1988 Olympic Champion Shushunova, a power gymnast with artistry, who scored three tens in the team final in Seoul.
And the loss of that ceiling and of the idea of the mark as a representation of the 'whole' brought with it the possibility of skewing scores in favour of those gymnasts who attempt high levels of difficulty. I'm fairly certain that this was an unintended consequence. It is a consequence that makes it possible for girls with a mediocre level of gymnastics to contend for medals, provided they can bash together a reasonably high scoring regime of content. They don't have to execute well, perform beautifully or be artistic to gain the benefit of their higher D score, they just have to avoid error.
Even so, the principle of judging whole routines has disappeared from the sport only gradually. There has always been an extent to which difficulty quotient and execution deductions have been part of the scoring system. In the 1989 edition of the Code, there is this introductory section:
'It is the responsibility of the judges, based upon the present Code of Points, to grasp in its totality:
- the construction of the exercises as a whole
- the difficulty value of elements and connections
- the flow of the movements
- the synchronization of the music with the floor exercise
while sufficiently considering, aside from the technical perfection of execution, the harmony and strength of expression as well as the aesthetics of presentation'
For me this somehow encapsulate so much of what is missing from the current version of the Code. Today the writers of the Code (who on earth are they? By whose authority do 'they' write the Code? A most undemocratic process if you ask me ...) increasingly attempt to deconstruct artistry, in a misguided and bureaucratic effort to make the process of marking seem 'objective'.
The outcome of this effort is a list of operational examples of artistry. By their very nature, these examples aren't up to their job. Gymnastics artistry is a construct of the aesthetic set within a sporting context. The aesthetic is an intangible concept intricately linked to individual, collective and cultural perceptions. You can't create a tick list of right and wrong. Bureaucracy is bound to fail. What we need is education, and democracy.
And as the Code has become more and more prescriptive, in an attempt to control quality through a bureaucratic process, the judges' freedom to judge whole routines has gradually diminished. As artistry is a quality embedded in sport, and not an add-on or component part, it has particularly suffered as a consequence of the rather wooden, two-dimensional Code, and poor judging.
I note that the whole of the FIG Executive Committee meeting seems to have passed without much comment on President Grandi's vow to improve the marking system. I very much doubt anything of consequence will materialise following his announcement shortly after Nanning, that changes were needed to enhance the value of artistry. But at this stage I did want to revisit a proposal by Dr Clive Palmer for a new framework for judging the aesthetic in men's gymnastics. This includes a suggestion for quality management by education which I think could be useful for the individual judges, even if the Code doesn't change at all; I also don't see why it shouldn't be applied equally to women's gymnastics. I am quoting it here verbatim from his 2003 PhD thesis.
"The whole evaluation system should be rethought to include the range of possible evaluation areas : Technical, Aesthetic and Compositional: all three areas considering various levels of aesthetic form in gymnastics performance.
A technical jury would be analysing, with the applied use of technology, aspects of execution which can be measured in minute detail such as degrees of angles, finishing positions and seconds of hold in each element and combination.
An aesthetic jury would be assessing aspects of skilfulness and technique in a performance when the gymnast may be able to demonstrate his special ability to individualise a routine, this being a synthesis of his aesthetic persona and a balance in routine construction to demonstrate a wide gymnastic vocabulary. The aesthetic jury's assessment of form would be considered in a linear fashion when the aggregation of actions makes up the routine. That is to say they would comsider what elements were performed in relation to the abilities of that gymnast to utilise the space and time on the apparatus available to him.
A composition jury would be assessing the aesthetic of performance from a deeper sense of form as may result from notions of standards, skilfulness and technique in gymnastics. They would be observing qualities of composition, structure and design and theme and variation in performance as may become evident from a choreographic process and 'polishing' a performance;. They would be eager to consider the gymnast's clever use of dynamic rhythm, phrase and use of gesture as these might contribute towards the overall aesthetic effect of performance. Composition Jury members, being educated and in tune with these areas, would be observing how well a gymnast is able to self-express his gymnastic character to meet the demands of demonstrating unity in variety in gymnastics which may become an aesthetic ideal for this jury to assess their view of performance qualities.
To achieve the latter, judges, coaches and gymnasts need to be educated in aesthetic appreciation. Aesthetic awareness should be tutored, not just left to be intuitive. The tutored view will resulted in a reasoned view and it is the status of aesthetic reasons which should be considered valuable for making an evaluation system objective. The reduction of logical reasoning into numbers (under 10.00) may filter out important facets of reasoning, which could contribute to the aesthetic assessment of performances. Also, the sensible contribution towards aesthetic reasoning and final judgements which gymnasts and coaches could make should be integrated as it appears that at present (2003) two thirds of expert opinion who attend at competitions may be overlooked. ...
The FIG should encourage cultural diversity in performance. Competing nations may want to speak the same gymnastic language but in different ways. Further research into the aesthetic of gymnastics needs to be carried out and should include investigation of cultural perception, aesthetic value in the sport and motivational drives to compete and perform at the highest level. This kind of research will inform the educational process and could indicate alternative value systems for ascribing aesthetic value within the sport.
The FIG should not 'throw out the baby with the bath water'. Some of the old rules were good and worthy of being maintained for the compositional features in performance they appeared to bring about. ...
The reasons why practitioners seem to reject artistic criteria and artistic notions of qualities in their sport as subjective (perjorative, 'anything goes' sense) may be because they don't see how they relate to their context. This is by no means a travesty or shortcoming ... as similarly artists who paint, sculpt or dance may not understand gymnastic [sic - read 'aesthetic'] criteria as there is no apparent need for them to do so to improve the quality of their work ... in assessing the quality of performance many practitioners utilise informally what they conceive to be artistic notions of understanding to account for and appreciate pleasing qualities of gymnastics. Therefore, there may be a problem of translating aesthetic emotions and personal aesthetic assessment into a format which can contribute towards formal assessment ... it is a recommendation of this research that the FIG consider further investigation in to the aesthetic understanding of their sport in order to expand their current means of assessment."
Palmer, C (2003) 'A qualitative investigation of aesthetic evaluation in men's artistic gymnastics'