El-P Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 A contrast between Savage the composer and Steamboat the jazz musician. Great jazz musicians were composers too. But anyway, the "wrestling as performance art" always brings me back to the old "pro-wrestling as figure skating" joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 (I think the "is pro-wrestling an art" discussion should be separated from the question about drawing as a metric to discuss workers, if people want to discuss about that precise point which to me is somewhat of a detail anyway since art or not art doesn't change one bit the way I'm perceiving it) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillThompson 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. They're just as professional as any guy in the WWE, notoriety does not equal being a professional. That's like telling an EMT on a volunteer department that they aren't a professional because they don't do the job full time or get paid for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Faulconer Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 My opinion is probably slanted due to the microcosm that my wrestling fandom exists in. I don't order PPVs. I don't get live shows in my area. We don't get the WWE Network in Canada until probably the end of 2015. For the period that existed before 2005 it matters only so much in that it often affects the availability and quality of footage that is available. It probably shouldn't matter what or who is drawing in this day and age. We can download legally or otherwise any wrestlers or matches that we want. The popularity of a given wrestler or style doesn't dictate the availability of their output like it did even ten years ago. The most popular stuff is usually the easiest to get your hands on though. Unfortunately there aren't any 3 Disc sets or programs devoted to Fujita Hayato Jr. like there is for someone as insignificant as The Big Show. Netflix isn't streaming any documentaries on the career of Felino like they have for Edge either. WWE takes a pretty counter productive viewpoint on who or what they want to present as a draw. It really isn't worth our time to invest our thoughts on the matter. They put the time and effort into selling us on the fact that the Ultimate Warrior wasn't a draw when they released that goofy DVD a few years ago. That's like ironic or something something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawho5 Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 I tend to take the RF viewpoint when I watch wrestling. I could care less if it made money, do I enjoy it? And were I to make a GOAT list, Toshiaki Kawada would be number 1 without any question at all. But I can completely understand somebody putting drawing power as a very important aspect of being GOAT. I can also see it if you were to look at a wrestler's career and try to judge how successful they were. If they were put in a position to draw a lot of money and didn't, I perfectly understand holding that against their wrestling career. It's the reason the promoter put them out there. So yes, in some cases, it is an important metric. However, as Matt D and Dylan Waco have suggested, there are a lot of factors underlying the amount of money wrestlers drew as well as different circumstances involved in each scenario. If you're going to include that as part of your criteria, it's got to be something you look into and try to understand better. Because like all metrics, drawing power can very easily be misused by not truly understanding what the numbers mean in their own context. Or even worse, purposefully misused to support a conclusion that you wanted to reach in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fxnj Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 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. The "art games" business is the stupidest thing. A game that doesn't try to be enjoyable isn't art, it's just a shitty game. The purpose of art is immersion and the immersion is what creates the enjoyment. The true art games are not the ones billed as such by ignorant hipsters, but the games that are simply the most enjoyable to play. If you ever study poetry, you learn pretty quickly that the greatness of a poem has little to do with some deep "message" behind it and is simply a matter of the emotions that it creates. Sure, you can put in interesting ideas but they're merely a means to an end. If your purpose is to create social change there's no reason to not just write a free essay instead of encasing your "message" inside some literature you're getting paid to publish. The topics discussed over whether guys wrestle for money or of whether the medium can offer up any "messages" or other pretentious shit are ultimately irrelevant to the question of if wrestling is art. That is, if its purpose can be to immerse fans within its simulation, which it definitely does. If we pretend art needs to do some other spooky stuff like "heal other people," I guess that means a bottle of aspirin is a work of art. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 Completely disagree with that fxnj. Those games that are trying to be arty are meant to be emotional experiences, or to explore particular social issues, or whatever. We do not say this about films. Films have the power to be thought provoking, moving, and so on, without necessarily being "entertaining". I am sure everyone here can name a film that they value and think is great that isn't necessarily "enjoyable" or an easy watch. Being entertained and "fun" are not the only metrics when judging art. To say games as a medium always have to be is to reduce them always to having to be shallow. And they don't always have to be shallow. Wrestling too can get to other places and other emotions. I've frequently talked about Magnum TA vs. Tully Blanchard "I Quit" as a match that gets at emotions and truths that are "beyond" the standard wrestling match. Call me a pretentious if you want, I think the match is a meditation on manhood. It asks real questions about what it means to be a man. Tully's humiliation is that match is not "enjoyable" to watch, sometimes it is uncomfortable. But this is precisely what makes it great. I reject this idea that some forms are inherently shallow and others are inherently "deep". Not true. Every medium has the potential to be deep, including gaming and wrestling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilclown Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 No. But pro-wrestling's only goal has always been to draw money. Period. One doesn't have to delve very deeply into the wrestling subculture to disprove this premise. Plenty of wrestlers are performance driven, worrying about the quality of their matches, interviews and storytelling whether it has box office impact or not. This has always been true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 Plenty of wrestlers are performance driven, worrying about the quality of their matches, interviews and storytelling whether it has box office impact or not. This has always been true. Yes, but this has nothing to do with them being "artists" or not. This has everything to do with them wanting to do their job really well. Wanting to have the best match possible because the fans have paid their money to see you doesn't mean you're an artist, it means you're a real pro who takes great pride in its task. And it's great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 Completely disagree with that fxnj. Those games that are trying to be arty are meant to be emotional experiences, or to explore particular social issues, or whatever. We do not say this about films. Films have the power to be thought provoking, moving, and so on, without necessarily being "entertaining". I am sure everyone here can name a film that they value and think is great that isn't necessarily "enjoyable" or an easy watch. Being entertained and "fun" are not the only metrics when judging art. To say games as a medium always have to be is to reduce them always to having to be shallow. And they don't always have to be shallow. Wrestling too can get to other places and other emotions. I've frequently talked about Magnum TA vs. Tully Blanchard "I Quit" as a match that gets at emotions and truths that are "beyond" the standard wrestling match. Call me a pretentious if you want, I think the match is a meditation on manhood. It asks real questions about what it means to be a man. Tully's humiliation is that match is not "enjoyable" to watch, sometimes it is uncomfortable. But this is precisely what makes it great. I reject this idea that some forms are inherently shallow and others are inherently "deep". Not true. Every medium has the potential to be deep, including gaming and wrestling. We call you pretentious, absolutely, but that's only because my write up on Bock vs Hennig broadway is lost in the ether of the internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DR Ackermann Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 Yes, but this has nothing to do with them being "artists" or not. This has everything to do with them wanting to do their job really well. Wanting to have the best match possible because the fans have paid their money to see you doesn't mean you're an artist, it means you're a real pro who takes great pride in its task. And it's great. Do you personally know what is going through every wrestler's mind and why they do what they do? I guess Michaelangelo wouldn't have been an artist because he was just doing his job really well when he was doing commissions in the Sistine Chappel. That couldn't be art, it was just a job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillThompson Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 Plenty of wrestlers are performance driven, worrying about the quality of their matches, interviews and storytelling whether it has box office impact or not. This has always been true. Yes, but this has nothing to do with them being "artists" or not. This has everything to do with them wanting to do their job really well. Wanting to have the best match possible because the fans have paid their money to see you doesn't mean you're an artist, it means you're a real pro who takes great pride in its task. And it's great. This completely discounts the artistic process, and I really, truly don't understand how someone can watch something where people are putting on a choreographed performance for the enjoyment of others and not see the art in that. Going by what you have said in this thread there's no such thing as art. Movies aren't art, literature isn't art, theater isn't art, painting isn't art, nothing is art because they're all just people trying to be good at a craft. I'll be honest, I don't want to live in a world like that because that is a world that would bore me to tears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dooley Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 I've always thought that people who insist pro wrestling is art are the absolute worst. This thread has done nothing to dissuade me from that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DR Ackermann Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 How is pro wrestling not art? Your post has done nothing to dissuade me from the idea that it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childs Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 I've always thought that people who insist pro wrestling is art are the absolute worst. This thread has done nothing to dissuade me from that. Thank you for your utterly useless contribution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negro Suave Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 There is a misguided notion planted in the minds of everyone that if you are making a lot of money doing what you do, it is just a job, if you are struggling to do what you do, it is art. The reason being that there will always be more people struggling at doing ANY job than there are people who are doing it well. The metrics of success will forever be tied to something measurable that being said notoriety is also a pretty good metric and some people want to be known more than they want to make money. So to the question is it overrated? Not at all, someone has to have the potential to make money in the field and being the top drawing guys means you can help other people directly or indirectly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkdoc Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 yeah, i really like what Parv had to say there. there are plenty of ways to immerse someone beyond just "fun". i do feel like we could do a lot better than Dys4ia & Depression Quest (and *have* done better, see Yume Nikki & Gone Home), but i still think it's a great thing that those games exist. it makes no sense to me that video games have to be for fun when we don't treat other media that way, just like how it makes no sense to me that we can't treat pro wrestling the way we treat other public performance. Parv's writing on Magnum vs. Tully also brings up a major reason i don't watch that much wrestling anymore: i just don't find the stories told by a lot of the canonized "great" matches to be that profound. a lot of that comes from my life experiences and study, along with that of my closest friends. basically i have come to view currently-existing masculinity as completely and utterly toxic, so i just can't get into any sort of "who's the better man" deal. i also find a lot of the other common narratives in "great" wrestling to be the same ones used to explain sports (e.g. "he has all the talent in the world but he chokes at the end"), and those largely tend to be bullshit if you really analyze sports. to put it a bit more succinctly, even the best pro wrestling tends to draw on the surface-level appeal of sports as opposed to the stuff that lies deeper. this was more than enough to captivate me as a teenager, but years of ESPN have killed it for me. i've been saying for years that rather than a "male soap opera" (a terrible description in my view) or even a "live-action comic book" (a much better one, granted), wrestling is really most like old-school sports movies (e.g. Rocky, Hoosiers, The Natural) since it tells very much the same stories. and if you'll notice, that entire subgenre of film has basically died and been replaced with more serious dramas that just happen to involve sports (think Million Dollar Baby). maybe wrestling has to follow suit to stay relevant...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 There is a misguided notion planted in the minds of everyone that if you are making a lot of money doing what you do, it is just a job, if you are struggling to do what you do, it is art. The way I navigate through the bureaucratic bullshit in the day to day existence of my job is absolutely art. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negro Suave Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 There is a misguided notion planted in the minds of everyone that if you are making a lot of money doing what you do, it is just a job, if you are struggling to do what you do, it is art. The way I navigate through the bureaucratic bullshit in the day to day existence of my job is absolutely art. I'm sure your TPS reports are indeed aesthetically pleasing. The great thing about Art is that everyone's definition of it varies in that it is perfectly valid to believe there is no artistic value in something, for you. But it doesn't begin to define the artistic experience for anyone else. Now that doesn't mean Wresting is Picasso (which i think is a Chikara spinoff fed) because this isn't an A or B discussion.There are varying levels like in every other form of entertainment on the planet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 Internet tone problems. I wasn't kidding. The way I minimize my tedium should have an appreciation course in a college somewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dooley Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 I've always thought that people who insist pro wrestling is art are the absolute worst. This thread has done nothing to dissuade me from that. Thank you for your utterly useless contribution. Thank you for taking the time to thank me. If wrestling is art, so is 3 card monte. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillThompson Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 I've always thought that people who insist pro wrestling is art are the absolute worst. This thread has done nothing to dissuade me from that. Thank you for your utterly useless contribution. Thank you for taking the time to thank me. If wrestling is art, so is 3 card monte. Seriously, this has been a swell and civil discussion to this point, what's the purpose of popping in just to contribute nothing but snark? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negro Suave Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 I've always thought that people who insist pro wrestling is art are the absolute worst. This thread has done nothing to dissuade me from that. Thank you for your utterly useless contribution. Thank you for taking the time to thank me. If wrestling is art, so is 3 card monte. I am pretty sure the art of being a conman has been romanticized and studied many times over. I'm not sure what your point is? Magicians are praised for doing the same thing as three card monty and we could call that an art form. Just because anyone can use a paint brush and someone might decide to just draw dicks with it doesn't mean that there is no artistry in painting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victory Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 I just watched one of those Legends of Wrestling episodes on the Network and Michael Hayes called wrestling art. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 And he's a Freebird. What's your excuse? 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.