Given the choice to be a spectator at one event, would you prefer your “violence” in the form of a “legitimate” sport or as a form of physical theatre? As philosopher David Best noted in his 1978 essay, “The aesthetic in sport,” the notion of an aesthetic athlete or sporting phenomenon can encompass both the beautiful and the ugly. Art history reveals a wealth of examples of horrific images that are meant to illustrate both beauty and the grotesque, sometimes simultaneously. Imagine a photograph of an MMA athlete executing a perfect arm bar on her opponent, the image clearly capturing the extended arm an instant before the pressure causes the elbow to pop out of place, or the arm bone to visibly snap. The image itself conveys precision, efficiency, and a potential for grotesque bone and ligament contortions if the opponent does not tap. Imagine another photograph, a close-up of the face of a pro wrestler emerging from the mat, having used a razor blade to draw blood and, in theory, add dramatic effect in the match. The self-as-canvass. In this case the camera intentionally misses the act itself, thus preserving the illusion that a fist or chair, not the practice of “blading,” caused the steady flow of plasma that signifies “reality” to the audience. Viewing the grotesque can illicit feelings of empathy or disgust. Grotesque acts of violence, whether by one athlete against another, or by one performer against himself, ultimately need not be. Yet, the foreshadowing of violence and the visual aftereffects of violence are important to the phenomenology of the aesthetic in MMA and wrestling. I watched both this weekend, and I am still not sure which I prefer, or whether I should even be watching them at all.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Reality/Illusion, Violence, and the Grotesque
Given the choice to be a spectator at one event, would you prefer your “violence” in the form of a “legitimate” sport or as a form of physical theatre? As philosopher David Best noted in his 1978 essay, “The aesthetic in sport,” the notion of an aesthetic athlete or sporting phenomenon can encompass both the beautiful and the ugly. Art history reveals a wealth of examples of horrific images that are meant to illustrate both beauty and the grotesque, sometimes simultaneously. Imagine a photograph of an MMA athlete executing a perfect arm bar on her opponent, the image clearly capturing the extended arm an instant before the pressure causes the elbow to pop out of place, or the arm bone to visibly snap. The image itself conveys precision, efficiency, and a potential for grotesque bone and ligament contortions if the opponent does not tap. Imagine another photograph, a close-up of the face of a pro wrestler emerging from the mat, having used a razor blade to draw blood and, in theory, add dramatic effect in the match. The self-as-canvass. In this case the camera intentionally misses the act itself, thus preserving the illusion that a fist or chair, not the practice of “blading,” caused the steady flow of plasma that signifies “reality” to the audience. Viewing the grotesque can illicit feelings of empathy or disgust. Grotesque acts of violence, whether by one athlete against another, or by one performer against himself, ultimately need not be. Yet, the foreshadowing of violence and the visual aftereffects of violence are important to the phenomenology of the aesthetic in MMA and wrestling. I watched both this weekend, and I am still not sure which I prefer, or whether I should even be watching them at all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you're actually asking two questions here, Ted: first, the question of traditional sport vs. physical theatre, and second, the question of live vs. camera-mediated sport consumption. I think the latter is very critical to your overall investigation as the camera focuses what is a highly multisensual experience into one that is predominantly visual. In addition, it offers an almost prophylactic layer to protect one from the memes of violence that could otherwise infect.
ReplyDeleteFinally, speed in the technical apparatus of television production and consumption: the resolution and frame rate of television cameras and receivers are much faster now for lower cost. In the past, with poorer quality video, athletes were relatively too fast for the cameras to keep up with them. Today, despite faster athletes, the speed of TV has now leapfrogged to the point that it arrests players in motion, so to speak, making the activity look slower than it used to look. Time-axis manipulation on top of that changes things even more.
-sportsbabel
Physical theatre for sure! More entertainment/drama and less scrambled people with no way to contribute to society later in life.
ReplyDeleteTed,
ReplyDeleteHurting other people is NOT cool.
Being a spectator I definitely would rather see reality over theatre, in fact I don't watch sports that has this sense "being fake." I'm a huge soccer fan, but one thing I dislike about the sport is that so much of the game has become about trying to fake a foul in order to deceive the referee and the people in the stadium. If you tune in today to watch a soccer game from anywhere in Europe you most likely will see a player rolling around on the floor, when even if he was fouled it was a very light challenge. Most of the time the referee buy's this act and will award the foul. One interesting thing is that this idea of trying to fake in order to get a foul seems to be getting worse and more and more players are adopting the practice. I heard somewhere on TV that around 20 years ago and before, if a player tried to foul another player the player being fouled would try to stay up and continue playing as a way of showing he was tougher than the other player. It's too bad that this way of playing is history, but who knows maybe it will make a comeback some day.
ReplyDeleteI feel that society now a days glorifies violence and the grotesque results. I have noticed that this coloration has been increasing through out the years. Our cultural hegemony bask in violence, especially in male orientated topics. In recent times, a "man" movie consist of violence, the alpha male persona, explosions, and a heavy amount of exaggerated masculinity. This hegemonic masculinity role has persisted throughout our everyday lives and relationships with each other. The "ideal male" has to be this tough guy who is oversexed and has minimal empathy. Regardless of how ridiculous this sounds, we live in a society that tries to live by these standards. This masculine persona projects violence to be acceptable. In the realm of sports violent acts transgress as just playing too hard, or just getting too much into the game. We create these excuses that mask violence, which makes them appear to an extent as acceptable and appropriate behavior. This is why I feel that we have acclimated ourselves to the establishment of violence as a form of entertainment. Many of us are attracted to the concept of violence in particular topics. After all, violence does add some type of excitement and I am guilty of being attracted to the spectacle that violence adds.
ReplyDeleteNim Baylon (Kin 164)