Wrestling = Art... A Conversation

[JerryvonKramer]

On the whole "wrestling is art" thing.

 

Has anyone ever watched Pier Pasolini's Salo? That's the film adaptation of the Marquis De Sade's 120 Days of Sodom.

 

Well, if you haven't, don't rush.

 

But there's a scene in it where the four libertines have platters of shit brought to them. Actual human feces. They eat it. If that isn't gross enough, they then start to categorise the different types of shit. "This one has bite". "This one has texture". "This one has a distinctive flavour" and so on. I am sure Pasolini's underriding point was to mock the borgeous impetus to aestheticise seemingly everything. Those libertines aestheticised a lot of things: sex, rape, violence, actually eating shit. Their de facto response was to try to reify the pleasure they were getting from these various sadistic acts by categorising and ranking them -- and weirdly in so doing sort of sucked the life out of them too. They were fascists, and so brought a kind of dull order even to the extreme forms of pleasure they were trying out.

 

Anyway, apologies from bringing up this unpleasant film, but it makes a good point. Seemingly anything can be aestheticised and then categorised and brought under scrutiny, even eating actual shit.

 

My point is that I don't know if we NEED to say "Wrestling is Art". Why? Because we rank and rate it? Is food art? Are cheeseburgers? I think the desire to rank and rate is coming from a different part of human thinking that has more to do with taste and categorising taste than it has to do with "art".

[Graham Crackers]

I think it's important for people to understand that the word "art" shouldn't be taken too seriously. It's a marketing gimmick. Art is whatever has been declared to be art. It's a genre distinction. It sounds important but it really doesn't mean much.

 

On the whole "wrestling is art" thing.

Has anyone ever watched Pier Pasolini's Salo? That's the film adaptation of the Marquis De Sade's 120 Days of Sodom.

Well, if you haven't, don't rush.

But there's a scene in it where the four libertines have platters of shit brought to them. Actual human feces. They eat it. If that isn't gross enough, they then start to categorise the different types of shit. "This one has bite". "This one has texture". "This one has a distinctive flavour" and so on. I am sure Pasolini's underriding point was to mock the borgeous impetus to aestheticise seemingly everything. Those libertines aestheticised a lot of things: sex, rape, violence, actually eating shit. Their de facto response was to try to reify the pleasure they were getting from these various sadistic acts by categorising and ranking them -- and weirdly in so doing sort of sucked the life out of them too. They were fascists, and so brought a kind of dull order even to the extreme forms of pleasure they were trying out.

Anyway, apologies from bringing up this unpleasant film, but it makes a good point. Seemingly anything can be aestheticised and then categorised and brought under scrutiny, even eating actual shit.

[Laz]

I'm glad I'm not the only one to think of Divine when seeing anything pertaining to Salo.

[jdw]

[JerryvonKramer]

The reception of Salo vs. the reception of Pink Flamingos is actually an interesting little side bar to this topic.

 

Because whereas Salo is all certified high art Criterion collection, Pink Flamingos is exploitation, "trash" and not really seen in those terms.

 

Again, we might ask "why?".

[Matt D]

Frankly, I don't really care what wrestling is so long as we can break it apart and figure out what makes it tick and have fun doing it.

 

John, when you say "We're all just weirdos on a message board who think about this far more than the actual people doing it and they'd just look at us strange if we talked to them using these terms and we're only doing this to feel better about this inconsequential thing that we value." and I think you do that lovingly, and even including yourself in that "we."...

 

That's the absolute worst. The worst. Perspective is good. But we have a damn good idea of what we're doing and if we didn't enjoy doing it, we wouldn't be doing it. If we didn't think it was worth doing and worth doing with one another, we wouldn't be doing it. I can't think of almost any posts on this board that I find useless, including Johnny just marking out over something or OJ shitting on something he hasn't seen or whatever. Every bit of it adds to the whole, even some of the semantic arguments you and Parv have.

 

Every single post is worth something and makes this place more than what it would be, save for you trying to knock down a peg and belittle what we do. The thought that people here put into things, the research that people like Kris and Kelly do, the footage gathering and deep dives that Parv does, the attempts at understanding that some of the younger people like Marty or Stacey bring to the table. It's a hell of a place, and I don't care if there were other "hell of a places" twenty years ago. We make what we do more than what it is because of who we are and the effort and thought we put into it.

 

Stop taking that for granted.

[jdw]

Matt,

 

I obviously value pro wrestling. I've written a metric ton of nonsense about it over the years all over the place, including here. I also value what's written here, and what's done here. Who would write 6000+ words to recommend just a *series* worth of matches to the Yearbook project if they didn't (i) value the work that was being done on it, or (ii) want to make sure Will & Loss had an idea of what was behind the recommendations?

 

http://www.otherarena.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2180

 

On the flip side, that is something that anyone with a bit of honest self awareness would cop to being an idiotic obsessive hardcore fan thing to do. You can simply list the matches, Will & Loss would figure it out, and enough with that. It's what I and others did with countless other matches on the set (or that were left on the cutting room floor).

 

Why? Who knows. It's what we all do from time to time. We watch something. It strikes us in a certain way. We toss out a ton of stuff. It's frankly borderline nuts, but we have the passion for it and out it goes.

 

We *value* it. Not just watching the shit, but talking about it, and if, anyone is again honest with themselves, can be best defined as tossing out "What I Think About It". We wouldn't be tossing this stuff up, or writing letters to the WON, or blogging, or creating websites, or doing podcasts if we didn't actually have a high sense of value on the worth of our own opinions.

 

And frankly, that's borderline nuts our parts... wonderfully nuts.

 

We'd think it's nutty if there was a site like this dedicated to Boy Bands / Teen Idols and they were doing a GWE equiv going to the lengths we do. Within their world, it would be perfectly sane, they'd be having fun with it... or the Donny Osmond Fans would be feuding with the David Cassidy Fans while the Michael Jackson Fans would be laughing at both. It would be glorious... and nutty as all hell. Good lord, they may even have people running around talking about being the Enlightenment of Boy Bands / Teen Idols discussions.

 

This is *our* nutty niche of fandom: pro wrestling hardcore fandom. PWO is one of many places where the niche gets together, and ironically the various places tend to think the others are kind of nuts. People here like to take a dump on The Board, but its the same thing: a collection of glorious obsessive hardcore fans of wrestling who are more than a bit idiotically nutty.

 

I've said this now at least three times: don't take my lack of calling pro wrestling "art" to fail to have great value in pro wrestling, nor should one take me pointing out quite honestly that we are one nutty bunch of fans to fail to have great value for the conversations that happen here.

[Bix]

The "the wrestlers didn't think about it this much" talking point just isn't true. Yesterday I interviewed Ricky Steamboat for the second time and both times he had incredibly detailed explanations of his process with ring psychology, and not in the B.S. way that Raven does where it doesn't resemble his actual matches. Everything he mentioned, I could think of an example from his career of him doing exactly what he said. He even went into his psychology of working a body part and why he always worked the arm. Maybe it's not everyone, but a guy we all recognize as one of the best thinks that way.

 

The only reason we're resistant to calling it art is because calling something art is considered a pretentious act for whatever reason. Call it folk art, call it pop art, whatever. It's just that societally, saying "this is ART, maaaannn" has been branded a certain way. We can all agree that music is art. Is it really THAT different for a 2015 wrestling fan to say "Hey, this heavily improvisational form of entertainment can be a really fun artform!" compared to, say, the slow recontextualizing of bands like Queen, The Bee Gees, and Duran Duran from junk pop music to genius innovating critical darlings (and rightfully so in all three cases)?

[Johnny Sorrow]

Duran Duran?

[shoe]

Bix I see your point. Steamboat though strikes me more of the exception not the rule. I think their are plenty of wrestlers that cared, but plenty that looked at it as just a paycheck. Steamboat is a guy who cared. He also was an agent and worked in development. I'm sure he's analyzed his own work and explained why he did what he did to whoever in developmental at the time. Steamboat has a long history of caring about the work. It's been documented he watched boxing to see how people reacted to being hit. For every Steamboat their is an Ultimate Warrior. Like any profession you'll have people who take pride in their work,others do as little as possible and just slide by, others view it as a paycheck. Plus I think a lot of the wrestlers in the 80's were more concerned with how can I make more money.A lot of wrestlers were sucked into the fantasy of wrestling. Steamboat strikes me as a guy who creatively thought the booker contolled his money intake. So he focused on something the booker couldn't control , his work ethic and pride.

[Bix]

Duran Duran?

 

Yes? Duran Duran, like Queen and the Bee Gees, were loathed by critics in their heydays. Critical response to all three bands has done a 180 in subsequent decades.

 

Bix I see your point. Steamboat though strikes me more of the exception not the rule. I think their are plenty of wrestlers that cared, but plenty that looked at it as just a paycheck. Steamboat is a guy who cared. He also was an agent and worked in development. I'm sure he's analyzed his own work and explained why he did what he did to whoever in developmental at the time. Steamboat has a long history of caring about the work. It's been documented he watched boxing to see how people reacted to being hit. For every Steamboat their is an Ultimate Warrior. Like any profession you'll have people who take pride in their work,others do as little as possible and just slide by, others view it as a paycheck. Plus I think a lot of the wrestlers in the 80's were more concerned with how can I make more money.A lot of wrestlers were sucked into the fantasy of wrestling. Steamboat strikes me as a guy who creatively thought the booker contolled his money intake. So he focused on something the booker couldn't control , his work ethic and pride.

 

I don't entirely disagree, but it's at least a little disingenuous to make wrestling out to be completely unique in that regard. Music has had everything from Sid Vicious, a bassist who couldn't play, to manufactured boy bands, autotuned celebrities like Lindsay Lohan before her life spiraled out of control, and so on. Acting has ton of random pretty people trying to get by on their looks to make money. As long as there are performance arts, there are going to be performers who aren't that good who are in it for money.

[EricR]

The reception of Salo vs. the reception of Pink Flamingos is actually an interesting little side bar to this topic.

 

Because whereas Salo is all certified high art Criterion collection, Pink Flamingos is exploitation, "trash" and not really seen in those terms.

 

Again, we might ask "why?".

 

Criterion not only released Pink Flamingos on laserdisc, but also John Waters' Polyester, and would have gladly released then and more of his films on DVD if they had been able to retain the rights.

[JerryvonKramer]

I knew some smart ass was going to point that out. Well done for pointing it out.

[Badlittlekitten]

Yuck.

 

Queen suck. And that's a fact.

[Matt D]

Matt,

 

I obviously value pro wrestling. I've written a metric ton of nonsense about it over the years all over the place, including here. I also value what's written here, and what's done here. Who would write 6000+ words to recommend just a *series* worth of matches to the Yearbook project if they didn't (i) value the work that was being done on it, or (ii) want to make sure Will & Loss had an idea of what was behind the recommendations?

 

http://www.otherarena.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2180

 

On the flip side, that is something that anyone with a bit of honest self awareness would cop to being an idiotic obsessive hardcore fan thing to do. You can simply list the matches, Will & Loss would figure it out, and enough with that. It's what I and others did with countless other matches on the set (or that were left on the cutting room floor).

 

Why? Who knows. It's what we all do from time to time. We watch something. It strikes us in a certain way. We toss out a ton of stuff. It's frankly borderline nuts, but we have the passion for it and out it goes.

 

We *value* it. Not just watching the shit, but talking about it, and if, anyone is again honest with themselves, can be best defined as tossing out "What I Think About It". We wouldn't be tossing this stuff up, or writing letters to the WON, or blogging, or creating websites, or doing podcasts if we didn't actually have a high sense of value on the worth of our own opinions.

 

And frankly, that's borderline nuts our parts... wonderfully nuts.

 

We'd think it's nutty if there was a site like this dedicated to Boy Bands / Teen Idols and they were doing a GWE equiv going to the lengths we do. Within their world, it would be perfectly sane, they'd be having fun with it... or the Donny Osmond Fans would be feuding with the David Cassidy Fans while the Michael Jackson Fans would be laughing at both. It would be glorious... and nutty as all hell. Good lord, they may even have people running around talking about being the Enlightenment of Boy Bands / Teen Idols discussions.

 

This is *our* nutty niche of fandom: pro wrestling hardcore fandom. PWO is one of many places where the niche gets together, and ironically the various places tend to think the others are kind of nuts. People here like to take a dump on The Board, but its the same thing: a collection of glorious obsessive hardcore fans of wrestling who are more than a bit idiotically nutty.

 

I've said this now at least three times: don't take my lack of calling pro wrestling "art" to fail to have great value in pro wrestling, nor should one take me pointing out quite honestly that we are one nutty bunch of fans to fail to have great value for the conversations that happen here.

 

We live in a country where the most talked about/analyzed/broken down/obsessed over things are football and a TV show which has a kid being immolated so that a fire priestess can birth a shadow monster. Those are not just perfectly acceptable things to talk about and analyze and really obsess over, but if you don't, you're considered odd. NASCAR is up there. Golf is up there. For a while Survivor and American Idol were. We could have just as easily ended up in a world where ice dancing became the big thing.

 

I don't want wrestling to be mainstream. I don't want it to be sport. I don't care if it's art. What I'm arguing instead is that there's no difference between having an obsessed argument about who should be in the MLB hall of fame or who should go in the NFL draft or The Bachelor or Breaking Bad or whatever. It's all a diversion from reality and whatever meaning it has comes from what we install into it through our discussions. That you brought up boy bands was a ridiculous comparison because that goes back to the mainstream argument, and frankly, I don't care.

 

What the rest of society thinks has no bearing on what we do, nor should it. I care about the opinions of the people whose opinions I care about here. Going "Well, sure, let's talk about this, but aren't we nuts!" doesn't help anyone. It's pointlessly dismissive and we deserve better than that.

[Bix]

Yuck.

 

Queen suck. And that's a fact.

Whether or not you think they suck is not the point. That the critical consensus shifted from Queen sucking is the point of the exercise.

[Loss]

And Duran Duran is awesomely awesome.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'd like to edit together a video package montage of Strike Force high-fiving and being the gayest blowjob babyfaces ever to various Duran Duran tracks.

 

Girls on Film

The Reflex

 

etc.

[Mad Dog]

Fat Bottomed Girls is a quality Queen song.

[BillThompson]

Bix, Loss, and a few others made my points for me pretty much. I stand by my statement; wrestling is art. It's something being done as a form of expression, where narratives are being built, stories are being told, and craft is on display. Denying that behind smokescreen comparisons and "Jeez, you really want to call this crap art?" or "It's a business, that's not art" is all rather reductive. Trash is art, low brow is art; the intent to make money does not stop something from being art.

[peachchaos]

The thing is, all art is art, and it is not for someone to "decide" whether it is art or not. It simply is.

 

Has absolutely nothing to do with taste or if it inspires creation or not.

[JerryvonKramer]

Sounds like a spectacularly unhelpful concept to me. But then I do work in something called the Faculty of Arts and humanities, so it must mean something.

[JerryvonKramer]

The designation of something as art has to be socially determined to actually connote.

 

I drink a can of coke. I put it on my mantlepiece. I declare it art. It isn't fucking art, it's an empty can of coke.

 

That same can in the Tate behind some Perspex in a white room, accepted as part of an exhibit, is art. It is art because society says it is art.

 

There's no way around this. Art's status as art has to be socially not individually determined. Otherwise nothing means anything. This is Marxism speaking but I also happen to believe that.

[JerryvonKramer]

"But I think it's art, I do!"

 

Yeah so what? No one else does, so it isn't.

 

All concepts work on this principle. Gold has value because everyone else accepts it does. If they don't, it has no value.

 

No way around it. Narcissistic to believe otherwise.

[Loss]

The coke can was designed by an artist. But if someone else interprets it as a statement on American excess becoming a cultural institution, it's art, whether that was the intent or not.