Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I dont think it should beeeee
need i go on?
maybe you should read what I said again. I dont think everything should be seen as art. It is these days
you could say music isnt art with that explanation.
Im just not into it
go read what I think art is
I see that as art. I dont see music as the typical art, but I said, everything seems to be seen as art these days so I guess theres no "rules".
Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
The study of these activities.
The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.
A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.
Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: “Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice” (Joyce Carol Oates).
So in some senses, yes, but in some senses, no.
Surprise surprise: it's not simple.
I hate it when I say the thing that reveals the argument and nobody cares because they're too busy saying stupid things like "random scribbles and painting in one colour aren't art" and "art has merit sport does not".
"High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value."
By that definition, anything can have artistic value or be elevated to the status of an art form.
So the answer to the thread is logically and definitively yes.
the definition of art has been argued about for centuries though..the dictionary definition could be seen to be essentially arbitrary
and that's good enough for me.
BUT...i'm not really sure why. so, i guess, why not, eh
if it is visually pleasing or displays some kind of feeling or emotion like gymnastics. I wouldn't say sports like tennis or football as they are more competitive and games...
but the focus is still on the game. Its more of a physical thing.
started with a claim that football was the most skilled and artistic of all sport
but I don't think kicking a ball in a goal is artistic.
Some players or a team in unison playing to the best of their ability with free-reign given to creating great moves is art.
Cantona said so and he's french and the french know about art.
I agree entirely. Sunderland ain't seen much art but occasionally it rises up from the mud.
I don't think random scribbles or just painting it all one colour is art. But if the picture tells a story or displays an emotion and/or took some skill to paint then its art.
if you take all emotion out of it, it's just a ball going into the net. But you cannot just call this a ball going into the net:
in a well structured team, accurately kicking a ball into a net.
you can strip down anything like that.
The Mona Lisa is a very skilled artist accurately using brush-strokes to create a picture.
than a ball being kicked into a goal. Which is pretty much the same in any football game...
That's an entirely subjective opinion, and you will find many people who think Sport has more of all of those than other kinds of Art.
if you choose to see it that way and look beyond the surface. I'm just taking an outsiders point of view.
to someone who doesn't follow football or know anything about the players. What if you don't even support a team? Its only art to the people who want it to be and are passionate about it.
try taking out the word football and replacing it with Art.
can still see a picture and fall in love with it. It is more accessible to an outsider.
and that's where our fundamental disagreement will be.
and to some extent we are taking a Devils Advocate kind of position.
But for my two cents if Tracy Emin and Performance Art are counted as Art, then Lionel Messi is just as much an artist as they are.
that's the goal cantona compared to Rimabaud
to be more accurate.
here's another, with added analysis of Hansen, Leonardo and Wright.
also another long distance one, but one of my favourites.
I prefer Tyldesley pre-2005 :(
art has merit sport does not
Who says art has merit?
what do you even mean by merit?
that art is human beings trying to replicate the sort of beauty that they see in nature. An artist creates something that fits in with their definition of beauty, and because of this, what is and isn't art is subjective.
If this is the case, sport can be considered a form of art I suppose. Especially to the person who created the sport in question.
That's an officially old-fashioned idea.
i've started many threads about how I think sport is pointless, its just something people are indoctrinated into as children
Maybe you can't see that as you were, in your words, "indoctrinated" into art but as an objective position that'd be utterly untenable.
I dont like sport because my parents didn't like it, where as people who do like sport tend to come from families where they do, I don't really appreciate art either to be honest if we are talking about paintings and sculptures etc, but art in the sense of music, books films etc I think is a much more personal choice, I cant think of anyone whose taste in 'art' is influenced by their family in the way that their love of sport is
very much in fact with regards to some kinds of taste.
I'd argue that probably at least half of people really into say classical music were into it cos they were exposed to it at an early age.
i was brought up by a single father who has no time for sport
knows nothing about it and hs never taken part
he never encouraged me to take part in sport or to follow it
i fucking adore sport
is easily as valid as art.
So to sum up, you are wrong my good man.
where as 'art' in a wide sense of the word is something most people will be drawn to regardless of upbringing
than art if we are not including sport.
and to be a little bit silly it's arguable that sport has more intrinsic merit than art as long as you particpate cos at least it should get you fitter.
because most people will be drawn to some form of art
using the wide definition someone liking a song on the radio is drawn towards art, but you could hardly say their life has been that affected by it.
Sport can also unite more people than any form of art I would argue as well, how many billion people will watch the world cup final?
that they may as well not have united at all
most people don't.
There is nothing about the world cup final that makes it more pointless than the mona lisa, or beethoven's 9th symphony./
we are not forced to watch or like sport, we are introduced to it because it's a vital part of our culture.
we are no-more indoctrinated into it than anything else in life.
normally by their dads
But regardless of that it's no-more forced upon people than anything else that plays such a large role in our culture.
Were you teased in PE at school or something? Cos rather than merely not liking sport, you seem almost diametrically opposed to its existence.
for example, tv on the weekend is pretty much unwatchable, it also makes people really boring in pubs whenever the topic comes up, also why is it a part of the news when there is so much actual news in the world, also it gets a disproporionate amount of questions in pub quizes for the fraction of general knowledge it is.
there are people who resent the importance placed on art and things like that? Every argument you used can be turned back and used against you if you replace sport with art.
and frankly sport was one of the three things that made TV watchable in anyway when I had one.
comes into play
Lamely repeating a point doesn't make it anymore valid.
arent the reasons I think it is pointless, so people resenting art for the same reasons has no bearing on my original opinion that art has more worth than sport.
but I genuinely have no idea what the meaning of the post is.
I appreciate you don't like sport, but that's all i've really got out of this debate so far.
I'm going out now so I'll have to continue this at some later point.
"But can't you see
there are people who resent the importance placed on art and things like that?"
I was saying yes I can see how others resent the importance place on art and things like that, but because it is by belief that art has more merit than sport that this doesnt bother me.
My basic points are that watching sport has now meaning, supporting teams seems arbitrary, and that most people that enjoy it do so because they were indoctrinated at a young age, I dunno if I explain myself better in this thread http://www.drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/3888065
and there's a lot to choose from
The question in itself implies that art has some higher status than sport and that sport should consider itself privileged to be elevated to art. Which is silly.
That doesn't necessarily make it a very strong argument.
The idea that because something is "art" makes something important in itself is silly. A piece of art that is clearly rubbish will be utterly insignificant in the wider scheme of things whereas a piece of art that's widely-acknowledged as very good could be seen as "important" but it comes down to the piece itself.
But if you ask whether Euro 2008 or the 2008 Turner Prize has a greater impact on the majority of people it really won't be a contest.
If you're going to ascribe "art" in itself a status as the "most important thing there is" then by extension you're considering things that are art as having more worth than things that are not art?
Except the whole headbutting malarky, but I'm sure there was some weird Gallic existentialism behind that.
That's one of my favourite sporting moments. Ever. I actually fell off the chair I was sitting on from laughing.
the vast majority of sport is made up, second to second, of things that could classified as Situations.
to convey a message? or to create an image or a specific emotion? sport doesn't necessarily. although maybe we've all missed a trick and gary megson is actually an artistic genius - using dour football to create misery in those watching
i don't really know.
I think whether you consider something as art depends on how you regard it. Thus, as soon as you start thinking about something as a possible work of art the implications of it and meaning for you can change dramatically, and it becomes a work of art simply because you have realised it is supposed to be an artwork. Hence the saying that anything can be art if you want it to be. You can get a ball of screwed up paper, pronounce it an artwork and it WILL be one because people will start to think of it in an abstract sense rather than a piece of rubbish, it's unavoidable.
So, if you took a film of a football match and screened it in a gallery, or even played a football match in a gallery and prnounced it an artwork then yes, it would be art because you are encouraging people to read more into it than simply that it is a game of football. 'Art' as a concept is so difficult to pin down that it's difficult to say whether sport in general is art, i wouldn't like to say either way. All depends on how you see it.
if you see the artist as a craftsman creating something that exists as a conclusive piece, in whatever form. The Mona Lisa isn't 'reality', it's the artist's perception of reality and the consequence of his attempts to refract reality through his own gaze.
Football, on the other hand, is not played in the context of artistry. It's a game, theatre I guess, but it's incidental theatre if it is. If a footballer walks onto the pitch, like Cantona, and says 'I am an artist, this is how I see the world and this is how I control it' then you can call him an artist if you want to. I don't think many footballers consider themselves involved in the intentional process of art-making, so it's hardly relevant.
More expressive sports like figure skating and synchronised swimming could probably be called artistic according to that definition because they're deliberate explorations of the human form, and they reflect nature.
I guess you could also watch a boxing match and observe it as art, and force artistry upon it. It's entirely subjective. Abstract, yum.
and so questions like this and the arguments that ensue are pointless.
If you both have different definitions of what art mean then an exchange such as:
A: Football is art.
B: No, football isn't art.
is like saying:
A: Football is X.
B: No, football isn't Y.
You aren't really disagreeing about football or its qualities, but about what the word art means. And since words have no objective meaning, only meaning what they are used to mean, and since the word "art" is used in lots of different ways, such a disagreement is unresolvable.
that french Zidane movie on BBC4 earlier in the week, they definitely consider him to be art.
37 camera's filming just him for a whole game, it was actually a pretty compelling watch.