4 edits
Originally posted by greenpawn34what do you do with that book? go through it, smile, say "whoa what a number!" ?
I have a telephone book full of people names, address and phone numbers.
A work of art?
I guess you don't. (I hope not!)
perhaps you see where this is going...
anyway, I'll stop from now on, I feel like I hijacked the thread and see we're not making much progress.
Originally posted by philidor positionwell, I guess you are right about those misconceptions. But still I don't understand how you can put chess as an art! How can chess compare to a Dali or to a Shakespear or to a Michelangelo? It just isn't the same!
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 sci ...[text shortened]... somehow with our subconscious, not always (and in fact, very rarely) conscious decisions.
you state: "those forms are one way or another filled in somehow with our subconscious" (wich is exactly were my reasoning went wrong, I agree), but does chess count as one of those forms? another question: how do those forms manifestate in our subconcious? Does it affect our mood? Make us happy or something?
One thing I am certain about: chess as a whole is not an art, its a game. And any particularly brilliant game you ask? I must say I also doubt this, but maybe you are right after all: it honours the genious of man. But doesn't Einstein's relativity theory do the same? Is it art then? I can't see how one can be art and the other not, can you?
1 edit
Originally posted by greenpawn34ah pawn dude, but art can be understood on different levels as well, for example, the lady with her Monet print, it is purely decorative, but to those versed in the history of art, one sees it as a revelation, the canvas is the most important thing, the capturing of light with vibrant colour, no longer does the composition need to be laboriously worked with painstaking detail, but must now contain vigour and spontaneity . etc etc, so yes there are different levels of understanding of this art which in turn foster different levels of appreciation, or should we say, different facets of appreciation. Chess is art.
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 heinzkatI actually think some parts of chess are science: the endgame for example, its just a purely analytical phase of the game, it's purely rational and no emotion is allowed to take part. I also consider preparation for one's games science, research at least!
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 ...[text shortened]... r game - for kids... that is played by grumpy adult men. What is wrong with you people...!
Originally posted by orion25is not the endgame simply pure technique, for those who know its intimacies?
I actually think some parts of chess are science: the endgame for example, its just a purely analytical phase of the game, it's purely rational and no emotion is allowed to take part. I also consider preparation for one's games science, research at least!
Originally posted by heinzkatIts a game of war.
The "endgame" in chess is like science: just moving around a bunch of figures on a grid.
Perhaps a better question is: how can I explain what chess is, to someone who never plays the game. (and in the meantime explaining to myself what the hell I think I am doing).
[hidden]bump[/hidden]
You are right TT Heinzcat is quoting solo player computer games.
You cannot play these games on a board and record the moves
and play out and marvel at the game 100 years later.
Yup. Between us we have refuted Heinz's argument.
Thread closed
TT & greenpawn: 1 Heinzcat :0
----------------------------------🙂--------------------------------------
Originally posted by greenpawn34There I edited my post so as not to detract from our argument. 🙂
You are right TT Heinzcat is quoting solo player computer games.
You cannot play these games on a board and record the moves
and play out and marvel at the game 100 years later.
Yup. Between us we have refuted Heinz's argument.
Thread closed
TT & greenpawn: 1 Heinzcat :0
----------------------------------🙂--------------------------------------