Defining the criteria of art. How do I do that?

By definition, greatness in art is solely personal bias, as everyone sees art differently. That is, after all, the point of art, an expression of oneself through a medium.

The definition of art, however, is more open to interpretation because of this. At what point is something an expression or not? Scott McCloud defined art as anything that is done not to fill a basic animalistic need. While I like the beauty in the simplicity of that, I don't entirely agree with it. If we follow that definition, nearly everything is art, including looking at art.

Now, to your greater point, I do believe wrestling is an art. It tells a story, which is an art. It involves people portraying characters rather, which is an art. It takes a certain amount of choreography, which is an art. It involves two partners moving in tandem. It's almost like dancing in a way, which is undeniably an art (with the possible exception of that Brazilian dance where the girl shoves her hoo-ha into the dude's face repeatedly) but ruled by testosterone and bloodlust. I would argue that not only is wrestling an art, but it's also more civilized, intelligent, and psychologically healthy than any other sport.

I'll just stop there so I don't go into an entire thesis on the subject. I would love to know what Next Man's Sweater has to say, though. He always brings a level of intelligence to his debate that most aren't able to.

I wouldn't say story; I'd say idea. There are many art forms that don't tell stories, such as abstract art, but those, too, are open to interpretation when it comes to quantifying greatness. Take Jackson Pollock, for instance. The purpose of abstract art is to convey raw emotion rather than tell a story or even capture a moment, but when I look at a Jackson Pollock painting, I just see a random mess of paint. In my opinion, Jackson Pollock is a terrible artist, but that's what it is--my opinion. There are others who think he's the greatest of all time, and, since it is an opinion (as is greatness), they are just as right as I am.

As for the documentary, I haven't seen it. At least not that I know of, but it seems like it shares my viewpoint. I've stated multiple times that I prefer my violence fictional. When I look at MMA or boxing, all I can do is see brutality, not sport. I liken it to the days of gladiators (though I also admit that it's an overly harsh comparison as fighters want the life while most gladiators were left with the choice of either fight or die, either in a cell or on the streets--one of the few things they actually got right in that damn Russell Crowe movie).

It's the same reason I watch horror movies to a certain extent. Every one of us has an animalistic need to satisfy our bloodlust (an instinctual trait leftover from the days of packs and clans instead of society and civilization). I think it's far better and healthier to satisfy this beast through fiction than through reality. Empathy, after all, is what separates us from the animals.

I'm getting a bit off subject here.

Wrestling is undoubtably an art in my eyes, and therefore wrestlers are artists. What they do is create a performance for onlookers to watch, hopefully, in awe. If that's not art, I don't know what is. It's storytelling, it's dancing, it's performance art, it's theater acting, it's even slam poetry at times. CM Punk's pipe bombs come to mind as far as poetry goes. He spoke from his heart with emotion. Maybe it's not as "artsy" as actual poets, but, end of the day, isn't art about imitating life? If we go off that basis, life isn't artsy all the time. Sure, it has it's moments, but the average day is filled with simple truths and not whimsy.

During the 80s and early 90s especially, wrestling helped to fill that void of whimsy in our lives. Now, however, most wrestling plays off the idea of realism. Basically, classic wrestling filled our desire for fantasy while modern wrestling imitates life, which is why, to me, both qualify as art even before entering the ring.

Sorry for that being all over the place. I wrote it while watching a TV show, so this didn't actually have my full attention.

Let's agree that story-telling is an extension of conveying ideas. Why do you dislike Pollock exactly? I'm not trying to defend him or deviate from the original discussion, but rather inquire as to whether you're saying this out of judging his capacity to convey his ideas or your personal preference as to what you find compelling/astethetically compelling.






Watch it. You can thank me later. Moving on, I whole-heartedly agree with one exception. I cannot demonize Boxing itself, as the historical importance it posesses is simply too immense. I do not respect the unpugilistic promoters & participants who took away from the sport, but I do not have the ability to bastardise it's greatest champions, coaches, & historians.




Why must people hate poetry or write it off as "Flowery"? *Shutters* Infuriates me to no end!
Otherwise it was excellent written.

Moving on,
There's actually an art to minimizing artistry in Pro Wrestling. The original goal is to create the illusion of an actual sport/sporting event. It seems simple enough, but the concept is best summarized by an anecdote from Kevin Nash. Although he is the definition of a "Journeyman" in the most derogatory sense, his understanding of working the crowd was ingenious trickery. He & Scott Hall were presented an idea to sell "The Outsiders" T-Shirts as part of a deluxe package alongside Hogan, Sting, & Luger Shirts. Nash shot it down immediately to the dismay of the sales rep. "Why not!?" she cried out. "Because we don't work for you." was his response.

He knew it would dilute the realism of the angle, if WCW sold shirts featuring Wrestlers who were meant to be invaders. The efforts he put into it are best judged as if they were convoluted crimes. A typically bad person with a stroke of genius.

Food for thought.