Is Sport an Art? Options

[Tung]

We were having a debate about this in our Writing class earlier. Half of the class was split on this. Some say it is an art, some say it isn't. Opinions?

[brooklyneast05]

^but plenty of people do art for the monetary benefits and fame, but it's still called art. also, lots of art doesn't exist to find something "better than life". i'd argue that most art doesn't exist for a reason like that. a bunch of it exists for practical reasons. (graphic design, architecture, advertising, furniture design...every kind of design...ect ect)

[coconutter]

^but plenty of people do art for the monetary benefits and fame, but it's still called art. also, lots of art doesn't exist to find something "better than life". i'd argue that most art doesn't exist for a reason like that. a bunch of it exists for practical reasons. (graphic design, architecture, advertising, furniture design...every kind of design...ect ect)

To me all that stuff isn't truly art. It's just called art because it's the name we've given it based on the art that artists created for no reason at all. Not everyone does today, and only few pieces of what we call art actually are.


Also, if art exists for a reason then I really don't see it as my definition of art. Really the opinion of whether or not something is art can only be proven by a definition, and there are many definitions and therefore many opinions about what art actually is. Also, a good example of how art with a purpose just can't match art without a purpose is Mozart's ballets, versus Mozart's symphonies. Mozart wrote his ballets for money, where as he just wrote his symphonies because he just felt like writing something for no reason at all. The majority of music critics would think his symphonies better than his ballets and I believe the reason the majority believes that is because the ballets have a purpose where as the symphonies do not. Again, there's really no way that could be a definite reason why art is better in its purest form, but rather and example to understand where I'm coming from.

Sometimes architecture has no purpose either. Details serve no purpose in the structure of the building, and I highly doubt the artist who designed the detailed parts of buildings put it there to please other people unless he or she was getting paid. If it were someone who was just designing a building and adding details for no purpose it could very well be art. Same with furniture. Since when was advertising art? It may be an important part of pop culture, but does not even touch art.

I don't think true artists are practical. If they were art would never evolve and we would just create art to please society. Artists certainly don't aim to please society, they aim to just create something, whether or not it pleases or benefits others. That's where abstract art comes from. Whether that be a sport, musical, or anything, it's still art. Almost everything with no reason behind it is art.