what is Beam artistry?

11 comments ↓

#1 crystal J on 02.07.13 at 1:15 pm

Does anyone think that it is possible to define artistry? My mother loves Gabby’s floor routine and thinks it shows a good modern playful dance styles, but I know there are some who think it isn’t classical enough or whatever– it’s hard to get everyone to agree on that.

#2 MissEducated on 02.07.13 at 2:26 pm

I don’t think artistry is always about being classical… For me artistry is a lot about the little touches. A truly artistic gymnast, to me, feels the choreography. It’s the head movements, the extension right through to the finger tips, little flourishes. Omelianchik’s routines were performances rather than routines. It is hard to define I guess, but I know it when I see it!

#3 Ono No Komachi on 02.09.13 at 10:12 am

“Does anyone think that it is possible to define artistry?” It’s possible, but everyone seems to have his or her own definition.

Marcel Duchamp did a pretty good job of articulating what Crytal J is discussing:

““The creative act is not performed by the artist alone; the spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering and interpreting its inner qualifications and thus adds his contribution to the creative act.”

#4 Jason on 02.09.13 at 11:42 am

I actually quite liked that beam routine, normally beam is as boring as bat shit. Too many crappy leaps and pointless arm wiggling. But putting too much emphasis on artistry in the score is difficult and dangerous. Art by its nature is subjective and having too much emphasis really opens the door for cheating by the judges.

#5 jenny on 02.09.13 at 12:15 pm

Gabby has no artistry in her floor routine. She looks like a fish flopping around out of water. She is stiff and has no flow to her movements.

Artistry isn’t about classic music. Its about flow , V and connection to the music. Gabby has none of that.

#6 WW on 02.10.13 at 8:24 am

I’m with Jenny. Gabby’s FX in 2012 was *awful* – bad choreography and bad performance combined.

#7 WW on 02.10.13 at 8:31 am

But back to the subject of artistry on BB – while I wouldn’t refer to “cheating” by judges as a given (not like the old old days of “general impression”) I would say that the difficulty of interpreting what is meant by “beam artistry” is a real problem. And IMHO Omeliantchik doesn’t really help answer it.

#8 TCO on 02.10.13 at 11:41 am

I think one of the worst artistic effects is allowing false connections. the front to back stuff. The flip, circle arms, flip again stuff. Really just truly connected rebounding or stepping skills (as on floor) should be allowed. It would really be fine, people. Make connection something special. It is OK if it is rarer.

#9 balabanov11 on 02.10.13 at 12:32 pm

as Komachi deftly notes thru the Duchamp quote, the audience should be a willing participant in the artistic act. BUT it needs to start with the artist, or in the case of gymnastics and dance, at least the choreographer first – there needs to be a someone’s POV (point of view) on display. On beam, this is most obvious, in routines like this one from the Golden Age, in skill selection, tailoring of skill placement and basic body movement to the INDIVIDUAL quality of the movement, said gymnast’s basic conditioning and body development in relationship to recognized norms, and on beam, most importantly phrasing of skill groupings and RHYTHM. Without phrasing and rhythm, beam becomes a bland recitation of the COP, which is what we have now in almost every elite beam set in captivity.

#10 balabanov11 on 02.10.13 at 12:36 pm

And it’s worth repeating that a slavish focus on “objectivity” is what has lead WAG to it’s current sorry state (with MAG not so far behind). This sport needs a huge injection of subjectivity – STAT!

#11 TCO on 02.13.13 at 7:42 pm

Eff subjectivity. Sport has a HUGE history of score cheating (maybe not all rooted out yet). Don’t open the door to the thieves.

Leave a Comment