The Paris Olympics recently closed. Along with the well-known track and field, swimming, diving, there was a new sport added:Breakdancing
I saw a post by an architect/ colleague who was considering this new addition;- her interest stemming from immersion in the African American and Dance communities for many years. We shared observations which expanded into a more expansive consideration of “competitive art’.
Although wide-ranging in their variety, the shared purpose of sports, writ large, seems to be the entertainment of humans; both those who participate and those who watch. There are several ways of experiencing this: the shared pride or agony based on the fortunes of your team, a sophisticates’s understanding of the interworking of the team members, various players’s strengths and weaknesses, their role in various scenarios, etc. But at the base is the joy in watching humans do beautiful, daring, fast, strong, accurate things, a version of humanity where the skills we share as humans are refined to represent the best available.
The original ‘slogan’ of the Olympics was “Citius, Altius, Fortius” or Faster, Higher, Stronger”. The common thread among these superlatives is that they can be objectively measured with a stopwatch or tape measure. These objective sports seem to share an evolutionary root. In ancient civilizations, being the fastest runner or being able to throw a spear the farthest could result in more food or better protection; invaluable traits in a hunter/gatherer society. The values of these sports seems self-evident.
The other class of sport, classed here as ‘subjective, are reliant on evaluation by experts, usually by a panel of judges where the scores are aggregated and averaged according to a standard.
The value of the subjective sports seems like a refinement, similar to the plumage on a peacock. It doesn’t particularly help with survival skills but represents an attractive touch to prospective mates or improved credibility with one’s peers. if life is so comfortable that a huge display of plumage is available, then bigger plumage or the ability to do a pike with a double sommersault, might suggest an even more suitable mate/ally.
A scientific study tracked the evolution of guppies, their quick reproduction cycle suitable for tracking evolutionary changes. https://academic.oup.com/beheco/article/14/2/194/192089?login=false These tiny fish were placed in two separate environments, one with a predator present and one without. The guppies with the predator kept the aesthetics on the back burner- their primary goals was to not be noticed. Their more colorful pool mates were preferential prey for the bigger, hungrier fish. The more fortunate members of the experiment, those without a predator, began to show additional colors and ‘flourishes’ in short order. The prey scenario rewarded objective talents such as speed and blending-in, with survival. The predator-less scenario rewarded aesthetic-based development with improved mating opportunities; purely aesthetic development there was a good thing.
Scoring aesthetic or ‘subjective’ athletic events can sometimes seem an uncomfortable fit. The metered, objective sports, can provide unassailable results for satisfying our thirst for clear superlatives. But highest calling of aesthetics is to be resonant or meaningful, things that cannot be objectively measured.
Competitive art results in refinement of technique, which is not necessarily the important part of art. In the history of pop music, there was an era of progressive rock, or ‘prog rock’ around the 1970’s. The goal seemed to be more complex, lengthy, ornate music that would sometimes reference historical work, etc. This could be compared to Baroque era music where complexity was considered a asset. Until it wasn’t- when some artists took a different tack. Had the music of the day been strictly competitive, new inventive approaches might have been suppressed.
Competition often results in ‘drilling down’; a vertical pursuit where the goal is perfection, a 10’,which in aesthetics means- what? It could mean a plateau that suggests a more rigorous challenge is needed/was avoided. A recent video series compares Olympic performances from several decades ago to performances of today. It seems that in the mid-20th century if someone could walk from one end of the balance beam to the other, a medal would be in the offing.
Imagine a musical contest for the Blues. Is flawless execution really important? It seems the emotion elicited by the performers and experienced by the listener is the most important thing, but how would that be scored?
Although I don’t know the origins of break-dancing, I suspect impressing your friends and potential mates played a greater role than perfecting technique to
France’s art scene during the mid-19th century was centered on the Salons, a series of state-sponsored art competitions. Art careers would be made or broken based on acceptance into these shows. There was a group of painters who were not only regularly rejected, but continually mocked in the press. One piece, entitled Impression, Sunrise was singled out for intense scorn for it’s unfinished, slap-dash look. Claude Monet, it’s author and his fellow “Impressionists” began their own “Salon des Refusés to show their work turning away from the competitive art world that did not fit the juror’s version of acceptable, worthy work. Had they valued acceptance in the Salon over what they wanted to say in their art, the world would have missed that opportunity.
Commentaires