In the past posts, there has been a discussion at length on the nature of sports. From definitions to the philosophical treatment there have been attempts to understand and categorize sports. In the same vein, games too have been sought to be understood. Yet as one plays various games or sports, there does emerge a view about sport being an art. This takes one to the question about the nature and concept of an art. There is no doubt many arts entail heavy use of physical skills and there does get an element of contest at quite a few times. However, a question that certainly crops up would be a when an art would turn into a sport or a vice versa. The essence of art through its definition might be captured as something expressive of emotions, imagination, creativity, and skillsets of an agent either performing individually or as a collective. Art per se focuses on the expression rather than the contest or outcome of the contest. People admire the sculpture or architecture, rarely would these be judged in a time bound contest. The best in the business of music vocal or instrumental are known by their works or compositions or performances than their victories in contests. Therefore, the element of competition is something that gets eliminated when one views and admires the art. Art is admired for the sheer creativity its creator brings to the table rather than the conquest of rivals engaged in the field.
To a practitioner of an art, it is the output that gets manifested is the prize. There would be instrumentalist objectives yet those objectives would be either incidental or dependent on the output revealed. The expression emerges at times not necessarily when required but perhaps on occasions when one is least prepared. A poet might compose the poetry not in a time period like in a contest but may be at times engaged in some dreary daily activities. In other words, the constitutive rules as put forth by Bernard Suits in the context of the games doesn’t apply. Neither would there exist a prelusory goal. There doesn’t arise the question of lusory attitude. The very fact that the practitioners shed the lusory attitude perhaps define the manifestation of creativity in art forms. It is that attitude of a rebel seeking to create something from the imagination of the mind that defines an artist rather than an attempt to navigate unnecessary obstacles set up to prove something. An artist doesn’t set up obstacles for proving himself or herself just that they pursue to present out on stage their works of inventive exertion.
Therefore, this element of absence of characteristics to call them games would preclude them from being sporting activities even though they command the use of physical attributes essential in sports. Now sports too would need the art to emerge, yet the art is a subset of broader canvas the sport or the game is being played. There is definitely an art of highest order involved in executing a cover drive in cricket or slam dunk in basketball or backhand crosscourt return in tennis or dribbling past multiple defenders to pursuit to score a goal in hockey or soccer. Yet these arts are not independent in themselves. They are the means to in pursuit of the prelusory goal through a demonstrative acceptance of lusory attitude. These artistic endeavours are not outcomes to be appreciated independently unless they achieve their purpose of success in the contest they are engaged in. the same applies through the judged sports also wherein one might define them as aesthetically appealing performances. The performances have little utility unless performed in a context, a canvas something provided by the competition. An independent performance outside the contest would have limited value.
There is good possibility that the arts necessitated in sports can be performed independently of the contest. Yet they are inconsequential. Their utility purely lies in the execution during the contest. No matter how appealing they look during non-contest, it doesn’t add any value neither to the performer nor to the viewer. There could be derivative applications of the art that could be demonstrated. For instance, snooker players might demonstrate navigating the balls into the respective by passing through hurdles, or a gymnast might perform acrobatic tricks rarely seen in competition or a golfer playing shots in a radically different way to land the ball in the hole. Yet these are rarely performed or cannot be performed during the contest. These are add-ons for spectators rather than the core product in itself. Thus these might be endearing during breaks in contest for extra value or to keep the spectators engaged but beyond the same, it would command minimal utility in the competition phase.
Performing arts too necessitate lot of rehearsals and practice as do sports. Yet as observed the rehearsals are more in line to get their performance right on the D-Day which is not certainly a competitive performance. The practice in sports is to achieve the skill with the need of executing it to perfection to win a contest. While the artists practice to present their best to appeal to the audience with reference to the creativity, the sportsmen practice to triumph on the ultimate day. To the artist, the competition is more an aspiration to seek upward mobility and thus audience and monetary rewards for their creativity, to a sportsmen, the competition is the pinnacle of their careers. Art practitioners do not need Olympics to prove their worth, for the sportspersons, it is the only thing that perhaps count in them being included as legends of the game.
As analysed above, there are certain distinctive features that differentiate arts from sports. Art has its connoisseurs so does sports. To these connoisseurs however, their marginal utility, to borrow the jargon from economy, is attained through the observation and admiration and appeal of the objectives met in the course of performing these activities. To someone in admiration of sports, the marginal utility is linked to the performances directly impacting the result. To someone in admiration in arts, the value generated lies in the presentation of the creativity embedded in the expression which is an end in itself. Art is about appealing to the subtle, to the creative mind, sports is appealing to the physical, to a mind in eager of conquest, to a mind ever enthusiastic to claim superiority over the rivals. So as one examines the performing arts in particular to their possibility of being sports given the competitive circuit that currently pervades, the objectives of the underlying pursuits would be method to segregate and differentiate the two.
Thoughts on Theory and Practice 