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]

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.

like what? how are only a few pieces of what we call art actually art? maybe by your impracticable definition.

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.

well, i guess you can say that's your opinion, but to me that makes absolutely no sense. there has been tons and tons of great works of art over the centuries that were commissioned and that doesn't make them any less artistic. i mean that's just completely impractical to say. that means we're going to have to rule out tons of art as less worthy of the title just because they got paid for it. i mean...i don't know, i just don't see how you think that makes sense. so is an artist not really a real artist to you unless they take no money or assigned tasks?

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.

architects don't just add details because they get paid, they add them because they are necessarily to further express their structure. sometimes what buildings lack is what makes them artistic. there you go into the realm of nonsense again with the idea that an architect has to do everything for no purpose to be an artist. any architect can randomly add fancy meaningless details. that doesn't make them artistic. have you even studied architecture? becuase i have, and i think you're completely wrong.

since when was advertising art? maybe you should go study it some more then. not that it would matter since you're view of art pretty much means almost nothing can be art. great artists are nothing compared to the shitty ones because you know, the shitty ones don't get paid and aren't doing it for other purposes. i can wake up tomorrow and go throw some paint on the wall without a purpos and that will make me more of an artist than da vinci was.

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.

plenty true artists are practical. that is another nonsense thing to say that an artist can't be practical. art can be practical while still evolving. art itself can cause practical things to evolve. artist aim to please society when they want to, and no they don't always just create something for the sake of creating it. if someone asks them to create something and they do, that doesn't mean it's not art.


you are completely wrong in my opinion, and since i'm an artist and an art major, i think i know a bit about it.