Taking Sides: Sport vs Art

My strange world has sport as a subset of art, so i can't be doing this. plus i rarely pay to look at either. ideally i'd prefer to participate rather than spectate in both cases.

ooohhhh well i dunno. i suppose both can be elitist or for the people, both are used as morale boosters and propaganda, both can make quite staggering amounts of money, both need skilled people... i'd rather go to a gallery than a footie match though. it's just... quieter.

Paulo Di Canio's creativity brings joy to thousands of people. The pitch is his canvas.

Another way to read this thread is - what are the similarities? what are the differences? why do people who like one and not the other (broadly speaking) think that way? Because my kneejerk reaction is to think "yeah sport is art" but that flattens a lot of interesting differences, and it seems to me makes either word or concept blander.

Completely wrong. To suggest that there is a considerable degree of overlap between the two spheres is not to make them blander. On the contrary, it enriches both.

"A considerable degree of overlap" is not the same as "Sport is [an] art", though is it? Or else why do we have two words?

"Yeah sport is art" was one of your quotes, I believe.

I think a good way to say it would be that some sports, when performed well can be artistic. Trevor cites Mr Di Canio and yes, he's one who springs to mind, he has passion, and can create beautiful thiungs on the pitch. Once again, can I point you to the excellent book Brilliant Orange for an excellent section on footie as art, with an artist describing and drawing a Bergkamp pass in purely artistic terms.

Exactly. I'm saying *my* initial reaction was to think that and then questioning that initial reaction saying that equating the two seemed to me to close off more interesting ideas than it opened up. You then said "completely wrong" and disagreed with something I hadn't said.

Well in any event, Chris is completely OTM on this one.

John Carey, whom I usually loathe and despise, actually said something quite interesting on the first SBS in the current series, namely that these days we enjoy art as a kind of sport, ie we relish the performative aspect rather than the moral or philosophical elements. We want it to thrill us rather than enlighten or improve us. Maybe this is just a kind of turbo-aesthetism. Actually, what *isn't* sport these days? Theory: under late capitalism, all cultural forms aspire to the condition of Beckham. (I would like to see someone mention Huizinga on 'play' in this thread, please.)

Like I said -

why do people who like one and not the other (broadly speaking) think that way?

Also clearly the artistic motive in sport can clash with the win- motive in sport, from a fan's point of view. Judging from this forum for instance at least most committed football fans balance a love for a particular team with a general appreciation of the entire game (which could be said to be 'artistic'), and I think the interaction here is interesting. There's a kind of intermediary thing being talked about, it seems to me - 'flair' maybe, where real appreciation and awe is reserved for performances that are both artistic and effective.

e.g. that racehorse Suzy mentioned on the Turner thread - if it wins its races is it a better work of art?

(And - can a parallel be drawn between claims for sport's artistic credentials and claims for the seriousness of rock music? Hopkins to thread! If only to talk about fanny-dangle.)

can a parallel be drawn between claims for sport's artistic credentials and claims for the seriousness of rock music

yes! and they are both are nearly useless to talk about.

if "search ILE" was working I'd dig up my previous ans but for now let me say that the STAKES of any kind of entertainment are what's important. The stakes are very clearly plotted stakes for sport's participants - possession of the ball, winning of the game, a place in the standings, a chance at approbation and $. All these things are on the line. At a game you get all types of spontaneous physical reactions in the crowd - leaping, yelling, real joy, crushing loss. If art defined its stakes as clearly you might get these kinds of reactions at video installations or - gasp - rock shows. But we're not given a reason to usually.

i am woefully ignorant and don't understand art but i know i'd rather look at pictures than play or watch sport. i hate sport, especially football and football players.

I like sports and I like art. I've never been very athletically gifted, so it was never because I liked to play a particular sport (the way I could write, or play piano, etc.)

So, like the geek I am (!), I like the cerebral side of sports. Take American football, for example -- the different sorts of defensive schemes a team could deploy against different sorts of offensive schemes, the implications of such schemes, etc. Why West Coast offensive schemes did so well against traditional defenses, so on and so on. Discussing that can be very taxing on the brain, and humbling in the sense that yer plumber may be an absolute genius when it comes to thinking about and discussing these sorts of things (why the St. Louis Rams have become so good, what was so good about the old Dallas Cowboys, etc.) and Mr. Academic is totally out-to-sea.

I'm sorry, my answer sounds very snotty Tom. I just wonder if we could find anything new by looking under the rock you mention.

The only "sport" that I would consider art is pro wrestling.

Kris that is brilliant!

I guess I don't like sports because they seem limited. Does that make sense? One side is going to win, I don't really care which. I can't seem to get wrapped up in it. Though, for some reason, I can watch boxing and fight sports and that's about as basic as you can get as far as one side vs. the other.