11/05/24
November 14, 2007
Is sport an art?: Recently Frank Deford asked the question: "is not what we saw Michael Jordan do every bit as artistic as what we saw Mikhail Baryshnikov do?". Reader response surprised Deford: "One thing I learned. Defenders of the arts can be as mean as any defensive lineman stoked on steroids".
I'm generally in agreement with Deford here. A sporting event is the equal of any film or stage play, and actually may be superior. For one thing, the denoument is unknown until the final gun, or whistle, or out. For another, the climax may come at any point during the action, and one does not really know it until the end. The actual performers can, and usually do, generate moves equal in beauty to any seen in the dance. Mr. Deford's complaint seems to be with college athletics and the lack of opportunity for an athlete to major in his sport. While there are no majors in football, basketball, or the like, there are majors in physical training, recreation management, physical education, and so on. The path exists for an athlete to find a career in athletics that may not necessitate being on the field of play.
posted by Howard_T at 03:43 PM on November 14, 2007
I would consider figure skating and gymnastics, for starters, both arts and sports (as well as performances, Hugh.) But that, too can be stretched. Next, throw in anything else that has an element of judging; say ski jumping, diving, and, dare I say boxing. Those all involve the [judged] superior performer being given victory. And would it be outrageous to compare a well-coached offensive line to a dance performance? Or, on a more base level, take any post-game analysis. It all hinges around a team's "performance" on the field, rink, or court. I know it's a different usage of the word, but in a literal sense, it fits. As far as the angry responses Deford got, well I think many of them were right on target. However, it's a simple matter of supply and demand, (Econ 101 to the university set.) If there was a market for marching band music or scathing social commentary poetry similar to that of football, they would have similar-sized venues for their performance. The fact (sad, possibly) is that Americans find athletics infinitely more entertaining than most of the "arts." So they'll spend more money to provide venues and attend spoting events, and no amount of lamenting this fact will change it.
posted by tahoemoj at 03:53 PM on November 14, 2007
I think strictly speaking a sporting even is just that, a performance. The main difference being the ending is (hopefully) in question. The responses from the art community isn't a surprise to me. Many in the arts look upon sports with great disdain (and it works both ways, of course).
posted by justgary at 03:59 PM on November 14, 2007
Okay, sport is art. Is the converse also true? Is ballet a sport? Is playing the violin, or chiseling marble into sculpture, or painting? After all, those muscles don't train themselves. Sure, sport is performance, if you want to call it that. There are distinctions to be made between performance and spectated competition, but why bother making those distinctions? They're just words. Many in the arts tried to play sports but were found wanting by some coach somewhere or were picked last and hit hardest by their playmates; few in sports tried art and found they weren't welcome. I think that may be why there's a divide. I think we have those separate words because, though an athlete may make artful plays, or a team may move the ball artistically, sports and art are fundamentally different: the athlete strives within the rules of a game or event to be the best, and for a few of them, being the best is transcendent, while the artist strives to bring something conceptual, wholly their own, to the public eye to be interpreted by each viewer or listener according to that which moves them. There are other distinctions, just as there are other overlaps; it isn't black and white, and that's why we use two words: they're different concepts. But this article really amounts to a gripe that art is considered culture while sport is not. That's just not true, and the backlash comes from people who know this, who see the massive cultural real estate that sport owns, and the dwindling influence of "fine art" on culture, and respond as if threatened. There's no need for sport to be art. There's no real discrimination or disrespect that sport faces (and if there was, that discrimination would be coming from a bunch of art fags and band geeks: big deal), so the whole premise of this article amounts to a Pop Warner coach showing up thirty years later to tell the concertmaster he's still too much of a pussy to play in this league. Sport has already replaced art as the prime mover of culture; now its proponents want to cram art into its locker and spritz it with shaving cream. Go ahead, sport; there's nothing art can do to stop you. Tough guy.
posted by Hugh Janus at 04:46 PM on November 14, 2007
I so hope not to devolve the conversation here, but to me, this is one of those slippery-slope arguments. You know, like, is it a sport or isn't it? Is a race horse or a race car driver an athlete? I earn my keep as a musician and one of my great enjoyments in life is sports. I can understand that sports generate higher income for colleges so therefore they get the lion's share of the money. But I think that what is happening in the public education system in regards to the arts is bad for kids. By depriving them of the chance to be exposed to the arts, you are hamstringing their opportunity to be well-rounded contributors to society. They don't necessarily have to become artists, musicians, or poets, but by appreciating and having at least a workable understanding of the arts is one of things that defines us as humans. I agree with 'moj in that it is sad that the American market is more attuned to athletics than arts. That's why Micky D's has served over 60 zillion and hardly anyone knows the names of poets laureate, painters, or the composer of Bitches Brew.
posted by THX-1138 at 04:52 PM on November 14, 2007
Being a sports artist for over 30 years now, I fit between both worlds. As I see it I have been fortunate to meet and paint many of the legendary athletes of our time. I have create works on canvas(my stage) from the inspiration these outstanding indivuals have brought to me via their own "canvas" field. Many of them have become personal friends and we share quite alot when we compare our chosen professions. These men and ladies are truly artists in expressing their talents as one who picks up a brush.
posted by del49 at 05:01 PM on November 14, 2007
Is ballet a sport? One thing I've always wondered about ballet, with all that en pointe stuff, why don't they just get taller dancers in the first place? The argument is specious, in the sense that art and sport are both parts of culture, and it is possible to enjoy both, support both and (in my case) be very happy for my taxes to be used for subsidies where required. My daughter paints, goes to drama, plays soccer and does hapkido. What I don't like are arts snobs who disdain sports fans or other forms of art without reason. Usually (but not always) these are the ones who would like your money used to prop up the performance of 19th century opera composers, because that's their version of establishment 'culture'. Young artists with something to say (or young musicians working outside the mainstream) often have trouble getting space, or funds, or exposure in the arts world. Same with smaller sports that struggle for media coverage and funds. It's not about how much money arts and sports generate, but how it's used, in my opinion. Too much concentration is bad for both.
posted by owlhouse at 05:10 PM on November 14, 2007
Actually, there are elements of art in many different things, including athletic events, religious ceremony, power point presentations and home videos of little Billy at the beach seeing waves for the first time. Just because something has artistic or performative elements, though, does not necessarily make it "art." Mind you, I am not talking about quality when I say this. For the sake of argument, let us assume that "Hamlet" = "Gigli." Quality is not relevant to this conversation. Art is aimed at specific aesthetic goals. Perhaps it aims to entertain, perhaps to please, perhaps to just be beautiful, perhaps to challenge. One judges art by a set of subjective criteria. Sport, on the other hand, may satisfy certain aesthetic needs, but that is not the aim of sport. The aim of sport is competition, to determine who is better at something than somebody else. While this can be very satisfying entertainment, it can also be dreary and boring and still be judged a successful sporting event - I point to most recent World Series. When a football player leaps into the air and makes a brilliant catch and lands with grace and strength, the beauty of the leap and landing is incidental to the purpose of the leap and landing - win the game. In ballet, a graceful leap and landing is a thing of beauty unto itself. It need serve no greater purpose. I would compare this to ornamental art versus useful art. My coffee mug is a beautiful thing, but its main purpose is to hold coffee. If it fails in that regard, its beauty would not prevent me from replacing it. The Chinese painting of monkeys grooming each other in my living room's main purpose is to make me smile and feel good. It does that without having to hold any coffee. Back to that football leap. A football player could also leap into the air, catch the ball and land in a way that looks ugly and painful. Do I care? He made the catch. Good football player! A ballet dancer who did the same thing? Ick. Bad ballet dancer. So, while there are occasional moments of great aesthetic joy to be gleaned from sports, aesthetics is not the goal. Winning is the goal. While there are occasional moments of great athleticism in art, athleticism is not the goal. Depending on the art, some aesthetic criteria is probably the goal. Thus, art /= sport.
posted by Joey Michaels at 07:21 PM on November 14, 2007
I was trying to come up with an intelligent way to lay out my thoughts on the matter when I read your post Joey. Thanks for doing that for me...
posted by bobfoot at 08:25 PM on November 14, 2007
Sports has drama, beauty and performance - but sports are not art. Not unless we're getting into an argument about aesthetics. In plain terms they don't engage the mind in the same way.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:26 PM on November 14, 2007
I agree that they don't engage the mind in the same way, though I think we'll all agree here that they do both engage the mind. I want to stress that I love both arts and sports. I don't think one is better than the other. I just love them for different reasons.
posted by Joey Michaels at 08:42 PM on November 14, 2007
Sports totally not an art but that is really not a bad thing. I like lots of things the aren't art. If you ask who is more talented Monet or Larry Bird I would have to say that Bird's NBA career is way more impresiive than Monet's body of work. The inherint problem is that I can't look down my nose at someone who thinks Irving Johnson was a better player, but an art officinado who digs Monet can surely stick his snout high in the when debating fine art with a Norman Rockwell fan. The way sports and art are discussed within each ones respected field is so totally different that comparing them to each other is like comparing apples and bear traps. this post had a point, I swear, I should have just defaulted to Joey's excellent post.
posted by HATER 187 at 11:40 PM on November 14, 2007
Art and sport are two points on the same spectrum, and not even poles on that spectrum. There are many places where sport and art meet and commingle comfortably, and I find myself relating to both of them in very similar (and often identical) ways. The act of an artist creating a work of art, whether I am there to witness it in performance or am enjoying it after the fact (as in, say, a book or a painting) evokes a similar reaction, often both in depth and substance, as watching a last-minute game-saving play or a world-record jump. I can't look at a Jackson Pollock painting without seeing the sheer physical effort put into creating that work, and to watch a Gretzky or a Tiger Woods and not appreciate the intense levels of creativity they put into their work is to miss out on the substance of their genius. Either/or is the wrong question. No, of course they're not the same. Some sports are not terribly artistic, and verse visa. But one when done properly often elicits the same emotions and reactions as the other, especially at the highest levels. In fact, the only wrong answer is to snob out about either "art" or "sport." Choosing ignorance over a full appreciation of the breadth of human effort and creativity is to cut off your nose to spite your face.
posted by chicobangs at 12:56 AM on November 15, 2007
Agreed, Chicobangs!
posted by Joey Michaels at 03:41 AM on November 15, 2007
You will suffer humiliation when the artists from my region defeat the artists from your region.
posted by drumdance at 07:14 AM on November 15, 2007
In fact, the only wrong answer is to snob out about either "art" or "sport." Choosing ignorance over a full appreciation of the breadth of human effort and creativity is to cut off your nose to spite your face. Well said. I'd further add that when you get stuck on the analysis of whether the beauty is in the effort or in its result, you're barking up the wrong tree. "Don't think, do!" as my old sensei used to say -- or, in this case, perhaps it would be, "Don't analyze, appreciate."
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:07 AM on November 15, 2007
owlhouse and chico said it better than I could. To set "art" and "sport" as diametrically-opposed concepts for the sheer sake of arguing the relative merits of one's interpretation . . . that's neither art nor sport and smells of self-righteousness, a quality not loved in either field. The aim of sport is competition, to determine who is better at something than somebody else. I would argue the rear-end of this assertion. Sports on tv are ostensibly about the competition you mention, but athletes at that highest level of competition got there by shooting baskets in the dark, in the pouring rain, spending hours all by themselves because their peers did not have the dedication they have. art/sport is the celebration of being human, being alive. At times I come to sport to see the competition, to see people fold under pressure exerted by others just a little less afraid than they are (or a little more afraid), but that's a bit empty, a bit small-minded. You turn on a mid-week, out-of-conference match-up on because you're hoping to be there when It Happens, whatever it might be this time. I suppose that's where ESPN* has completely failed us. It's taken those Moments and tried to re-package the tastiest morsels in microwavable containers, distilling the essence of Sport and mainlining it into our last remaining entertainment veins. But there are no symphonies of one note, no great feasts of just truffle oil. Moments removed from context aren't much of anything. ESPN Classic lingers like a terminal relative, stuck showing poker re-runs because great games of the past are not re-heatable. Stripped of context, stripped of "OMFG, that just happened while I was watching it", sport isn't Sport. So sport isn't the same as a great painting, but it is still as obsessed with us as we are with it, just like art. Dolphins-Jets later this year won't be art, but no one sees the loser blowouts in sculpture except garbagemen. DeFord's setup, delivered in Our Modern Age, encourages the exact response it got, a half-second blowoff by people thinking Mona Lisa vs. Jeff George. This is, as chico suggests, a question of spectrums and perspective, something tough to find in an age of datapoints. *"ESPN" takes the fall here as a synchedoche for a whole host of highlight packaging sports shows.
posted by yerfatma at 11:43 AM on November 15, 2007
If you ask who is more talented Monet or Larry Bird I would have to say that Bird's NBA career is way more impresiive than Monet's body of work. I realize you later defaulted to Joey's excellent post but I can't let this comment go without commenting. Monet was one of the founders of Impressionism. In fact, his painting Impressionism: Sunrise was what gave the Impressionist movement its name. What he helped create was a revolutionary new art form without which we do not have modern art. And he did this despite the fact that his art was a critical and commercial disaster for much of his life. OK - enough of the lecture. So to compare Monet to an athlete, you need to find an athlete that revolutionized the sport he played, forever changing it, while playing in obscurity. That's not Larry Bird. And, I'm not sure who it is. Dr. J? Kareem? Michael Jordan? And, by the way, as much as I love Monet, I don't look down my nose at Norman Rockwell or any other painter (except maybe Thomas Kinkade). As far the "is sport an art" debate, I too default to the excellent posts above and add my own question? Why does it need to be?
posted by cjets at 12:02 PM on November 15, 2007
let us assume that "Hamlet" = "Gigli." I completely understand your point JM, but damn, there's a tough premise to choke down. One that's funny as hell, too. Perhaps we could look at the two areas in the form of a Venn Diagram. Of course, there are completely unique aspects to both art and sport, which is why we have seperate words for them. There are times, though, when aspects of one fit firmly into the milieu of the other. I guess that's what I was getting at in my previous post. Maybe the two aren't "equal" per se, but that makes them a far cry from mutually exclusive. At any given moment, one could be showing how much it has in common with the other.
posted by tahoemoj at 12:03 PM on November 15, 2007
I suppose that's where ESPN* has completely failed us. It's taken those Moments and tried to re-package the tastiest morsels in microwavable containers, distilling the essence of Sport and mainlining it into our last remaining entertainment veins. I would disagree to some extent. True, watching something out of context strips much of its essence. But for those of us who simply can't make the time to watch all the games we'd like to watch, thank god for highlights (ESPN has many, many flaws but giving us the opportunity to catch the highlights from games we missed is not one of them). The same issues exist in art as well. You can remove moments from context in a film and still thoroughly enjoy the film clip (the chase scenes from BULLITT or THE FRENCH CONNECTION come to mind). I'd rather watch the entire film but I still get a rush from watching either scene. Or, to use music as an example, my son listens to the baby Mozart, Beethoven, etc. These are greatly abbreviated versions of their music and yet still very enjoyable.
posted by cjets at 12:13 PM on November 15, 2007
But would you enjoy the clip if you didn't know the context, cjets? I like what yerfatma wrote, a lot. I had a guy approach me recently, trying to jumpstart the sports department of a small newspaper and wanting some consulting. I thought about it and realized that while there are innumerable tricks and tools of the sports writing trade, the raw material comes from being there for the whole thing. I know the tricks to set up for a good-looking shot in a dozen different sports, and I know the questions to ask and the comments to make to prompt a quote that will look good in print. You can hack your way through with that stuff, and to most people it'll be perfectly acceptable, but it's really just a journalistic version of a highlights reel. When you can show a brilliant moment on the court in the context of "shooting baskets in the dark", that's when you've really got something.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:20 PM on November 15, 2007
I thought about it and realized that while there are innumerable tricks and tools of the sports writing trade, the raw material comes from being there for the whole thing. I would certainly agree with you on that, LBB. The role of the journalist is to be there for everything. By doing that, the good journalist can boil down the essence of the game to an article or highlights that do their best to capture the essence of the game. But that doesn't invalidate the clips or highlights. We'd all rather see the game. But that isn't always possible. But would you enjoy the clip if you didn't know the context, cjets? And now to answer your question. And I would have to say, sometimes yes. And sometimes no. If we're talking about a visceral chase scene from Bullitt, for example, the context is less important. For other film clips, context would be crucial. Same with sports. A one yard TD run highlight is more or less meaningless without context. However, The PLAY from the Cal-Stanford game 25 years ago needs little, if any, context to be enjoyed. Or, Flutie's pass to Doug Phelan at the end of the BC-Miami game (I actually had a friend who knew nothing about football show up at the end of that game and even he was impressed - without any context). I'm the last to say context isn't important. It just isn't always essential.
posted by cjets at 01:43 PM on November 15, 2007
I don't know - I'm all for being inclusive and open minded and all that other crap, but I really fail to see how sport meets art in a test of engagements. For me, it's not "is Monet better at what he does/more important than Larry Bird?", but rather - "does a painting suppose an idea of man that is more impressive than a basketball game?" And the answer is: 42. Sports are the realm of the physical. They (as more deeply deconstructed by Joey) are tests of the physical limits of man - and to a lessor extent how man functions in a given moment. Art tests much less definable parts of man. They are not the product of a singular moment, but many moments. Art is more of a complete idea and finished product. They're just different animals all together. And yes, one ascribes to a higher level of being than the other. Usually it fails miserably, though.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:34 PM on November 15, 2007
So to compare Monet to an athlete, you need to find an athlete that revolutionized the sport he played, forever changing it, while playing in obscurity. No, you don't. What you've described is the perception/ context you bring to Monet. Art critics would be happy to debate with you whether he revolutionized anything (unless you meant Manet) or if Impressionism was a dead end. It certainly wasn't praised in its time. Bird is someone who's remembered in his field for his achievements, so is Monet. Everything else is what you bring to it.
posted by yerfatma at 03:57 PM on November 15, 2007
What you've described is the perception/ context you bring to Monet. If by you you mean the perception of most art historians and critics then I would agree. And no, I don't mean Manet. Manet's subject matter was shocking at the time but Monet was and is known for creating an entirely new way of painting. Having done six years of research on it, I can say that every art historian I've ever met or read would agree. To argue otherwise is kind of like arguing that the invention of the forward pass was not revolutionary in the context of football. Without impressionism, there is no post-impressionism and I would even argue there is no modern art. Most of the artists who followed in Monet's footsteps have said the same. The original post was in response to someone saying that Larry Bird's body of work was more impressive than Monet's. That's what I first responded to and probably why the whole sports v. art debate is ludicrous.
posted by cjets at 07:35 PM on November 15, 2007
I love an Appeal to Authority and some self-righteousness. This way positive discussion lies.
posted by yerfatma at 09:17 PM on November 15, 2007
I love an Appeal to Authority Art critics would be happy to debate with you I believe you, as quoted above, first made said appeal to authority. And, if I am to prove that my comments are more objective than subjective (what you claim that I'm doing) how do I do that without an appeal to authority? It's not like I can quote Monet's stats for the 1871 season. some self-righteousness OK, guilty as charged. But when someone bashes my favorite painter and someone I consider to be one of the most important painters of the last two hundred years, I tend to get on my high horse and ride it into an impressionist landscape. "One thing I learned. Defenders of the arts can be as mean as any defensive lineman stoked on steroids". OMG. I'm one of them.
posted by cjets at 09:34 PM on November 15, 2007
when someone bashes my favorite painter If comparing your favorite painter to Bird and finding the painter wanting is "bashing", we come from two different worlds. I don't really see my Appeal to Authority. I was pointing out that's an opinion with some voice on the other side. I suppose "critics" is technically over the AtA line, but what word/ phrase was I going to use?
posted by yerfatma at 09:37 PM on November 15, 2007
If comparing your favorite painter to Bird and finding the painter wanting is "bashing", we come from two different worlds. My self righteous comments were a result of your remarks, not the comparison to Bird. Specifically, Art critics would be happy to debate with you whether he revolutionized anything (unless you meant Manet) or if Impressionism was a dead end. It certainly wasn't praised in its time. I would be happy to have a positive discussion with you about why I have an issue with those comments. But, despite the fact that this was posted in the culture section of Spofi, I have to question whether continuing this discussion here is the appropriate place. Say the word and I'll send an e-mail.
posted by cjets at 10:18 PM on November 15, 2007
No, I totally missed what you meant by "bashing". I didn't mean to even hint at my opinions on the artist in question, just that it's fodder for debate over drinks just like the relative merits basketball players. I will say no words. I live in fear of well-aimed
posted by yerfatma at 10:30 PM on November 15, 2007
One man's fodder is another man's bashing.
posted by cjets at 12:05 AM on November 16, 2007
Sport is not a performance.