Anonymous #2 1d

Respect the decree of John Art

19

Anonymous #5 18h

Jokes aside, I really think sports are a genre of art. I look at Kyrie Irving highlights and I think it is beautiful, and I see no reason not to call him an artist.

2

Anonymous #1 18h

I sort of think of art as making something beautiful for its own sake where sports are primarily about competition for its own sake.

5

Anonymous #1 18h

Sports can be artistic but not every sport is an art and not every athlete is an artist. As I said in my original comment there is nuance to classification and that is part of what art is. Kyrie irving being a phenomenal player that inspires you and loves what he does doesn't make him an artist in my personal opinion but the joy of it all is that we dont have to agree and thats completely ok!

4

Anonymous #3 16h

This is one place that I differ from the way most people think about art. I think even bad art is still art. Anyone who even casually draws, sings, or cooks is engaging with art and is an artist, even if the primary motivation isn’t emotional expression. When people set up arbitrary rules to make a game then compete against each other, that is art. I do this because it opens a world of humble art that is worth paying attention to.

1

Anonymous #1 16h

No one said the primary motivation has to be emotional expression. I dont think youre exactly understanding what I said 🫶

1

Anonymous #3 16h

An arbitrary line of emotional expression is an extremely common definition of art that I don’t really like. #5 said “Art for arts sake”, and I was referring to that. I was responding to both of you

1

Anonymous #1 16h

In the full context of their comment they said they specifically dont view competition as art not that art had to be emotional, def not trying to argue with you to be clear, all love 🫶

8