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?

[Reidar]

Yes, it can be, depending on the application of the performance or body to the conscious use of aesthetic quality and creative delineation. A martial art (which can be a sport, such as boxing), for instance, is an art of warfare (hence "martial"). The physical administration of the concept is quantified as art.

[mipadi]

A martial art (which can be a sport, such as boxing), for instance, is an art of warfare (hence "martial"). The physical administration of the concept is quantified as art.

But the "art" in "martial art" denotes the older meaning of the word "art". Prior to around the twentieth century, an "art" was simply a skill. Look at the phrase "liberal arts", which came about during the Renaissance; subjects like math were considered to be liberal arts.

During the twentieth century, "art" began to refer to the specific skill once known as "fine arts" (painting, sculpting, etc.), which is what "art" usually means now. A martial art isn't really an art in the more modern sense (or, at least, you can't argue it's an art because it has the name "art" in it).

[Reidar]

But the "art" in "martial art" denotes the older meaning of the word "art". Prior to around the twentieth century, an "art" was simply a skill.

"Art" has denoted the same precepts of aesthetic creativity for centuries. Leonardo da Vinci unequivocally referred to his paintings as "art".

Look at the phrase "liberal arts", which came about during the Renaissance; subjects like math were considered to be liberal arts.

If the example for "liberal arts" only came about that recently, then that's even less convincing because martial arts have been devised as documented and systemized forms of combat since the 600 B.C. era by the Greeks.

During the twentieth century, "art" began to refer to the specific skill once known as "fine arts" (painting, sculpting, etc.), which is what "art" usually means now.

"Art", in and of itself, has almost always been used for such applications.

"The true work of art is but a shadow of the divine perfection." -Michelangelo

A martial art isn't really an art in the more modern sense (or, at least, you can't argue it's an art because it has the name "art" in it).

Sure you can. Having the delineating characterization in the word itself makes it an analytical precept. A "martial art" is an "art of war". Now, whether or not one is using the same contextual "art" is another matter entirely, but it obviously must be a form of art if it is to be what the term contains.

So what about that context? For one, a contemporary application of "art" most commonly meaning paintings and sculptures obviously is not the exact same conditions under a martial art. That'd be like saying golf isn't a sport because there aren't any defensive linemen. We could break it down further and say that a sculpture is not the same type of art as a painting. Even beyond that, a watercolor painting is not the same type of art as an oil painting. High-end paintings and sculptures = art, but art =/= paintings and sculptures.

What you're trying to say is that a "martial art" is along the same lines as a "liberal art". This also isn't the case. The Japanese word for art, "jutsu", has been a locational bound morpheme for centuries. We can go back even beyond jujutsu schools in the Edo period for that. Moreover, interpretations of jutsu's translation to "art" (because remember, this can be equivocated) are often likened to that of...a painter.

"At the beginning he gets familiar with the variety of colours and learns how they can be combined. Then he takes the brush and tries to draw his first lines and outlines, and then he gives colour to his work. This takes years of study and development. After some years the painter has developed its own form and stile, and now he can start to create his own paintings. Because of his development he livens his own paintings up. Due to his personality the process of painting has gained a new development, a new quality. Now the painter has become a part of his art.

"In a martial art it is quite the same. We get familiar with basic elements via Kihon Happo, fill this learned kihon up with henka in order to liven up the kihon-forms and at the same time we add colour with our developed taijutsu movements. By the combination of these learning-processes we develop our taijutsu and also our personality on a physical level.

"By the interaction of heart, mind (NIN - spirit) and taijutsu (JUTSU - body) we develop our individual personality and become due to this a part of our art."

If the qualifier for what is "art" must be deemed by the chronological application, which is what your evidence stands upon in citing historical and popular usages, then a "martial art" is clearly not a homophone to actual "art".

Another example: the Agni Purana of the eighth or ninth century describes an early form of varma adi, a southern Indian wrestling style, as an "art".

[mipadi]

"Art" has denoted the same precepts of aesthetic creativity for centuries. Leonardo da Vinci unequivocally referred to his paintings as "art".

Certainly. And I don't believe I implied that what da Vinci did wasn't art. But the truth remains that the term "art" was a lot broader back in da Vinci's day than now.

If the example for "liberal arts" only came about that recently, then that's even less convincing because martial arts have been devised as documented and systemized forms of combat since the 600 B.C. era by the Greeks.
"Art", in and of itself, has almost always been used for such applications.

I don't believe I said that the term "liberal arts" was the first use of the term "art" to denote a skill. In fact, my point was, in fact, that "art" had equated to "skill" for a very long time, up until about the twentieth century. So I'm not surprised to see the Greeks using it in that way; in fact, that observation only serves to support my argument.

Sure you can. Having the delineating characterization in the word itself makes it an analytical precept. A "martial art" is an "art of war". Now, whether or not one is using the same contextual "art" is another matter entirely, but it obviously must be a form of art if it is to be what the term contains.

Sure. If you're using the term "art" in the historical definition, to mean "skill", then yes, a martial art is obviously a skill. But art, as used in "martial art", is still rather different from the modern meaning of the word "art", which is tied more closely with fine arts.

Which, I believe, is what the poster is asking. I don't think they're asking whether a sport is a skill, but whether it is a "fine" art.

So what about that context? For one, a contemporary application of "art" most commonly meaning paintings and sculptures obviously is not the exact same conditions under a martial art.

Thanks. I believe that's exactly what I said in my post -- that the use of the term "art" now is different than the use of the term in regards to martial arts. Which supports my assertion that a martial art is not an art as used by the original poster.

Moreover, interpretations of jutsu's translation to "art" (because remember, this can be equivocated) are often likened to that of...a painter.

The Japanese have always been interested in aesthetic qualities, and Japanese writers often liken things like warfare, etc., to art. I'm also not going to discount the fact that (a) the term was used differently back then as opposed to now, and (b) the Japanese have a different culture in regards to art. Unlike English speakers, the Japanese don't delineate "art" and "skill" -- they are essentially the same thing. A more modern example is computer programming, which the Japanese consider to be an art (that's why a Japanese computer scientist created the language Ruby, in fact, because he thought programming had certain aesthetic qualities that weren't brought out in other programming languages). But in English, we do have separate concepts of art and skills, even though we usually translate the Japanese to "art". So I wouldn't be surprised to see the Japanese not only draw an analogy between a sport and an art, but call it an art as well. Still, this is different from the modern English use of the term art.