Reverent Entertainment → Ecclesiastes 9:11 → Monkeys get a silver in Abstract Art Olympics |
I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
Ecclesiastes
9:11
This past summer I discussed [1] the recent comparative study [2] of abstract art and animal art. Researches had shown to art students pairs of paintings: one by a renowned abstract expressionist and another by a child, a monkey, an ape, or an elephant. Researches asked the students which painting is better. In 67.5% of the cases art students answered that the painting by an artist is better. Because the figure is above 50%, researches concluded that their findings “challenge the common claim that abstract expressionist art is indistinguishable from (and no better than) art made by children.” I recalled [1] another experiment, where the subjects compared weights. In 72% of the trials, they perceived a 100-gram weight to be heavier than 96-gram weight, a higher success rate than in the art experiment. I concluded that the difference in artistic weight of abstract artists and animals is less than 4%. I also compared [1] the results of the art experiment with the outcomes of the games of chess-players of different strength and concluded that abstract artists are in the same player category with children and animals. My commentary got attention from the media [3], often critical, and I responded to criticism [4]. However, some of the objections have merit. To compare paintings one should consider many parameters, while to compare weights – only one. More parameters give more reasons for disagreement between judges. In chess, there no judges at all, since the rules of the game determine its outcome. However, there is a sport where judges decide the results of the competitions: Figure Skating. Now let us look at statistics.
In Olympics
Figure skating program the skaters compete for four sets of medals in four
categories: men, ladies, pairs, and ice dancing.
Competition consists of several segments. In men, ladies
and pairs categories there are only two segments: short program and free
skating. In ice dancing category there are four segments. The table shows the
results [5] of the 2002 Olympics in
Results depend on the arbitrary prescription for breaking ties and arbitrary weights of different segments. If the weights were not 2/3 and 1/3, but 3/5 and 2/5, Slutskaya, not Hughes, would win the Gold. The aim of this commentary is not to criticize the 6.0 scoring system (they do not even use it today: they replaced it with a far more muddled one). The aim is to show that that the system is robust. When we changed weights, former silver medalist became gold medalist, not someone from the end of the list. One cannot propose any reasonable modification of the scoring system, which will propel the tenth skater to the first place. The same is true when instead of changing some of the rules we remove the rankings given by some of the judges.
Table 1. Figure Skating results in 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City. The rightmost columns show the numbers and percentages of judges who placed Gold medalist over Silver medalist, Gold medalist over Bronze medalist and Silver medalist over Bronze medalist. I treated the Pairs category as if Sale and Pelletier got a Silver medal, but discarded the placements given by the disqualified judge.
Category |
Segment |
Medalist skaters |
Place in the seg-ment |
Places given by each of 9 judges |
Number and % of judges who placed |
||||||||||||||
Medalists |
Gold over Silver |
Gold over Bronze |
Silver over Bronze |
||||||||||||||||
Men |
Short Program |
Yagudin |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
9 |
100% |
9 |
100% |
3 |
33% |
|
Goebel |
3 |
2 |
5 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|||||||||
G |
Yagudin |
Plushenko |
4 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
|||||||
S |
Plushenko |
Free Skating |
Yagudin |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
9 |
100% |
9 |
100% |
9 |
100% |
B |
Goebel |
Plushenko |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|||||||
|
Goebel |
3 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
||||||||
Ladies |
Short Program |
Kwan |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0% |
0 |
0% |
4 |
44% |
|
Slutskaya |
2 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
|||||||||
G |
Hughes |
Hughes |
4 |
6 |
10 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
|||||||
S |
Slutskaya |
Free Skating |
Hughes |
1 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
56% |
6 |
67% |
6 |
67% |
B |
Kwan |
Slutskaya |
2 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
|||||||
|
Kwan |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
||||||||
Pairs |
Short Program |
Berezhnaya / Sikharulidze |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
7 |
78% |
9 |
100% |
9 |
100% |
|
|
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|||||||||
G |
Berezhnaya / Sikharulidze |
Shen / Zhao |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|||||||
Free Skating |
Berezhnaya / Sikharulidze |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
50% |
8 |
100% |
8 |
100% |
||
G |
|
|
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|||||||
B |
Shen / Zhao |
Shen / Zhao |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|||||||
Ice Dancing |
1st Compulsory Dance |
Anissina / Peizerat |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
9 |
100% |
8 |
89% |
6 |
67% |
|
Lobacheva / Averbukh |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|||||||||
G |
Anissina / Peizerat |
Fusar Poli
/ Margaglio |
3 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
|||||||
2nd Compulsory Dance |
Anissina / Peizerat |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
9 |
100% |
8 |
89% |
5 |
56% |
||
S |
Lobacheva / Averbukh |
Lobacheva / Averbukh |
2 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
|||||||
Fusar Poli
/ Margaglio |
3 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|||||||||
B |
Fusar Poli
/ Margaglio |
Original Dance |
Anissina / Peizerat |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
8 |
89% |
9 |
100% |
7 |
78% |
Lobacheva / Averbukh |
2 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|||||||||
|
Fusar Poli
/ Margaglio |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
||||||||
Free Dance |
Anissina / Peizerat |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
56% |
9 |
100% |
9 |
100% |
||
Lobacheva / Averbukh |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|||||||||
Fusar Poli
/ Margaglio |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
|||||||||
average |
6.5 |
73% |
7.5 |
84% |
6.6 |
74% |
If you look at
the Pairs Free Skate results, you notice that the placements given by the
fourth judge are missing. This is because of the 2002 Olympic figure skating
scandal [7]. Initially
The aim of the preceding passage is not to ridicule the fight against corruption. On contrary, the aim is to encourage American news media to uncover corruption in more places. For each segment, I computed the percentage of the judges who placed Gold medalist over Silver medalist (see the Table). The average over all 10 segments is 73%. This exceeds the 68% result I started the article with. Thus, the difference between grand masters of abstract art and apes is less than the difference between Gold and Silver medalists. The Figure Skating scandal was about who of world-class skaters should get Gold and who should get Silver. Though sport critics questioned Olympics Gold medals of Berezhnaya and Sikharulidze, nobody questioned the two Gold medals they got in two World Championships. In the abstract art experiment, the paintings of renowned artists did not compete with the art of world champions. They competed with paintings any child or monkey can do. Why are the art critics silent? Why nobody asks how corrupt the judges that decide which of the paintings will cost millions of dollars must be?
Mikhail Simkin
December 6, 2011
This article appeared in Significance, a magazine of The Royal Statistical Society.