Website founded by Milan Velimirović in 2006
23:10 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net Forum General Art, sport and money |
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | (1) Posted by Christophe Préchac [Tuesday, Mar 31, 2009 15:36]; edited by Christophe Préchac [09-03-31] | Art, sport and money In view of the ongoing heated discussion on the relationships between PCCC and FIDE I would like to make the following observations:
1) Chess composition is an art form
much like, say, painting
2) Chess composition is not a sport
just as there is no point running in an art gallery, I find it futile to solve compositions in limited time. A chess composition is a work of art to be slowly savoured over and over and discussed with fellow chess compositions lovers
3) Chess composition has nothing to do with money
"In my opinion, one of the advantages of this hobby [chess composing] is that so far no one has really succeeded in making money from chess problems. It belongs to those much underrated fields of human endeavor without economic significance (...)" - Hans Peter Rehm | | (2) Posted by Valery Gurov [Tuesday, Mar 31, 2009 16:36] | Dear Christophe,
By the way artists receive very good money for those pictures which you enjoy in artgallery. Writers receive money for books, composers for music...
I think, Hans-Peter Rem(my good frend) would not refuse to receive some thousand euro for any the exellent problem :-) | | (3) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Tuesday, Mar 31, 2009 16:50] | A little off-topic:
The music industry is more of a modern mafia than a society of articsts. Do you really consider them artists? Or if you mean the singers, they are also robbed by the music industry and are left without money. In my opinion, they should publish it for free and live from donations (and that system even works very well, as was shown in previous studies about this). | | (4) Posted by Dejan Glisić [Tuesday, Mar 31, 2009 17:38]; edited by Dejan Glisić [09-03-31] | Well done Christophe, you are our man! | | (5) Posted by Christophe Préchac [Tuesday, Mar 31, 2009 17:41] | I fully agree with Siegfried. Money corrupts everything and 99% of the "artistic industry" (an oxymoron) is crap. There are enough issues of plagiarism in chess composition world already, no? | | (6) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Wednesday, Apr 8, 2009 02:46] | Professionally, I am a music composer - of 'progressive new (art-)music'. This is NOT part of the "music industry" as you guys think of it; it is a continuation of the classical tradition into modern times. The music I compose has NOTHING to do with money-making, and I am not alone in this. While I do agree that 99% of music these days IS crap, I think your pronouncements apply primarily to the ubiquitous pop/rock juggernaut of cultural junk ... surely not to the sort of thing I do! | | (7) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Apr 8, 2009 12:44] | Funny how the FIDE shuffle turned into solvers (or is it only timed-solvers?) versus composers.
All couched in preservation of the delicate problem arts.
So, my congratulations on this thread's relentless hammering on manufactured wedge issues.
If a sport can be made from an artform, like timed solving of chess problems, how does it diminish the artform?
Before you answer, be mindful that that modern chess problem composition (itself!) has also become something of a sport.
For reference: see awards, see also FIDE titles, see also prize funds...
See also composing tournaments -- which are, by definition, sporting contests.
Competition emerges from most any artform: music, dancing, iced skating, karate, ... so what?
Solving chess problems, too, is an art.
Is it really necessary to diminsh this?
Should we be perfecting our strut?
Or will the search for undesirable problem enthusiasts continue beyond merely the majority of our community? | | (8) Posted by Valery Gurov [Wednesday, Apr 8, 2009 15:07] | Dear ALL,
My oppinion:
>Solving chess problems, too, is an art.
Solving chess problems is NOT art. Solving chess problems(in really time) is sport, and very heavy sport which take away many forces, nerves and health.
And the chess composition it not a sport and not art, is a kind of constructive creativity. The question only in one - what for to refuse material benefits for the sake of a pure art... | | (9) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Apr 8, 2009 23:37] | "Criticism, in which the lovers of art used to find support for their opinions, has latterly become so self-contradictory, that, if we exclude from the domain of art all that to which the critics of various schools themselves deny the title, there is scarcely any art left. ... Listen to the artists of the schools of our times, and you will find, in all branches, each set of artists disowning others. ... [Art] is understood in such contradictory ways by its own devotees that it is difficult to say what is meant by art, and especially what is good, useful art, -- art for the sake of which we might condone such sacrifices as are being offered at its shrine."
-Leo Tolstoy, "What is Art?"
Except that when Tolstoy wrote this, the contagion rate was modest (it was generally contained to one class), and the symptoms of denying other artforms were far less severe.
To fervently disavow the art of chess problem solving -- or the art of motorcycle maintainence, for that matter -- earns only sincere pity (in the same sense that we might pity Newton for having proclaimed his "greatest accomplishment" was to have never discovered the joy of sex; or we may pity ourselves for being unable to appreciate certain foods).
Is it not enough to find such profound beauty in chess composition to declare this an artform?
Need we also belittle (for our own elevation) all other forms? | | (10) Posted by Marjan Kovačević [Thursday, Apr 9, 2009 02:06] | The army of people who love Chess Problems really reminds on the army of people who love any Art. However, these both groups are not artists. When it comes to the best chess composers, let's not be too idealistic about the Past and the Present. There has always been more of a Competition, than of an Art.
Do you know any works of Art valued by the Theme they present? Who would say: this magnificent picture presents 123 Sunflowers in a Miniature Cup?
There are some artistic principles in problem chess, such as Beauty, Intensity, Economy, Originality, etc. There are also some related necessary conditions, such as Talent, Love, Inspiration, Experience, Training, Knowledge, Hard Work, etc.
However, this is not enough to eliminate the element of Competition, clearly present in thematic tourneys (as more as better), in the orientation towards Task Records of any kind, or towards Originality at any price.
On the other hand, the comparison with Art is often abused in the phrase "artistic freedom", by those obeying no artistic principles nor conditions.
I believe at least 90% of the best composers were stimulated by winning a composing tourney, with, or without a money prize. Let us look at some examples of competition and money as motivation in Problem Chess throughout the history:
-Already in 13th Century Problem Chess got in a relation with money. It was reported the Bonus Socius contained advises how to bet on some problems and how much money to offer.
-The first International chess tournament in the middle of 19th Century was followed by an international composing tourney. Already then, such tourneys were followed by protests concerning results, plagiarism, etc.
-Loyd was trying very hard to win some tourneys at the times when Bayer had more success in them.
-Shiffmann insisted on getting money for each published problem.
-Mansfield urged Hitler to get him his money-prize from the Olympic tourney.
-Pogosyants published thousands of popular studies in order to earn some money.
-Yarosh asked for a sponsor in order to present his next Babson Task.
-Many great composers were attracted to Problem Chess thanks to the money prizes.
-In fact, the amount of money was much greater in Problem Chess in the past, since many newspapers were paying some money for each published problem.
It is better to stop here, before I turn problemists into materialists, the furthest away from the truth. | | (11) Posted by Darko Šaljić [Saturday, Apr 11, 2009 13:27] | The presence of money and competition does not exclude Art from chess problem world.
Like painting, poem or music, chess problem can be work of art. The same, great I.Schiffman, mentioned before, wrote: "The Art of Chess Problem is one of rare fields of human activity in wich only creative talent, united with a subtle feeling for beauty, is essential".
The fact, that almost every problem can be conected with some theme, also is not an argument for statement that it is not work of art. The perception of composition and her essence does not end in recognition of theme it contains, it begins at that point. For exsample, if in process of analysing problem we find out cycling order of mates and conclude that it is Lacny theme, we do not stop there, on the contrary, only than we focus our selves on pure and basic relations of elements independent of any name or classification. We have also themes and thematic contests in all kind of Art. In the poetry even the formal relations between rhymes and verse has its names and can be "thematic" (like our "Zagorujko" theme, or Reciprocal change"...). Almost all music of Bach was born from his thematic approach (and were orderd and payed by others).
Also I do not agree with opinion that we are producing something A Priori defined and than, only can polish it by adapting our work to some of estetic principles, wich, by the way, does have nothing with Art and are only decorative elements (economy, beauty of moves..) If the problem mechanism, system, manoevre etc. has beauty in his esence, it can be showed in ugly position with flight taking key and still make a strong artistic impression.
I also want to say somethig in defence of solving activities. I think that solving process is also artistic activity. One graet empiric said:"Art happens". What he ment is that any Work of Art is nothing until the moment of its perception. Only in that moment it lives and its valeu depends on knowledge, and creativity of the person who percepting it. The great Borges wrote that reading is more creative process than writing, and that he is proud on books he red not the one he wrote.
I would like to end with other great writer - H.Hesse and his (nobel prize novel) "Das Glasperlenspiel".
In that masterpies Hesse tried to find (and succede!) something that could be the perfect form and way for artistic expression. Among other things that irresistibly reminds on chess composition, in his story we have a Master who is preparing Theme for his Composition for the following Competition... | | (12) Posted by Dejan Glisić [Saturday, Apr 11, 2009 21:09] | Well done Darko, excellent example! | | (13) Posted by Paz Einat [Monday, Apr 13, 2009 17:55] | Really nice that Christophe, and the other contributors here, brought out this issue.
There is no doubt that our art is a part of the general field of art. However, one cannot ignore its uniqueness and its relative low exposure. Artists in many fields make money out of their art and many of them make a living out of it. There is nothing wrong with that and I think it is part of the nature of art.
I like very much the quotation of Tolstoy brought by Kevin, and I can bring many more on these and other lines. Myself, I was exposed to some of that when trying to help a band of musicians (my son included) get their songs into the Israeli radio stations. While this is far away from the music Ian describes, it was somewhat out of the mainstream of pop music, both in terms of complexity and also (quite related to it) the fact that they used violins & cello. It was basically impossible to get it into popular radio stations and only minor ones, dealing with alternative popular music, happily broadcasted the songs.
I have a deep interest in contemporary art including visual and music. I think that in both fields the deviations from the current collected norms make it difficult for the general audience to absorb, understand and appreciate such art. This is probably more pronounced in the music field and my feeling is that this is to some extent also the fault of the composers. Music can be more mathematical, and it is probably easier to make it “academic” and less understandable to the audience which is not part of the small group involved in such music. In this respect it is very much like our own art! [Still I very much enjoy the work of some contemporary music composers (e.g. Radzinsky)]
Finally, as we say here, food is not fattening only the people that eat it can get fat, and similarly, money does not corrupt; only people corrupt, so money just has the potential to corrupt. I my own view competitions, with or without money (or other) prizes, are made to encourage composers to expose the artistic potential hidden in their grey cells. And regarding corruption, we should stand firm to prevent it from permeating into our field of art. | | No more posts |
MatPlus.Net Forum General Art, sport and money |
|
|
|