WAG Addressing the Lack of Artistry in Current Gymnastics

[Deleted member 15064]

"Artistry, or the lack thereof, is one the hottest topics in gymnastics. Bemoaning the demise of artistry – in combination with the assurance that everything was much better in the 80s – is something of full-time job for a lot of gym fans. While fans have the luxury of sitting back and yelling “are the judges blind?!!! That routine should have been hammered for lack of artistry!” at their computer screens, the FIG has to come up with actual rules that can be applied by actual judges in actual competitions."

Here's something concrete that's being done about it. My daughter's HC is mentioned in the most recent workshop given at Antwerp :

http://the-all-around.com/2013/11/11/all-about-artistry/

 

[dynamicduo]

Such an interesting article!! And, I really enjoyed watching all of those routines! I was a ballerina for many years (professional) and the gymnastics turns always bugged me, especially how long they took to set up! It will be interesting to see if it does become more fluid! As for the corner thing, I did notice the gymnasts did in fact look like flamingos! lol

 

[<3GymGirl<3]

That's a really interesting article, I once watched a montage of gymnastics for each decade and into the 21st century, honestly that video just kept getting more and more boring

 

[gymboymom]

Really interesting article.

 

[Jen H.]

Thoughtful article.
I am going wax on a bit about the beautiful hands of the 80's- I despise the "talon hands" that are so popular today. It breaks up the beautiful long lines, and looks exaggeratedly silly sometimes.

 

[Guenhwyvar132]

My husbands biggest pet peave is the lack of actual dance in the floor routines now a days. He says it looks like they are just trying to catch their breath as they make some random movements that may or may not go along with the music.

 

[kandkfunk]

Great article! I love the concept of more artistry, but I think the emphasis for so the last two decades has been on more and more advanced tricks. It's going to take a while to find that balance. I also think it's going to require additional tweaks to the FIG rules to encourage the artistry. It takes so many years of practice to work up to the level of tumbling and acro that's encouraged by the COP. It doesn't leave a lot of time to work on artistry. Ballerinas and other dancers spend years perfecting their craft and I don't think it's realistic to expect gymnasts to have the same level of dance as professionals. Some can pull it off, but I just think it's asking for a lot. Back when the routines were so much more artistic, there wasn't the expectation of four full tumbling passes with skills that seem to constantly be pushing the limits..

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

I think I'm in the minority among coaches and fans, but here goes:

Art and sport are inherently mutually exclusive.

Art is, by definition, completely subjective. The quality and beauty and meaning of art are all in the eye of the beholder. To attempt to quantify "artistry" is blasphemous (for lack of a better term) against the very concept of art, in my opinion. Sure it can be studied, evaluated, and taught, and specific techniques can be practiced and perfected, but at the end of the day there's no objective way to evaluate the quality of a work of art.

Sport is, by definition, objective. There are winners and losers. Everything can, should, MUST be objectively evaluated and quantified. Either the ball went through the goal or it didn't. Either the runner crossed the finish line first or he didn't. There is no room for interpretation. This is not to say referees never get it wrong; I'm simply saying that, in principle, sport is built on objectivity.

So which is gymnastics? It can be either one. It can be a performance art, like dance, juggling, circus acrobatics, etc. Or it can be sport, like football, track & field, or handegg. But when we try to be both at the same time, both the art and the sport suffer.

This is not to say that it couldn't split into two different disciplines, say, artistic gymnastics and competitive gymnastics; however, I think by trying to do everything at once, we cause the sport/art to fall short of its potential in both categories.


EDIT: Also, there's a second reason I don't like the evaluation of artistry, and that is that it is so often used as a coded way of talking about body type.

For example, compare Shawn and Nastia. Shawn kept her chin up, moved her whole body to the music, and was in every way extremely expressive, but nobody ever refers to her as "artistic" because her body was short and tanky. Nastia had "talon wrists" in everything, never moved her head with her dance, and in general looked like a praying mantis out on the floor, and yet people always said she was "artistic" because her body was long and lean.

And I vehemently object to any sort of evaluation based on the body type of the athlete.

 

[Natalia]

I think I'm in the minority among coaches and fans, but here goes:

Art and sport are inherently mutually exclusive.

Art is, by definition, completely subjective. The quality and beauty and meaning of art are all in the eye of the beholder. To attempt to quantify "artistry" is blasphemous (for lack of a better term) against the very concept of art, in my opinion. Sure it can be studied, evaluated, and taught, and specific techniques can be practiced and perfected, but at the end of the day there's no objective way to evaluate the quality of a work of art.

Sport is, by definition, objective. There are winners and losers. Everything can, should, MUST be objectively evaluated and quantified. Either the ball went through the goal or it didn't. Either the runner crossed the finish line first or he didn't. There is no room for interpretation. This is not to say referees never get it wrong; I'm simply saying that, in principle, sport is built on objectivity.

So which is gymnastics? It can be either one. It can be a performance art, like dance, juggling, circus acrobatics, etc. Or it can be sport, like football, track & field, or handegg. But when we try to be both at the same time, both the art and the sport suffer.

This is not to say that it couldn't split into two different disciplines, say, artistic gymnastics and competitive gymnastics; however, I think by trying to do everything at once, we cause the sport/art to fall short of its potential in both categories.


EDIT: Also, there's a second reason I don't like the evaluation of artistry, and that is that it is so often used as a coded way of talking about body type.

For example, compare Shawn and Nastia. Shawn kept her chin up, moved her whole body to the music, and was in every way extremely expressive, but nobody ever refers to her as "artistic" because her body was short and tanky. Nastia had "talon wrists" in everything, never moved her head with her dance, and in general looked like a praying mantis out on the floor, and yet people always said she was "artistic" because her body was long and lean.

And I vehemently object to any sort of evaluation based on the body type of the athlete.

^^^^This so so true.

Gymnastics is still subjective technically,judges are eyeballing angles,trying to figure out if the gymnast hit the required 180 degree split,did she hit the 90 degree vertical.Cheap technology is here to help,but is not used at any meets.

All we need to add now is more space for subjectivity,evaluating how "pretty" a routine looked.Yikes.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

artistry and difficulty are like peace and freedom. you can't have both at the same time.

until Bruno Grandi and Nellie Kim get a clue there won't be the kinds of artistry that we saw in the 80's and early 90's.

the kids are quite literally trying to survive the code. they could care less about the "artistry".

 

[rjb123]

I think that if you look at a semi comparable sport - figure skating- you could say the same thing. As the difficulty has gotten higher and higher the artistry has decreased. I will say though, that I have never really understood the "prep time" in the corner that gymnasts do before tumbling and wondered if they were marked down for it. I remember in figure skating you would get deducted for too much prep time before jumping. So programs had to be choreographed in ways to hide the entry a bit.

 

[Seeker]

Bruno has been a disaster (some would argue dangerous) for gymnastics.

 

[iwannacoach]

Svetlana Boginskya.............

 

[Deleted member D3987]

I think that if you look at a semi comparable sport - figure skating- you could say the same thing. As the difficulty has gotten higher and higher the artistry has decreased. I will say though, that I have never really understood the "prep time" in the corner that gymnasts do before tumbling and wondered if they were marked down for it. I remember in figure skating you would get deducted for too much prep time before jumping. So programs had to be choreographed in ways to hide the entry a bit.

well, i can tell you having been a former gymnast, that when the gymnast gets to the corner and is facing a double double or a skill commensurate with daunting concentration, you are trying to get your breath and focus to hit the skill. the margin for error are many of these skills are a big fat zero. and then they have more than one. a coach simply tells the athlete to go like hell and squeeze tight. or something like that.
we certainly don't give them 'white noise' commands like "now honey, when you go, please make sure you look at and smile at the judges, don't forget to flick your wrists and fingers as you dance in to the corner and make sure you keep your toes pointed in the air and stay that way till you land."

capiche? in the old days let's say, when they didn't have spring floors, the men and women had a lot of artistry. but lacked the physical preparation required to perform some of what they did that even today is considered difficult and then crashed. but they looked beautiful in the process of doing it. call it winning ugly.

today? look at some of the tumbling passes. the vaults, etc; take Zondervan as an example. his high bar is 1 crazy teenage mutant gymnast twirling dervish. and he scores. you think anyone really cares about his "artistry"? the judges don't.

and our sport has really moved towards 'power' athletes. my opinion is that those power athletes have some physical deficits that won't achieve the kind of artistry they're looking for. without using names...the gymnast can perform any leap above 180 degrees. but she can't double layout. which would you rather watch? or better question...why do you watch in the first place? double lays are more exciting plain and simple. but the dancer choreographer coach/judge says "gawd that looked like crap". and the gymnast says "you can eat the crap...i stood up and survived my double lay".

i could go on, but i think you get my opinion. and you know what? you go back to the 'old' days and they weren't perfect either. not sure why iwannacoach invoked Sveta. but clearly their dance was better then. now it is choreography.

again, my opinion. even in the eastern bloc system back then where kids went to sports schools. they lived, ate, breathed and did gymnastics under one roof. they did two a days. and certain of their rotations was dance.

but they didn't have 4 or 5 tumbling passes in their routines. and they didn't have to throw all the stuff on beam then either. training time has supplanted the dance. it had to. you can't expect the kids to train 80 hours a week to get all of what you might want in the artistry. something had to give with the FIG code.

as a coach, you think i'm going to spend the time on plies when i need to spend the time practicing all that goes in to and including landings for an Amanar?

arguments can go in both directions. but the code, Bruno and Nellie have to live now with what they have done. and they can't even get the code right either when it has to do with certain artistry that most of us can't overlook. look at Pena's vault. or the girl from Egypt. they are the most revolting vaults that i have ever laid my eyes on. my blood pours from my pupils every time i see them perform their vaults. and they want artistry? they don't even know what that is anymore...

 

[profmom]

Fascinating conversation. As just a fan, I wonder though if a bit of this might also be about not just artistry but also the tension for some of the very top gymnasts between execution/difficulty (to the extent that one could separate execution from artistry). Zonderland is a perfect example. His high bar routines are hella exciting, but I prefer to watch Kohei Uchimura and wish that the D scores worked out so that the differential in E scores would bring the two closer in the final outcome.

As for those vaults, Dunno, I wish there were an option that judges would use to award a 0 for a life threatening vault. I'd go further: a 0 and denial of permission to chuck a second one. Somebody should be the mean parent if the gymnasts, coaches, and national team bigwigs are all acting with reckless disregard toward the athlete's safety.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

geesh, i called him Zondervan. i think now that that was a gymnast from Michigan.

and glad you brought up Kohei. he's just about the most beautiful gymnast that i have ever seen in my lifetime. yet he makes mistakes. those mistakes translate to artistry. can you imagine if the difficulty was lessened a bit? Kohei would be flawless.

but as i said, the difficulty is so crazy that there is no margin for error. and physics and biomechanics play a part in the artitstry. gymnastics performed in different time zones, on different equipment, etc; makes it very difficult to get it right each time. and this is WHY they compete less today than they did yesteryear. more margin of error leads to more injuries. and the code is too blame.

 

[Midwestmommy]

If our young ones can be taught to point their toes, they can be taught not to make talons with their hands. If they can be taught not to flex feet, they can be taught not to "flex" hands/wrists. If it is something a professional dancer spent fifteen years learning, can most elite gymnasts learn it? No. If it's something basic that an average nine year old ballet dance student can master, should future elite gymnasts be able to figure it out (looong before they are doing 4-5 tumbling passes or doubles)? Yeah, probably.

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

Gymnastics is still subjective technically,judges are eyeballing angles,trying to figure out if the gymnast hit the required 180 degree split,did she hit the 90 degree vertical.Cheap technology is here to help,but is not used at any meets.

As I said, officials are not perfect, and they may misjudge some things; however, angles are objective measurements, not subjective ones. Either they hit vertical or they didn't. Perhaps the judge might get it wrong, when you ask whether a gymnast hit the necessary angle, there is a correct answer and an incorrect one. Completely objective, at least in principle.

(Which, by the way, is why I think computer programs and camera rigs should be developed to judge routines; in principle, it's possible with technology that either exists or is likely to exist within the next decade, and it would completely remove all subjectivity from judging. However, we are a long way away from having computer programs that can judge artistry, but that would be a whole separate discussion)

 

[Gymdaddio]

I like to work the judge's tables when we host meets. Usually I've worked FX or beam. Only once have I heard the judges talk about taking off for artistry and it was an afterthought. Along the lines of they noticed the gymnast waving her arms around a lot and then only realized that she really had no dance.

 

[iwannacoach]

i could go on, but i think you get my opinion. and you know what? you go back to the 'old' days and they weren't perfect either. not sure why iwannacoach invoked Sveta. but clearly their dance was better then. now it is choreography.

I was musing over the possibility Of Sveta taking over for Nelli. That and a recognition of Sveta's reasonably balanced mix of artistry and skills that had plenty of meat on the bone.