Are contests an art form?
Scott Stephens
there are no new art forms. Yet she didn't discuss contests in RM.
I'm tempted to call sports a dynamic art. Rand's definition of art (RM):
"
> Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's
> metaphysical value-judgments. Man's profound need of art lies in the
> fact that his cognitive faculty is conceptual
....
> and needs the power to bring his widest metaphysical abstractions
> into his immediate, perceptual awareness. Art fulfills this need: by
> means of a selective re-creation
....
> It tells man, in effect, which aspects of his experience are to be
> regarded as essential, significant, important. In this sense, art
> teaches man how to use his consciousness.
Contests (sporting events, games, et.) like art, are ends in themselves.
The contest is often a selective re-creation of reality according to the
sportsman's physiological and social-competitive value judgments. Man's
need of sports lies in the fact that to use his body requires abstract
concepts and principles and skills which are expressed in the activities
of games. It tells people what skills are important.
Scott
--
**********************************
DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!
http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/
POLITICS, n.
A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. - Ambrose Bierce
Don't ever give up what you want in life. The struggle is worth it - Ayn
Rand
**********************************
fred...@papertig.com
> Contests (sporting events, games, et.) like art, are ends in themselves.
> The contest is often a selective re-creation of reality according to the
> sportsman's physiological and social-competitive value judgments.
But it's not done for the primary purpose of expressing one's
fundamental view of life - or what AR called "metaphysical value
judgements". It's simply done for the challenge or fun of it and
usually just to win. A quarterback just wants to throw a touchdown pass
and win the game, not express his view of life.
There are arguable questions about what is or isn't art, e.g.
architecture or photography. But there's no question about sports which
serves an entirely different purpose.
Fred Weiss
Don't Panic
Scott Stephens wrote:
> Rand defined art as a selective re-creation of the artists. And said
> there are no new art forms. Yet she didn't discuss contests in RM.
>
> I'm tempted to call sports a dynamic art. Rand's definition of art (RM):
> "
> > Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's
> > metaphysical value-judgments. Man's profound need of art lies in the
> > fact that his cognitive faculty is conceptual
> ....
> > and needs the power to bring his widest metaphysical abstractions
> > into his immediate, perceptual awareness. Art fulfills this need: by
> > means of a selective re-creation
> ....
> > It tells man, in effect, which aspects of his experience are to be
> > regarded as essential, significant, important. In this sense, art
> > teaches man how to use his consciousness.
>
>
> Contests (sporting events, games, et.) like art, are ends in themselves.
Art is a mode of communication, and therefore, not an end-in-itself.
Now, art appreciation, that's another thing -- assuming you don't clap
or tell someone else what you think of said art, then in which case,
it's a mode of communication and therefore not an end-in-itself, since
you're using the art to let someone else know what creams your twinkie.
Contests are not ends in themselves, they are a means to affirming
one's superiority over one's peers. In order for an act to be an
end-in-itself, there must be no preceeding act which had the
consequences as its goal. So if you simply got in your neighbor's face
and shouted, "Yo, Smithers! I'm better than you!" then you could
properly say that affirming your superiority over your peers was an
end-in-itself. (I know, I do this on a regular basis, it's quite
exhilarating, the only drawback is that i don't get invited to many
block parties.) But if you played a game of flag football, scored a
toughdown and screamed, "In yer face, Watkins!", then I don't know how
you can make the case that a contest is an end-in-itself.
Eating chocolate is an end-in-itself. So much for Rand's claim that
there are no new art forms, per her lame-o definition.
Scott Stephens
> Scott Stephens wrote:
>>Contests (sporting events, games, et.) like art, are ends in themselves.
>>The contest is often a selective re-creation of reality according to the
>>sportsman's physiological and social-competitive value judgments.
> But it's not done for the primary purpose of expressing one's
> fundamental view of life - or what AR called "metaphysical value
> judgements".
An artist doesn't think - "How am I going to express my fundamental view
of life?". No, Art is an expression of feeling of the artists, presented
in media, arranging concretes according to the artists concepts desire
to express himself.
It's simply done for the challenge or fun of it and
> usually just to win. A quarterback just wants to throw a touchdown pass
> and win the game, not express his view of life.
A contest is an abstract expression of the competitive aspect of life,
and subsumes other mid-level concepts such as competition, cooperation,
strategy, tactics, style, character roles, spacial and temporal phase.
Also scales of organization; the differentiation between Us and Them, at
different scales.
> There are arguable questions about what is or isn't art, e.g.
> architecture or photography. But there's no question about sports which
> serves an entirely different purpose.
But purpose defines art. Rand called some "artistic" expression
decoration on architecture. Some architecture contains works of art.
Is it the intent of the artist, or the venue of its presentation? Quite
a paradox. Some people can receive artistic insight from photographs,
some artist an create art perceived as mere concretes.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> There are arguable questions about what is or isn't art, e.g.
> architecture or photography. But there's no question about sports which
> serves an entirely different purpose.
Is dance an art? If it is why isn't it also a form of sport or
atheletics. It involves co-ordinate body movement. Have you ever seen a
profession basketball player jump, turn and land a three-pointer. It is
positively like ballet. If dance is art, then certain sports are equally
art.
There are no essential differences between wrestling moves and dance
moves. So if dance is an art form, so is wrestling. Or tennis. Or golf.
Bob Kolker
Don't Panic
fred...@papertig.com wrote:
> Scott Stephens wrote:
>
> > Contests (sporting events, games, et.) like art, are ends in themselves.
> > The contest is often a selective re-creation of reality according to the
> > sportsman's physiological and social-competitive value judgments.
>
> But it's not done for the primary purpose of expressing one's
> fundamental view of life - or what AR called "metaphysical value
> judgements".
Then if art is for the purpose of expression one's "fundamental view of
life", then it's a mode of communication, and therefore not an
"end-in-itself". Would you spend a decade write a novel and then throw
it down the poopshoot?
An artist creates work "A" in order to express "B". Why not just
express "B" and be done with it? THAT would be an "end-in-itself"!
fred...@papertig.com
> An artist doesn't think - "How am I going to express my fundamental view
> of life?".
Whether he's explictly thinking in those terms or not, that's what he's
doing - if what he's doing is art. That's why he does it one way rather
than another, whether he's fully consciously aware of it or not.
> No, Art is an expression of feeling of the artists, presented
> in media, arranging concretes according to the artists concepts desire
> to express himself.
But it is a particular kind of expression. You're expressing yourself
here, but you're not doing art.
> A contest is an abstract expression of the competitive aspect of life,
> and subsumes other mid-level concepts such as competition, cooperation,
> strategy, tactics, style, character roles, spacial and temporal phase.
> Also scales of organization; the differentiation between Us and Them, at
> different scales.
But it is not very abstract at all and it is not designed to reflect a
fundamental view of life. I grant you that it is not done with a
directly utilitarian purpose in mind - and in that sense it is, like
art, an end-it-itself - but that is not sufficient for art. Sex also
involves cooperation, strategy, tactics, style, etc, etc, but I assume
you wouldn't therefore call it art.
> But purpose defines art.
Exactly - and that's the difference between fine art and graphic or
decorative art - or writing a "pot-boiler" vs. a work of literature.
> Is it the intent of the artist, or the venue of its presentation?
I'd say it is the intent combined with the means. Mere venue isn't
enough these days because a lot of stuff that hangs in museums or
galleries isn't art. It's just a "big ol' mess" parading as art.
Fred Weiss
Chris Cathcart
Cat Toy wrote:
> Art is a mode of communication, and therefore, not an end-in-itself.
Uh, no. Art is a mode of expression, and is therefore an end-in-itself
(in the Aristotelian sense; it can also be an end to something else,
e.g., communication, entertainment, etc.).
Fred raised the issue of whether photography is an art-form; I would
say that, inasmuch as the human element goes into the creation of a
photograph, it's a work of art. I have in mind not the tools of the
camera, per se, but the use of lighting and perspective, the arrangment
of objects in the photo, etc. There is definitely an element of
selectivity going on, like if you want to capture something in a
particular light at a particular time of day.
I have in mind the photography of -Barry Lyndon-. :-) So much outdoor
shooting was done at "the magic hour" when the light is so right, and
all the shot compositions were arranged gorgeously. (Not only is this
film just a fine work of art, as an end in itself, but also world-class
entertainment, BTW, the pinnacle, the crowning achievement of arguably
the greatest film director ever.)
There's definitely a perspectival thing in all this. Naturalism(?)
produces whatever the camera happens to catch, but we also know that
nature presents sights of great beauty -- but only in virtue of the
perspectival relation between subject and object. Nothing in nature is
beautiful "in itself."
There, my first ramblings on my views about art. Now, maybe Bugged can
weigh in on whether the fine lesbo scene in -Mulholland Drive-
qualifies as great art. :-)
> Contests are not ends in themselves, they are a means to affirming
> one's superiority over one's peers.
You're funny, Cat Toy. I would have thought that a Lance Armstrong
was, if anything, in "competition" with himself -- setting a goal for
himself to achieve. I guess John Wooden (whose teams he coached were
undefeated) instilled in his players that the aim was to go out and
prove they were better than the other team.
> Eating chocolate is an end-in-itself. So much for Rand's claim that
> there are no new art forms, per her lame-o definition.
So per your true lame-o definitions, what makes something an end in
itself is that it's a work of art?
fred...@papertig.com
> fred...@papertig.com wrote:
> >
> > There are arguable questions about what is or isn't art, e.g.
> > architecture or photography. But there's no question about sports which
> > serves an entirely different purpose.
>
> Is dance an art?
Yes, sometimes and at least in its highest form: ballet.
> If it is why isn't it also a form of sport or
> atheletics. It involves co-ordinate body movement. Have you ever seen a
> profession basketball player jump, turn and land a three-pointer. It is
> positively like ballet. If dance is art, then certain sports are equally
> art.
But you are joining here different kinds of activities by inessentials.
What makes ballet art isn't the bodily movement. That's simply the
means to convey the art. A basketball player is trying to score a
basket. However beautiful it may look, his purpose is not to express
beauty.
> There are no essential differences between wrestling moves and dance
> moves.
Except merely the purpose.
An artist of course might convert wrestling into something artistic by
how he depicts it. An artist of course can also convert a battle scene
into art - but that doesn't make military action art.
Fred Weiss
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Except merely the purpose.
The purpose is not an observable. The action is. Empirically there are
no difference between dance and some athletics. When someone does
something you only know what he does, but not why he does it. Only he
knows that.
>
> An artist of course might convert wrestling into something artistic by
> how he depicts it. An artist of course can also convert a battle scene
> into art - but that doesn't make military action art.
Learn something about the Samuri attitude toward war-craft and battle.
To the Samuri it was both death and poetry.
Bob Kolker
Ken Gardner
wrote:
>There are arguable questions about what is or isn't art, e.g.
>architecture or photography. But there's no question about sports which
>serves an entirely different purpose.
To put it mildly, I disagree. Sports are a type of performing art.
And a sporting event is a type of recreation of reality. At least in
games in which the laws or rules are objectively defined and enforced,
the reality they recreate is benevolent rather than malevolent.
Ken
Ken Gardner
>Fred raised the issue of whether photography is an art-form; I would
>say that, inasmuch as the human element goes into the creation of a
>photograph, it's a work of art. I have in mind not the tools of the
>camera, per se, but the use of lighting and perspective, the arrangment
>of objects in the photo, etc. There is definitely an element of
>selectivity going on, like if you want to capture something in a
>particular light at a particular time of day.
For what it's worth, I have never been persuaded that photography can
never be art. Some photography certainly involves recreating certain
aspects of reality through artistic selection. Of course, some
photography doesn't. But I don't think you can make a "one size fits
all" generalization that photography is always art or never art.
[...]
Ken
fred...@papertig.com
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 03:59:49 +0000 (UTC), fred...@papertig.com
> wrote:
>
> >There are arguable questions about what is or isn't art, e.g.
> >architecture or photography. But there's no question about sports which
> >serves an entirely different purpose.
>
> To put it mildly, I disagree. Sports are a type of performing art.
Then so is virtually anything and you've lost the distinction.
> And a sporting event is a type of recreation of reality.
Not a type which is designed to convey "a metaphysical value
judgement", i.e. a fundamental view of life.
> At least in
> games in which the laws or rules are objectively defined and enforced,
> the reality they recreate is benevolent rather than malevolent.
Not all sports are particularly benevolent, e.g. boxing, but that aside
the purpose of art isn't to convey a particular sense of life. It is to
convey the artist's, which might well be malevolent (as many have
been).
Fred Weiss
Ken Gardner
wrote:
>> >There are arguable questions about what is or isn't art, e.g.
>> >architecture or photography. But there's no question about sports which
>> >serves an entirely different purpose.
>> To put it mildly, I disagree. Sports are a type of performing art.
>Then so is virtually anything and you've lost the distinction.
I don't think so. When I drive to a particular location, I'm not
"recreating reality." But when athletes play football under specified
rules and conditions, they are. That's the difference.
>> And a sporting event is a type of recreation of reality.
>Not a type which is designed to convey "a metaphysical value
>judgement", i.e. a fundamental view of life.
Again, this is just plain wrong. Athletes pursue the values of their
sport (e.g. goals in hockey, touchdowns in football, etc., as means to
the ultimate value of winning). A good sporting event selectively
recreates the pursuit of intermediate and ultimate values in real
life. And it does so in a concretized fashion that serves essentially
the same function as a painting or novel. This is why I think sports
are so popular with so many people, and have been so since ancient
times.
>> At least in
>> games in which the laws or rules are objectively defined and enforced,
>> the reality they recreate is benevolent rather than malevolent.
>Not all sports are particularly benevolent, e.g. boxing, but that aside
>the purpose of art isn't to convey a particular sense of life. It is to
>convey the artist's, which might well be malevolent (as many have
>been).
I agree with this last point. Art, including the performing arts, can
portray a malevolent universe as well. But that's a different
question from whether sports qualifies as a performing art.
Ken
Matt Barrow
<fred...@papertig.com> wrote in message
news:1123953942.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Then so is virtually anything and you've lost the distinction.
>
> > And a sporting event is a type of recreation of reality.
>
> Not a type which is designed to convey "a metaphysical value
> judgement", i.e. a fundamental view of life.
>
>
> Not all sports are particularly benevolent, e.g. boxing, but that aside
> the purpose of art isn't to convey a particular sense of life. It is to
> convey the artist's, which might well be malevolent (as many have
> been).
I hope you're considering the most incredible sportsman of our day, Tiger
Woods (hopefully on his way to his 11th Major victory this weekend!!
If there is one sport that really identifies a persons view on life and
reality it's got to be golf. It may not be the most interesting to watch,
but there's nothing else in the world of sports that allows no excuses or
BS.
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO
Scott Stephens
> Scott Stephens wrote:
>
>
>>An artist doesn't think - "How am I going to express my fundamental view
>>of life?".
>
>
> Whether he's explictly thinking in those terms or not, that's what he's
> doing - if what he's doing is art. That's why he does it one way rather
> than another, whether he's fully consciously aware of it or not.
>
>
>>No, Art is an expression of feeling of the artists, presented
>>in media, arranging concretes according to the artists concepts desire
>>to express himself.
>
>
> But it is a particular kind of expression. You're expressing yourself
> here, but you're not doing art.
>
>
>>A contest is an abstract expression of the competitive aspect of life,
>>and subsumes other mid-level concepts such as competition, cooperation,
>>strategy, tactics, style, character roles, spacial and temporal phase.
>>Also scales of organization; the differentiation between Us and Them, at
>>different scales.
>
>
> But it is not very abstract at all and it is not designed to reflect a
> fundamental view of life.
The aspect of life reflected in contest is conflict - an abstract concept.
I grant you that it is not done with a
> directly utilitarian purpose in mind - and in that sense it is, like
> art, an end-it-itself - but that is not sufficient for art.
That's my point.
> Sex also
> involves cooperation, strategy, tactics, style, etc, etc, but I assume
> you wouldn't therefore call it art.
Hmmmmmm, even if sex isn't done for procreation, there is a primal drive
motivating it. Which brings us to food - culinary 'arts'. Food is
'decorated' in an artistic way, to increase desire and satisfaction.
Then there's the quaint ritual of eating the brain of a live monkey. Is
this reflecting some sense-of-life?
Art is intellectual food, food for the mind. Rand spoke of art and
literature "recharging her battery", in the way I've heard people talk
about church; talk about being spiritually "fed".
Scott Stephens
> If there is one sport that really identifies a persons view on life and
> reality it's got to be golf.
The satisfaction of achieving a goal by successive-approximation, in a
beautiful landscape. Perhaps its a metaphor for sex?
Scott Stephens
> Is dance an art?
IIRC Rand in RM calls ballet, tap-dancing and Indian folk dancing art.
> If it is why isn't it also a form of sport or
> atheletics. It involves co-ordinate body movement.
It needs to express feeling, for instance ballet gives you a sense the
dancer is floating or weightless.
Have you ever seen a
> profession basketball player jump, turn and land a three-pointer. It is
> positively like ballet. If dance is art, then certain sports are equally
> art.
You can do lots of exercise with style, but it wouldn't qualify as art
because it isn't done with intent to convey feeling or sense of life.
> There are no essential differences between wrestling moves and dance
> moves. So if dance is an art form, so is wrestling. Or tennis. Or golf.
Pro Wrestling must be an art, it's choreographed and conveys a sense of
life! But the other sports are contests. If contests are art, they're art.
Ralph Hertle
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Ayn Rand said it right. She said that man made creations, and not the
metaphysically accidental, are defined, and are implicitly classified,
by their purposes. The hierarchy of definitions regarding man's
creations is arranged according to a hierarchy of purposes. There are
some exceptions in the realm of science, say in medicine, and man is
simply himself a metaphysical being in that context.
The physical moves of a sports player may be the same as, or may be
similar to, those of a dancer in many essential ways, however, the
sports player acts in order to play and score in the game, and the dance
artist acts to express the metaphysical values of the artist (both the
choreographer and dancer in that instance, or which may be either
separate or the same persons in some instances).
"Is dance an art?", you ask. Yes. Sports? No, due to different purposes.
What about the moves?
Yes and no, depending upon the context. The genus of the definitions of
certain particular moves may be the same, however, the differentia due
to the particular purposes are different.
A special case, and that requires definitions as well:
In dance, which is a formal art, there may be a work that includes the
purposive form of stylization at a certain time, and not conceptual
stylization (e.g., representation in one example). That means that
certain moves are stylized for practical reasons. In the dance it may
not be possible to discern a purposive move from a scientifically
practical move, e.g., a brisk run that has a sole purpose of getting
from point A to point B with a fast and economical motion may be found
in a dance as well as in a game.
''''''''''''''
The differentiation of the arts are a special area of interest of mine.
In speaking to Objectivists regarding my theories of the differentiation
of the arts based upon the content of the works, I found that they
rather sternly rejected my ideas. The overwhelming number of opinions
that I found is that they are that Ayn Rand's definitions and
differentia for the arts are the last word on the subject, and those
opinions are for all time. That I was really deemed irrelevant by them
for mentioning anything new in that area. My friends disagreed with me
as if I had slighted them in some special province of the co-knowing
paranoid gods. Maybe that's a little too stern. When I suggested my
ideas for a lecture in writing to the New York Objectivist Club at
different times for the purpose of giving an illustrated talk on the
subject of the classification of the arts they didn't even reply.
Nothing. I find that I have never found anything that I disagreed with
in Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, except for relevant minor items
that would be discussed in context in a lecture. I believe that there is
work that can be done in the philosophy of aesthetics, and that the work
that Ayn Rand did in aesthetics for Objectivism provides many of the
building blocks for the aesthetics of the future. She herself has said
that a philosophy of music doesn't exist, and that it could well be
started by basing the new idea work on Helmholtz, for one example. The
aesthetics of Objectivism, e.g., stemming from Objectivism, should not
simply end. There is new work that can be done.
Ralph Hertle
Reggie Perrin
Scott Stephens wrote:
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> > If there is one sport that really identifies a persons view on
> > life and reality it's got to be golf.
>
> The satisfaction of achieving a goal by successive-approximation,
> in a beautiful landscape. Perhaps its a metaphor for sex?
Pah! More like a good walk spoiled.
Ralph Hertle
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Ayn Rand said it right. She said that man made creations, and not the
R Lawrence
>There are no essential differences between wrestling moves and dance
>moves.
Remind me never to ask you to dance.
--
Richard Lawrence
Visit the Objectivism Reference Center: http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/
Robert J. Kolker
>
> If there is one sport that really identifies a persons view on life and
> reality it's got to be golf. It may not be the most interesting to watch,
> but there's nothing else in the world of sports that allows no excuses or
> BS.
What about the the Tour de Lance?
Bob Kolker
>
Don't Panic
Chris Cathcart wrote:
> Cat Toy wrote:
>
> > Art is a mode of communication, and therefore, not an end-in-itself.
>
> Uh, no. Art is a mode of expression, and is therefore an end-in-itself
> (in the Aristotelian sense; it can also be an end to something else,
> e.g., communication, entertainment, etc.).
Uh, no. If art is an end-in-itself, the Rand would have flushed Atlas
Shrugged right down the toilet soon after completing it. But,
thankfully, she used it as a means to communicate her
misanthropy-posing-as-virtue to all the world -- Yay!
Goofy hippies in California don't make sculpures out of their own
earwax for nothing, you know. they want people to look at 'em and go,
"Revolting!"
>
> Fred raised the issue of whether photography is an art-form; I would
> say that, inasmuch as the human element goes into the creation of a
> photograph, it's a work of art.
And if you eat the photo, then it's an end-in-itself.
>
> There, my first ramblings on my views about art. Now, maybe Bugged can
> weigh in on whether the fine lesbo scene in -Mulholland Drive-
> qualifies as great art. :-)
>
> > Contests are not ends in themselves, they are a means to affirming
> > one's superiority over one's peers.
>
> You're funny, Cat Toy. I would have thought that a Lance Armstrong
> was, if anything, in "competition" with himself -- setting a goal for
> himself to achieve.
All those other cyclists around Armstrong competing for the same prize
sort of gives away Armstrong's motivation, which is to be the Big
Lebowski, uh, sorry, Kahuna.
Me champion! You not! Me bounce Sheryl Crow, you not!
.
.
.
.
Don't Panic
Chris Cathcart wrote:
> Cat Toy wrote:
>
> > Art is a mode of communication, and therefore, not an end-in-itself.
>
> Uh, no. Art is a mode of expression, and is therefore an end-in-itself
> (in the Aristotelian sense; it can also be an end to something else,
> e.g., communication, entertainment, etc.).
Uh, no. If art is an end-in-itself, the Rand would have flushed Atlas
Shrugged right down the toilet soon after completing it. But,
thankfully, she used it as a means to communicate her
misanthropy-posing-as-virtue to all the world -- Yay!
Goofy hippies in California don't make sculpures out of their own
earwax for nothing, you know. they want people to look at 'em and go,
"Revolting!"
>
> Fred raised the issue of whether photography is an art-form; I would
> say that, inasmuch as the human element goes into the creation of a
> photograph, it's a work of art.
And if you eat the photo, then it's an end-in-itself.
>
> There, my first ramblings on my views about art. Now, maybe Bugged can
> weigh in on whether the fine lesbo scene in -Mulholland Drive-
> qualifies as great art. :-)
>
> > Contests are not ends in themselves, they are a means to affirming
> > one's superiority over one's peers.
>
> You're funny, Cat Toy. I would have thought that a Lance Armstrong
> was, if anything, in "competition" with himself -- setting a goal for
> himself to achieve.
All those other cyclists around Armstrong competing for the same prize