Art and Sport

Before I begin, I want to issue this disclaimer: I am not attacking anyone in particular with what I am going to write. I respect all of you, so please realize I on't hate anyone, merely that I disagree with some ideas expressed in class. Having said that, here we go:

I am still here to argue that sports and art do not have enough in common to label two with the term, "comparably similar". While it is always possible to come up with extreme situations where anything is comparable to anything, art and sport simply do not have enough in common to state that they are alike.

As I said in class, while people may say a great play in sports is "a work of art", no one looks at a Picasso and exclaims, "Great Play!" The arguement against this claim was that sports can be described as beautiful, and art can described as beautiful, so art and sports are alike. However, that analogy can be used for anything in life; a newborn baby is beautiful, so is a newborn babe like sport? Are flowers, rainbows, and puppy dogs like sport? Merely stating that two facets in life can have one broad term attributed to both does not mean that they are similar.

Remember, though, that I am arguing here against art, not fine art. Art, for me, involves the stationary products that one would see in an exhibit: paintings, sculptures, etc. Claiming that looking at a piece of art is similar to watching a sporting event is just riddiculus. Tryng to argue that people have watched art being created and enjoyed it is again a blanket statement trying to tie two non-similar aspects of life together with a word like "enjoyed".

While I do in no way hate art, one must admit that sports only relation to art are the generic terms broadcasters use to spice up their show: The phrases, "that play was a work of art," and, "that play was beautiful" are synonomous. Art is simply not like sports.