BuffettNews.com

This came up in the Faith Hill thread, and a post reminded me of a discussion hubby and I were having the other day. He doesn't think "the arts" should be competitve.

For an actor, this would mean "winning" meant being cast in a play, movie, TV show and acting/monologue competitions would not exist, nor would the Emmy, Oscar, or Tony awards.

The same would go for dance competitions, musicians, etc.

We had some pretty good arguments for/against competition within the arts, and I'm interested to see what y'all think.

(My conversation with hubby actually stemmed from an acting festival in February in which Victoria has been invited to compete in an acting/monologue competition against other kids. I guess I don't see it any different than if Victoria had a soccer game every Saturday. Victoria sees it from both points of view. She's a great actress and has an excellent shot at winning the competition, however she sees her daddy's point of view which is to appreciate her talent as only artistic expression.)

What, no poll??

I have mixed feelings. I guess it's because too often awards in the arts seem to be based as much on popularity as they are on talent.

I could care less; I don't watch the awards' shows.

However, it is more than just being cast. It is giving a convincing performance. Hence, winners are usually someone who portrays someone completely opposite from their actual life.

Dustin Hoffman - Rain Man
Al Pacino - Scent of a Woman
Tom Hanks - Forrest Gump
Sean Penn - I am Sam
Cuba Gooding Jr - Radio

By all means get rid of all competitions nobody should strive to be the best in their field.

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:What, no poll??

Maybe this thread is art.

Skibo wrote:By all means get rid of all competitions nobody should strive to be the best in their field.

The question isn't whether or not people should strive to be the best in their field. It's should actors, musicians, etc. compete for awards. You can be the best at what you do without getting a plaque to hang on your wall or a statue to put on a shelf.

Skibo wrote:By all means get rid of all competitions nobody should strive to be the best in their field.

That's not the point, though. My husband is very, very competitive in everything he does. He just happens to think "artsy" things shouldn't be of a competitive nature because they are judged subjectively instead of objectively. I made good arguments for the technicality of dance and things such as speech/debate which are very similar to acting/monologue competitions.

I think competition is good for the spirit and is what drives people to be the best they can be. However, not all things NEED to be competitive, and maybe arts is one of them.

Then what would be the point of Band Camp?

To bang the drum all day?

buffettbride wrote: He just happens to think "artsy" things shouldn't be of a competitive nature because they are judged subjectively instead of objectively. I made good arguments for the technicality of dance and things such as speech/debate which are very similar to acting/monologue competitions.

I think competition is good for the spirit and is what drives people to be the best they can be. However, not all things NEED to be competitive, and maybe arts is one of them.

OK if I follow the argument correctly, what about figure skating and gymnastics, they are subjectively judged. Would you agree to get rid of these competitions also.

An actor performing in a movie isn't compeating against another actor directly. Yes, those awards are popularity contests in a sense. In the end all artists are rated on one thing - sales, they either have them or they don't. I believe John Sayles is a great director and deserves higher acclaim. Unfortunately he doesn't have the sales (unintential pun)

Kids, let them compete, it gives the parents something to fight about.

I never thought about it until someone mentioned it in the Faith Hill is Ticked thread.

I think the original concept started out as a good thing. Something to award someone that was actually outstanding.

Over the years there have been SO many awards now it's really belittled any of them that were meant for any good.

Lifetime achievement awards are merited. But let's look a the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, it's not that anymore. It's a "I deserve to be in there" thing now and "I was influential in the music industry" when in reality you didn't influence the whole industry and maybe you didn't even influence Rock.

If the awards should even be given out there should be better rules or limits. It's a sad truth that somehow being substandard that Carrie Underwood got the award that probably should have gone to anyone else.

We can also see this in movies. The Oscars and such are just absurd. Half the time movies the normal everyday person never heard of get some award.

Face it, we live in a "look at me" society and it's getting worse not better.

Skibo wrote:OK if I follow the argument correctly, what about figure skating and gymnastics, they are subjectively judged. Would you agree to get rid of these competitions also.

Figure skating and gymnastics are sports, or at least some people think they are. The topic of the thread is the arts - music, acting - not sports.

LIPH wrote:

Skibo wrote:OK if I follow the argument correctly, what about figure skating and gymnastics, they are subjectively judged. Would you agree to get rid of these competitions also.

Figure skating and gymnastics are sports, or at least some people think they are. The topic of the thread is the arts - music, acting - not sports.

Both "sports" judging is subjective, there is even an artistic merit score. IMO they are more artistic then sport. (no ball/no clock/no target = no sport)

I don't see these awards as competitions, they are more recognition by peers or others for their accomplishments. Some are based on voting by peers, others by the public and others by critics. None of these awards really mean much except to the person that felt they were snubbed. I doubt that many if any performers write a song with the intention of winning an award.

LIPH wrote:I have mixed feelings. I guess it's because too often awards in the arts seem to be based as much on popularity as they are on talent.

We are on the same page there, Larry. It even seems to "infect" the academies.

tikitatas wrote:

LIPH wrote:I have mixed feelings. I guess it's because too often awards in the arts seem to be based as much on popularity as they are on talent.

We are on the same page there, Larry. It even seems to "infect" the academies.

All things being equal, a great comic actor will almost never beat out a great dramatic actor for an award, no matter how good the comic actor's performance may be.

12vmanRick wrote:

Face it, we live in a "look at me" society and it's getting worse not better.

The "look at me" aspect is critical, though, because what good is a genius pianist if no one is around to listen? What good is a stellar actor if no one can see him perform? Why would anyone be a painter if that painting stayed hidden forever and ever? The "look at me" quality of a person is often what drives one to the arts to begin with, so I feel it's very important.

I absolutely agree that the number of awards for any one discipline has simply made most of the awards not important because they simply don't stand out any longer.

Does art for art's sake exist?

LIPH wrote:

tikitatas wrote:

LIPH wrote:I have mixed feelings. I guess it's because too often awards in the arts seem to be based as much on popularity as they are on talent.

We are on the same page there, Larry. It even seems to "infect" the academies.

All things being equal, a great comic actor will almost never beat out a great dramatic actor for an award, no matter how good the comic actor's performance may be.

Great comedians are often not rewarded by their peers (or The Academy) until they pull off a stellar dramatic role. Tom Hanks, Robin Williams, and the like.

Skibo wrote:

LIPH wrote:

Skibo wrote:OK if I follow the argument correctly, what about figure skating and gymnastics, they are subjectively judged. Would you agree to get rid of these competitions also.

Figure skating and gymnastics are sports, or at least some people think they are. The topic of the thread is the arts - music, acting - not sports.

Both "sports" judging is subjective, there is even an artistic merit score. IMO they are more artistic then sport. (no ball/no clock/no target = no sport)

I don't see these awards as competitions, they are more recognition by peers or others for their accomplishments. Some are based on voting by peers, others by the public and others by critics. None of these awards really mean much except to the person that felt they were snubbed. I doubt that many if any performers write a song with the intention of winning an award.

Figure Skating has a clock. Routines are timed to meet competition guidelines. As are floor exercises in gymnastics (which is the most "artsy"of the gymnasts routine). Other aspects of gymnasts are highly technical and do have targets; the targets being parallel bars, balance beams. By not meeting those targets, i.e. landing, a lower score is achieved.

buffettbride wrote:
Does art for art's sake exist?

yes, but you never hear of them because they aren't the "look at me" crowd