Wrestling = Art... A Conversation

[JerryvonKramer]

Man that society with its "rules" like the basic definitions of words and shit.

 

Fuck that society. I'm not going to call it an "apple" any more. That's what the man wants! I'm going to call it the "potato of the sky!" YEAHH!

 

Art pertains to things that are man-made or else arranged. Nature to things that occur naturally. Science to the scientific method.

 

"Man you and your RIGID RULES about words and their meanings!"

[C.S.]

The comparisons you're throwing out don't wash CS. In any artistic field there are people who will work for less. There are amazing artists whose main driving force is making money and putting food on the table. None of this precludes them from being an artist. Based on what you are saying actors aren't artists, musicians aren't artists, and so on and so forth.

 

Never said any of that though.

 

An artist can indeed make a ton of money. Other people misinterpreting previous posts of mine doesn't change what I actually said.

 

The difference is this: 90% of successful wrestlers place a high importance on the money. Art is way down the list, if it's there at all. Doesn't mean they don't work hard at their craft, take pride in it, etc. Whereas, there are actors who - yes - make a lot of money, but the majority of the long-lasting successes (not all) genuinely identify themselves as artists and make a conscious effort to create art. Some have the "one for me, one for them" approach where they'll rotate a big studio flick with something more artistic, but they use that big Hollywood money to fund the art.

 

Local indy wrestlers who work for peanuts are the same as actors in college plays. Good stuff some of the time, but not really true professionals yet. I don't include the bigger indies like TNA, ROH, etc. when I say that, just the really local ones. I'm generalizing, obviously, but you get the point.

[Johnny Sorrow]

Man that society with its "rules" like the basic definitions of words and shit.

 

Fuck that society. I'm not going to call it an "apple" any more. That's what the man wants! I'm going to call it the "potato of the sky!" YEAHH!

 

Art pertains to things that are man-made or else arranged. Nature to things that occur naturally. Science to the scientific method.

 

"Man you and your RIGID RULES about words and their meanings!"

Yeah, way to dismiss me by over exaggerating what I said regarding art and not delicious fruit, you repressed living stereotype . 😘

[Loss]

The reason wrestling matches now don't look like wrestling matches 30 years ago is because of wrestlers caring about their craft. You could argue changes being for better or worse, but if wrestlers didn't care, they'd still be working the same way they did when the in-ring component was much easier on their bodies. But again, the intention of the creator has nothing to do with it.

[C.S.]

The reason wrestling matches now don't look like wrestling matches 30 years ago is because of wrestlers caring about their craft. You could argue changes being for better or worse, but if wrestlers didn't care, they'd still be working the same way they did when the in-ring component was much easier on their bodies. But again, the intention of the creator has nothing to do with it.

 

Kind of an oversimplification IMO.

 

1. There were great wrestling matches 30 years ago too.

 

2. The schedule back then was a lot more brutal than it is now, which lent itself to more phoning it in, shorter matches, etc.

 

3. Today's wrestlers are better athletes because the world in general is more knowledgeable about health, fitness, etc.

 

I realize I'm oversimplifying matters too, but all of those factors do make a difference in today's style and speed of wrestling vs. 30 years ago.

[LariatMMBOPPO]

The difference is this: 90% of successful wrestlers place a high importance on the money. Art is way down the list, if it's there at all.

How much emphasis you place on money doesn't change what is art and what isn't. If I commission an illustrator to create a specific piece, does that make what they paint/draw not art? They're creating it solely for the fee I'm paying them.

[BillThompson]

 

 

 

 

I don't think "is this art?" and"is Dory a great worker?" are the same type of question.

I think they are, since what Dory is doing in the ring is creating art. But, it's more about how you are framing the original question. You're applying an interpretation to the question of art, one that is based on the idea of societal collective thought. I'm doing the same with Dory.

 

is this an apple? That's a question with a clear answer.

 

Is this money? Well that's a little trickier. It might be money for these people at this time but in other times it has no function as currency.

 

Clearly there's no "in my opinion" about it because either it's money or it isn't.

 

Is this worker great? More of a clear opinion question. A value judgement.

 

The art question is more like the money question.

 

I disagree, both the worker and the art question would fall into an opinion based realm.

 

Bollocks they do.

 

The status of something as art isn't a matter of opinion. For example, there are certain things that aren't art: science, for example, explicitly isn't art. Nature, for example, explicitly isn't art. So it is a concept that has some sort of stable signification in something other than someone's opinion whereas "is this worker great?" only exists as an opinion.

 

I think you are confusing the fact that art is subject to interpretation and that we can have opinions about works of art with art itself.

 

 

I think you are choosing to take an incredibly limited view on art. You're quick to lash out when your worldview is challenged. In someone's hands anything can become art, even science and nature. You may not see it, and again that's fine, but myself and others do see it. Besides, you've already damned your own argument from the start with your Coke can example. That Coke can most certainly can be a piece of art, depending on a lot of factors. It's all in how someone chooses to see it and treat it. You are choosing to not treat it as art, but others will treat it differently. That's the beauty of art, and why it is without limitations.

 

 

The comparisons you're throwing out don't wash CS. In any artistic field there are people who will work for less. There are amazing artists whose main driving force is making money and putting food on the table. None of this precludes them from being an artist. Based on what you are saying actors aren't artists, musicians aren't artists, and so on and so forth.

 

Never said any of that though.

 

An artist can indeed make a ton of money. Other people misinterpreting previous posts of mine doesn't change what I actually said.

 

The difference is this: 90% of successful wrestlers place a high importance on the money. Art is way down the list, if it's there at all. Doesn't mean they don't work hard at their craft, take pride in it, etc. Whereas, there are actors who - yes - make a lot of money, but the majority of the long-lasting successes (not all) genuinely identify themselves as artists and make a conscious effort to create art. Some have the "one for me, one for them" approach where they'll rotate a big studio flick with something more artistic, but they use that big Hollywood money to fund the art.

 

Local indy wrestlers who work for peanuts are the same as actors in college plays. Good stuff some of the time, but not really true professionals yet. I don't include the bigger indies like TNA, ROH, etc. when I say that, just the really local ones. I'm generalizing, obviously, but you get the point.

 

 

You did say that, and you're saying it again. Money means nothing in this conversation. I honestly don;t see why you keep bringing it up. Every artist wants to make money with their art. They intend in some way, or hope rather, to make money with their art. Whether it happens or not doesn't effect their status as artists. There are wrestlers who make a lot of money and those who don;t, both are artists. This is true in every single artistic field.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think "is this art?" and"is Dory a great worker?" are the same type of question.

I think they are, since what Dory is doing in the ring is creating art. But, it's more about how you are framing the original question. You're applying an interpretation to the question of art, one that is based on the idea of societal collective thought. I'm doing the same with Dory.

 

is this an apple? That's a question with a clear answer.

 

Is this money? Well that's a little trickier. It might be money for these people at this time but in other times it has no function as currency.

 

Clearly there's no "in my opinion" about it because either it's money or it isn't.

 

Is this worker great? More of a clear opinion question. A value judgement.

 

The art question is more like the money question.

 

I disagree, both the worker and the art question would fall into an opinion based realm.

 

Bollocks they do.

 

The status of something as art isn't a matter of opinion. For example, there are certain things that aren't art: science, for example, explicitly isn't art. Nature, for example, explicitly isn't art. So it is a concept that has some sort of stable signification in something other than someone's opinion whereas "is this worker great?" only exists as an opinion.

 

I think you are confusing the fact that art is subject to interpretation and that we can have opinions about works of art with art itself.

 

I think you are choosing to take an incredibly limited view on art. You're quick to lash out when your worldview is challenged. In someone's hands anything can become art, even science and nature. You may not see it, and again that's fine, but myself and others do see it. Besides, you've already damned your own argument from the start with your Coke can example. That Coke can most certainly can be a piece of art, depending on a lot of factors. It's all in how someone chooses to see it and treat it. You are choosing to not treat it as art, but others will treat it differently. That's the beauty of art, and why it is without limitations.

 

The Coke can be art if enough people accept it as art. It can't be art if just one person thinks it is, all it means is that everyone else thinks the one person is strange.

 

Anything can *become* art, but it becoming art is entirely dependent on a certain context -- just as anything can become money but its status as money is dependent on context.

 

A sheep in a field is not art. Stick it in a white perspex box in a gallery and it can become art. It cannot be art just being a sheep in a field. It's a sheep.

 

Science likewise, by its very definition, is not art. It is literally defined by its not being art.

 

If you have a concept so nebulous that it is literally *anything* what you have is no longer really a concept. Art is not *anything*. I can't look at a cloud in the sky and declare it art. I can paint a picture of it and that can be art. I can take a photo of it and that can be art. But the cloud itself is not art. Don't be silly now. I understand the impetus behind wishing to protect people's rights to opinions and wishing to maintain subjectivty and "eye of the beholder" and all of that stuff. I get it. But don't try and change the definitions of words and concepts. You treating a sheep in a field going about its life chewing grass as art doesn't make the sheep art, it makes you a nutter. End of.

[Johnny Sorrow]

But who "literally defined" things as not being art? I see a scientist show how he or she gets to a conclusion and there is an art to it. Willie Mays was an artist in the field. Where is this ruling council that says what is and isn't art? Not what's bad or good art, but what it is or can be. Who wrote these "rules" ? Where can I read the rule book that doesn't exist?

[JerryvonKramer]

The OED might be a place to start: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/art

[BillThompson]

Definitions & concepts are by their very nature nebulous and changing. Words change, languages change, art changes, gender norms change, etc. The eye of the beholder principle works because of how art changes from person to person and throughout time. Art is subjective because it is so nebulous and almost beyond definition. I mean heck, even in this discussion I am limiting art by attempting to affix it to the argument I am making.

 

You know what I did today Parv, I looked at a cloud and declared it art. It was fairly easy to do, and it was pretty darn spiffy to sit there and bask in the wonderment of natural art. Now, I'm sure you will say it isn't art, that's of little concern to me. I'm more concerned with the cloud, what it evoked in me, and what it could evoke in others. I'm open to the idea of anything as art, and thus the possibility of beauty in anything and everything. There is art in that cloud just as there is art in a punch from Jerry Lawler. The quality of that art is a different debate, but the art is present because I don't believe the definition of what is and isn't art can, nor should be, fixed in stone. That's far too limiting, far too small of an outlook on life and art.

 

You being rigid and unwilling to compromise your worldview isn't really my problem. I'm not seeking to change you in any way. You choosing to limit yourself and the world you live in is your choice. But, you ascribing your worldview onto others is problematic. If someone sees something a certain way and it's not hurting anything, then I don't see the need for the constant name calling and condescension. You are by all means entitled to your opinion on art, and I am entitled to mine. One of us is lashing out and calling others nutters for their take, and that really says it all in my eyes.

[JerryvonKramer]

The cloud isn't art even if you have you head in it. Language doesn't work like that. It changes slowly through usage and over time. It is also communal and driven by mass change. You, one person, declaring the cloud art means nothing. It isn't art and doesn't change the definition of the word. If 50,000 people do it, then maybe. If 2,000,000 peope do it, then the word might start to morph and change.

 

Nature isn't art because art is defined as being something made through human creativity. No amount of you calling the cloud "art" can change it until you can start a mass movement to change it. It is literally narcissism to believe otherwise.

[BillThompson]

And you believing that your take is the only correct take isn't narcissism?

 

Art is driven by thinking outside of what is deemed normal, and by exploring the world in a way that others may find odd, or even incorrect. I think that a cloud is art, therefore it is art to me. You falling back on social collectivist theory doesn't do anything to dissuade me from thinking as such. It just shows me that your take on the world is a very rigid one where you cannot accept someone or something that doesn't fit into said take. That's fine if that's your take, but it's not my take. We turn to the sun, the stars, the sky, and the moon for inspiration. We do this because they are full of art. and awe, and wonder. My take is that the world is full of art, you spouting off social collectivist theory isn't going to change that.

[Johnny Sorrow]

The OED might be a place to start: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/art

Really? The fucking dictionary is your source? The same dictionary that adds pop culture expressions like "D'OH!" ? That's like religious maniacs falling back on "BIBLE!"

[JerryvonKramer]

Great to know that we have some people here who are magic and can single-handedly change the meanings of words and concepts that have stood for centuries.

 

Bill Thompson can literally give a cloud in the sky the status of being art.

 

Can I try?

 

"I declare that this banana shall thenceforth be known as mathematics!"

[JerryvonKramer]

Art is driven by thinking outside of what is deemed normal, and by exploring the world in a way that others may find odd, or even incorrect.

Is the cloud doing that thinking then?

 

I think that a cloud is art

Okay, but what is the cloud expressing? You've just told me what it is "driven by".

 

I mean, it basically isn't art is it, it's a cloud. Art is made by people. The cloud wasn't made by anyone.

 

therefore it is art to me.

But you thinking the cloud is art is just objectively wrong, because art is made by people. Therefore, all it means is that you are confused about what art actually is.

 

 

You falling back on social collectivist theory

It's really just common sense. No theory or anything, but just knowing what "art" means and applying the term correctly.

 

 

It just shows me that your take on the world is a very rigid one where you cannot accept someone or something that doesn't fit into said take.

I am rigid because I believe that words have meanings? "My take" on the world is that art is made by human beings? It's not exactly a controversial belief.

 

 

That's fine if that's your take, but it's not my take.

Right, but your take is at odds with the entire written history of art and literature going back to Plato. The distinction between art and nature is pretty fundamental. I don't know why you think you can just override it willy nilly as you're doing with that cloud.

 

 

We turn to the sun, the stars, the sky, and the moon for inspiration.

Inspiration for art maybe. They are not art themselves.

 

We do this because they are full of art.

This is a basic misuage of language. "Full of art" means "full of human creative endeavour" or something similar.

 

You seem to have confused the word "art" with "beauty".

 

The Romantic poets who were so awe-struck by mountains and flowers and so on, also maintained at all times the distinction between natural beauty and man-made beauty. The distinction between natural beauty and man-made beauty is an age-old debate. I don't know why you think you can just resolve it and magically conjoin them by declaring a cloud art.

 

You've just got the word wrong.

[LariatMMBOPPO]

JvK pulling a jdw here.

[goodhelmet]

Jerry's right though... the cloud itself isn't a piece of art. If Bill took a picture of the cloud from a certain angle and framed it and showcased that cloud at the gallery... it would be art.

[LariatMMBOPPO]

I know, I just find it funny he's doing the "respond to each sentence" jdw gimmick given their history.

[BigBadMick]

It sounds like a lovely cloud though.

[overbooked]

Art is an ever-changing concept. Duchamp's urinal once wouldn't have been considered art. Performance art once wouldn't have been considered art. Plenty of people would still be wary of calling either art, but doesn't make them non-art. Same for movies and TV. A fair bit of auteur theory involves finding art in films made primarily for monetary gain. So primary intention isn't even that important either. If something can be defined and interpreted in multiple ways, and actively is, then it has cultural value, and within that context is probably art. The existence of this thread, this board, seems a pretty good argument for wrestling being art.

[JerryvonKramer]

Art is an ever-changing concept. Duchamp's urinal once wouldn't have been considered art. Performance art once wouldn't have been considered art. Plenty of people would still be wary of calling either art, but doesn't make them non-art. Same for movies and TV. A fair bit of auteur theory involves finding art in films made primarily for monetary gain. So primary intention isn't even that important either. If something can be defined and interpreted in multiple ways, and actively is, then it has cultural value, and within that context is probably art. The existence of this thread, this board, seems a pretty good argument for wrestling being art.

You'll note that all of these examples are man-made things.

[overbooked]

 

Art is an ever-changing concept. Duchamp's urinal once wouldn't have been considered art. Performance art once wouldn't have been considered art. Plenty of people would still be wary of calling either art, but doesn't make them non-art. Same for movies and TV. A fair bit of auteur theory involves finding art in films made primarily for monetary gain. So primary intention isn't even that important either. If something can be defined and interpreted in multiple ways, and actively is, then it has cultural value, and within that context is probably art. The existence of this thread, this board, seems a pretty good argument for wrestling being art.

You'll note that all of these examples are man-made things.

 

 

The cloud is Duchamp's "Found Art" taken to its logical extreme. My point is that art is an evolving concept - plenty of things considered art now were not in the past. Either the creator, the appropriator or the consumer decided it was art further down the line.

 

And I'm pretty sure wrestling is man-made, anyway.

[JerryvonKramer]

There needs to be a creator or appropriator for it to be art. It can't just be a man pointing to a cloud and calling it art. Not unless he can find some way of exhibiting it. Even then, a nature reserve isn't art, it's a nature reserve. No amount of theory can get you to the point where the distinction between art and nature breaks down because their difference from each other is fundamental to their definition.

 

Art presupposes human intervention and creativity.

 

Nature presupposes an absence of human activity.

 

So maybe your dolphin show at waterworld could be called art, because it's a human creative vision that gave you the show.

 

What constitutes "art" does have wide limits, but to act as if there as no limits is incorrect and renders the word meaningless.

[Sidebottom]

Yuck.

 

Queen suck. And that's a fact.

 

Loss, ban this guy please.