# Art > Art & Art History >  Why is "art" synonymous with "painting"?

## Leopard

"Art" is notoriously difficult to define, but I think everyone will agree that it includes far more than painting. Yet "art" is often used as a synonym for "painting," like in the very title of this sub-forum. Why is that?

----------


## Jackson Richardson

The Oxford English Dictioary gives the earliest definition of art as Skill in doing something, esp. as the result of knowledge or practice from c 1300.

It comments that the most usual meaning nowadays is The expression or application of creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting, drawing, or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power but that is not found before the nineteenth century.

Although art can be used of poetry and other non visual arts, the plural arts would be more usual then.

Why the visual arts are more typically called art is your (interesting) question. I can only guess.

----------


## Pompey Bum

For some reason people are more comfortable preserving the illusion that art is something a canvass is doing rather than something they are doing with an artist.

----------


## Jackson Richardson

It may be that in the case of paintings and sculpture, the work itself demonstrates the skill of the artist so that we think of those arts as typically art. Poetry, novels, music and even architecture are created in the head of the artist first in a more obvious way.

----------


## Pompey Bum

> It may be that in the case of paintings and sculpture, the work itself demonstrates the skill of the artist so that we think of those arts as typically art. Poetry, novels, music and even architecture are created in the head of the artist first in a more obvious way.


You may be right. Perhaps it is because we live in a time when people do not know enough about poetry, novels, and music to recognize flaws that would be obvious in the visual arts. I can only speak for myself: I don't buy paintings or sculpture so I have no reason to analyze a work for technical skill. I often visit the Boston Museum of Fine Arts or the National Palace Museum near Taipei where I take virtuosity as a given and seek to appreciate the art on an individual level. The artist sent something and I receive it. Great things happen, but it is all at this interface in my noodle (or my soul, if you want). For me, that makes art criticism and orthodoxies of taste less relevant, although such things are always interesting and it is possible to learn from them. But technical ability is--the artists business? 

Now that I think of it, I hold the same assumption of virtuosity for most music I hear (granted I don't listen to much pop). I appreciate virtuosos for the intellectual and emotional individuality they bring, but I don't need to get too close to their mechanical processes. I enjoy jazz and classical music on the radio, for example, but I see no point to watching either on television. If I ever watch a symphony, I usually shut my eyes so I don't have to think about musicians and instruments. Cello music is sublime, but cellists never fail to look ridiculous. Yes, they're brilliant. Now be quiet and let me listen. 

I hold no such expectations for writers, though. I notice every flub and I find them harder to bear as I get older (I wish I could enjoy bad novels again but I can't). Yet I consider writing and reading to be a partnership in which both parties contribute to the final experience more than any other art form. I'm not sure why it should be an exception to the virtuosity principle. Perhaps it has something to do with the commercial realities of the publishing industry. Or maybe I should just educate myself enough about painting, sculpture, and music to recognize the mistakes I seem to be missing. I'm sure in time I could learn to enjoy them less, too.  :Smile:

----------


## Tammuz

There are several reasons why visual art is the most typical representative of art in general: 

(1) The visual sense of man (vision) is the most important because most informative of his senses, (2) visual art objects are materially fixed, can be received without any intermediary activity of interpreters/performers, and need not to be translated into imagination, and (3) visual art is the first art form in human history which became a concrete material element of cultural traditions (that is, shamanic cave art / there are cave paintings worth hanging in modern art galleries). 

The shamanism theory of archaeologist David Lewis-Williams and others says that rock paintings were produced by drug-consuming shamans for the purpose of showing to the rest of the tribe what the shaman had experienced on his or her soul flight. According to archaeologist Dean Snow most shamans might have been female, what is indicated by the measurable gender of handprints found beside many paintings as sort of signature. Of course, shamanic rituals also included rudimentary music and dance in order to evoke a trancy state of mind. Hence it is the field of archaic religion where art has originated. 

Most probably, literature as art form also sprung up in this field in form of shamanic oral reports of their experiences, some of which might have been orally delivered to posterity as the first appearances of mythology.

Despite the above stated plusses of pure visual art, other art forms (music, literature, movies) have special features which make them superior to pure visual art in some respects. 

As to music, it reaches far deeper into the ´soul´ of man, be it in the area of emotions or in the spiritual area. Music is not bound to represent elements of the objective world (as most visual art and literature are) but makes the ´soul strings´ immediately vibrate. Pythagoras was the first to propose a direct relation between the mathematical proportions of music scales and the mathematical proportions of the cosmic order. Later esotericians supplemented this theory by adding a relationship of both those structures to the structure of human soul. So music has undoubtedly the most intensive impact on human souls of all art forms.

Literature, on the other hand, is able to transmit information on a much larger scale than visual art. By way of talking to the imagination, it evokes mental representations of visual objects and activities, of sounds, of tastes, and of smells, as well as of feelings and thoughts either of the author or of narrative figures, all of which create a mental scenario in which the receiver might ´purify´ his or her soul. As is well-known, in the theory of Aristoteles the main purpose of literature consists in the ´catharsic´ (purifying) effect on the receiver. However, this idea is rather contested in our days because it seems to restrict the purpose of literature in a too moral sense. 

Originating in photography, theater and opera, movies are a very powerful variant of art. They combine all other art forms (visual art, music, and literature) to a ´total artwork´, a notion and concept by Richard Wagner which he propagated in some essays around 1850. 

In sum, movies have become – in my view and for the reasons forementioned – the most important art form in our days and probably for all future centuries. 

An example for the influence of music on painting is the abstract work of Kandinsky. He was inspired for that style by a synesthetic experience while listening to Wagner music in an opera house in Munich.

As to that experience, experiments with psychoactive drugs have proven an innate capacity of man of mixing sensual data, for example, hearing colors and seeing sounds.

----------


## stlukesguild

From the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans (as well as non-Western cultures such as India, China, and Japan) on through the Middle-Ages, the Visual Arts were largely seen within the context of architecture or an architectural setting. The dominant pictorial art form of this period of time was sculpture. In part, this was due to desire to convey solidity and eternity. In part this was due to the fact that many other art forms were far more likely to suffer from the ravages of time. Today, we have a great wealth of sculptural art from Greece and Rome... but very little painting has survived. 

From the Renaissance through the mid-20th century painting was unchallenged as the dominant visual art form. For every artist who worked almost exclusively as a sculptor, most who are knowledgeable of art history can name dozens of painters of equal or greater stature. Several artists (Ad Reinhardt, Barnett Newman) have been credited with the quote: "Sculpture is something you bump into when you back up to look at a painting." I suspect there is also the vagueness of the terms "painter" and "painting". If I were to tell someone that I am a "painter" more likely than not, they will assume I paint houses. So I would likely simply say "I'm an artist." Art/the Arts certainly include creative endeavors beyond the Visual Arts... including literature and music. If someone states that they are a musician or a composer both terms embrace the broad spectrum of musical art forms. The same is true of "literature" or "author". The term "author" embraces the poet, playright, critic, novelist, etc... "Art" (or to a lesser extent, "Visual Art") is simply embraced by visual artists as a catch phrase that embraces all the variety of visual art forms: painting, sculpture, the book arts, illustration, the fiber arts, ceramics, metalry, printmaking, photography, etc...

----------


## Leopard

> The Oxford English Dictioary gives the earliest definition of “art” as “Skill in doing something, esp. as the result of knowledge or practice” from c 1300.


I see, I knew "art" used to mean "skill" but not that the new meaning was so recent.




> There are several reasons why visual art is the most typical representative of art in general:


That's an interesting point about visual arts not requiring to be translated/performed. But regarding movies; don't you think that when combining several art forms, they distract from as well as enhance each other? It's true cinema is a dominant art form, but I'm not sure that's because of any inherent superiority to the more "pure" art forms.




> From the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans (as well as non-Western cultures such as India, China, and Japan) on through the Middle-Ages, the Visual Arts were largely seen within the context of architecture or an architectural setting.


Good point, I hadn't thought of the ambiguity of the word "painter." Why did painting become more dominant than sculpture in the Renaissance though, to the point where some artists would disrespect sculpture with a quote like that?

----------


## bounty

much more prosaically, I wonder if its because for the most part, when we take art class in school, painting was likely the most common or memorable element? 

and then in our adult lives, painting is still, at least seemingly, more ubiquitous---when we go places, we typically see paintings prominently placed on walls. 

on a side note---its interesting that we often refer to musicians as "artists" but rarely consider what musicians do as "art." 

I taught philosophy of sport for a couple of years and we did a few readings on the relationship between sport and art. I loved it and to this day still, the "aesthetic" in sport is a big draw for me.

----------


## stlukesguild

Tammuz- ...visual art objects are materially fixed, can be received without any intermediary activity of interpreters/performers, and need not to be translated into imagination...

This is partially true. But you need to realize that the full understanding of a work of visual art often depends upon prior knowledge.

For example, the average person raised in Western culture will likely recognize the subject of this painting...



... and understand that it is not merely some dipiction of a horrific form of torture (although it is that) without any deeper significance.

On the other hand, in spite of a rather broad knowledge of art history, I could not identify the subject of this painting off hand:



Even works withing the Western tradition may require a good deal of background information to be fully understood:



Having said that, visual art, like music, can be "understood" and appreciated purely in formal terms... for the "abstract" elements of art (color, line, space, etc...) and how they are organized. This is not true of literature. It would be highly unlikely that one might take much pleasure in reading a poem in German if one has no understanding of the language. 

As to music, it reaches far deeper into the ´soul´ of man, be it in the area of emotions or in the spiritual area. Music is not bound to represent elements of the objective world (as most visual art and literature are) but makes the ´soul strings´ immediately vibrate.

Walter Pater argued as much, suggesting that not only was music the most purely abstract of art forms, but it was also the art form in which form and content are the most inseperable. Many of the first experiments in abstraction in the visual arts were rooted in music and a desire for a greater unity of form and content. 

Literature, on the other hand, is able to transmit information on a much larger scale than visual art. 

I'm not certain I fully agree. Visual art and music communicate many things that cannot be really put into words. The shift toward Conceptual Art in the contemporary art world is owed in part to the fact that Visual Arts education has become increasingly academicized with an ever greater stress upon theory and criticism at the expense of time spent in the art studio. It is far easier to logically argue about iconography, symbolism, and "meaning" than it is to argue about the brilliance of color harmonies or the sensitivity of an artist's handling of line or paint strokes.

----------


## stlukesguild

Why did painting become more dominant than sculpture in the Renaissance though, to the point where some artists would disrespect sculpture with a quote like that?

Leonardo argued that painting was more poetic. I'm not sure about that. In part I suspect that it was due to an increased interest in an ever greater illusion of "reality". Sculpture took a single figure out of the context of the "real world" and presented that to the viewer. Painting offered up a window looking into the "real world" which a figure was seen within a the /space. Painting was also faster and cheaper, and far more capable of being transported or moved. Painting also brought the element of color into play to a far greater extent than sculpture.

----------


## Danik 2016

> much more prosaically, I wonder if its because for the most part, when we take art class in school, painting was likely the most common or memorable element? 
> 
> and then in our adult lives, painting is still, at least seemingly, more ubiquitous---when we go places, we typically see paintings prominently placed on walls. 
> 
> on a side note---its interesting that we often refer to musicians as "artists" but rarely consider what musicians do as "art." 
> 
> I taught philosophy of sport for a couple of years and we did a few readings on the relationship between sport and art. I loved it and to this day still, the "aesthetic" in sport is a big draw for me.


Though superficial this Wikipedia link provides an initial reference for the different types of expression called art:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_arts

I am not a fan of sports but the aesthetic aspect of it interests me. I know there is ornamental gym, there are body building techniques but that is about all I know about it. It would be nice to learn something more, bounty.

----------


## stlukesguild

I am not a fan of sports but the aesthetic aspect of it interests me. I know there is ornamental gym, there are body building techniques but that is about all I know about it. It would be nice to learn something more, bounty.

Well... to grasp the idea of the visual aesthetics of sports you might start with something like women's beach volleyball.  :Reddevil:

----------


## Tammuz

> That's an interesting point about visual arts not requiring to be translated/performed. But regarding movies; don't you think that when combining several art forms, they distract from as well as enhance each other? It's true cinema is a dominant art form, but I'm not sure that's because of any inherent superiority to the more "pure" art forms.?


As I wrote at the end of my article, human mind is apt to mix/combine/interchange sensual data; colors can ´speak´ and sounds are ´dark´ or ´bright´ or ´colorful´ and so on. In case the director is outstandingly gifted for combining vision and music, both spheres will definitely, as you say, enhance each other; examples are ´2001´, ´Clockwork Orange´, and - in my personal opinion - ´Transformers´ (composer: Steve Jablonsky). 

Take the Danube-Waltz in ´2001´: by combining it with a sequence of a shuttle approaching a huge Ferris-wheel-like orbit station, Kubrick has charged the waltz with much more expressiveness than it had before (of course, only for those who know the movie). Simultaneously, the space scene gains expressiveness by the music. We are faced here with the chicken-and-egg-question; maybe, it´s the visual scenery which captures the viewer at first so that he becomes more receptive for the accompanying sound. But basically it is true that both spheres are enhancing each other; one can compare this with the effect of complementary colors, for example, green / red, or yellow / violet; when combined, they gain by way of mutual input much more intensity (output), so painters often use them as amplifiers of the visual expression of a painting. ´2001´ is packed with equivalent examples, like the great Strauss fanfare at the beginning or the Ligeti sound in a moon scene or the Khatchaturian sound in the scene of the space ship majestically heading for Jupiter.




> Tammuz- ...visual art objects are materially fixed, can be received without any intermediary activity of interpreters/performers, and need not to be translated into imagination...
> 
> This is partially true. But you need to realize that the full understanding of a work of visual art often depends upon prior knowledge. For example, the average person raised in Western culture will likely recognize the subject of this painting...
> (...) ... and understand that it is not merely some dipiction of a horrific form of torture (although it is that) without any deeper significance.


This is a controversial point in art theory. You naturally know that in the art scene of the 19th century, historical, mythological and religious motifs became more and more disputed by artists who believed in the autonomy of visual art, that is, in the independence of the artistic expression from things that haven´t anything to do with painting in itself. The first to rebel against the traditional idea that painting has to transport non-visual contents were the Impressionists who reduced these contents to an extreme superficiality - that is, the viewer was not in need of knowing a wider cultural context of the shown scenery because he or she knew it from everyday life. The next step was the Expressionism which reduced the objects to half-abstract shapes. Kandinsky made the next and final step to abstraction using only colors and forms to express the basic visual energies, being inspired by music as I wrote before. Some years earlier, the artists Hilma af Klint and Frantisek Kupka created the first abstract paintings, both of them unfortunately remaining rather unknown in spite of their pioneer work.

So, radical advocates of the idea that painting should be basically independent of non-visual content would argue that the artificial value of - for example - the pictures shown in your article are only to be measured by the visual expressivity, independently from any historical or cultural background information.

So it is one thing to ´understand´ a painting and another thing to appreciate its articifial qualities. What is needed for understanding has nothing to do with these qualities. For example, to appreciate the quality of Rembrandt or Rubens or Leonardo or Caravaggio paintings, one needs no historical or religious or mythological background info. Moreover, in my view such info does not add anything to the artificial value of those paintings.

As to the *"deeper significance"* regarding the Christ painting, I see the problem of exactly determining what the significance really is. A Christ would say that the Son of God is shown in the worst moment of his passion before ascending to heaven (which of course is said to have occurred some days after). However, an atheist has another view on the scene, seeing a tortured itinerant preacher who has failed on his self-imposed messianic mission. Moreover, if the atheistic viewer doubts the historicity of the shown figures, the scene is reduced to a mere phantasma. 

So what is the value of background information in this case, if there is no consense on the historical background of the figures? 




> Walter Pater argued as much, suggesting that not only was music the most purely abstract of art forms, but it was also the art form in which form and content are the most inseperable. Many of the first experiments in abstraction in the visual arts were rooted in music and a desire for a greater unity of form and content.


I said basically the same (Kandinsky was inspired by music) at the end of my article.




> Literature, on the other hand, is able to transmit information on a much larger scale than visual art. 
> 
> I'm not certain I fully agree. Visual art and music communicate many things that cannot be really put into words.


Of course, but I don´t see the point which you are disputing. I mean exactly that to which you referred in the painting context, that is, the issue of background information which is, regarding paintings, thought to be obsolete by the advocates of the idea of ´pure´ visual art. In novels and screenplays the author has to provide a certain amount of back-info on figures and story, not too much, so that the tension does not lower, and not too little, so that the receiver is able to follow the story. Apart from this self-evident dramaturgical technique, a literary work necessarily contains a considerable amount of information that is needed for constructing a fictive world and fictive characters. Even more: a story is fundamentally built of information bits which are interwoven by the author to form a mental world in which the receiver emotionally and intellectually participates. In pure visual art (painting, sculpture, dance) this is neither possible (since they present mere frozen moments) nor - regarding the artificial value - basically necessary.

----------


## bounty

> I am not a fan of sports but the aesthetic aspect of it interests me. I know there is ornamental gym, there are body building techniques but that is about all I know about it. It would be nice to learn something more, bounty.
> 
> Well... to grasp the idea of the visual aesthetics of sports you might start with something like women's beach volleyball.


hah! laughs...

danik, lemme hunt up some of my old readings and i'll share a little bit here from them.

----------


## stlukesguild

This is a controversial point in art theory. 

"Controversial" indeed. The theories of Art pour l'Art and Formalism developed initially as a rejection of the notion that art can or should be judged upon non-Art external elements such as narrative, theology, morality, etc... The average member of the art audience during the Renaissance would not have questioned the idea that a painting might be deemed "poor" if it did not meet certain expectations in terms of religious expression, morality, etc... With the late 19th century, this idea was called into question. It was suggested that art might portray subjects or themes that were deemed ugly, inappropriate, unsavory, or even bland... and yet if the form in which these were realized was fine enough, such work might still qualify as "good" or even "great" art. 

You naturally know that in the art scene of the 19th century, historical, mythological and religious motifs became more and more disputed by artists who believed in the autonomy of visual art, that is, in the independence of the artistic expression from things that haven´t anything to do with painting in itself. 

Initially, the rejection of historical/mythological/religious themes had more to do with the artist's efforts to create an art that spoke of the "modern world". 

The first to rebel against the traditional idea that painting has to transport non-visual contents were the Impressionists who reduced these contents to an extreme superficiality - that is, the viewer was not in need of knowing a wider cultural context of the shown scenery because he or she knew it from everyday life...

I would avoid assigning the rejection of non-visual elements to any single group of artists or period. Rubens was painting landscapes that had no higher narrative meaning in the 1600s...

[IMG][/IMG]

The same was true of Gainsborough, Turner, Constable and numerous others...







Artists like Chardin and Zurbaran focused on the humble still life... which were essentially motifs for painting...





And artists like Vermeer and Boucher frequently focused upon scenes of everyday life:





Vermeer often repeated such motifs to the same degree later employed by the Impressionists... until it became something like a theme and variations in music...



The next step was the Expressionism which reduced the objects to half-abstract shapes. 

While Expressionist distortions might have been primarily formalist to some artists... pointing the way toward total abstraction... this certainly wasn't true of many of the Expressionists... especially not Munch or the German Expressionists. 







For these artists, formalist innovations remained a means to an end... a means of wrenching further meaning out of their chosen themes/subjects.

Kandinsky made the next and final step to abstraction using only colors and forms to express the basic visual energies, being inspired by music as I wrote before. Some years earlier, the artists Hilma af Klint and Frantisek Kupka created the first abstract paintings, both of them unfortunately remaining rather unknown in spite of their pioneer work.

Remember, that Formalism and Abstraction were not unchallenged in the 20th century. The German Expressionists, Surrealists, Magic Realists, Social Realists, Mexican Muralists... and even Picasso would have called these notions into question. 

So, radical advocates of the idea that painting should be basically independent of non-visual content would argue that the artificial value of - for example - the pictures shown in your article are only to be measured by the visual expressivity, independently from any historical or cultural background information.

Such is the theory of Greenbergian Formalism... but it was not universally accepted. Even leading figures of Abstract Expressionism (especially DeKooning and Guston) questioned the notion of removing narrative and non-art elements (the subject matter) from art. While one may embrace a film as primarily visual (_2001, A Space Odyssey,_ comes to mind) one would never suggest that the non-visual elements present in a film were not of importance in understanding and even valuing a film. The same is true of painting. Any element present is of importance in fully understanding the work. 

It would be pretentious of me to suggest I fully understand these works of art...





...based solely upon my notions of art rooted in Modernist Formalism. It would be no less pretentious to suggest I fully understand a Baroque narrative painting without having the least knowledge of the narrative employed or the tradition in which the work was created. 

So it is one thing to ´understand´ a painting and another thing to appreciate its articifial qualities. What is needed for understanding has nothing to do with these qualities. For example, to appreciate the quality of Rembrandt or Rubens or Leonardo or Caravaggio paintings, one needs no historical or religious or mythological background info. Moreover, in my view such info does not add anything to the artificial value of those paintings.

Yes... I can "appreciate"... "like" a work of art that I don't understand... we all bring prior knowledge of our own... prior experiences... to bear upon any work of art... yet it seems only logical that a greater understanding of a work will likely increase the appreciation... although the reverse is also possible.

----------


## bounty

> hah! laughs...
> 
> danik, lemme hunt up some of my old readings and i'll share a little bit here from them.


stluke---you might get a kick out of hearing, when I went in to look at my old readings, one is titled: "prurient interest diminishes female athletes" 

it was written back in the early 90s, would be interesting to hear what the author today might think of women's beach volleyball. 

danik---too much to read, but the viewing refreshed some of my memory. the readings mostly center around two questions, one is, "is sport, art?" authors took various positions trying to define the two, and then comparing, contrasting, disqualifying etc. at one point I think, the journal of the philosophy of sport posed that as a topic and solicited papers, some of which appeared in a journal dedicated to that topic. 

the second question is pretty much, what in sport is aesthetic or has aesthetic value, either for viewers or participants and the answering of the question goes beyond what are traditionally considered the "aesthetic sports"---skating, gymnastics, diving, dance, etc. 

the short directive for me is, when you watch sport, look for the beautiful. the first time I saw synchronized diving, it moved me to tears. I dislike the ending of basketball games because the purposeful fouling and subsequent stoppage of play disrupts the flow. sometimes in volleyball, a bump/set/spike combination will give me goose gumps. 

on another hand, athletics, in particular the human body in athletics, is itself the subject of art. most people are likely familiar with at least some of the sculptures of R. Tait McKenzie, whose works appear commonly in our culture, and on colleges campuses across north america.

https://www.pinterest.com/lorriesnel...tait-mckenzie/

one of the grad schools I went to housed a McKenzie collection and I get to see some of the original stuff first hand. 

also, some of you might find it interesting that pierre fredy (de Coubertin), the father of the modern Olympic movement, was instrumental also in having poetry contests during the Games, and actually won one (under a pseudonym) once.

----------


## stlukesguild

There's a long history of sports and athletes in art going back to the ancient Greeks (and beyond). It was a norm in Ancient Greece for athletes to exercise and compete in the nude... especially in Sparta. We see any number of examples of athletes in the buff from the ancient Greeks:


-The discus throw


-The discus again


-Runners (foot race)


-Horse race


-Wrestlers (Etruscan)


-Boxers (Minoan)

Scenes of athletes and sports fade with the Middle Ages as the church dominates the arts and art that praises human achievements... and the human body... is frowned upon. 





There are a good number of images of fencing, hunting, jousting, and other sports... still the arts remain dominated by the church and increasingly by wealthy aristocrats who are not overly interested in art praising the achievements of athletes that would likely come from the poorer classes.

With the Neo-Classical revival of the Renaissance and Classical GReece and Rome... and the subsequent movements of Romanticism and Realism we see an increasing apppearance of athletes and sports in art.


-Wrestling


-Wrestling again


-Boxing


-Horse racing

Edgar Degas was one of the artists who was most obsessed with athletes... specifically horse racing and dancers/ballet. He began his career with the intent of making himself into the next great history painter... painting multi-figure compositions of grandiose historical and mythological events. Among his favorite works of art were the bas relief sculpture of horse races and dancers from the ancient Greek temples such as the Parthenon. He sought an art that captured the human figure in motion. With time, however, he began to recognize that the history painting as he (and the painters of the academies) understood it, was no longer relevant to the modern world in which he lived. Ths he sought to find subjects in the modern world where his love of the human figure might be seen. Horse races and the ballet were two of his most used subjects. In both instances, he often focused upon the scenes backstage. With the ballet dancers, it was backstage where he was able to watch the dancers stretch and practice and repeat the movements. Various critics tried to read into Degas' love of the ballet, but he rejected any interpretation suggesting some deep social or psychological intent, stating that he was merely enamored of watching (and drawing) pretty girls in motion wearing beautiful costumes.


-Degas at the races


-Degas dancers



As we move into the 20th century we find many artists enamored of the more theatrical aspects of sports and dance... including the cabaret, burlesque, strippers, etc... George Bellows painted dozens of images of boxing:



While Paul Cadmus follows in Degas' tradition of backstage views... here with the circus performer (gymnast or trapeze performer) being "gilded" or oiled up:



With the rise of the Third Reich, the Nazis strove to revive the ideal of the "superhuman" Neo-Classical bodies of athletes as representative of the "Master Race":







Nazi Germany churned out an endless array of paintings, sculpture, and photographs of nude or near-nude muscular athletes. The fixation upon the male nude has led some to suggest an almost homoerotic aesthetic. Perhaps the most influential of Nazi artists was the film-maker Leni Riefenstahl:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6-0Cz73wwQ

The example of Sports in Nazi art was likely one reason for a sharp decline of sports imagery in subsequent art. To this we might also consider the impact of abstract art and the dominance of photographic art when it comes to art documenting human events. 


-Swimmer


-Gymnast


-Heptathelon 


-Dancer


-Dancer


-Body builder


-Yoga

Undoubtedly, images of female athletes dominate from the mid-19th century onward for the simple reason the the majority of visual artists... painters, sculptors, and photographers... were and remain heterosexual males. There might also be a lingering revulsion of images of the "superhuman" male athletes of the Nazis. We might also consider the fact that artists whose interest is the beauty of the human body (male or female) no longer need to justify such art by framing it as paintings of sports... or mythological narratives... etc...

There are still some outstanding examples of sports/athletes in painting and sculpture...

----------


## Danik 2016

Bounty and Stluke
Interesting contribuitions. Thanks for raising the theme, Bounty. And stluke, this last post is a real lecture on the subject and must have cost some research. I think it will make me look at sports contests in a new way.

----------


## bounty

by far my favorite piece at the louvre was the nike/winged victory statue. 

stluke, my undergrad school's health and PE building was also an art gallery of sorts. all the hallways were lined with art work, some of which you describe above and the famous wrestling/pancration statue sat prominently in the main entrance area. some years ago, but recently, there was a hubbub about having to take the works down because their upkeep was costing so much money. I don't know what the final disposition of that issue was. 

danik---in late 1999, espn produced a number of historical pieces having to do with the 50 greatest athletes of the century. if you want some particular insight into the aesthetic in sport, watch #36, the one about secretariat (you can find it on youtube). the aesthetic is not the purpose of the production, but there are plenty of allusions to it throughout. I used to show part of it in my class and for the most part, the students loved it.

----------


## bounty

oh and surely one of the best all time poems in the history of poetry is "casey at the bat!"

----------


## tonynguyen

I am fond of pointillism, especially works done by Camille Pissarro. Often impressionism works, those done by Manet and Monet in particular.

----------


## Cindyy35

It needs to be clarified that his used to be the mentality behind art and painting but not anymore. I would think there are many reason's why art is synonymous with painting, the reason's behind that would way to long to list.

----------

