Underhill ... yes. It's all a big mess. Everything you say about artists is right, but they are exempt from any rules. And each person's reading of the consensus is different (as well as the factions and fashions within any group). Of course I accept the ultimate subjectivity (or unprovability) of perception.
I'm going to do the unthinkable and (probably) misquote Gandalf, from memory.
"We cannot choose the times in which we live. We can only choose what to do with the time we are given".
So it's Romantic Idealism and High Art for me! Yes, I'm backing musicians that can play
their instruments, painters who study how to work oil on canvas, the reverential hush, the self-indulgence and pomposity, long words and out of date clothes [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] It's Oscar Wilde, Charlie Parker, Nietzche, Dante Alighieri, poverty in a Parisian attic, the absence of irony, and restoration of the Golden Mean [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img]
But seriously, I think this is one of those occasion where we can all hold different opinions and still be right. Which, I have found, is one the few perks of studying philosophy - an occasional opportunity to synthesize irreconcilable contradictions. Strategically placed smileys are also a useful mechanism for this [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]
Sport as art? The triumph of the spirit, the rising above physical limitations, the absolute harmony between intention and execution? Perhaps, perhaps ... the 1970 Brazil team passing their way to the World Cup ... Viv Richards combining irrepressible masculinity and flair in his 275 ... Muhammed Ali somehow turning audacity, suppleness and showmanship into victories that raised everyone's self-esteem ... Jesse Owens' transcendent symbolic achievement ... Serge Blanco ... etc. etc.
Yes, it would be easy to agree with you completely. But I'd have to go and delete all my earlier posts [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]
Peace
|