Chess as an Art

Originally posted by Drew L
indeed, nearly everyone could be called an artisan

If that's the case, then we should consider a new definition for artisan.

Originally posted by chessisvanity
CHESS IS CHESS!!!!

Thank you. People call it a sport. A hobby. An art. But to me, it's a board game called "chess."

Now that's what I call art 😛

Of course MM's post is good and meaningful.

I think this is what you would call a purely semantic argument. You can argue endlessly about the true definition of the word "art" and you'll never get anyone to agree.

Although I'm not sure I would take my opinions on art from someone who calls Pollock "barf-like" 😉

I suppose it's meaningless really to discuss this topic. Chess is simply just a game that we all enjoy, and there are enough variations about chess to worry about. It's like asking if obesity is a disease or a condition when losing weight should be the priority.

Anyway I was just expressing my view

Edit: I apologize for the Pollock statement it was just a figure of speech. Didn't know you were such of a fan of human waste 🙂

Originally posted by MoneyMaker7
It's like asking if obesity is a disease or a condition when losing weight should be the priority.

well said.

but for the sake of discussion, obesity is a condition

I think that when we call something "art", we're saying it was created for the purpose of stimulating in the viewer (or listener) an aesthetic experience of some sort. While a "mate in seven" may generate a positive aesthetic experience in the viewer, the combination wasn't created for that purpose. So, the "beautiful" mate-in-seven is, in my view, not art (though it may be beautiful).

Disease: A pathological condition of a part, an organ, or a system of an organism resulting from various causes

Seems like obesity falls under disease. All this is meaningless. Just like King Solomon says in the bible, all is meaningless. Just live a happy life and enjoy the little time you have.

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
I think that when we call something "art", we're saying it was created for the purpose of stimulating in the viewer (or listener) an aesthetic experience of some sort. While a "mate in seven" may generate a positive aesthetic experience in the viewer, the combination wasn't created for that purpose. So, the "beautiful" mate-in-seven is, in my view, not art (though it may be beautiful).

I agree. Chessplayers play chess to win, and only as a sideeffect do we create art, but it's not the main purpose. A 99 yard drive by a football team drives fans wild (some guys take their shirts off...). It's beautiful in some way, but it's not art.

I consider chess a board game, nothing more...

Originally posted by MoneyMaker7
I suppose it's meaningless really to discuss this topic. Chess is simply just a game that we all enjoy, and there are enough variations about chess to worry about. It's like asking if obesity is a disease or a condition when losing weight should be the priority.

Anyway I was just expressing my view

Edit: I apologize for the Pollock statement it was just a figure of speech. Didn't know you were such of a fan of human waste 🙂

Heh, that is an interesting type of apology: you take back "barf-like" but give me "human waste" 😉

By the way, the guy you're thinking of who just paints a rectangle and a square is probably Mark Rothko, one of the most renowned and (IMO) talented 20th century American painters.

Originally posted by Drew L
I consider chess a board game, nothing more...

At least it's not a "bored" game! 🙂

Originally posted by incandenza
Heh, that is an interesting type of apology: you take back "barf-like" but give me "human waste" 😉

By the way, the guy you're thinking of who just paints a rectangle and a square is probably Mark Rothko, one of the most renowned and (IMO) talented 20th century American painters.

Talented? Explain...

Originally posted by MoneyMaker7
Many people think Chess is not only a game, but an Art and a Science.

While I think it's true that in Chess we have to express ourselves, but more and more I am thinking that it's only something we chessplayers say to make staring at a black and white board for hours on end less insane sounding.

First of all, "Art", is incomparible. You cannot say en. Therefore, as a Science, Chess can be judged and criticized and improved.

Sorry, but based on your post, it's pretty evident that you've yet to develop an understanding of "art".

for starters:
- one can understand art well enough to judge who's "better", just as one can with any other discipline. The more one understands the better one can judge.

- not everyone who picks up clarinet or uses markers is making art.

- not all "originality" is worthy of praise.

- interpreting and judging art is anything but a "natural skill". It has to be developed.

- the trained "eye" can most certainly pick out "blunders" in art.

Originally posted by MoneyMaker7
Talented? Explain...

The influential Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer had some interesting insights on how the ugly and the profane became celebrated (in some circles) features in some twentieth-century art works in his little book, "Escape from Reason." (This would be an interesting topic in another forum.)

why can't we just say it's Chess? why do we need to catagorize it?

it can't be put in a catagory....Chess is it's own catagory.

Chess is Chess. not art ...not science....not a sport....it's Chess.