Cultural taste, preference and appreciation is considered to be at least partly influenced by prior experience of or exposure to different art forms. Thus if your main artistic reference point is a form or forms of popular culture, you will prefer that particular aesthetic and only come to enjoy different types of culture if they are presented in an accessible way taking into account your existing preferences. In this way an individual's taste can develop and s/he can develop as a critical consumer of art.
This is a rather crude explanation of one theory regarding individual taste and distinctions made between high art and popular culture, but I think it does have some pertinence to the gymnastics scene today. The changes going on in the sport are not just about how the gymnasts perform; it is also to do with how we as spectators respond to the sport, how the judges judge (or not) and, hence, how the sport develops.
Of course, there is significant emphasis in the code today on technical difficulty in the routines. This is one of the things that makes discussions of artistic gymnastics across generations so interesting, as younger generations emphasise the technical content while many of the old crusties like me prefer to consider the overall performances. I posted this on the forum :
Boguinskaia was to many the greatest artistic gymnast. While to modern eyes her routines do not appear technically difficult the overall difficulty level of her work was far greater than that presented by most gymnasts of any era. Her routines were composed to make the best balance between line, expression, rhythm, variety of shape in the context of gymnastic and acrobatic elements. Even her bars routine was 'choreographed' to give a sense of changing form. Her quality of movement remains unrivalled on all four apparatus.
Most gymnasts competing today could not perform like Boguinskaia with a million years of weight training or hitting their double turns on floor with slide rule accuracy. They could not land their excessively aggressive tumbles accurately enough to express their non existent choreographic theme or story. I am digressing. Kalinina was a nice gymnast, light and quick and with some impressive technical difficulty. She was an excellent artistic gymnast in every sense of the expression.
Galiyeva was work in progress in 1992. She had the technical aspects down, had good form and execution. She was a good competitor. She just wasn't the full package. I can however understand why many people today might appreciate her work as her qualities match or even exceed those of many world beating gymnasts in competition today.
It really got me to thinking how limited we are in our consideration of 'difficulty' today, considering it to embrace individual gymnastic and acrobatic elements that have to be performed in a particular way to be credited. I fall into this trap as well, not surprising as it is an approach embedded in the Code that so many gym fans, judges and officials tend to consider as sacred as a religious text. Gymnasts infuse their routines with masses of difficult elements and there is a tendency to believe that this makes their gymnastics the best ever performed. Yet gymnasts of any era are merely responding to a Code. Today's Code produces many gymnasts like Galiyeva - frequently not as good - tumblers who can respond well to competition conditions - but not the full package.
It is easy to suggest that the work of Boguinskaia is less difficult than the work of, say for argument's sake, Russian junior Maria Kharenkova - because she clearly has fewer elements in her optional exercises. But it is the manner of performance and the quality of movement that lends difficulty to Boguinskaia's work. In those olden days gymnasts presented routines rather than assemblages of difficulty. It meant gymnasts could establish a theme or expressive metier throughout the work. Coaches, gymnasts and choreographers constructed original creative expressions rather than responding to the Code as if they were ordering lunch from an overly prescriptive menu.
We should also not forget that the sport was differently structured in those days, requiring the presentation of compulsory exercises that would expose any deficiencies in basic training with striking clarity. This meant that the gymnasts had to prepare not one, but two sets of routines for presentation at the major competitions. There were few, if any, opportunities for these gymnasts to present themselves as specialists on one or two apparatus. They all had to be all arounders. Their overall difficulty level was in effect far greater than that of any gymnasts performing today.
(I think it is rather telling to consider what would happen to the ranking lists of recent competitions had compulsories been a requirement. What would any one of the current World or Olympic champions look like performing stripped down exercises with a minimum of acrobatic or gymnastic content and an emphasis on line, expression and rhythm?)
I'll leave you to consider this and provide you with some stimulus in the shape of video recordings of the work of Boguinskaia, Kalinina and Galiyeva. Please do comment. I have selected the floor routines as I know this is what you will enjoy most but my argument pertains to all four apparatus. I have also selected routines as close in time as possible to the 1992 Barcelona Olympics. This is a bit unfair to Boguinskaia, who wasn't at her peak there. She was herself outplayed by the greater difficulty of Tatiana Gutsu. The progression of acrobatic difficulty goes back a long way. But what I shall, rather simplisticaly, describe as artistry shines through, evergreen.
Natalia Kalinina Optional Floor 1991
Roza Galiyeva Floor Exercise 1992 Olympic Games
Svetlana Boguinskaia Floor Exercise 1992 Olympic Games
Natalia Kalinina Compulsory Floor 1991
Roza Galiyeva Compulsory Floor 1992
Svetlana Boguinskaia Compulsory Floor 1992
0 comments:
Post a Comment