Jason Moyer on 30/7/2012 at 08:21
I think celebrities in other fields that aren't sports or gaming (Hollywood, comedy, writing, politics, hell, evolutionary biology) might disagree with that.
DDL on 30/7/2012 at 08:32
Professional actor?
Professional singer/songwriter?
Those are also hugely tied up in the cult of celebrity, and like sportspeeps their accolades can be viewed as grossly disproportionate to the actual work they do.
It's the cult of celebrity rather than the cult of sports celebrity. Sport is simply a 'way in' to the cult, and it's only one of many. (EDIT: Damn you, Ninja jason -also, don't forget professor brian bloody ubiquitous cox)
Fett: those things (art, literature, etc) are studied more because they endure than because they're hallmarks of culture per se. They're of lasting value, yes, but the important word there is "lasting". It's a bit of a stretch to conflate "lasting" with "inherently more valuable": it's more accurate to conflate it with "all we've got".
We can speculate on how things like poetry, art and so on were actually perceived at the time relative to things like sports, but because the only things that endure for future generations to look at are "things that were written down", art and literature get grossly overrepresented. They're only a representation of the culture they describe because we have absolutely nothing else to base it on. We could be way off the mark, and the truth could be far douchier than we expect (see for instance, how greek statuary actually appeared in ancient greek times). Sport may in fact be a better way to gauge the zeitgeist of any given culture, since it's generally open to anyone (whereas literature and art require more education and material wealth). But yeah: it doesn't tend to get written down, so we can't really make that call. Can we say something is culturally of more value simply because it's more enduring?
Which brings us to: is the major purpose of culture to leave a legacy for future generations? Is it actually important that we distribute resources more toward lasting legacies so that future generations remember us more favourably? Is that even something we should be concerned about? Or should we just feed the proles enough sportland sports to keep them quiet while we get on with being clever? (Coz yeah, more money for education and science would suit me very nicely, tbh).
It's that or the nerve stapling, really. (Note: this will be viewed by the UN as an atrocity)
demagogue on 30/7/2012 at 08:51
I would think art and literature and poetry and shit (when they're good) are or can be intrinsically more valuable in the sense that they can speak to more universal and broader aspects of being human or human life... what's a good life, what's worth doing, what kind of different lifestyles are out there and what are they like, what experience really move us when we think about them. Some sports can also do that to an extent, but I think they just speak to a narrower slice of human experience and neglect a lot of what people actually can find valuable out of human life (whether they realize they can explore those aspects of life & themselves or not).
But I grant it can depend on the culture... For some cultures like the Spartans or medieval Japanese samurai culture, constant practice for battle was part of their entire way-of-life, so they might want to say that kind of sport-like practice actually is just as valuable or more valuable than any other form of expression. Of course with some detachment we might want to come back & say, yeah, but focusing your entire culture on just going to war is an effed-up way to look at life, since it neglects all these other aspects of human life.
It's not like there's some piece of paper somewhere in the universe that says X is more valuable than Y. But just on a human level, I think any culture can recognize certain things appeal to really universal or broad aspects of life, and others appeal to just a very narrow slice of what life is about, if they were looking honestly at it. That's my intuition about it.
DDL on 30/7/2012 at 09:10
I don't think I'd argue that literature is a far more fertile field to play with than sports, but like you say, that may be more due to breadth than some sort of intrinsic cultural value. Well, unless you're viewing breadth AS a characteristic of value, which is also a reasonable thing to do.
Plus works of literature are usually incredibly personal things, whereas sports can range from the incredibly personal up the the hilariously excessively team-based. A book might speak of one man's views of how life should be lived, whereas a football match might speak of how a whole bunch of sweaty men think life should be lived right now. These are different aspects, certainly, but I'd argue that they both have cultural value. And then there's the whole 'sport X as an analogy for life' type stuff too, with triumphs and failures and striving etc etc.
Literature might cover a huge range of subjects, but be read by few, sport might cover one subject (i.e. sport) but be watched by billions. Literature can be alienating (especially to the uneducated), whereas sport can be incredibly accepting (again, especially to the uneducated).
It's...complicated.
And I agree: saying "X is better than Y" for something like this is largely meaningless. I'm mostly just trying to present sport as "not useless culture". :)
Fafhrd on 30/7/2012 at 11:03
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
I think celebrities in other fields that aren't sports or gaming (Hollywood, comedy, writing, politics, hell, evolutionary biology) might disagree with that.
You're still misconstruing my point. Actors make 90% of their income acting, writers write, politicians do politics (which includes writing and public appearances). Science celebrities (of which there are maybe three?) make their money
doing science, or furthering the cause of science through lecturing, writing, etc. Whereas the majority of a celebrity athlete's income
does not come from doing sports. They sell underwear, and soda, and 'sports drinks,' and shoes, and cars and every other fucking thing on the planet. Even the most high powered of Hollywood movie stars don't have industries built around selling themselves the way that Michael Jordan, or Shaquille O'Neal, or LeBron James, or Bo Jackson, or Magic Johnson, or any of the long ass string of athletes that I can't name do and did.
DDL on 30/7/2012 at 12:46
Good point, though I'm not sure how US-centric it is (I know a lot of actors do some truly awful adverts in japan, for which I can only assume they must get paid a shitload).
There's also the fact that sportpeople are often on a fairly short timescale as regards their actual ability to play sport at their prime (you don't get "aging character sportsmen", whereas that's just fine for actors), and one bad injury can be a career ending event.
It's in their best interests to aggressively pursue marketing opportunities and the cult of celebrity: that's gonna pay out more on the longer term.
For a lot of other celebrity-based areas (particularly the science celebs), going into advertising etc is seen as 'selling out' (I would laugh my ass off if dawkins started selling car insurance or something), whereas the perception of sportspeople is pretty much that selling yourself is the norm. Possibly this is because of the closer links between advertising and sports: you don't get QUITE the level of product/brandname placement in movies that you do at a football match.
I'm pretty sure if advertising thought there was revenue to be gained in actors, singers or scientists, they'd be in there.
scumble on 30/7/2012 at 13:10
Quote Posted by fett
All I know is that with the exception of the Greeks, there are very, very few Empires or major powers in history whose sports are of much lasting value, other than as an indicator of the social climate and economic averages of the citizens.
I must say that a potential root of sport "worship" is likely down to a celebration of physical prowess as an important thing in war. Sparta took this to an extreme. There is some primitive thing going on with sport that probably goes back even further to when humans had to hunt.
In fact, you don't have to look back, you just have to visit some people hiding away in the Amazon jungle. I guess the Yanomami haven't been wiped out yet, but to me they show the old links between physical prowess, hunting and general showing off by the men to see how much punishment they can dish out and take. They have this "sport" where two men will bash each other on the head. They are actually proud of the large dents in their skulls.
Possibly the more aggressive sports are actually channeling this ancient tendency. Boxing is pretty close, as is wrestling.
I mean, no matter how "advanced" we might think the civilised world is, there is no escape from the more animal tendencies in humans.
Shug on 31/7/2012 at 02:42
You say that as though you've never experienced a surge of adrenaline in your life, scumble!
heywood on 31/7/2012 at 04:32
Sport is an important part of our culture, especially for kids.
Sport teaches kids teamwork, organization, and self discipline.
Sport teaches kids to how to develop skills through practice.
Sport teaches kids to set goals, work toward them, and celebrate achievements.
Sport introduces structure to play, which helps prepare kids for work.
Sport reinforces fair play and following rules.
Sport keeps people active and reinforce the benefits of physical fitness.
Sport helps people develop coaching and mentoring skills.
Sport helps communities bond.
Sport provides a safe outlet for our competitive and aggressive instincts.
Like any human endeavor, it can be corrupted, misused, abused. The NCAA is a monopoly controlling a multi-billion dollar industry where the money is made on the backs of an unpaid workforce who are denied bargaining rights. That system, I think, needs reform. But overall, sport is very beneficial and so is encouraging participation through academic institutions.
scumble on 31/7/2012 at 04:59
Quote Posted by Shug
You say that as though you've never experienced a surge of adrenaline in your life, scumble!
That was just me being philosophical...
