Chess

Originally posted by orion25
sorry guys, chess is not an art.

See art has mening, filosophical meaning, it apeals to men and it makes him think about his existence, about life, and death and about the world and the everything. Art is not just aestethics, heck it doesn't even have to be beutifull to be art! If there is anything that illustrated this point better it is these modern pai ...[text shortened]... d greatly. But it shall never be art. Its just a game...

sorry guys, chess is not an art.

wow, what an artistic forum post. I loved the chorus.

Art may not be limited to aesthetics, but if something is aestethical, and is the product of purposeful human action, it has an artistic value in it.

something doesn't have to make you "think about your existence, your life, death and about the world and everything" to qualify as art. Chess does in fact make me think about those, but even if it weren't, it would still be art.

your example for your argument was actually a counter example. if you can interpret a huge red box as art, then a chess game is very easily qualified.

Originally posted by philidor position
wow, what an artistic forum post. I loved the chorus.

Art may not be limited to aesthetics, but if something is aestethical, and is the product of purposeful human action, it has an artistic value in it.

something doesn't have to make you "think about your existence, your life, death and about the world and everything" to qualify as art. Ch ...[text shortened]... ple. if you can interpret a huge red box as art, then a chess game is very easily qualified.

the thing with these modern artists is just that: the beutifull and the ugly are not art in itself, these are the means to an end. An artist tries to illustrate some point, whatever it is, by appealing to the senses of human beings: making people think.

What is art without meaning? Its the same as cars without engines, or bicicles without weels, or chess without moves for that matter. It just doesn't work. It's nothing, it's static. It's a romance without motion, without time.

In this way something can be beautifull and still not be art. Chess is beutifull, I agree, but it is not art. How can it be when its purpose is not to make one think about life but to checkmate the oponent? See this is the other important aspect of art I want to focus: its purpose. You say chess makes you think about existence, life and the everything, I believe you. When I think about chess I also ask myself why am I doing this? Why am I playing? But, as oposed to art, chess has not the purpose to make us think. Art on the other hand has the sole purpose to make one think, chess is a game, its purpose is to win, if it makes you think, then chess isn't fullfilling its purpose.

As a response to robbie, decoration is not art, see the purpose of decoration is to make the place more beutifull, more pleasing to live in, the purpose of art is to make one think, if your decoration makes you think, about romance or love even, then it qualifies as art, that is my conception at least... I don't know what else to say, I guess our philosophical views on art are just different.

Originally posted by orion25
An artist tries to illustrate some point, whatever it is, by appealing to the senses of human beings: making people think.

What is art without meaning? Its the same as cars without engines, or bicicles without weels, or chess without moves for that matter.

How can it be when its purpose is not to make one think about life but to checkmate the oponent? ...[text shortened]... make the place more beutifull, more pleasing to live in, the purpose of art is to make one think

I think all these are based on a misconception about art. you're arguing that a work of art is:

1)something with a meaning that can be described or represented verbally.
2)designed to make you think about life, world, existence etc.

To me these are simply wrong assumptions. these would suit better for a piece of propaganda sheet, or a science exam paper, but not all forms of art. first of all, even the artist himself doesn't always "think" in the sense you use the term (thinking about life, thinking about our existence etc.)

art doesn't always have to carry a full substance, sometimes it's in the form of pure forms. those forms are one way or another filled in somehow with our subconscious, not always (and in fact, very rarely) conscious decisions.

This debate still rages.

To me chess is beautiful and some of the things I've seen
on a chess board have had me gushing lyrical claiming artistry.

But this 'art' can only be seen by players who know the game.

Art is and should be universal.

Chess is closer to being a science than an artform.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Happy as is in content.

Happy as in posting on a forum read by chess players.

And that makes you happy? Are you nuts?

Chess is science: utter nonsense. Just because some people make computers poop out a bunch of unintelligible strings of piece movements and statistics, does not mean it is scientific in any way.

Chess is art: yes... but then you can call anything "art" - it is a term that is just too vague. A toilet seat can be seen as art, a brick in a wall can be seen as art, you can even see your own middle finger as a piece of (God's?!) art. So chess can be "art" too - but aesthetically pleasing? Come on now! They're just some pieces on a grid. No art.

Chess is a game, just like any other game, just with a different set of rules. Is this true then? But what kind of game is it? Just another game - for kids... that is played by grumpy adult men. What is wrong with you people...!

Originally posted by heinzkat
And that makes you happy? Are you nuts?

er.......yes.

Chessnuts!! 😀

Originally posted by greenpawn34
But this 'art' can only be seen by players who know the game.

Art is and should be universal.

Chess is closer to being a science than an artform.

sorry gp but are you even reading the responses you get?

play heavy metal to a cave man and he'll run away screaming. read a spanish novel to me and I won't understand a thing.

show me a kind of art that is universal and can be seen by anyone.

I don't even need the cave man example here. it takes almost some kind of education to start enjoying jazz music. a huge, enormous majority of people on earth finds jazz as random notes. now isn't that art?

why put chess in another category?

Originally posted by heinzkat
Chess is art: yes... but then you can call anything "art" - it is a term that is just too vague. A toilet seat can be seen as art, a brick in a wall can be seen as art, you can even see your own middle finger as a piece of (God's?!) art. So chess can be "art" too - but aesthetically pleasing? Come on now! They're just some pieces on a grid. No art.

I could find something artistic about my middle finger, but that wouldn't be enough to define it as a work of art. why? because it's my middle finger!

true, a lot of things serve aesthetical functions. However, that's not always enough to define things as art.

what is soccer? it's a sport! simple as that. watching barcelona smash their opponents I think is totally an aesthetical enjoyment, but that doesn't make soccer art. soccer is never only soccer of course, it's even politics in certain contexts, but it's not art, nor politics, because it's basically a sport.

well now, chess on the other hand, is nothing other than an art, but again, basically. so it could, and should be defined as some kind of art.

and obviously, yes it's a game too. a game that is basically an art.

Chess is a board game. Is Monopoly a form of art too?

Originally posted by heinzkat
Chess is a board game. Is Monopoly a form of art too?

good question. No.

do you have databases of monopoly games played by monoply players? No? Why not? because they don't have much aesthetical value now, do they?

But you do have databases of games of chess played by chess players. Just like you have databases of music played by musicians. (cds, dvds etc).

I have videos of the 101 greatest goals ever made in football. They're real pieces of art. 😞

Hi PP.

I see what you mean and thinking about it beauty and art is in
the eye of the beholder.

You and others think Chess is a form of art.

Myself and others think not (though I would love it to be seen more
unversally as such).

Our conceptions of what is and what is not art differ.

The English Dictionary coldly defines chess as a game, not as a form of art.

I'll go along with that.

Originally posted by philidor position
good question. No.

do you have databases of monopoly games played by monoply players? No? Why not? because they don't have much aesthetical value now, do they?

But you do have databases of games of chess played by chess players. Just like you have databases of music played by musicians. (cds, dvds etc).

I have a telephone book full of people names, address and phone numbers.

A work of art?

OK, so chess is art. What art is, is quite debatable. Let's skip that bit from now on...:

What is chess, ...apart from being a rather miserable form of art.