zacharias on 18/12/2012 at 01:36
Quote Posted by demagogue
And the second is the whole last part about the state that playing a game actually puts people in, giving rise to all sorts of emotions, and that's it's purpose, which has always been associated with artistic enterprises ... and not like just the emotions of "winning" (which sports shares), but emotions of being human, whatever the PC is put through, grief, fear, joy, desire, wonderment... That's something art does that sports doesn't.
Erm..there's been quite a bit of writing on spectator sports actually, and the phenomenon of the spectator putting himself in the position of the player/combatant and experiencing in part through empathy/transposition (can't remember the exact term) basically the emotions of the player to a degree. It's not entirely different to watching a movie in that regard i guess.
Also, a true genius in a sport can definitely inspire joy, wonderment (and fear in opponents, etc.). If you watch a highlights video of someone like Messi or Maradona you still get that, never mind even watching them live..
demagogue on 18/12/2012 at 04:20
Well maybe sports can be artistic. I admit there are certain sports events I have recorded and watch for the drama... famous boxing matches in particular, but it could apply to any sport, F1 racing, football, baseball...
Interestingly I happened to be reading Gadamer's Truth & Method, and the exact section I started reading today is on exactly this topic, and the connection between "play" and "art", and it talks about participation and audiences. It was just a funny coincidence I predicted it in that post. It's Part I, Chapter 2 ("Ontology of the work of art & it's hermeneutic significance", starting off with "Play as the clue to explanation"). It couldn't be more on point. Dense as a mofo though.
ZylonBane on 18/12/2012 at 05:58
Quote Posted by zacharias
Erm..there's been quite a bit of writing on spectator sports actually, and the phenomenon of the spectator putting himself in the position of the player/combatant and experiencing in part through empathy/transposition (can't remember the exact term) basically the emotions of the player to a degree.
"Vicariously".
zacharias on 18/12/2012 at 06:01
More than just watching though. The geniuses become icons..like Senna in Brazil or Maradona in Argentina, and people fixate on them and get inspired by them. It's a strange phenomenon too i guess but definitely real enough, and positive enough if not taken to extremes.
the whole "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" argument ("machine copied art is soulless because it breaks the connection between the artist creating and the viewer appreciating"). That argument has lost its force now that games have come out on the other side where the machine isn't robotically copying creation anymore, but is now the space for authentic creation itself.
It's ages since i read that essay but that line still sounds still relevant to a lot of modern art (eg. some photorealists just reproducing photos, although skillful is stillborn, dead work imo). Don't think it was written with games in mind at all..was it..Not that that makes it irrelevant necessarily ;)
I was gonna add too, on games. If a game can be played artistically surely sometimes even a game can be art. eg. with Chess didn't people say Kasparov or whomever was an artist? So on some level or in some instances i would say even stuff like chess can be art, although it's getting a bit hazy i admit.
zacharias on 18/12/2012 at 06:10
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
"Vicariously".
Nah it's somewhat related but more powerful than that. There's a specific term for what happens when humans watch someone and their brain somehow is recreating the scene as if they're the participant. Vicarious is a lot broader term and could apply to many situations.
Ah..Mirror neurons!..That's the term i was after.
(
http://www.sportsabyss.com/Home/V/40753S)
faetal on 18/12/2012 at 11:09
What I'm getting from some of this discussion is that perhaps art is an event in the brain. So while sport may not be wholly art, it becomes art at times when it inspires certain feelings in people. Likewise music - you can argue that some music is more utilitarian than artistic - jingles for example, are memetic by design - for the purpose of providing a memory reference for a brand. Likewise art - architectural diagrams. artists renditions of finished shopping complexes etc... totally devoid of wish to inspire, but in the latter case, possibly idealised by the addition of clement weather, people with children etc.. to project an air of the idyllic or whatever. Anyway, I'm probably blathering nonsense, just making a quick observation.
tl;dr - anything which intentionally stimulates the brain to produce emotions rather than just impart information.
zacharias on 18/12/2012 at 11:26
Quote Posted by faetal
What I'm getting from some of this discussion is that perhaps art is an event in the brain.
Yes..I agree with this I think. Technically it can all be broken down..Painting is smearing coloured mud onto a 2d surface with a hairy stick. Movies are still images + sound projected at 24 fps usually with narrative connotations. Music is probably the weirdest of all...oscillation of pressure (waves) through a material, or manipulation of frequencies, that can nevertheless produce ecstasy if arranged in certain configurations.
The brain is hardwired to look for patterns in all this ie. interpret 'meanings'.
demagogue on 18/12/2012 at 11:40
Well it's an ancient debate, but I could agree with that. The thing is I think people might add, or Gadamer added in that chapter I just read, is that the art itself doesn't necessarily care what people think to make it artistic. It has the intention to create some emotion or evoke beauty, which are ultimately cognitive operations, but it's that intention & it recognizably acting on it doing the work, not how many people actually crowd into museums to recognize it.
Or maybe it's (debateably) possible that some things on the fringes could be art for some people and not for others, but that's not a conclusion I like much since I think it's still a publicly understandable thing people could agree on even if they don't like it. "Art" is a public term, but some people might have another term for something they personally are drawn to but don't expect everybody would be, like a hyphenated term like "found art" for people that really like collecting interesting old rubbish or something for example.
faetal on 18/12/2012 at 14:34
One piece of highly recommended reading I'd like to suggest is (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tell-Tale_Brain) THIS - particularly the chapter on aesthetics since it provides a very satisfying and rigorous look at how the brain deals with things of no immediate use which it likes to experience.
One other definition I'd like to suggest is: The encoding of abstract information.
Encoding practical information can be done using language, diagrams etc. The feeling you get from art is usually something which has no corresponding word. Even poetry would have to be different from ordinary prose to have its effect - it incporates rhythm and phonetics to give something more than the sum of its parts. Literature as an art form relies on metaphors and various other linguistic tricks to give your brain images of something abstract (other people emotions) or fictional.
Anyway, I still feel as though I am waffling.
Pyrian on 18/12/2012 at 22:27
You can find "modern artists" who espouse that all "art" prior to certain modern periods is merely "decoration" - made for aesthetic appeal - and therefore not worthy of the term "art" at all, which supposedly should exist for its own sake. Interestingly, you can find more than a few laymen who espouse that much "modern art" isn't actually art at all, for exactly the same reason.
