There are countless competitions in "art", ranging from one-act play
contents, to piano competitions, to National Book Awards, to Pulitzer Prizes.
But the only "rules" are usually confined qualifications for inclusion in a
genre or sub-genre ("Must not exceed ten-minutes playing time", "entrants must
play a work by Tchaikovski", "must be about a minority in America".The thing about sports is that it has sharp, measurable decision procedures. "Three strikes and you're out." "A ten-yard penalty shall be imposed for tripping." "A field goal is three points." "Each side may have no more than eleven players on the field when the ball is in play." I can imagine no serious, useful utility to coming up with similar procedural rules for "art". In a message dated 10/16/10 10:30:48 AM, [email protected] writes: > Actually, it is. The rules are veiled but ever-present and can be > enforced by > whim. Ugly. > wc > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: joseph berg <[email protected]> > To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Sat, October 16, 2010 5:43:16 AM > Subject: "...There is the flux of [creativity?], but it occurs within the > ordering confinement of clear rules." > > Should art be more like sport? > > (Original quote below): > > - There is an aura of changelessness to sport. There is the flux of > competition, but it occurs within the ordering confinement of clear rules. > > George F. Will
