run out of ideas and don't know how to use your material well. Hopefully,
though, it would be more a matter of exploring your ideas fully, or of
your personal choreographic "signature" or "movement understanding," and
so forth.
> Also, not
>all skaters are of the same style so in some ways it would
>be like comparing Gene Kelly & Fred Astaire..both great
>dancers, but totally different styles.
"Style." Ack! Harumph!
> Indeed one of the
>main problems in really trying to compare skaters of different
>era's is inability to directly compare the two skaters if one of
>them did not skate during the video era. You can look at
>two paintings or two ballets or listen to two different
>composers and make judgements.
But...you can't listen to musicians who no longer exist and pre-date the
era of recording, you can't watch dancers who pre-date video and film. If
skating choreography was passed from skater to skater, it would be no
different than what happened to dance choreography for all these
generations (and even though there is video, now, it is not a perfect
notation medium, it depends on older generations to bring a fullness back
to the choreography and performance, and also despite there being a couple
of systems of dance notation around).
> Also, due to the nature
>of skating, it often times has obviously flaws (falls, trips, bad
>positions) which effect the program. While it is not unheard
>of for a dancer to fall, it is very rare in professional level
>perfomances for that to happen or for an Orchestra to miss
>notes etc.
But...if the competitive aspect were removed, there would be no reason to
attempt the riskier jumps. Not to say jumping would need to be dumped
altogether. I think you get quite a fine consistency from the top skaters
when they are working with double jumps. For the purposes of skating as
Art, there would be no reason to go beyond double jumps...unless there was
some 'truly' compelling reason. I think skaters could be 'quite'
consistent on their surface; depending on the choreography and preparation
of any given program.
>3. Orignator v. Executer & ability to compare execution
>
>... The skater (most times) does not create
>the program. The execute the program which has been
>created for them. Now many skaters do a wonderful job at
>this and some are so naturally gifted that it appears as if
>*they* are simply interpreting the music. But in reality they
>are very carefully executing a designed series of steps.
Like dancers. And dancers are artists. Oh, yeah...providing they lend some
expression to the execution of those steps. But, not all dancers become
Artists. I think the same is true for skaters.
>So in a (very big) nutshell my contension is that if if isn't
>permanent, if the original can't be seen or reproduced by
>others and the person in question is only an executer not an
>originator....they may be great but the may not really deserve
>to be artists.
In article <19970523000...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
revj...@aol.com (Revjoelle) writes:
>
>Then tell me, dear friend, if art can be objective, why can we not agree
>on who is an artist?
Because often people are going on their instinct and taste and opinion,
alone. Not a 'learned' opinion, just an opinion. They argue based on
different criteria without first laying down what that criteria is that
they are arguing from or based on. If the criteria is defined, it is
'much' easier to assess something, even artistry, objectively, even if it
doesn’t "feel right" to your gut. You can get beyond whether the piece
speaks to you, reaches you. It's why skating judges have criteria to judge
artistry/presentation. There's lots less "wiggle room" for personal taste.
They have to admit the achievement of that criteria, whatever that
criteria may be, and whether they love it or not.
If you've noticed some of the arguments that have been posted to this
topic (chiefly those of Peg and Frank), you can't help notice that some of
their "agreement" is within the confines of criteria they have defined for
one another. Some of their disagreement falls without those confines and
becomes a personal reaction and they are aware of those differences. Not
for nothin' am I always askin' folks to define their criteria and define
their definitions ").
> Who gets to decided who the TRULY artistic skater
>is?
In article <19970523114...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
revj...@aol.com (Revjoelle) writes:
>
>So...are they ALL artists? Are all world class skaters artists? Is
Elvis
>Stoijko an artist? Because I think he is an athlete and technician, not
>an artist...but others would say that he is. Who's right and by what
>agreed upon objective criteria do we determine who is right?
"Objective criteria"...I'm gettin' to ya, Joelle "). No, they're 'not'
all artists. Many skaters may merely and barely fill the criteria for
artistry that has been defined for them by competitive rules. It is a
severely prescribed definition of artistry (as well it should be for
competitive purposes). Other skaters go beyond that. To really get my
whole sense of this, I'll refer you to my model, below. Meanwhile...
Frank mentioned critical consensus, but rather than critical consensus, I
would say scholarly consensus and the consensus of others who are versed
in any given medium. One can go against a popular scholarly consensus, of
course. It may even be that you instinctively think the consensus wrong,
but you won't get far on arguing your gut instinct alone. If you have
knowledge of that artistic medium, however...
Here's your Escher conundrum, Pat...Art is that stuff which is created by
Artists, Artists are those who create Art. The Big Question, the one that
has stumped generations, is not "what is an artist," because an artist
creates art. The Big Question is, "What is Art?"
Art (art) is human expression, communicated to others through any one or
more of various media. High art (Art) is human expression that
communicates via the ‘mastery’ of the tools of one’s chosen medium and,
further, which is not utilitarian in any sense. It is there for beauty and
for communication, alone (whether direct or to convey ideas or to evoke a
reaction). Art transcends mere entertainment, although entertainment can
contain aspects of art. Art transcends mere craft, although craft can be
artfully done, as well. But rarely do those forms attain a level of Art.
Though they can.
In article <19970524051...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
fab4...@aol.com (Fab4Fan99) writes:
>
>Peg wrote:
>
>>In ballet...I'm hard pressed...
>>to think of *any* ballet that is *not* specifically telling a
>>story, so these personal distinctions that many of us are striving to
>>identify & describe amuse me a great deal.
>
>All true.
As yamstep pointed out, NOT all true. There 'are' abstract ballets. Tons
of 'em. I don't know why yamstep thinks "Jewels" is most notable, except
that there are far fewer three-act abstract works. Most are one-act.
> But, although ice skating "most often resembles" ballet,
>it is NOT ballet. How many ballets are only 4 (or 4-and-a-half)
>minutes long?
Variations within ballets are probably about that long, though. And a
variation would somewhat be the equivalent of a skater's program.
> How many ballets cut and splice music together,
>sometimes from different pieces AND different composers?
Ahem. There's been a number of "hatchet jobs" done on various older,
"standard" ballets, according to the particular production. Some of the
newer stuff is spliced on purpose. Twyla Tharp has used that alot.
Different composers...can't really think of any off the top of my
head...but it isn't precluded by the form, if the choreographer wanted to
do that. Likewise, dance isn't meant to be competitive and dancers aren't
expected to demonstrate "versatility" to judges within the space of four
minutes.
> Ballet
>has much more of an inherent thematic completeness than almost
>any skating program. In other words, ballet is more EQUIPPED to
>tell a story.
And this could be true for skating, as well...but, not to a very large
degree when in its competitive aspect.
>>I'm also reasonably certain that Baiul, Kwan & Bobek all "tell stories"
>>with their programs. What program of Bobek's hasn't had her in some
>>character?...
>
>OK, first of all I don't think "adopting a character" and "telling a
>story" are necessarily the same thing. They can be, sometimes, but
>not necessarily.
I agree with Frank. If you consider the use of character as a device for
expression within choreography, rather than for mere exposition of a story
line...One can tell a story through imagery and through movement and
through character, or one can deepen the performance and realization of
abstract work, through the device of character. So, if you get the idea of
human expression, emotion, and feeling from a dancer/skater in an abstract
work, are they 'necessarily' telling a literal story? No.
>...I just get
>the feeling that I could take Nicole Bobek, put her out on the ice
>in sweats, pop in a tape of one of my songs that she's never heard
>before, and she'd create magic to it.
So...you think she choreographs her own work? That she is an Isadora
Duncan type? She may well have choreographic talent, but I'm not aware
that she creates her own work...do you know that for sure?
> Like I said, I'm reading Nicole's
>mind, but I always got the impression that she thinks like a
>composer/musician. When I hear a piece of music, I almost
>instinctively start rearranging it in my mind. I think Nicole, and
>this is a very vague statement, but I get the impression that she
>creates musical arrangements with ice skates.
Aha, Frank! I think what you appreciate in Nicole is her ability in
"phrasing." Perhaps what you are experiencing in her is an ability to
phrase the choreography in a way you respond to as a musician.
>... When Paul
>Wylie did "Schindler's List" there was obviously a storyline,
>but I do not think he could have done that piece flawlessly
>without music.
Define flawlessly. 'Naturally' the piece could be 'skated' flawlessly
without music. Would it carry the same impact and convey the same message
and emotion. Probably not, but...
>it's readily apparent. And it is apparent, to me at least, that
>some skaters are slaves to the music, too.
Frank, apparently you have this dominatrix thing about music and the
movement set and performed to it ") ") ").
In article <19970526134...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
pegl...@aol.com (PegLewis) writes:
>
>I wonder, were the chosen pieces abstract without story in an of
>themselves, or were they taken from works that did tell stories?
As yamstep indicated, again. There are abstract works created 'as'
abstract. Funny thing, though. After seeing Lar Lubovitch's "Othello," I
was thinking about what makes a successful "story" ballet, about the
inclusion of abstract work within the story ballet, as Petipa,
particularly, worked. Not all full-length ballets are designed that
way...but I wonder if it tends to make a full-length ballet more
successful...anyway...there's another story...
>... I
>mean, if the music is a Nocturne, and some in the audience know it is a
>Nocturne *and* what a "Nocturne" is, wouldn't they read a little of the
>traditional night-love-song concept into the dance, whether the
>choreographer intended those movements to depict that or not?
No. Not if it's not intended by the choreographer. Successful choreography
will convey what the choreographer wants to express, whether it has
anything to do with the original intention of the music or not (I just had
a thought...does this sort of thing drive musicians and composers nuts
")? ). Maybe think of it the way you would hear a piece of music,
unidentified and undescribed to you beforehand, and create images in your
head to it. There are myriad images and motivations you might create from
a single piece of music. There's a Jerome Robbins’ ballet, "The Concert."
It's a comic piece, and the pianist is on stage, playing Chopin (I think)
and the audience (dancers) get up, one by one, and dance out the images
the music is creating in their heads (according to Robbins, that is). Kind
of like a musical Rorschach test.
In article <19970527205...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
yam...@aol.com (Yamstep) writes:
>
>Note: Lar Lubovich just premiered his new ballet "Othello" in New York
>to rave reviews.
Been there. Seen it. Struggling to understand it, I am. I think it's the
music. It confounds me and so I see the dance poorly and can't grasp it
viscerally. I need to see it again.
>Can I see Paul Wylie as Othello?
Is that a wish or a wonder ")? The man 'can' dance...he could definitely
have been any sort of dancer he wanted (except for the harsh reality of
height limitation - frown) but I'd rather see other roles on him than
Othello.
But...anyways...I was thinking about Dirk's struggles with his model for
explaining "levels" of technique and artistry in skaters/skating, and I
came up with a model, which I think could be a useful way of looking at
the issue.
Think of the letter "Y." Now, for my purposes, I had turned it on its
side, but it works just as well, maybe better, on end. The trunk or stem
of the "Y" is "Technique," one branch could be considered "Performance"
(as in an entertainment and/or competitive sense) the other could be
considered "Art." There is space between the branches...this space is a
grey area...an area of permeability, where these two branches can interact
with or be interdependent upon or are affected by various aspects of one
another. Beyond the branches is "Vision"; it is beyond those branches and
the trunk, can be reached through the branches, is supported by those
branches and trunk, can encompass all of model and, yet, can be separate
from them, as well. Although, it means little without the support of the
trunk and branches.
The trunk and branches can grow independently of one another, or all at
the same time, interdependent on one another. For instance, while one is
developing one's artistic sense and abilities, the trunk, which,
hopefully, was sturdy to begin with, may take deeper root and grow ever
bigger. Gee, I think this model is swell ").
Start a skater at the trunk. Everything they will be able to do is based
upon the strength of that trunk. Now...part of the problem for skaters, as
opposed to dancers, is that artistry and presentation is taught as
something separate from technique. It should be taught at the same time.
There shouldn't be a time when skaters need to 'decide' to become
expressive or artistic (aside from the coach worrying about meeting a
standard judging criteria). But...this is volumes worth of more argument,
worry, and thought. So, we’ll skip it.
As it is now, when skaters stand at that place at the "top" of the trunk
(the ability to compete at elite levels, perhaps), whether for competitive
reasons or for entertainment reasons or for artistic reasons, they need to
grow those branches. Ideally, those branches would be growing all along,
of course (either one or both). As I said, the branches have a permeable
area...they are not cut and dried, but the branches are alive and grow and
have smaller branches and leaves that touch and commingle. Some skaters
learn enough performance craft to make it by the judges, some go on to be
great entertainers, some make an art of entertainment, some will lean the
other way and care about becoming an Artist, someone who communicates
through the Art of skating, who makes a statement, becomes an Artist, who
isn't there just to entertain (even here, that permeability needs to be
retained, since, like I always say...every performing artist needs those
fannies in the seats). Some may grow both branches at once, at the same or
different rates. Each skater may have an innate tendency or innate
tendencies and talents towards the natural development along one branch or
another, or it may be they come to those decisions consciously, along the
way.
Congratulations! You have made it to the end. You get cyber hugs and
kisses (unless, of course, you’ve cheated, and you skipped some parts
altogether or, worse, skipped right to the end ") ). And, here it is...
Is skating Art? It most certainly can be. Is it necessarily? No. Are
skaters necessarily artists? No. Can they exhibit and practice aspects of
artistry within their skating, even so? Yes. Can there be various sorts of
artistry ascribed to skaters? Yes, and you may prefer one sort over
another, according to your own criteria, taste, predilection, knowledge,
and point of view. Are skaters Artists? Just as those working in any other
artistic medium, they can be artists and can ‘become’ Artists, if they
have the talent, the gifts, their tools, and the drive, the need, to be
so.
Well...it’ll do for a start, anyways ") ") ").
NotDeby
"What a luxury it is to be alive, and female, and in a liquid state because of such male beauty." - Various.
"(My mind is) like a high-speed computer. But it only doodles."
- Rosie O'Donnell
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Revjoelle
> Are skaters Artists? Just as those working in any other
artistic medium, they can be artists and can ‘become’ Artists, if they
have the talent, the gifts, their tools, and the drive, the need, to be
so.
Very nice NotDeby--and yes I read the whole thing. Okay, so not all
skaters are artists. But they CAN be artists. Who decides when they've
made it?
Go ahead. I dare ya. List what skaters you think are artists and which
ones are not. And see who agrees with you. Because not everyone is even
going to agree with your criteria.
And while I do understand, some educated opinions have more value than
others...I have some problem with only educated people getting to define
art..
I think of a lot of the domestic arts done by women over the
eons...quilting, tapestry, weaving, ect....used and appreciated by
uneducated people forever, only recently recognized as art by the
Educated. Was it not art before the Educated deemed it to be art?
P. D. Goldberg
Notdeby wrote:
> Lot's of interesting response to my post & other posts snipped.
>
> Here's your Escher conundrum, Pat...Art is that stuff which is created by
> Artists, Artists are those who create Art. The Big Question, the one that
> has stumped generations, is not "what is an artist," because an artist
> creates art. The Big Question is, "What is Art?"
>
> Art (art) is human expression, communicated to others through any one or
> more of various media. High art (Art) is human expression that
> communicates via the ‘mastery’ of the tools of one’s chosen medium and,
> further, which is not utilitarian in any sense. It is there for beauty and
> for communication, alone (whether direct or to convey ideas or to evoke a
> reaction). Art transcends mere entertainment, although entertainment can
> contain aspects of art. Art transcends mere craft, although craft can be
> artfully done, as well. But rarely do those forms attain a level of Art.
> Though they can.
Me: I like this idea a lot, but I'm still having a problem with the
objective critia issue. You and others brought up some valid flaws in
my original theories. As regards past *artists* for whom we have no
evidence, I guess we go back to the tree in the woods. But not only do
we not have objective criteria, we can't agree on who should set the
criteria. (See Joelle's response to you...and just add ditto for me)
Not Deby:> Think of the letter "Y." Now, for my purposes, I had turned
it on its
> side, but it works just as well, maybe better, on end. The trunk or stem
> of the "Y" is "Technique," one branch could be considered "Performance"
> (as in an entertainment and/or competitive sense) the other could be
> considered "Art." There is space between the branches...this space is a
> grey area...an area of permeability, where these two branches can interact
> with or be interdependent upon or are affected by various aspects of one
> another. Beyond the branches is "Vision"; it is beyond those branches and
> the trunk, can be reached through the branches, is supported by those
> branches and trunk, can encompass all of model and, yet, can be separate
> from them, as well. Although, it means little without the support of the
> trunk and branches.
>
> The trunk and branches can grow independently of one another, or all at
> the same time, interdependent on one another. For instance, while one is
> developing one's artistic sense and abilities, the trunk, which,
> hopefully, was sturdy to begin with, may take deeper root and grow ever
> bigger. Gee, I think this model is swell ").
>
Me: I think this model is swell too. I've always felt that really
great skating has to start with great technique.
Just a note to everybody who has responded, thanks for your imput. It's
been really interesting to me to read peoples thoughts on this matter.
Pat
P. D. Goldberg
Revjoelle wrote:
>
> Okay I am going to make a definitive statement about Art.
>
> Alexei Yagadin's World's Exhibition was NOT Art.
>
> Joelle
> "I feel 100% confident that I can overcome this disease and be
> back on the ice within a few months" - Scott Hamilton
Joelle:
After finally getting a chance to watch this on tape, I couldn't agree
with you more. I found the whole program somewhat disturbing. Giving
it every benefit of the doubt it was an extremely poor attempt at humer
with equally poor execution. At best it was a juvinile self
indulgence at worst ...
To paraphrase Judy Blumberg, you gotta wonder if he's going to regret
this next year.
Pat
Phil Anthony
>Music exists in a permanent medium - the composition is written down and is "set in
>stone" by the composer.
So we've eliminated improvisational jazz as an art form . . .
>Dance again exists in a set of steps (ie choreography) made
>specifically for the use with a single piece of music.
Oops, there goes a lot of moden dance too.
>
>The original can be seen or has the ability to be reproduced by others.
>Hard art can be reproduced in many forms (posters, lithographs even postcards) which
>allows is to be seen and appreciated by many.
Unfortunately, the validates Rod McKuen's poetry as art. I'm going to
lost some sleep here.
Revjoelle
Fab4Fan99
Me:
>>...I just get
>>the feeling that I could take Nicole Bobek, put her out on the ice
>>in sweats, pop in a tape of one of my songs that she's never heard
>>before, and she'd create magic to it.
NotDeby:
>So...you think she choreographs her own work? That she is an Isadora
>Duncan type? She may well have choreographic talent, but I'm not aware
>that she creates her own work...do you know that for sure?
A few years back, Nicole was known--actually she was notorious--for
spontaneously rechoreographing her programs. She has also made
comments about her favorite thing to do on ice skates is "just putting
on music and skating around to it". She doesn't choreograph her
competitive routines, as far as I know--at least not in "name". I
wouldn't be surprised if she put her two cents in, however :-).
>> Like I said, I'm reading Nicole's
>>mind, but I always got the impression that she thinks like a
>>composer/musician. When I hear a piece of music, I almost
>>instinctively start rearranging it in my mind. I think Nicole, and
>>this is a very vague statement, but I get the impression that she
>>creates musical arrangements with ice skates.
>Aha, Frank! I think what you appreciate in Nicole is her ability in
>"phrasing." Perhaps what you are experiencing in her is an ability to
>phrase the choreography in a way you respond to as a musician.
Yes, exactly. Somebody understood what I was talking about!
Excuse me while I gape in disbelief :-).
>>... When Paul
>>Wylie did "Schindler's List" there was obviously a storyline,
>>but I do not think he could have done that piece flawlessly
>>without music.
>Define flawlessly. 'Naturally' the piece could be 'skated' flawlessly
>without music. Would it carry the same impact and convey the same message
>and emotion. Probably not, but...
I don't think the choreography would be any more than a pale shadow
of itself. Paul's another skater with great "phrasing", especially in that
piece.
>>it's readily apparent. And it is apparent, to me at least, that
>>some skaters are slaves to the music, too.
>Frank, apparently you have this dominatrix thing about music and the
>movement set and performed to it ") ") ").
Beat me, whip me, tie me up with guitar strings :-)
Frank
Beautiful Downtown Beverly, MA KA1WZH
"I live in New York, New York, city that never shuts up"--Ani DeFranco
"All alone beneath the starless summer sky"--Marshall Crenshaw
"Turn off your mind, relax and float downstream"--Lennon/McCartney
Revjoelle
Frank:
>A few years back, Nicole was known--actually she was notorious--for
>spontaneously rechoreographing her programs. She has also made
>comments about her favorite thing to do on ice skates is "just putting
>on music and skating around to it". She doesn't choreograph her
>competitive routines, as far as I know--at least not in "name". I
>wouldn't be surprised if she put her two cents in, however :-).
I wish Nicole *would* try choreographing a program for herself...maybe
start with an exhibition. Much as I like her skating it, I am not
impressed with the choreography of Evita...and I think she should start
working on that skill of hers.and perhaps if it were her program she'd put
more of herself into it...I'd wish she would do that.
Cycys22
In article <19970530013...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
revj...@aol.com (Revjoelle) writes:
>
>Okay I am going to make a definitive statement about Art.
>
>Alexei Yagadin's World's Exhibition was NOT Art.
>
>
Good example. An example of art??? Look at any performance
by Michelle Kwan, Kazakova & Dmitriev, or Krylova & Ovsiannikov.
Jam
*************************************
"There are only three cities in America, San Francisco, New Orleans and New
York."- Tennessee Williams
Of course, I disagree with San Francisco. It's just a bad imitation of New Orleans.
Trudi Marrapodi
In article <19970530034...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
fab4...@aol.com (Fab4Fan99) wrote:
> Me:
> >>...I just get
> >>the feeling that I could take Nicole Bobek, put her out on the ice
> >>in sweats, pop in a tape of one of my songs that she's never heard
> >>before, and she'd create magic to it.
>
> NotDeby:
> >So...you think she choreographs her own work? That she is an Isadora
> >Duncan type? She may well have choreographic talent, but I'm not aware
> >that she creates her own work...do you know that for sure?
>
> A few years back, Nicole was known--actually she was notorious--for
> spontaneously rechoreographing her programs. She has also made
> comments about her favorite thing to do on ice skates is "just putting
> on music and skating around to it". She doesn't choreograph her
> competitive routines, as far as I know--at least not in "name". I
> wouldn't be surprised if she put her two cents in, however :-).
I am sure this is true of a lot of skaters--not just Nicole. While they
may not be their own choreographers "of record," and they may feel they
"need" someone else to help them or be the objective outside eye and tell
them what looks good, a lot of them come up with their own moves and ideas
when being choreographed by someone else.
Let me describe something that impressed me early with Nicole. It's a
piece of videotape from a practice session at Sun Valley in, what? 1990?
'91? Anyway, Nicole is on the ice with a bunch of other skaters, and the
sound system begins to play the quite lengthy "dance mix" of Madonna's
"Vogue." Nicole begins to move to this; it's obvious she's not just
skating around doing jumps or practicing some other routine without the
music. She begins skating to *this* music. I don't know whether she'd ever
tried doing it before, but one thing's for sure, *nobody* does a routine
this long! So obviously this was not a piece that was choreographed, at
least not all of it. And all the way through, she's doing this great,
spontaneous choreography, even taking time out to vamp with Shepherd Clark
(who also happened to be on the ice) as if he were a foil put there for
her to flirt with. Right through to the end. I thought "I sensed this
skater was amazing, but she is really AMAZING."
I think it's the skaters who appear to be to utterly feel and express
their music, throughout every cell of their bodies, that I find to be
artists. That's all I really have to say about it. Not very complex.
Trudi
www...@getridodispart.frontiernet.net
Previous spamproofing unsuccessful--take two! To mail me, get rid 'o "getridodispart."...
"Some men think strong opinions are a sign of PMS..."--TV commercial
"...and if you don't believe it, you can ring my doorbell and smell my toilet." --another TV commercial
Mark
Figure skating:
Art? YES
Entertainment? YES
A Business? YES
Athletics? YES
A SPORT? NO!*
It is not a sport because the winner is determined by judges and a
subjective scoring scale, not by value or points/goals/time/whatever
scored. This takes nothing away from Figure skating or any of the other
non-sports, but it is a fact.
Other examples of athletic non-sports:
Gymnastics, Diving, Freestyle skiing, ski jumping, Boxing (except when
there is a non-technical knockout)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"My life is an endless purgatory, interrupted by profound moments of
misery."
-- Richard Karinsky, Caroline in the City
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trudi Marrapodi
> Figure skating:
>
> Art? YES
> Entertainment? YES
> A Business? YES
> Athletics? YES
> A SPORT? NO!*
I'm going to do you the favor of assuming you are not a troll, although
you have waded hip-deep into what is considered "troll territory" on this
newsgroup.
> It is not a sport because the winner is determined by judges and a
> subjective scoring scale, not by value or points/goals/time/whatever
> scored. This takes nothing away from Figure skating or any of the other
> non-sports, but it is a fact.
No, it is not. The scoring scale of figure skating, as any of the judges
here will tell you, is not strictly subjective. There are many objective
aspects to figure skating judging, many "did he or didn't he accomplish or
achieve this" aspects. The moves accomplished in skating have a value
relative to those accomplished by all the competitors, which is given
weight in the marks. And, of course, there are time limits on skating,
even if the goal is not to be "the fastest."
> Other examples of athletic non-sports:
> Gymnastics, Diving, Freestyle skiing, ski jumping, Boxing (except when
> there is a non-technical knockout)
I don't understand how you can deem something "athletic" but "not a
sport." Ballet or modern dance, debatable--because ordinarily they are not
"competed" in the same sense ballroom dance is--but gymnastics? Diving?
Ski jumping? Boxing? There are plenty of objective aspects to these as
well.
Examples:
Gymnastics - Was this or that move executed or not? (not just HOW it was
executed)
Diving - Ditto.
Ski jumping - Distance of jumps is measured concretely. It is not all
"style points."
Boxing - Did the guy land a blow or not? (Blows can be eletronically
registered, not just determined to have been landed by judges.)
You might have more of a point with freestyle skiing, or synchronized
swimming--not that the athletes don't execute moves, but there seems to be
a higher emphasis in these competitions on "style" than on anything else.
Then again, maybe that's just my ignorant view from the outside.
I do know that there is a whole lot more to skating than just the
subjective opinions and tastes of a panel of judges.
PegLewis
First: Yes, I, too, made it to the end, although my vision was blurring by
the time I got to the "Y" model part, so I'll have to go back to that when
I can see only one of everything. ;-)
To Dirk: *This* is a beautiful example of how to draw out a ton of
responses without making people want your head on a spit. Even if NotDeby
makes some points I don't agree with, she does it with impeccable - ahem,
pardon the word - *style.*
Second: A lot of NotDeby's thoughts made sense to me, but perhaps not to
the original authors. I can, of course, only speak for myself, so to that
end...
In article <19970529223...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
not...@aol.com (Notdeby) writes:
>
>In article <19970526134...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>pegl...@aol.com (PegLewis) writes:
>>
>>I wonder, were the chosen pieces abstract without story in an of
>>themselves, or were they taken from works that did tell stories?
>
>As yamstep indicated, again. There are abstract works created 'as'
>abstract. Funny thing, though. After seeing Lar Lubovitch's "Othello," I
>was thinking about what makes a successful "story" ballet, about the
>inclusion of abstract work within the story ballet, as Petipa,
>particularly, worked. Not all full-length ballets are designed that
>way...but I wonder if it tends to make a full-length ballet more
>successful...anyway...there's another story...
>
>>... I
>>mean, if the music is a Nocturne, and some in the audience know it is a
>>Nocturne *and* what a "Nocturne" is, wouldn't they read a little of the
>>traditional night-love-song concept into the dance, whether the
>>choreographer intended those movements to depict that or not?
>
>No. Not if it's not intended by the choreographer. Successful
choreography
>will convey what the choreographer wants to express, whether it has
>anything to do with the original intention of the music or not
I've got news for you. *I* read original musical intent into it. Imagine
this scenario: I go to a college dance recital, and one of the pieces is
done to the Barber piano Nocturne. I know what it is; I've played it. The
setting is modern dance, so I can't compare the choreography to the
limited reference points I have, since those are mainly "traditional"
ballet (although I saw a Martha Graham bio once - not the best way to be
exposed to *any* artist's work) stagings of warhorses like Nutcracker &
Les Selphides (don't know if that's spelled correctly at all - it is a
collection of Chopin pieces... which are largely program music, too, I
might note).
So, I'm in the audience, watching "modern" dance movements done while
Barber's Nocturne plays. I'm out of my element trying to understand the
dancers, because I don't have any schooling in this genre and darned near
little exposure to it. I can't go up to the choreographer in
mid-performance and ask if he intended to evoke his concept of a nocturne
or not. I have to go with what I know about the music (lots) and what I,
an unlearned casual observer of dance, can glean from the performers (not
so much, due to my inexperience as a dance audience member, and the
limitations of the dancers I get to see, who are college students being
exposed to new things - and sometimes the choreographer is a student
feeling his way, as well).
So I can flatly not read any of the musical meaning to the "nocturne" that
I am seeing on the stage? Not hardly. That's the *one* thing my mind will
latch upon, and feel secure about, amidst a sea of unfamiliar motion. That
may not be the intent of the work from the choreographer's (or dancers'
even) POV, but it is the way I, a musician trying to broaden my horizons
by attending performances of other performing Arts, perceive it.
Basically, I just don't agree that you can flatly dismiss the perception
of the audience. IMO, a performing art needs creators, performers *and* an
audience, and its success can never be measured without that last piece of
the puzzle.
For whatever that's worth. As NotDeby said, "your mileage may vary." I
respect her POV, but I think my POV deserves a little respect, too.
Peg
(PegL...@aol.com)
===========
"Losing to Tara isn't a nuclear blast; it's life, it's sport. Michelle's
not always going to be perfect, she's not the queen of May, she's not
wearing a crown like some Venus de Milo. We're talking about Michelle Kwan
skating the best she can for herself, not for mommy or daddy or Frankie."
- Frank Carroll at Champions Series Finals pre-event press conference,
February 28, 1997
===========
"Treading on your own dreams is truly insane." - Kenneth Atchity, "A
Writer's Time" (p.23)
===========
“It’s a wonderful feeling to fly again.” - Michelle Kwan, '97 Worlds,
March 1997
Notdeby
In article <19970530034...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
fab4...@aol.com (Fab4Fan99) writes:
>
>Me:
>>>...I just get
>>>the feeling that I could take Nicole Bobek, put her out on the ice
>>>in sweats, pop in a tape of one of my songs that she's never heard
>>>before, and she'd create magic to it.
>
>NotDeby:
>>So...you think she choreographs her own work? That she is an Isadora
>>Duncan type? She may well have choreographic talent, but I'm not aware
>>that she creates her own work...do you know that for sure?
>
>A few years back, Nicole was known--actually she was notorious--for
>spontaneously rechoreographing her programs.
Actually...she was known for spontaneously re-ordering the elements in her
program. Correct? Saying she was choreographing or re-choreographing is
really a misstatement. Choreography is much more than where you put the
elements in a program and what elements are used...although I guess that
definition would pass for the purposes of competitive consideration. But,
it shouldn't.
> She has also made
>comments about her favorite thing to do on ice skates is "just putting
>on music and skating around to it".
Again...she doesn't necessarily choreograph by doing that, however. It can
be a rudimentary sort of choreography or can indicate the beginnings of an
interest and facility in choreography, though.
> She doesn't choreograph her
>competitive routines, as far as I know--at least not in "name". I
>wouldn't be surprised if she put her two cents in, however :-).
She might...she might not. I'm sure the choreography mounted on her is
tailored to her abilities and competitive needs...just as they are for all
skaters. Maybe we can convince "International Figure Skating Magazine"
that the next article they should rip off from this newsgroup ( ") )
should be on how much input various figure skaters have in the
choreography they perform. Inquiring minds want to know for certain.
>>>... When Paul
>>>Wylie did "Schindler's List" there was obviously a storyline,
>>>but I do not think he could have done that piece flawlessly
>>>without music.
>
>>Define flawlessly. 'Naturally' the piece could be 'skated' flawlessly
>>without music. Would it carry the same impact and convey the same
message
>>and emotion. Probably not, but...
>
>I don't think the choreography would be any more than a pale shadow
>of itself. Paul's another skater with great "phrasing", especially in
that
>piece.
Oh, hey...I forgot something...You mentioned there was "obviously a
storyline," and I'm going to take exception to that. I think the imagery
of the choreography for that piece tells a story (as in Mary Scotvold's
other "dramatized" works for Paul Wylie), but not necessarily a
story'line'. As I said in my last post, the use of character doesn't
necessarily make the literal telling of a story a given. It can help
express emotion and atmosphere and help give shape to the images and ideas
you want to convey. It needn't be indicative of an 'actual' storyline,
even though you are telling a story. It can be impressionistic, rather
than event or timeline driven (Once upon a time...). And I believe Paul
Wylie's "dramatized" or storytelling work is impressionistic.
Marg mentioned hating Dick Button's insistence that every skater's long
program tell a story. Ummmm...let's see where I want to start this idea
off...I find it 'really' awful to listen to some skater "tell the story of
their program," the way they'll do sometimes before a skate. You
know..."and this is the part where I get very sad, 'cause my girl has left
me, then I find myself running away from the truth, until I meet a very
old, wise person who tells me there is another day around the bend, and
then I finish off with very happy music where I realize this person is
right, then you see at the end where I actually meet another girl
and...yadda, yadda, yadda." I really loathe when they do that. There is
just 'no' way to put this politely...this is the 'worst,' most naive way
for one to consider choreography.
Now, if this were just the thought-line of the skater as they skated, in
order to sustain the mood or to help them reach and stay in character...no
big deal. It's a common enough sort of device...but, saints preserve us!
Don't tell people that's the story of your program! And, if this is
actually the way the choreography was developed and set...ahem...it's an
'absolutely' horrible way to consider and set choreography. Absolutely
undeveloped artistically. I can't 'imagine' any dance choreographer, worth
their salt, viewing their work in these sorts of terms. If it 'is' so,
then skating choreographers 'definitely' have to make the next step up and
away from that sort of rudimentary process (yeah...I realize alot of times
it's coaches, rather than choreographers, doing the choreography...maybe
that's part of the problem). Anyway, I don't know, but maybe that's the
sort of thing that Marg was talking about in Dick's case. And she'd be
absolutely right about fitting square pegs into round holes, just to
fulfill someone's sense of the necessity of there being "a story," in the
way I was just writing about.
In article <19970529225...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
revj...@aol.com (Revjoelle) writes:
>
NotDeby wrote:
>> Are skaters Artists? Just as those working in any other
>>artistic medium, they can be artists and can ‘become’ Artists, if they
>>have the talent, the gifts, their tools, and the drive, the need, to be
>>so.
>
>Very nice NotDeby
Why, thanx!
>--and yes I read the whole thing.
And I hope you rewarded yourself handsomely for it ").
> Okay, so not all
>skaters are artists. But they CAN be artists. Who decides when they've
>made it?
Me, Joelle...I decide. A-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha, snicker, chortle, snort,
tee-hee-hee, snort, snicker, tee-hee-hee. SIGH.
Ahem. Does an artist ever "make it?" It's an on-going process all your
life, I think. But, if you create art...you are an artist. If you create
High Art, you are an Artist (or if you have an Artistic Vision). I know
that sounds obnoxiously avoiding, but, hear me out. If someone uses their
medium for human expression, they are artists. As Peg indicated, there are
some very workmanlike types of artists, who toil very dryly at their
work...it's not very satisfying to consider them as artists, but by the
most megre definition, they 'are' artists. If skaters meet the objective
criteria for artistry outlined by judges for the purposes of competition,
they can be considered to exhibit artistry within the confines of those
criteria, at least. But, only 'within' those objective criteria. And
'that's' not being an artist. When do they become an artist? When they
decide to make an artistic statement that transcends the need to please
the judges and seek to reach others through their skating; to begin to
develop a means of communicating with others through using the tools of
their medium.
And I think there are 'lots' of different levels of artistry and working
artists. Just as in music, and graphic vs. fine arts, and
dance...whatever. It's more easily illustrated when artists work in an
ensemble, like dancers in a large company or musicians in an orchestra,
than it is by considering artists who basically work in isolation, so to
speak, but there 'are' different levels of achievement in art. Before you
even consider Art.
To raise one's work to the level of Art, it needs to be taken that step
further...there has to be learning and mastery, learning and mastering
one's art, the craft of one's art, and a conscious decision to pursue a
higher level of art...a higher communication, by applying the mastery of
your art to that end. Communication that is about ideas and beauty and
life and truth. Communication through the mastery of your medium. The
spirit moves you there. It is your gift from God.
And there 'is' that "vision thing," not the sort of vision that Artists
sometimes aspire to and work towards, but that which is totally ordained
by God. People who seem "touched" by God and who seem to transcend us mere
mortal working artists, or any of the rest of us mortals, for that matter.
There's no accounting for it...it just 'is.' And it is a rare and fine and
blessed thing...but, not always recognized by the rest of us, either.
So...maybe I should say God decides and us mere mortals are left to duke
it out on the particulars "). Hmmmmm...I might just stick with that...
>Go ahead. I dare ya. List what skaters you think are artists and which
>ones are not. And see who agrees with you. Because not everyone is even
>going to agree with your criteria.
I think you're missing my point. If I define my criteria for artistry,
then people will agree or disagree with me based on those criteria. Or,
they may say my criteria is lacking and argue their 'own' criteria. It
doesn't have to be a 'universal' criteria, you see. You only have to
decide the criteria you are arguing at that point. Like Peg and Frank were
doing.
And, time is the 'true' test and only true test of the Artist...since,
criteria can be corrupted by the temper of the times...by influence,
money, fashion. The 'best' place to go for an opinion on Art is to those
who are learned in it and to those who are versed in it. It may not be an
infallible place, but, like you go to the best doctor you can for the best
diagnosis available, likewise you can turn to scholarship and/or other
knowledgeable people with regard to art, artistry, artists, and Art.
We ask our newsgroup judges for their invaluable, learned, experienced
opinions on what constitutes good skating all the time. Why is it that
people are 'so' very insistent on being proprietary about what makes art
and what is artistry and who is an artist? You know, just because
something makes a good piece of Art or some Artist is considered to be one
of the best, doesn't mean you 'have' to like them or like the work.
Conversely, if you love something that isn't considered art, it doesn't
mean there is something wrong with you liking it, just because it is not
considered good art or great Art.
Here's my little example: Animation can be Art...very little of it is,
however. It is an art form or medium, however. Now, I happen to love
Disney's animation, and it approaches Art all the time. One of the things
I love about it is the high quality of the production; the high level of
craftsmenship that goes into it. I have an 'enormous' love and the utmost
respect for high craftsmanship. But, is it ever 'really' Art? No. It's too
saddled by it's need to be an entertainment, by it's utilitarian aspect.
I'll go even further. One of my favourite cartoons is "Rocky and
Bullwinkle." The writing is very smart and hysterically funny and
sarcastic. But the actual animation is some of the worst stuff you'll ever
run across. It's fabulous "stuff" for what it is, but it doesn't 'nearly'
approach the craft and art of Disney. It can even be argued that the lousy
drawing is more apt for "Rocky and Bullwinkle," since it doesn't
"interfere" with the cleverness of the script, but...not here, anyway...
>And while I do understand, some educated opinions have more value than
>others...I have some problem with only educated people getting to define
>art..
Why? You can 'still' have ownership of your opinion and what affects you,
personally. You can still love what you love, be touched by anything that
touches you. That doesn't go away. Whether it's art or not. High Art or
low. That shouldn't matter. Being art or being "Art" doesn't make 'your'
feelings any more or less legitimate. They are yours, they are true to
you, whether someone tells you it's Art or not. People shouldn't feel
somehow undermined because they have a strong experience of something,
that something touches them, personally, because they have found out it is
not considered Art or, even, good art.
But, I'll also tell you this...I find Americans, at least, to be 'very'
defensive about all this. As if someone is taking away their ability to
have feelings and opinions and reactions, if Art is defined by someone
other than themselves, even if the person doing that defining is a scholar
or an artist themselves. And, see, I know that if people learned more
about Art, any Art, their experience of it would be richer than they could
ever realize, and I wonder and fret that they won't let themselves have
that experience of it. That it remains enough "to know what you like." I
say it's 'not' enough...there's more, lots more to know and humans have
the right to experience it!
And I wonder and fret that, at the same time, they think that someone who
is a master craftsman is somehow less "legitimate" than an artist/Artist,
so if they love the work of a craftsman, rather than an artist, they feel
belittled. They shouldn't. There is art in craft and it should 'never' be
belittled. If the person who toils at their work and craft gives their
heart and soul to it, why shouldn't any of the rest of us be moved, and
legitimately so? It is 'every' bit as valid as being an artist. You just
do it through a different point of view and with different gifts and
talents.
>I think of a lot of the domestic arts done by women over the
>eons...quilting, tapestry, weaving, ect....used and appreciated by
>uneducated people forever, only recently recognized as art by the
>Educated. Was it not art before the Educated deemed it to be art?
I think they deemed them a craft, and still do, because of the utilitarian
aspect of them. Certainly women aren't artists by sheer virtue of the fact
that they create such work as this. Some women 'may' be artists, as well
as craftsmen, in these crafts...they may have an 'intent' to work more
fully and use their craft to give expression to ideas and emotions and
experiences; to reach others through their work. Then the craft may take
on the aspect of art. But, I wouldn't say it's a given. Not at all. And I
don't think it is considered to be so automatically by scholarship. Or
have you heard something I haven't?
Revjoelle
Mark:
>It is not a sport because the winner is determined by judges and a
>subjective scoring scale, not by value or points/goals/time/whatever
>scored. This takes nothing away from Figure skating or any of the other
>non-sports, but it is a fact.
Nope. It's not a fact. It's your opinion. Just like I don't agree on
everyone's critiera as to what is art --I don't agree with your definition
of sport. Where does it say sport is not objective? Doesn't say that.
I think universal acceptence has some say here. If something is
universally accepted to be art, then it is art. If figure skating, and
gymnastics and what not is accepted as sport, it is sport.
And Notdeby, women's domestic arts, like quilting and such have recently
been recognized by art scholars as art...not only craft (and I don't mean
that "only" in a pejoritive sense) I say it was art all along.
Notdeby
In article <19970531010...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
pegl...@aol.com (PegLewis) writes:
>I've got news for you. *I* read original musical intent into it.
(Not having much time left, I'll just knock this bit off.) Of course,
Peg...you're a musician, however (didja notice my comment about the
possibility of driving composer's and musicians nuts with the habit of
choreographing something to music other than what was intended by the
original composer?). Anyway, I venture to say that the 'vast' majority of
the audience has little experience of music the way a musician does. Music
suggests all 'sorts' of things to the average person, lots of times not
related one iota to the composer's intent and meaning.
This is what my ideas are based on...the practical reality of the your
average Joe in the bleacher. And, I venture to say, it's the "reality" of
the way most choreographers hear music, too. I know Balanchine was a
musician and knew music theory, but I'd be hard-pressed to name other
music theorists who choreograph (though I'm sure they exist).
So, natch! Your point of view is valid (and I hope to be able to give it a
real once-over sometime next week)...but, probably not the average
experience of the vast majority of people who view dance, in fact I'd say
you have a very "specialized" experience. Hey, listen! I continually have
to suffer with all these ushers at the Met, who are musicians and opera
fans, telling me just what tripe ballet music is and how opera is 'real'
music. Sigh. What can I say? It's got a good beat...").
Oh, yeah...."Les Sylphides."
Cycys22
>Other examples of athletic non-sports:
>Gymnastics, Diving, Freestyle skiing, ski jumping, Boxing (except when
>there is a non-technical knockout)
Then I like the non-sports better. They're certainly are more difficult
to
master and much more fun to watch not to mention it can also look
like a work of art, this is more than I can say for good ol' football.
I still think you're wrong. Figure skating is basically more than a
sport.
Fab4Fan99
Trudi wrote:
> Let me describe something that impressed me early with Nicole. It's a
>piece of videotape from a practice session at Sun Valley in, what? 1990?
>'91? Anyway, Nicole is on the ice with a bunch of other skaters, and the
>sound system begins to play the quite lengthy "dance mix" of Madonna's
>"Vogue." Nicole begins to move to this; it's obvious she's not just
>skating around doing jumps or practicing some other routine without the
>music. She begins skating to *this* music. I don't know whether she'd
ever
>tried doing it before, but one thing's for sure, *nobody* does a routine
>this long! So obviously this was not a piece that was choreographed, at
>least not all of it. And all the way through, she's doing this great,
>spontaneous choreography, even taking time out to vamp with Shepherd
Clark
>(who also happened to be on the ice) as if he were a foil put there for
>her to flirt with. Right through to the end. I thought "I sensed this
>skater was amazing, but she is really AMAZING."
Thanks for posting this little tidbit, Trudi.
I guess this confirms my impressions of Nicole a bit. I guess the point
I was trying to make to NotDeby is: this story surprises me not one
tiny little bit.
Susan E Stone
Cycys22 (cyc...@aol.com) wrote:
: Then I like the non-sports better. They're certainly are more difficult
: to
: master and much more fun to watch not to mention it can also look
: like a work of art, this is more than I can say for good ol' football.
: I still think you're wrong. Figure skating is basically more than a
: sport.
Hmm. I've often thought that all sports when done well can be works of
art. Tiger Woods' golf swing strikes my eye as being just as much a
thing of intrinsic beauty and long practice as Michelle Kwan's and Nicole
Bobek's spirals. As does a perfect three-point shot arcing in for a
nothing-but-net swish. As does a football spiralling high through the air
powered by the sure arm of a level-headed and sure-footed quarterback. I
suppose my partial definition of art is any human endeavor that rises above
the merely functional to create beauty. (As a writer and lover of music
I also look at art as a way of using fiction to illustrate Truth, which
often involves creating ugliness, but that's beyond the scope of my
current point.)
Of course, on a practical level, the beauty in skating is rewarded in
competition, while in the other sports I named the beauty is
incidental--if the basketball player looked awkward and ungainly making
the shot, and the ball bounced off the glass and rolled around the rim, it
would get the same three points as the "art" shot. But to me the viewer,
the beauty of it *does* matter. Maybe I'm unusual, but I watch all sports
for aesthetics as well as because I care who wins, and I've seen many an
artist on the basketball court or football field. Contrariwise, I've
seen a few skaters who perform athletic feats and tricks but never quite
manage to make me think, "That's beautiful!"
--Susan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Susan E. Stone * "But human bodies are sic fools
Penn Biology Dept. Academic Office * For a' their colleges an' schools,
sst...@sas.upenn.edu * That when nae real ills perplex them
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~sstone/ * They mak enow themsels to vex them."
* --Robert Burns
VINCE-K...@worldnet.att.net
> And while I do understand, some educated opinions have more value than
> others...I have some problem with only educated people getting to define
> art..
> I think of a lot of the domestic arts done by women over the
> eons...quilting, tapestry, weaving, ect....used and appreciated by
> uneducated people forever, only recently recognized as art by the
> Educated. Was it not art before the Educated deemed it to be art?
>
> Joelle
> "I feel 100% confident that I can overcome this disease and be
> back on the ice within a few months" - Scott Hamilton
I 250% agree with you!!! Art (like beauty) is in the eye of the beholder
(which are windows to the soul). Art comes from within and is unique and
personal per each individual thereby viewed, interpreted and critiqued in
many different ways. Art is a pure form of self expression and since each
of us is different, each of us has his/her own unique individual way of
expressing ourselves artistically.
Peace be with all of you
Leaundra Kasprzak
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
VINCE-K...@worldnet.att.net
In article <19970531035...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
cyc...@aol.com (Cycys22) wrote:
>
> In article <338F64...@avicom.net>, Mark <fu...@avicom.net> writes:
>
> >Other examples of athletic non-sports:
> >Gymnastics, Diving, Freestyle skiing, ski jumping, Boxing (except when
> >there is a non-technical knockout)
>
Here is an interesting observation...
Karate, Kung-Fu etc... are all sports, they have competitions and are
even in the Olympics...
Karate et al is a sport under what is called "Martial Arts*" ^^^
Interesting eh? { : > )
- - - Leaundra
Kathleen Bratton
> Mark:
> >It is not a sport because the winner is determined by judges and a
> >subjective scoring scale, not by value or points/goals/time/whatever
> >scored. This takes nothing away from Figure skating or any of the other
> >non-sports, but it is a fact.
Not according to my Funk & Wagnalls _Standard_ _Dictionary_, which defines
sport as: "(1) that which amuses in general; diversion; pastime (2) a
particular game or play pursued for diversion; esp. an outdoor or athletic
game, as baseball, tennis, swimming, etc."
etc. etc. (about 4 more definitions which clearly have nothing to do with
sport in the athletic sense.)
What I though is interesting about this dictionary definition is that
skating might still not be included, because possibly a "game" is
a competition in which two people or teams play simultaneously. So, then
(because I really don't want to work) I looked up "game"; it is: "(1) a
contest governed by set rules (2) pl. athletic competitions (3) a single
context forming part of a fixed series." etc. etc.
So, then I looked up "contest" and "competition". A contest is a
"competition, game", and a competition is "a striving against another or
others for some object; rivalry; a contest.". So, skating is certainly a
competition, and since it's athletic it is thus (at least by the
dictionary definition) a sport.
But I don't really care . . . as long as bowling remains a sport, *that's*
what *I* care about.
:)
-- Kate
VINCE-K...@worldnet.att.net
In article <19970531013...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
not...@aol.com (Notdeby) wrote:
>
> In article <19970530034...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> fab4...@aol.com (Fab4Fan99) writes:
> >
> >Me:
> >>>...I just get
> >>>the feeling that I could take Nicole Bobek, put her out on the ice
> >>>in sweats, pop in a tape of one of my songs that she's never heard
> >>>before, and she'd create magic to it.
> >
> >NotDeby:
> >>So...you think she choreographs her own work? That she is an Isadora
> >>Duncan type? She may well have choreographic talent, but I'm not aware
> >>that she creates her own work...do you know that for sure?
Last year's TOC piece that Nicole did was indeed choeographed by Nicole.
Story has it that she and her mom went to see Cirque de Sole (sp???).
Nicole was so moved by the show that she went out and bought a cassete of
it on the way home. While listening to it in the car, she made her mom
pull over, she got out and right there on the side of the road started to
create (choreograph) her TOC performance.
I don't know if it is entirely true, but it does make for a neat story.
-- Leaundra
Jun Yan
> Here is an interesting observation...
>
> Karate, Kung-Fu etc... are all sports, they have competitions and are
> even in the Olympics...
>
> Karate et al is a sport under what is called "Martial Arts*" ^^^
> Interesting eh? { : > )
Believe it or not, Martial arts *are* artistic in a different way from
dance or figure skating. It can be both choreography for exhibition or
utilized in real fighting situations to defend oneself. So it can be both
performed on stage and have practical use in real life. If you don't
think martial arts are beautiful, try to watch Jackie Chan's movies or
even Elvis Stojko's "Dragon--the Bruce Lee Story" long program.
jun
Deborah Burgoyne
VINCE-K...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> In article <19970531035...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> cyc...@aol.com (Cycys22) wrote:
> >
> > In article <338F64...@avicom.net>, Mark <fu...@avicom.net> writes:
> >
> > >Other examples of athletic non-sports:
> > >Gymnastics, Diving, Freestyle skiing, ski jumping, Boxing (except when
> > >there is a non-technical knockout)
> >
>
>
> Karate, Kung-Fu etc... are all sports, they have competitions and are
> even in the Olympics...
>
> Karate et al is a sport under what is called "Martial Arts*" ^^^
> Interesting eh? { : > )
>
I've been following this thread off and on for a while, and finally feel
compelled to insert my 2 cents.
Whether an activity is dubbed a "sport," an "art," a "recreation" or
whatever, is based on the function and purpose of the activity, not the
mere act. Therefore all of these activities are variously art, sport,
etc., depending on their function and purpose at that time. So, for
example, when I am skating merely as an aerobic exercise, it is
"exercise." When I am rehearsing a program for a competition, or
skating in that competition, it's a "sport." When I am goofing around
on the ice with my friends, it's "recreation," and when I am performing
an exhibition, it's "art." (Possibly bad art, but art nevertheless.)
Most physical activities fall in multiple categories, even for one
person, and certainly fall in multiple categories for different people.
And sometimes, of course, they fall in multiple categories
simultaneously, as when a skater competes artistically. I just started
working out with weights, and for me that is exercise, and exercise only
- I'll never compete, although if I did, it would be a sport, and I'll
never like it, so it certainly isn't recreation for me.
An analogy from a sedentary activity - is reading "recreation,"
"education," or "work?" For me, all three at various times - depends on
why I'm doing it and what I'm reading. Often it fits into multiple
categories at the same time. (Reading can also be art, of course, if
you're doing interpretive reading for an audience.)
Deborah J. Burgoyne
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, 1981
Notdeby
In article <8651376...@dejanews.com>, VINCE-K...@worldnet.att.net
writes:
>In article <19970531013...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> not...@aol.com (Notdeby) wrote:
>> In article <19970530034...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>> fab4...@aol.com (Fab4Fan99) writes:
>> >
>> >Frank:
>> >>>...I just get
>> >>>the feeling that I could take Nicole Bobek, put her out on the ice
>> >>>in sweats, pop in a tape of one of my songs that she's never heard
>> >>>before, and she'd create magic to it.
>> >
>> >NotDeby:
>> >>So...you think she choreographs her own work? That she is an Isadora
>> >>Duncan type? She may well have choreographic talent, but I'm not
aware
>> >>that she creates her own work...do you know that for sure?
>
>Last year's TOC piece that Nicole did was indeed choeographed by Nicole.
>Story has it that she and her mom went to see Cirque de Sole (sp???).
>Nicole was so moved by the show that she went out and bought a cassete of
>it on the way home. While listening to it in the car, she made her mom
>pull over, she got out and right there on the side of the road started to
>create (choreograph) her TOC performance.
>
> I don't know if it is entirely true, but it does make for a neat story.
Good lord! I think an actual mythos is beginning to spring up around
Nicole Bobek. This sounds 'so' much like some of the legends that surround
legendary ballerinas. In particular, this sounds very much like one of the
stories about the ballerina Marie Taglioni, who, while travelling by coach
in Russia, was stopped by highwaymen and made to dance for them on a rug,
right then and there (they were enraptured, of course, and let her go
unharmed ") ).
Wow! This has 'big' potential in creating a whole new mystique and drama
around figure skaters and skating. Tell me more ").
Really...anybody got any good apocryphal stories of skaters, living or
dead?