C'mon, Cheerskep, we occasionally agree about things, especially in that very important, recent topic of "thinking in words, or not in words"
Maybe I didn't echo your last post with a hearty "I agree!" -- but I did go to world literature to dig up an example similar to your little story about the man in the sinking ship. Doesn't that count? And - yes, we agree that "that certain athletes display a grace of form that is discernibly distinguishable from their effectiveness, a style that confers its own separate pleasure." But I would claim that this separate pleasure is neither necessary nor sufficient to attract many viewers to sporting events. Or -- at least, definitely not me -- so, for example, I can't stand to watch ice hockey because I've never learned the rules -- even if those skaters can sometimes appear quite balletic. But maybe you're different? And -- maybe your notion of aesthetic does not include variables like deep-shallow, delicate-coarse, profound-trivial, high-low, etc (actually - it would be fun to list as many as possible -- and in most of them, Sports comes out on the bottom -- except for exciting-dull) *************************************************** In a message dated 5/16/08 11:25:16 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Would you remember Owens' style if he never won a race? > I might, but I agree my overall pleasure in viewing the event would be reduced. I'm a Red Sox fan. J.D. Drew is on the Red Sox. Whenever he's at bat I growl to my wife, "Look -- does not he not swing and miss with almost balletic grace?" I claim that certain athletes display a grace of form that is discernibly distinguishable from their effectiveness, a style that confers its own separate pleasure. Don't you? C'mon, Chris, distinguish yourself from Derek: Say you agree with some remark even though you didn't think of it yourself. > Chris goes on: > "yes, an awkward athlete is very exciting -- as long as he's a winner." Oop. You got me. You agreed. > > More like -- "Winning isn't everything - it's the only thing" -- so > (like Pete Rose -- all cramped up at the plate and sliding headfirst into > every base) > I despised Vince Lombardi and most of his Olympian pronouncements. "You could run faster without that moustache. Shave it off. "(Joke: One night Lombardi comes home in the freezing cold. He gets in bed with his wife, and his frigid feet touch her leg. "God, you're cold!" cries his wife. "In bed you may call me 'Vince', dear," says Lombardi.) Winning may be all Lombardi was interested in, but it's far from the only thing. You and I and lots more on this forum can also -- indeed, simultaneously -- take pleasure in a great athlete's grace and smoothness of style. Chris: > > "Perhaps the excitement that accompanies the drama of winning or losing > could be called an aesthetic interest -- but if so, it reflects the coarsest > kind of taste." > Oh wow -- I didn't know that. Where can I go look it up? I can't claim any subtlety of mind when I say I can distinguish "graceful" from "exciting", and even "drama" from exciting. Drama requires specific, ad hoc set-up, preparation. We can be "excited" by an event when our only preparation is our experience of everyday life. Awkward things can be exciting. If they also display grace, that's an add-on to the pleasure of our witnessing. If, further, they come wrapped in drama, that's the hat-t rick; grace, excitement, drama. What channel will it be on?! _____________________________________________________________ Click to see huge collection of discounted designer watches. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/Ioyw6ijlx7IVb6T7SAxQhTCPfKmsxh EFvm3PexMz1qIwlURM3dBRoI/?count=1234567890
