Comments on: Art v. Sport (or not)

By: Din Heagney

Din Heagney — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:15:52 +0000

I completely agree with you Marcus. Being an art-lover more than a sport-lover you learn to compromise and love both… in Melbourne there is no option if you want to get along. A couple of years ago while doing a book I wrote something like “art is closer to sport than science; artists and sports players both “practice” as a central part of their competitive activities, and both create entertaining and often surprising outcomes that form the basis of our culture”. This was for the draft introduction but I was almost tarred, feathered and chased out of town by my own editorial board for writing such populist crap. The final result was I had to cut the sport reference although i snuck in a goal post metaphor in reference to arts funding. Anywho, the book had been partly funded by OZCO and the then liberal Minister for the Arts and Sport (yes, it was a joint portfolio in the late Howard years) came to the launch and when I told him he had a (right) chuckle. I was promptly told by a senior arts adviser eavesdropping nearby that he thought it was perverse that I would compare art to sport. So thanks for this piece…can I get off the bench now?

By: Zolton

Zolton — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:01:45 +0000

Interesting post Marcus. As the co-publisher with Zac of the Roar and Lost At E Minor, I come at it from the same angle as you do: impressed equally by the degree of dedication and passion it takes to sustain yourself in either of these fields. You’re right, they’re not mutually exclusive. We all know of a number of artists and musicians who are passionate sports nuts, for instance, including Bernard Fanning (Powderfinger) and The Rolling Stones, all of whom are cricket tragics; and Tim Rogers, of course, a fanatical AFL supporter. I think sports or arts, or both, are intrinsic to our very being. Indeed, I recall being given a t shirt many years ago by my aunt, which said simply: without music life is a mistake. Friedrich Nietzsche was a wise man, indeed.

By: Zac

Zac — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:19:14 +0000

Great post Marcus. I agree both sport and art are entirely non-essential from a practical perspective but also the very things that make us human.

Consider cows. They eat grass, and only grass. Yet they still have brains, eyes, nervous systems etc. You can’t tell me we humans really need to eat the range of food that we do if cows survive on grass. But embracing the non-essentials is what makes us humans.

My small company is unique in that we publish an arts and cultural website (www.lostateminor.com) as well as a sports website (www.theroar.com.au).

I reckon you’re right when you say we the two aren’t really that far away from each other.

By: Ben Farrelly

Ben Farrelly — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 01:11:30 +0000

I love how you use the word “segue”.

By: Alison Croggon

Alison Croggon — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:57:12 +0000

Absoliutely, Marcus. One of my favourite quotes about art comes from a football coach – “football is a nonsense. But it is a very serious nonsense.” The arts/sports divide is large perceptional rather than actual – I know very few arts people who aren’t fans of one sport or another (I’m a dilletante – my vices are the Tour de France, Wimbledon and the World Cup).

Then there are the artists who are or were also sportspeople, which is actually quite common. To take one famous example, Samuel Beckett was a useful batsman and has an entry in Wisden. Reportedly when he met Harold Pinter, neither of them – quite understandably – spoke about play writing, and itwas a bit awkward until they started talking about cricket, which ended up being all they talked about.