I here attempt to show that sport can legitimately be regarded as art. Both art and sport appear to be open concepts in that they are unamenable to an absolute definition. This is not though to mean that we are not allowed at all to speak about certain characteristics that both concepts possess, in that otherwise, everything could be art or everything could be sport. My discussion then, in an attempt to reveal their relation, or how close is the intimacy between them and therefore to explore the possibility of whether sport can be legitimately regarded as art, is in terms of similarities and common characteristics. One may find innumerable similarities or common features between them, such as institutionalization, or the fact that both art and sport can be performed on stages, or arenas, presented for a public and so forth. However, my inquiry here focuses on an attempt to discern the most important or central (as opposed to peripheral) characteristics that both concepts possess, in a task where finding these characteristics would enable one plausibly to assert that sport can be regarded as a form of art. I have concentrated on demonstrating main common characteristics between these two concepts with respect to the nature of sport, to the aesthetic and to the artistic, which I believe enable me to make such a contention. Moreover, my discussion focuses on David Best's misconceived distinction between purposive and aesthetic sports in relation to Immanuel Kant's considerations of beauty in the arts.
Tijdschrift beschrijving