Beauty Pt 2: Arts in Sports?

So as you might know, I started a blog series on beauty last post. I came across and article that was absolutely relative to the arc of what I want to talk about in this little series.

I was on the New York Times website today, when I saw an interesting title which I thought might be relevant to my studies of creativity. As a side note, did you know that the International Herald Tribune is the world edition of the New York Times?

Anyway the article I read was titled Skating’s Scoring Has Little Love for Artistry found on the Olympics page of the website. If you would not like to read the article, what it talks about is the performances of Mirai Nagasu and Rachel Flatt in the free style competition at the US National Championships which I'm led to belive were held within the last two weeks of January 2010. The reason the article was written was because Nagasu had an incredible performance, a performance that left the audience as well as some of the commentators to believe that she won, when in reality she scored more than 20 points less than Flatt who took first--Nagasu and Flatt scoring 188.78 and 200.11 respectively.

The NY Times article, by Jeré Longman, states the reason for Nagasu's lower score is due to technicalities. Under-rotating a few of her important jumps. Not much more than that. The main conflict is that it's been said that Flatt's routine was much more conservative and made point driven, while difficult as well, Nagasu's performance was much more expressive and artistic. Now I went and found this videos on Facebook to see what I felt about the whole situation as close to first hand as I could get. I watched them in the order that they were performed at the Championship, watching the recording of Flatt and then Nagasu. I had the convenience of doing without the pause for commercials and maybe a zamboni in between. If you have an extra 14 minutes plus loading time go ahead and watch as well.





Now I realize it is important to note that, the video of Nagasu is wide screen and in high quality, both of which Flatt's video are not, but I also believe that Nagasu had the better performance. Both were great, and I did enjoy Flatt's, but I thought Nagasu was just a little better. Both had a little scare in a landing, Flatt's bigger than Nagasu's in my opinion. Never did I notice an under-rotation from Nagasu. It was not something visible at all. Surely I am not trained, but I figure if it's 20 points worth of something, I'd notice it. Now, something I did notice is struggle getting into spinning poses three or four times from Flatt. Only once did I see any sort of struggle from a spinning pose in Nagasu's routine, she also didn't do the exact same moves, which may be the reason, so it is harder to compare, but those were the moves chosen to be executed. I was distracted by Flatts effort to skate multiple times, while I only remember two distractions from Nagaru: the first uneasy landing and the spinning move at the end.

What does this say about judging art? Longman quoted Tom Zakrajsek, the coach of Flatt, saying something that I was going bring up as well. "All sports deal with numbers. If figure skating is a combination of sprot and art, then it shouldn't be one way or the other way--all technical or all artistic." Agreed, so maybe there isn't as much of a conflict in this situation, but we do judge art. We have choir competitions; we have photography contests. We have these things that are judged, but how do you judge art. I know a few people, or at least one, who judges music competitions; I may interview him. So maybe figure skating shouldn't be a sport. Sports are activities with easy measurements. It's a competition of who can score more points, who can throw further, who can run faster. All easy to judge things as long as there is no cheating (that's another blog...). What is more beautiful. Does the Mona Lisa get a 200.11? What is 200.11? Does the birth of Venus come in second place? Who knows. Do you?

Tell me what you think of the videos and/or the article. Add your ideas of scoring and what not. Talk to me!-Steve

Beauty

"Is New York the most beautiful place I have ever seen? I look outside of a 25th floor apartment window, watching over the Greenwich Village and all points south, and I am calmed by the beauty of this city on a warm January night. Could this truly be the most beautiful place I have ever seen? Do I feel this way because it is home? Is it because I understand the city in a way and have an insider's point of view? Is it because I feel comfortable here? Could this truly be more beautiful than what I saw while I was in Yellowstone? Could this be more beautiful than all I have seen in Europe? Is it because I am here in this city now? Will I say this of Florence? Would I have said this about Philadelphia had I gone to a school there? Or in California? What is it about this situation that makes me feel like New York is the most beautiful place I have ever seen, or is it?"

I typed that into my iPod Touch last night (Saturday, January 16, 2010) at 9:43, with some edits and additions this morning, since I was distracted watching the Karate Kid. The view was simply amazing. I could never get over it, though I've seen it many times, but what is it that makes something beautiful? Don't worry, I promise to give you a better answer than, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," I just don't know what it is yet.

But why not start with this phrase? I don't know all about the details of infant vision, but when we were born, we could not see as we do now. When we came into the world, we started to see images. Images are guided very carefully for us. Children's books have pretty images; the apple doesn't have a bruise on it; the car isn't dirty. Everything is perfect unless the plot/lesson of the story deems otherwise. A great majority of art, especially the art that one would be first exposed to, is normally specifically "beautiful art." Why are highly detailed paintings of public restrooms seen as beautiful? We are conditioned to see a certain type of beauty.

But if beauty is conditioned then why do so few agree on what is beautiful? People cannot agree who the most beautiful supermodel is or the most beautiful waterfall in the world. I think there is beauty in familiarity. If an American were shown a pictured of an Asian person and asked if they were Chinese, Korean, they often would not know. This is also a sort of conditioning as well, but it becomes more personal. Culture and environment has a great influence on what is beautiful to an individual. I can see how who I find beautiful is greatly influenced by the people I grew up with--people in my school and my family. There is beauty in those songs by the band you love. Even songs from a new albums can be beautiful at first listen because of the similar qualities to the bands older songs.

There also can be beauty in unfamiliarity though. I have no evidence for this, but I would guess that if an American, who had never been to Europe, went to a city Europeans don't consider to be specifically beautiful, the American would probably still see it as beautiful. They are not used to places looking like as they do in Europe. There can be beauty in a bands new album that takes an approach different from their previous albums. But now as I think about unfamiliarity harder, it may not be true because maybe we are conditioned to know about this "beautiful European look." Often when a band takes a new approach they either lose fans, or you will hear the fans talks about how it took them a few listens to like the new sound. For those who liked the new sound from the beginning, some of them already listened to music similar to where the band was moving towards.

I knew this would be complicated, but not this complicated. This will definitely need another post some day.

-Steven

My Brain

Don`t tell your secrets to anyone
Because ideas are vulnerable
As soon as you say your idea out loud
Then it can go and live on its own
And you will miss it oh so much
And you will wait for it`s return
And you will wish it were your own
But ideas that left never come back home
-from "Bon Ide" by Regina Spektor

This is my creativity journal. This is where, dispite the warning from one of my favorite singer/songwriters Regina Spektor, I will put my ideas on, you guessed it, creativity. Now I surely won't put everything here. Don't want all of my ideas running away or worse, running away with one of you! I am really interested in using this public spectrum for a journal so that ideas can bounce off of other people. Please leave comments on what you think. If you think an idea is stupid say it, but also please say why. If you think of some way to better an idea please comment.

This journal is for every idea, whether possible or not. This will hopefully be an idealized version of everything. Plato says that the purest form of a work of art is the idea. This is where ideas go and grow. They may even become realized some day.

This journal is for theory and thinking on creativity. I invite Plato to my blog though I don't expect him to stop by anytime soon, other than in spirit as he just did. I invite Oliver Sacks, author of Musicophilia, which is on my reading list. He may actually find himself here which would be exciting! Hey I said above every idea. Why limit?

This journal is for my personal creative growth. Feedback on realizations of ideas, revision of ideas, recycling of ideas. This journal is for my life. Creativity.
-Steven