Guest The Winter Of My Discontent Posted July 29, 2004 Report Posted July 29, 2004 People do shit in their hands, smear it on a canvas, and call it avant-garde art. Just sayin'...
TheBigSwigg Posted July 29, 2004 Report Posted July 29, 2004 I'll venture out here and say the art isn't in the shitty acting, the stupid vignettes or the long promo's, but in the actual wrestling. A good wrestling match features two people using physical movement to tell a story. This involves movesets, ring psychology, and a need for crowd involvement. The point is to draw the crowd into the match and get them emotionally involved, just like ballet or painting. But of course, someone's going to bring up the fact that I was once Red Hot Thumbsack in the Ass, and this post will be overlooked because of that.
Guest Agent of Oblivion Posted July 29, 2004 Report Posted July 29, 2004 No, I was just going to bring up the fact that pro wrestling began as a carnival-type attraction catering to the same audience.
Dr. Tyler; Captain America Posted July 29, 2004 Report Posted July 29, 2004 If you're arguing that the wrestling itself is a form of art, then you have to consider all sports to be art. Again, if you set your definition of art by low standards, you can fucking consider lying to your boss a work of art. It doesn't actually make it one, though.
Guest Nelly's Bandaid Posted July 29, 2004 Report Posted July 29, 2004 "Your too fucking lazy to spell properly or learn simple steps of organizing what you write, which indeed makes your opinions worth a lot less. A typo's a typo, but when you admittedly don't even try to convey your thoughts in a manner that's worth a flying fuck, you remain a retard." Apparently you are too. If someone can't differentiate use through intent, than why would I care what they have to say? If that's makes it hard for you to read my posts, than don't even bother. "Pro wrestling is entirely body language and athleticism, which are two things clowns and acrobats have in spades. It's also got its fair share of freaks, geeks, elephants, and a mastermind behind the scenes. The reason the circus parallel is brought up so much is it's so correct. Is Ringling Brothers fine art as well? I look at it as entertainment." No one said fine art, they said art, because art is art by definition, not by opinion. You can have an opinion on the quality or worth of art, but not whether or not it's art. Has nothing to do with who it caters to or how 'fine' it is, art is art, it's intended to invoke emotion, if it does than what's the problem? Real men don't cry? Well that's ok, we all know real men don't make stupid threads like this either, so let's unite in our lack of masculinity. Either that or we can all be logical, shut the fuck up and for the sake of those who want there posts to be read after this thread, forget it ever happened.
Dr. Tyler; Captain America Posted July 29, 2004 Report Posted July 29, 2004 No one said fine art, they said art, because art is art by definition, not by opinion. And here's where your argument goes to shit. There IS no set definition of art. Art is defined by the individual's opinion of it, and if your definition of art is much more lax than another person's, we get this debate.
TheBigSwigg Posted July 29, 2004 Report Posted July 29, 2004 If you're arguing that the wrestling itself is a form of art, then you have to consider all sports to be art. Again, if you set your definition of art by low stanaards, you can fucking consider lying to your boss a work of art. It doesn't actually make it one, though. But is baseball played to tell a story? Is football? Is soccer? No. The purpose of a wrestling match is to tell a story. All other sports are to play games. The story is a result of the game, not vice versa.
Dr. Tyler; Captain America Posted July 29, 2004 Report Posted July 29, 2004 There are plenty of atheletes who create their own persona and play it during their games. These personas (trash talking cornerback, humble underdog quarterback) effectively create a storyline within the game. They're acting too. Doesn't make it art.
Guest Dids Posted July 29, 2004 Report Posted July 29, 2004 "There IS no set definition of art. Art is defined by the individual's opinion of it, and if your definition of art is much more lax than another person's, we get this debate." Isn't that the same point Nelly's Bandaid is trying to make. You guys are talking past each other.
TheBigSwigg Posted July 29, 2004 Report Posted July 29, 2004 There are plenty of atheletes who create their own persona and play it during their games. These personas (trash talking cornerback, humble underdog quarterback) effectively create a storyline within the game. They're acting too. Doesn't make it art. That's not the purpose of the game, though. That's the difference, at least to me.
BX Posted July 29, 2004 Report Posted July 29, 2004 I never thought two well-cut men rolling around with a thousand peope watching could be considered art. Be damned! I bet Ansel Adams wish he knew this. He would have said "fuck all" to those pictures and just exposed his latent homosexual side. It's all "art", right?
Dr. Tyler; Captain America Posted July 29, 2004 Report Posted July 29, 2004 Perhaps. Which is why that argument holds slightly more weight than the other. But the problem with wrestling-as-a-form-of-art as an argument is that this shit is mass-marketed to make money. It's not original and it's not clever. It's just pornography for people who were beat up as kids. Again, unless you want to argue that pornography is art, this is a stupid debate.
Dr. Tyler; Captain America Posted July 29, 2004 Report Posted July 29, 2004 Perhaps. Which is why that argument holds slightly more weight than the other. But the problem with wrestling-as-a-form-of-art as an argument is that this shit is mass-marketed to make money. It's not original and it's not clever. It's just pornography for people who were beat up as kids. Again, unless you want to argue that pornography is art, this is a stupid debate.
Guest Agent of Oblivion Posted July 29, 2004 Report Posted July 29, 2004 Pro Wrestling and Sports are a terrible comparison anyway. Literally the only link is the accent on physical prowess. There's no athletic competition whatsoever in one, and nothing BUT athletic competition in the other. Circus and Soap Opera are the best. For those looking at it from an objective POV for god knows what reason, maybe Synchronized Swimming or Ice Dancing. And Nelly's Bandaid, you do nothing but repeat yourself when plenty of people other than myself have called you out on your posts being completely unreadable. Shape up or I'm banning your carcass under the retard precedent. I obviously said "your" in that sentence to make fun of your dumb ass. HOLY SHIT I USED IT PROPERLY THERE! It's exactly the same as if someone posted while completely forsaking grammar and punctuation. If it's too fucking hard for you to remember to type [ quote] [ /quote] THEN DON'T QUOTE AT ALL. The fact that your opinions are totally baseless and idiotic reinforces their uselessness which is exemplified by your complete and utter lack of syntax. Fuck off, shithead.
Dr. Tyler; Captain America Posted July 29, 2004 Report Posted July 29, 2004 Then you've just made me irrelevant
Lord of The Curry Posted July 29, 2004 Report Posted July 29, 2004 Perhaps. Which is why that argument holds slightly more weight than the other. But the problem with wrestling-as-a-form-of-art as an argument is that this shit is mass-marketed to make money. It's not original and it's not clever. It's just pornography for people who were beat up as kids. Again, unless you want to argue that pornography is art, this is a stupid debate. Unless you have a fairly vast knowledge of pro wrestling you might want to choose your words a little more carefully. Wrestling, at it's best, can be one of the most original art forms out there.
Dr. Tyler; Captain America Posted July 29, 2004 Report Posted July 29, 2004 I'm calling bullshit on that one.
Guest Nelly's Bandaid Posted July 29, 2004 Report Posted July 29, 2004 "There IS no set definition of art. Art is defined by the individual's opinion of it, and if your definition of art is much more lax than another person's, we get this debate." http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=art Try again. Opinion on art, intent of art, merit of art, all debatable, what is and isn't comes down to a set definition, a loose one, sure, a definition none the less. "But the problem with wrestling-as-a-form-of-art as an argument is that this shit is mass-marketed to make money. It's not original and it's not clever. It's just pornography for people who were beat up as kids." So is music, it's still art. If you want to debate the value of it artistically, go ahead, it's still art. The last part really makes me wonder..... "And Nelly's Bandaid, you do nothing but repeat yourself when plenty of people other than myself have called you out on your posts being completely unreadable. Shape up or I'm banning your carcass under the retard precedent. I obviously said "your" in that sentence to make fun of your dumb ass. " IF IT'S UNREADABLE DON'T READ IT. Pretty simple idea, if you don't like the way I format my posts, do yourself a favor and don't read them. Obviously other people can read my posts, so the problems on you. Saying your gonna ban me basically because you don't agree with what I'm saying let's me know I really don't care if you read my posts or not, so do us both a favor and keep scrolling when you see my name. "It's exactly the same as if someone posted while completely forsaking grammar and punctuation. If it's too fucking hard for you to remember to type [ quote] [ /quote] THEN DON'T QUOTE AT ALL. The fact that your opinions are totally baseless and idiotic reinforces their uselessness which is exemplified by your complete and utter lack of syntax. Fuck off, shithead." You made a point, not the one you were going for, but you made one, so congrats. If other people can read and respond to my posts, it's obviously your problem, not mine. Art is art, regardless of how important or meaningful it is, just like a basketball will be a basketball no matter how much air you fill it with. If you want to question masculinity go ahead, it's pathetic, petty and pointless but if it's what you wanna do do it. Just make sure you know what your point is.
BX Posted July 29, 2004 Report Posted July 29, 2004 You know, I've always considered McMahons "24/7" period to be the pinnacle of his genius, to date.
Dr. Tyler; Captain America Posted July 29, 2004 Report Posted July 29, 2004 So is music, it's still art Not all music.
Guest Agent of Oblivion Posted July 29, 2004 Report Posted July 29, 2004 No one ever respond to Nelly's Bandaid ever again.
Guest Dids Posted July 29, 2004 Report Posted July 29, 2004 So is music, it's still art Not all music. What music would you argue is not art?
Guest Agent of Oblivion Posted July 29, 2004 Report Posted July 29, 2004 Seriously. He compared music, an artform since time eternal, to wrasslin'. Plus he's dumb.
Guest Nelly's Bandaid Posted July 29, 2004 Report Posted July 29, 2004 "Not all music." *sigh*....just go eat some steak and save yourself the trouble of forming a thought process.
Dr. Tyler; Captain America Posted July 29, 2004 Report Posted July 29, 2004 I have a rather high definition of art, so I would consider that recycled, unoriginal music isn't art.
Guest Nelly's Bandaid Posted July 29, 2004 Report Posted July 29, 2004 It's a shame the rest of the world has a definition that isn't based on quality in anyway. Hopefully one day you can make a dictionary and fill us all in on what we've been missing.
BX Posted July 29, 2004 Report Posted July 29, 2004 Sir, I present for your consideration, "Christian Rock." Please, defend that as a legitimate art form.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now