DR Ackermann Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 Can Michael Hayes really say why he feels the way that he does? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted June 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 I've always thought that people who insist pro wrestling is art are the absolute worst. This thread has done nothing to dissuade me from that. Thank you for your utterly useless contribution. Thank you for taking the time to thank me. If wrestling is art, so is 3 card monte. Seriously, this has been a swell and civil discussion to this point, what's the purpose of popping in just to contribute nothing but snark? Dooley does a lot of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dooley Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 I've always thought that people who insist pro wrestling is art are the absolute worst. This thread has done nothing to dissuade me from that. Thank you for your utterly useless contribution. Thank you for taking the time to thank me. If wrestling is art, so is 3 card monte. I am pretty sure the art of being a conman has been romanticized and studied many times over. I'm not sure what your point is? Magicians are praised for doing the same thing as three card monty and we could call that an art form. Romanticized is a good way to put it. It's a hustle, not an art. The only ones who refer to scams as "con artistry" are the ones pulling the con. The only difference is that in wrestling, the marks think they're in on it. Just because anyone can use a paint brush and someone might decide to just draw dicks with it doesn't mean that there is no artistry in painting. So wrestling is to art as dick-drawing is to actual painting? I might be able to live with that. And he's a Freebird. What's your excuse? That was hilarious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fxnj Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 Completely disagree with that fxnj. Those games that are trying to be arty are meant to be emotional experiences, or to explore particular social issues, or whatever. We do not say this about films. Films have the power to be thought provoking, moving, and so on, without necessarily being "entertaining". I am sure everyone here can name a film that they value and think is great that isn't necessarily "enjoyable" or an easy watch. Being entertained and "fun" are not the only metrics when judging art. To say games as a medium always have to be is to reduce them always to having to be shallow. And they don't always have to be shallow. Wrestling too can get to other places and other emotions. I've frequently talked about Magnum TA vs. Tully Blanchard "I Quit" as a match that gets at emotions and truths that are "beyond" the standard wrestling match. Call me a pretentious if you want, I think the match is a meditation on manhood. It asks real questions about what it means to be a man. Tully's humiliation is that match is not "enjoyable" to watch, sometimes it is uncomfortable. But this is precisely what makes it great. I reject this idea that some forms are inherently shallow and others are inherently "deep". Not true. Every medium has the potential to be deep, including gaming and wrestling. You really should give that icycalm essay a serious look instead of rejecting it off-hand just because you don't like the language he uses. Really, it seems every objection you have to his view has already been addressed by him. Here's a quote from him that refutes this idea that great art somehow "rises above" enjoyment a lot better than I ever could Tragedy gives pleasure, first: to strong and fearless natures (including the tragic artist himself) by challenging them to imagine themselves in situations they could barely deal with (in which all of their "dammed-up strength", as it were, i.e. all of their energy, could be discharged — energy discharge being quite simply the essence of pleasure). Then, it gives pleasure to the lower species, to the weak, the sick and the suffering, by giving them an opportunity to invent for themselves a noble interpretation of their condition, thereby offering them a measure of relief in the form of an invitation to "resignation" (to their fate, as it were, in the manner of the doomed characters in the tragic play). And finally, to the physiologically and/or spiritually exhausted it provides a much-needed stimulus for their frayed and diseased nerves — an artificial path to psychological excitation, to rare and elevated feelings, which, being exhausted, they could not have achieved by natural (i.e. non-artistic) means. This viewpoint is also pretty similar to what's been argued by people who've actually done scientific studies on why we bother with art that makes us sad. Magnum/Tully falls exactly into that category of something that's tragic but still enjoyable. As you say, it certainly does bring out negative emotions, but it does so in a very controlled fashion and telegraphs it in a way where anyone who watches it knows exactly what they're getting into. It's a straight example of what is talked about in that quote in how it completely throws out conventions of civilized behavior and presents man at his most animalistic. As you say, the resulting point where you're left questioning society's image of a man is where the "energy discharge" happens and the pleasure is created. A match that just creates negative emotions with no pleasure would be something like a 2012 Kobashi match. The guy tries all he can to turn back the clock 15 years, but his body just doesn't cooperate. In comparison to the controlled environment of Magnum/Tully, a hero being unable to overcome his age and giving a terrible performance is something spontaneous. It's no different from actually being disappointed in real life and we respond appropriately by calling his performance "sad" with none of the pleasure we'd get from tragedy. Admittedly, the line between sad and tragic is a lot more blurry in wrestling than other art forms. I found Undertaker/Lesnar to be a pretty amazing tragedy on par anything from the Greeks while most hardcore WWE fans just saw it as sad. In contrast, I'm sure a lot of non-hardcore fans would be completely turned off by Magnum/Tully. Still, I think the point is clear that wrestling simply uses negative emotions as a way of providing enjoyment, just like any other art form. Lastly, you misinterpret me in saying that I think videogames and wrestling are more "shallow" than other art forms. Far from that, I consider videogames to be inherently the highest art form in existence because the interaction allows it to reach levels of immersion that other art forms simply can't reach. Wrestling is right in 2nd place to that since its entire goal is to pull the audience into a deep passive immersion while stripping away anything that could interfere with that. When I say art should be enjoyable, entertaining, fun, or any other synonym for pleasure, I mean that applies to every art form is existence and it would be a step back to think there's anything else at work. It would be ludicrous call art "shallow" for being enjoyable when that's the sole reason we like art at all. You can praise Magnum/Tully without acting like it's somehow "beyond" what common sense tells us art should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 fxnj, with respect, please don't quite the icycalm essay at me again. Especially not on a day where I've marked 25 undergraduate essays on early modern revenge tragedies. Suffice it to say that I think it's a very reductive take on the genre which might have been written in the 1930s or even earler. In fact, it was, by writers far more learned and insightful than he. I'd point you to A.C. Bradley's Shakespearean Tragedy from 1904, or even Edward Dowden on King Lear in 1875. The point being, that this area is more complex than you are giving it credit for. If, as you say, video gaming is potentially the most exalted art form, then do you really expect to find all the answers in a half-baked blog? All it says to me is that video game criticism still has a long long way to come. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim Posted June 10, 2014 Report Share Posted June 10, 2014 I'm having a hard time trying to wrap my head around the wrestling-definitely-isn't-art arguments or assertions. It's a creative product that can be enjoyed and evaluated on its aesthetic merits. That's enough to call it art to me. Some people only care about conning the marks and getting their money. Same is true for every art. There are also a lot of people involved in wrestling who care about having quality matches for its own sake, who enjoy experimenting with the style. Bryan Danielson ending a match vs. CM Punk with an abdominal stretch in 2004 is a deliberate artistic decision. So is Eddie and Benoit working the reverse chinlock prominently in their match from 96 in Japan. You won't find deep ruminations on the human condition in pro wrestling, for the most part, but neither will you in, say, dance music but there's no controversy in saying that the best musicians making dance music are engaging in art. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fxnj Posted June 11, 2014 Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 fxnj, with respect, please don't quite the icycalm essay at me again. Especially not on a day where I've marked 25 undergraduate essays on early modern revenge tragedies. Suffice it to say that I think it's a very reductive take on the genre which might have been written in the 1930s or even earler. In fact, it was, by writers far more learned and insightful than he. I'd point you to A.C. Bradley's Shakespearean Tragedy from 1904, or even Edward Dowden on King Lear in 1875. The point being, that this area is more complex than you are giving it credit for. If, as you say, video gaming is potentially the most exalted art form, then do you really expect to find all the answers in a half-baked blog? All it says to me is that video game criticism still has a long long way to come. The guy actually doesn't try to hide that most of his points are basically just him applying things already said by Nietzsche in 19th century to the 21st century. When you emphasize originality as much as academia does, there's only so many sensible things that can be said until it gets to where you're just saying stupid bullshit to fill the page. That a point may be old has no relevance to its validity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted June 11, 2014 Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 Does he stop and consider the various ways in which we might have moved beyond those positions now? Could this be much more of a cliche? Why is it always Nietzsche with these think-they-know-it-all-types anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fxnj Posted June 11, 2014 Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 Does he stop and consider the various ways in which we might have moved beyond those positions now? Definitely, since the whole "art games" deal he builds the article against basically serves as an extension of what you're saying about there something more to a great work of art than just pleasure. A really good example he brings up of where that leads is modern art, where pleasure has been thrown out the window and you just have these guys who could never hope to measure up to any of the Renaissance masters finding ways to circle-jerk at how deep their half-assed shit is. It seems ridiculous and it's rightfully become shunned by the general populace, but that's pretty much where you're headed when you decide great art is more about finding deep "messages" over providing enjoyment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted June 11, 2014 Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 I don't really understand that argument. So what, all art should just be mainstream crowd-pleasing stuff? I also don't understand why you have to reduce depth to what you call "messages", surely the best stuff isn't didactic at all and if I understand it (not that I'm a big art guy), most modern art is all about the viewer finding whatever they want to in a piece. I think when you say things like "rightfully shunned by the general populace" you're on a slippery slope. Is Ingmar Bergman "rightfully shunned" or is it that a lot of people can't be bothered to sit through grim Swedish films with subtitles when the latest Marvel film is out? So Bergman is therefore worthless? You're willing to sign off on that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkdoc Posted June 12, 2014 Report Share Posted June 12, 2014 reminder that icycalm is a trust-fund baby who talked like he was a big-time ebay con man and bragged about it. then people found out he was nowhere near big-time and he was more mad about that than anything else. nietzsche fanboys are consistently hilarious for all the wrong reasons. very similar to rand in terms of surface appeal to sheltered egotistical white dudes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim Posted June 12, 2014 Report Share Posted June 12, 2014 nietzsche is very interesting on many levels and his constantly being shoehorned in with racists and randians is very annoying Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted June 12, 2014 Report Share Posted June 12, 2014 Ok tim, relate Neitzsche to wrestljng. Get this thread back on track. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted June 12, 2014 Report Share Posted June 12, 2014 If Nietzsche was a wrestler he'd probably be Mr. Perfect and definitely a heel. Marx and Engels could be like the Rock n Roll Express with Marx as Ricky Morton. Bentham and Mill would head up a faction called "The Utilitarians" Aristotles's finisher would be called "virtue ethics", a submission hold applied after he drops a big elbow called "Poetics" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted June 12, 2014 Report Share Posted June 12, 2014 "Introducing first, with his manager, Socrates ... This. Is. Plato!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteF3 Posted June 12, 2014 Report Share Posted June 12, 2014 "Introducing first, with his manager, Socrates ... This. Is. Plato!" Plato is then suspended or loses a retirement match, and is replaced by the mysterious masked Shadow. ... I'll show myself out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawho5 Posted June 12, 2014 Report Share Posted June 12, 2014 Didn't Monty Python do a similar idea with soccer many years ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted June 12, 2014 Report Share Posted June 12, 2014 Yeah they had the philosopher's football game and also the song "Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable, / Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table", etc. Now let's stop this, it's silly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawho5 Posted June 13, 2014 Report Share Posted June 13, 2014 Yes, let's see a sketch about teeth. That is the title of this episode isn't it? I haven't seen a single thing about teeth yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.