Are Skaters really Artists ? (Long)

Are Skaters really Artists ? (Long)

Post by P. D. Goldber » Tue, 27 May 1997 04:00:00


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

 
 
 

Are Skaters really Artists ? (Long)

Post by Revjoel » Wed, 28 May 1997 04:00:00

Pat:

Quote:
>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.

Quote:
>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

 
 
 

Are Skaters really Artists ? (Long)

Post by Mary E Tyle » Wed, 28 May 1997 04:00:00

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

 
 
 

Are Skaters really Artists ? (Long)

Post by PegLew » Wed, 28 May 1997 04:00:00


Quote:

>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


===========
"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)
===========
Its a wonderful feeling to fly again. - Michelle Kwan, '97 Worlds,
March 1997

 
 
 

Are Skaters really Artists ? (Long)

Post by Caryn Kat » Thu, 29 May 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

> 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.

[snip]

> 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)

 
 
 

Are Skaters really Artists ? (Long)

Post by PegLew » Fri, 30 May 1997 04:00:00

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;-) ! ) :

Quote:
>> 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:

Quote:
> 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:

Quote:
>  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...!

Peg


===========
"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)
===========
Its a wonderful feeling to fly again. - Michelle Kwan, '97 Worlds,
March 1997

 
 
 

Are Skaters really Artists ? (Long)

Post by Notde » Fri, 30 May 1997 04:00:00

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...


Quote:

>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...)

Quote:
>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.

Quote:
>...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.

Quote:
>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).

Quote:
>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.

Quote:
>  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.

Quote:
>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.

Quote:
>For obvious reasons many skaters can not perform programs
>that they did earlier in their careers due to physical
>limitations

The same with dancers.

Quote:
> 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 programs traditional function as
competitive material and entertainment.

Quote:
>... 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 choreographers 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.

Quote:
> 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!

Quote:
>    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).

Quote:
> 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.

Quote:
>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.

Quote:
>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.


Quote:

>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
doesnt "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  ").

Quote:
>  Who gets to decided who the TRULY artistic skater
>is?


Quote:

>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. ...

read more »

 
 
 

Are Skaters really Artists ? (Long)

Post by Revjoel » Fri, 30 May 1997 04:00:00

Quote:
> 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?

Joelle
"I feel 100% confident that I can overcome this disease and be
back on the ice within a few months" - Scott Hamilton

 
 
 

Are Skaters really Artists ? (Long)

Post by P. D. Goldber » Fri, 30 May 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

> 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 ones 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

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> 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

 
 
 

Are Skaters really Artists ? (Long)

Post by P. D. Goldber » Fri, 30 May 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

> 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

 
 
 

Are Skaters really Artists ? (Long)

Post by Phil Antho » Sat, 31 May 1997 04:00:00

On Mon, 26 May 1997 16:45:56 -0700, "P. D. Goldberg"

Quote:

>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 . . .

Quote:
>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.
Quote:

>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.