BillThompson Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 Art and making money are not mutually exclusive. No. But pro-wrestling's only goal has always been to draw money. Period. You can make music, litterature, cinema, painting for the sake of it, for experimental researches, to express yourself, to protest against injustice, to stay alive, to heal other people. Pro-wrestling never had any other aim but to get money from its spectators. Pro-wrestling is basically psychological mass manipulation. The "pro-wrestling tell stories" argument has become amazingly overstated in recent years. The stories pro-wrestling tell are amazingly simplistic and limited, and aimed right at the reptilian brain. Bad guy = boo. Good guy = cheers. Bad guy cheats = me sad and angry. Good guy beats the shit out of bad guy = me happy. It's a low-brow form of entertainment born from the carnivals, it can be fascinating and great to watch, but no great wrestling match can be compared to a great work of litterature, cinema or music. Nor it shouldn't, because it's different. Now, if you want to compare the pro-wrestling industry with other entertainment industry which are using cinema, music and litterature to generate money, then it's another thing, but it's another point of comparison. And pretty often, most of the biggest money generators in the entertainment industry are shit pieces of "art". I don't believe that's true at all. Wrestler A and wrestler B don't enter the ring only hoping to have money. If that were the case guys like Chris Jericho wouldn't seek out opinions on their matches, keep track which matches they were in that they think are great, etc. A promoter wouldn't care about the quality of his/her show, but we know that they do beyond making money. If money were all that mattered Vince McMahon would have kept a guy like Zeus around because his angle and his movie had made the WWF a big profit. But, they didn't, because aesthetics and the artistic side have always mattered in wrestling. One can make money while attempting to present something artistically pleasing, I'd say that's the backbone of the wrestling business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 Working hard doesn't mean you're an artist. When I'm teaching French I don't strictly think about the (little) money I'm gonna earn afterward. I'm trying to do my job the best way possible, to be the most efficient, pleasing and even a little bit entertaining at times. Me seeking out opinions on my courses with my road ag… education manager and fellow work… teachers doesn't mean I'm an artist. It means I'm trying to improve my game and do my job right. And also to ensure my job and maybe get some better spots on the car… better assignments and get paid more if I can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childs Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 Art and making money are not mutually exclusive. No. But pro-wrestling's only goal has always been to draw money. Period. You can make music, litterature, cinema, painting for the sake of it, for experimental researches, to express yourself, to protest against injustice, to stay alive, to heal other people. Pro-wrestling never had any other aim but to get money from its spectators. Pro-wrestling is basically psychological mass manipulation. The "pro-wrestling tell stories" argument has become amazingly overstated in recent years. The stories pro-wrestling tell are amazingly simplistic and limited, and aimed right at the reptilian brain. Bad guy = boo. Good guy = cheers. Bad guy cheats = me sad and angry. Good guy beats the shit out of bad guy = me happy. It's a low-brow form of entertainment born from the carnivals, it can be fascinating and great to watch, but no great wrestling match can be compared to a great work of litterature, cinema or music. Nor it shouldn't, because it's different. This is plainly wrong. It's easy to find wrestlers discussing craft outside the direct context of drawing money. Meanwhile, all the other art forms you cite have deep roots in craft and trying to earn a living. Now, you can argue wrestling is a limited canvas for artistic expression compared to writing or film. I'd agree with that. But why insist there's a clear line between ART and craft? It's a pointlessly reductive argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 I think there are two different arguments here and it's worthwhile to separate them on some level. The first is: "Can Pro Wrestling be seen as art even if the intent of wrestlers is simply to make money?" or "Is this a reasonable way to view pro wrestling?" maybe. The second is "What are the downsides and difficulties in trying to understand drawing power?" I think I said it before, but to me, looking at someone who we think is a draw and then trying to figure out how they drew and why they were a draw and what made them a draw relative to their peers, is the key part of this. It's understanding the numbers, and then, if you want to get a total picture, cross-referencing that with the artistic elements and see where they intersect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 Now, you can argue wrestling is a limited canvas for artistic expression compared to writing or film. I'd agree with that. But why insist there's a clear line between ART and craft? It's a pointlessly reductive argument. Because pro-wrestling has *never* been an artistic expression. I think there are two different arguments here and it's worthwhile to separate them on some level. The first is: "Can Pro Wrestling be seen as art even if the intent of wrestlers is simply to make money?" or "Is this a reasonable way to view pro wrestling?" maybe. Yes. That's a different argument from "is drawing power overrated in judging wrestlers". My answer thus far is very clearly a NO to the first question. 15 years ago I would have told you YES most probably, but I've changed my mind on the matter. Pro-wrestling is not an artistic expression. Maybe it could become one, but to me it's not at this point, and I doubt it could ever become one without becoming something else that is not pro-wrestling. Because of its roots basically, and the reason behind its whole existence to begin with: carnies drawing gullible people to give away their money (the Vader story on the Steve Austin podcast the other day about working the fans to pay for the babyface's fines during the match was hilarious and very telling of what's the business has always been about) And if what became of pro-wrestling today should be judged as "art", well, what I see on TV is extremely poor acting and totally idiotic stories plucked around highly choregraphed fake fights, which basically would put the whole thing at the level of a Jean Claude Van Damme movie, so basically the bottom of the barrel in term of art (be it movies or TV series). So it's not doing it a disservice to not consider pro-westling as art, really. Pro-wrestling is pro-wrestling, and it can be extremely great for what it is. No need to drop the big A word to ignore the reason why drawing power is indeed important when you want to look at the whole picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childs Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 Now, you can argue wrestling is a limited canvas for artistic expression compared to writing or film. I'd agree with that. But why insist there's a clear line between ART and craft? It's a pointlessly reductive argument. Because pro-wrestling has *never* been an artistic expression. Well, I guess there's no arguing beyond this point, because that strikes me as an absurd, "the sky is green" statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted June 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 El-P, setting aside issues of quality completely, was Bret Hart vs Chris Benoit in the Owen Tribute Match an attempt to draw money? Or was it an attempt to make a statement about the excesses of pro wrestling in the era, the same excesses that killed Bret's brother a few months earlier? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 It's all tricky in that regard because someone like Shawn Michaels would get pissed off when a match didn't go how he wanted, not necessarily because he wanted that match to draw money, but because he wanted it to be a CLASSIC. That's sort of after the era a lot of us care the most about, though. That said, there are stories about someone like JJ Dillon who would go out and try to have a great match to impress the boys (though of course the moral of the story is that he got reamed because he wasn't supposed to do that and he didn't play his role right to draw money, but it does show that such a thing could matter to wrestlers even in the early 80s). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 El-P, setting aside issues of quality completely, was Bret Hart vs Chris Benoit in the Owen Tribute Match an attempt to draw money? Or was it an attempt to make a statement about the excesses of pro wrestling in the era, the same excesses that killed Bret's brother a few months earlier? Well, Chris Benoit may not be the best exemple to point out the excesses of pro-wrestling (excess of physical abuse as well as steriods). But anyway. This match was an exception. Bret and Benoit paid hommage to Owen by having a traditionnal long pro-wrestling match on TV. Ok. That was nice. And then what ? Even as far as a match, I don't remember any specifical great statement that it made about life or death, nor even Bret's relationship with Owen. Bret worked a Bret match, with Bret spots. Okay. So ? Even if you want to say it's a kind of eulogy, how does it make it a piece of art ? It's not. A ceremony maybe. Okay. The Plum Mariko tribute match in Japan where Ozaki worked the match alone, with Plum's outfit in the corner (or outside the ring, I don't remember the details), taking a lot of abuse from her opponents as a way to "pay for her sin" I guess (although it may be too much or a judeo-christian extrapolation, and I have no idea if Ozaki is a christian either) could be seen as a kind of religious ceremony of sorts. But work of art ? I don't see it either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted June 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 I was responding to your claim that wrestling never attempted to make any kind of artistic statement. It clearly has a few times. You can argue if that has been good or bad, but it has happened. And the fact that we talk about what wrestling we like and find entertaining and what we don't shows that there is something there besides just making money. I doubt there's a Pro Banking Only board where posters reminisce about and debate their favorite bankers and recall the ****1/2 interest rates of the 1980s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 It's all tricky in that regard because someone like Shawn Michaels would get pissed off when a match didn't go how he wanted, not necessarily because he wanted that match to draw money, but because he wanted it to be a CLASSIC. And that was derided as an infantile way to behave. Especially when Shawn Michaels was positionned to draw *because* he was working those "classic" matches. That was part of the deal with Shawn. That wasn't part of the deal with Goldy, Hogan or Abby for instance. But Shawn's drawing appeal was his ability to work so-called "classics", to the point of this becoming the main selling point of his character as "Mr. Wrestlemania". Again, it came down to drawing people and make money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 I was responding to your claim that wrestling never attempted to make any kind of artistic statement. It clearly has a few times. You can argue if that has been good or bad, but it has happened. And the fact that we talk about what wrestling we like and find entertaining and what we don't shows that there is something there besides just making money. I have watched, enjoyed and talked about wrestling for like 20 years. Doesn't mean I have to consider it as an art. I love tons of stuff that didn't draw money. It was good, even great, craftmanship. But I'll never forget that the purpose of this entire goofy mess is to draw people and make money. That's why I enjoy stuff like Hogan's heel work more today than I did during my snobbish workrate period. Because it's fun to see something that clicks, even if it's not a ***** classic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 I doubt there's a Pro Banking Only board where posters reminisce about and debate their favorite bankers and recall the ****1/2 interest rates of the 1980s. I'm sure cocked up traders in Wall Street reminisce their best coup as works of art too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childs Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 History is replete with systems of mass commerce that also produced what many of us would call "art." The London theatre, the Hollywood studio system, Motown. All of these were craft machines designed to make money. Yet people operated as artists within each of them. The suggestion that a pro wrestler can't operate with artistic intent strikes me as untrue to the nature of creative enterprise. Bret Hart, for example, seems to have an artistic personality. He worked hard to learn the tools of his craft and then he used those tools to express ideas about himself, his family, etc. He clearly felt tensions between his creative impulses and the business machine he fed. You can argue against the quality of his art. But his mentality wasn't that different from those of actors, writers and others we more readily call artists. Bryan Danielson seems to have an artistic personality. He talks about the ring as his venue for self-expression and clearly feels some of that aforementioned tension working for the WWE machine. El-P mentioned Austin. In listening to his podcast, you hear a balance between practical business instincts and love for wrestling as a craft. He obviously admires guys like Regal and Finlay, who were never huge stars. So for him, wrestling exists on some level beyond conning the marks, even though he believes very strongly in that part of it. We have this notion that commerce is antithetical to creativity. I'm sure I believed that as a teenager. But it's bullshit. Ideally, any art strikes a balance between self-expression and connection with an audience. The corporate overlords can, and often do, help the artist find that balance, even if it doesn't feel that way in the moment. I deal with all of this in my own work, albeit on a low level. As a sportswriter, I work for a company designed to sell advertising and garner subscriptions/web hits. I'm lucky if a reader spends two minutes with one of my pieces before tossing the newspaper or clicking on the next link. But I still think about craft for craft's sake -- all the time. And every so often, someone in my line of work produces a piece that says something deeper about the world or connects in a more lasting way. So I'd absolutely agree with anyone who says newspapers and magazines aren't particularly conducive to creating art. But I'd strongly disagree with someone who says they never do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillThompson Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 Working hard doesn't mean you're an artist. When I'm teaching French I don't strictly think about the (little) money I'm gonna earn afterward. I'm trying to do my job the best way possible, to be the most efficient, pleasing and even a little bit entertaining at times. Me seeking out opinions on my courses with my road ag… education manager and fellow work… teachers doesn't mean I'm an artist. It means I'm trying to improve my game and do my job right. And also to ensure my job and maybe get some better spots on the car… better assignments and get paid more if I can. You're not putting on a show for an audience that is present to see you perform your art. There's absolutely no difference between a pro wrestler and a theater actor, film actor, street artist, writer, etc. They are all employing a craft they have learned to express an art and engage an audience. Pro wrestling allows individual and group expression from the performers, and even artistic interaction from the audience. To say that pro wrestling isn't an art and that pro wrestlers aren't artists is to say that movies aren't art and that film actors aren't artists. Besides, your entire argument falls apart when you look at any independent wrestlers. The guy down the street from me who wrestles every weekend as Rapier the Clown isn't wrestling to make money. He's wrestling because he wants to explore the art form of wrestling and entertain an audience with his art. The same can be said of the majority of promotions present in the world, because whether or not they intend to make money most of them don't. If pro wrestling is purely a money making business then the indie wrestlers making no money would stop wrestling and the promotions that never make money would stop putting on shows. They don't because they love the art form of professional wrestling and using the artistic platform of wrestling to express their artistic side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteF3 Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 Isn't Ricky Steamboat the pre-dominant, kayfabe-era example of the wrestler as an artist? This is a guy who audibled a 20-minute house show match with Haku just because he felt stifled, and is generally down on his WM3 match with Randy Savage because of the pre-planned and choreographed nature of the bout, despite it being a match that earned him more money than he may have ever seen in his life. And yet, you hardly hear a bad word about him from anybody else in wrestling--I could be wrong, but I've never heard any peer of his dismiss Steamboat as a "mark," the way I've heard it tossed at guys like Tommy Dreamer. And he clearly made good money from the business and does so to this day. Maybe he's an outlier but he's an example of a guy who struck the balance between art and commerce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 I think the flipside would be Savage as an artist, since he took so much care in planning out his matches, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteF3 Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 A contrast between Savage the composer and Steamboat the jazz musician. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkdoc Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 it's surprising me how fresh this conversation feels here, considering how beyond worn out it's become with video games i suspect the same will happen here a few years from now or so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteF3 Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 I never even thought about that but video games are almost a perfect analogy. And that led to a huge debate on Roger Ebert's old blog (when he said that video games weren't and couldn't be art) that had some great discussion but also made my eyes glaze over at points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 it's surprising me how fresh this conversation feels here, considering how beyond worn out it's become with video games i suspect the same will happen here a few years from now or so The difference is I don't think anyone else is having the discussion but the thirty or so of us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stomperspc Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 We have this notion that commerce is antithetical to creativity. I'm sure I believed that as a teenager. But it's bullshit. Ideally, any art strikes a balance between self-expression and connection with an audience. The corporate overlords can, and often do, help the artist find that balance, even if it doesn't feel that way in the moment. I think this is a really good point. Commerce and creativity are not antithetical in wrestling or anywhere else. At the same time, they don’t always work in unison either. Which I think is the point of this whole debate. If the wrestlers that are considered the best at their craft from an artistic standpoint were always the ones that drew the most money there would be no debate. Drawing would then be an important metric because it would represent the objective quantification of a wrestler’s ability. The two would go hand-in-hand. That is not the case though. A wrestler’s inputs – their wrestling ability, promo ability, ect. – do not determine whether they are going to be a draw. Not to keep coming back to the same point, but that is the reason that drawing power is (in many cases) a flawed metric. Any metric where a wrestler can do almost anything in his power to position himself for success but still not succeed is not a fair metric to evaluate him on. This is not a perfect analogy, but it is sort of like an RBI in baseball. An RBI is not an individual player metric. To get an RBI a player needs cooperation from his surrounding teammates so we shouldn’t use that metric to evaluate individuals. A player that bats leadoff in the National League with an OPS of .950 but only drives in 65 runs because he bats in front of the #8 hitter and pitcher should not have his RBI total held against him. Similarly, a solid main eventer that adds value to the promotion but is never put in the position to draw (for one reason or another) that another wrestler is put in should not have his lack of clear cut drawing ability held against him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 I'd like to point out that Shakespeare was a commercial artist. As was Michaelangelo. As were The Beatles. But I basically agree with stomperspc, there is no real relationship between commercial performance and artistic merit. On a side note, historically there does seem to be a correlation between commerical booms and artistic booms. In times of prosperity, there tends to be a greater number of "great artists" -- but this is very macro-economic. i.e. Had Shakespeare been around in 600AD, he'd probably have spent his life planting turnips.The time-scales involved in wrestling history are too small for those big macroecnomic historical shifts to make themselves felt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkdoc Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 it's surprising me how fresh this conversation feels here, considering how beyond worn out it's become with video games i suspect the same will happen here a few years from now or so The difference is I don't think anyone else is having the discussion but the thirty or so of us? yep, whereas practically the entire modern indie game scene is a response to that infamous ebert piece mentioned above. there are a number of self-conscious Art Games that don't even try to be fun to play, and i'm not sure how i feel about that. i'm also with childs - treating commercial vs. artistic success as a dichotomy is intellectual laziness. it often seems to come from older folks who don't "get" modern pop culture and the wider trends that developed its values. complaining about autotune really isn't different from the way a previous generation would say ONLY REAL INSTRUMENTS = REAL MUSIC, for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 Besides, your entire argument falls apart when you look at any independent wrestlers. The guy down the street from me who wrestles every weekend as Rapier the Clown isn't wrestling to make money. Well, indeed. That's why pro-wrestlers, and I mean pro as *professional*, usually think these guys are marks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.