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.

[Reidar]

Certainly. And I don't believe I implied that what da Vinci did wasn't art.

You did, in regards to the principal denotation of the term. You said, "Prior to around the twentieth century, an 'art' was simply a skill." This is not the case, since we have quotes on record using "art" in the context that you claimed did not exist (or, at least, was not common in the lexicon) in that time.

But the truth remains that the term "art" was a lot broader back in da Vinci's day than now.

Yes, this is what I've been saying. "Art" has always had what you thought of as the "modern sense". The problem you're facing is that this contradicts you positing that "'art' was simply a skill". How can it "simply" be that one interpretation exclusively if the term is also very broad?

I don't believe I said that the term "liberal arts" was the first use of the term "art" to denote a skill.

I certainly would hope not, because I didn't say you did.

In fact, my point was, in fact, that "art" had equated to "skill" for a very long time, up until about the twentieth century.

Your predecessor from a few minutes ago would agree that "art" had not simply incited that single inference up until then, but that it has always been a definition for your "modern sense".

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. 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.

There are numerous citations demonstrating that the historical usage of "martial art" was treated very analogously to that of a more-commonly perceived "artist", not the equivocation of an artisan. And again, the "modern definition" is a fallacy.

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.

See above, but on another note, a "fine art" can also mean a skill, and is not limited to a Renaissance-esque sense.

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.

Except it's not. Being a different type of art, merely in the sense of not being physically expressed through an identical medium, does not speak on it chronologically.

The Japanese have always been interested in aesthetic qualities, and Japanese writers often liken things like warfare, etc., to art.

Precisely. There is an extensive history of "art" being applied to such instances.

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.

As an affluent speaker of Japanese, I can comfortably say that they do. The Japanese language has a plethora of different characters for "skill". There's even one with jutsu in it, but with a preceding qualifier to specify.

A more modern example is computer programming, which the Japanese consider to be an art.

Yes, a liberal art, as would any culture.

And as for Matsumoto, whom I'm already familiar with, his incentives were what "balanced functional programming with imperative programming." It may just so happen that this results in a poetic and artistic structure that one would not be adverse to aspire to, but these aren't anything other than a means to the actual end. Even if they were, however, and one wished to refer to such a process as "art", that does not speak for the Japanese interpretation of computer programming as a field. Otherwise, all sports would have to be art by definition just because I said that certain applications of them certainly can be.

Moreover, the passage that I brought to point clearly wasn't likening a martial art to that of a broader artisan sense, but to what you thought of as the contemporary usage of "art". The author is not in the minority with that interpretation.

[mipadi]

You did, in regards to the principal denotation of the term. You said, "Prior to around the twentieth century, an 'art' was simply a skill." This is not the case, since we have quotes on record using "art" in the context that you claimed did not exist (or, at least, was not common in the lexicon) in that time.

"Art", in a general sense, did refer to a skill prior to the twentieth century. Painting is certainly a skill, so yes, the use of the term "art" to describe da Vinci's work is still true. Moreoever, "art" was also used in the same sense as it is today (to denote a fine art); it had broad, general usage at one time.

Yes, this is what I've been saying. "Art" has always had what you thought of as the "modern sense". The problem you're facing is that this contradicts you positing that "'art' was simply a skill". How can it "simply" be that one interpretation exclusively if the term is also very broad?

No, there is no contradiction. I never said that, hundreds or thousands of years ago, "art" could not refer to "fine art"; I just said that it referred to other things, too. Again, it had a broad definition.

And again, the "modern definition" is a fallacy.

How so?

See above, but on another note, a "fine art" can also mean a skill, and is not limited to a Renaissance-esque sense.

Maybe. I think you're being overly pedantic here. The fact is, we do use the term "art" to describe something slightly different than the manner in which it was used at one time. That is to say, "art" now is narrower, but different from it's previous usage.

The whole point of this argument being that the term "art", as used in the original post in this thread, is different from the term "art" as used in martial art; so without further supporting evidence, you can't simply say "'martial art' has the word 'art' in it, so it is an art", and still be answering the question in the original spirit of the question. Moreover, because the use of the term "art" has changed slightly over time (in that it has narrowed, not that it has changed completely), citing historical references to back up the claim that a martial art is not an art isn't very convincing in this thread.

Except it's not. Being a different type of art, merely in the sense of not being physically expressed through an identical medium, does not speak on it chronologically.

Maybe. But the original point of the thread was to relate sport to arts as a creative medium (the modern, current use of the word "art"); arguing from a historical perspective may be correct, but I would say it's not in the spirit of the thread.

As an affluent speaker of Japanese, I can comfortably say that they do. The Japanese language has a plethora of different characters for "skill". There's even one with jutsu in it, but with a preceding qualifier to specify.
Yes, a liberal art, as would any culture.

This may be so. But culturally, the Japanese don't make a distinction, at least not in the same way that a Westerner would.

And as for Matsumoto, whom I'm already familiar with, his incentives were what "balanced functional programming with imperative programming." It may just so happen that this results in a poetic and artistic structure that one would not be adverse to aspire to, but these aren't anything other than a means to the actual end.

Okay. Well, I'm glad you can read Wikipedia, but if you go so far as to read any interviews with Matz, or anything about his original creation of the language, you'll see that his motivation stems at least partly from the fact that he was trying to make programming an art form -- because culturally, he doesn't see a distinction between art and skill. Matz has often spoken that his real goal in creating Ruby was to make it fun and aesthetically-pleasing, in order to feel and express joy while programming (1) (2).

And I really think this idea is key, because as we can see, "art" can have connotations, based on both time and culture. So it is possible to argue that, say, martials arts are artistic in some sense, and be completely correct; I just don't think it's correct, given the definition the original poster likely had in mind. Of course, without a stricter definition, it's really hard to argue one way or the other.

(Perhaps what may also be causing confusion with this point is whether I feel that computer programming is an art. I don't, but that's a topic for another thread, I think.)

Moreover, the passage that I brought to point clearly wasn't likening a martial art to that of a broader artisan sense, but to what you thought of as the contemporary usage of "art". The author is not in the minority with that interpretation.

True, but this refers back to my argument that the term "art" has certain connotations based on culture as well as time period. I'm not surprised that the Japanese may describe various martial arts as "arts", and I'm not saying it's wrong, but it's also a culturally different use of the term than we have in the West.