Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Bullfighting: is it an art?

Rate this topic


CGA

Recommended Posts

If you are going to challenge Ellison on this point it would be more appropriate for you not to drop the context that differentiates it from your example. You dropped all of the context that was significant to his argument.
What relevant part did he drop?

For the sake of argument, Ellison granted that the first person who came up with bullfighting might have done so as art. He pointed out that this was unlikely, but that even if it were so, subsequent bull-fighting was not art. If the first guy did art (not saying he did) then perhaps it was some type of display of man's victory over animals, or some such thing. Whatever it was, why would that not be true of those who re-enact it? CGA was responding to this distinction between the first person and the subsequent copiers, and questioning such a distinction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose anything that is done purely for entertainment has an aspect of art.

However, I'm curious about a "meta" question: why does it matter? I'm not saying it doesn't matter; I'm curious why it does. The forum has many old topics about whether "X is art or not", and I'm rarely able to relate the question to any particular motivation.

For instance, if someone asks me: is a skate-board a vehicle, I'd be more interested in knowing the reason for his asking. Since part of my job is "information-modelling" for computer systems, I can imagine situations where I would conceptualize a skate-board as a vehicle, and other situations where I would not. It depends on the need. The definition, then, expands or contracts to fit the need rather than starting at the definition and deciding whether a particular class should be part of it or not.

So, given that context, I'm curious about your reasons,

My reasons are that bullfighting has been banned in one region of Spain recently. Banning is a topyc by itself, but I was curious about objetivism validating bullfighting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My reasons are that bullfighting has been banned in one region of Spain recently. Banning is a topyc by itself, but I was curious about objetivism validating bullfighting
Okay understood. Bullfighting ought not be banned, whether or not it is art. In addition, even if it is art, an Objectivist may find it despicable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, the first guy to come up with the concept might have been an artist (depending on what he was going for, my guess is it had nothing to do with art but who knows). But everyone else who then proceeded to slaughter animals for spectacle, over and over again, is at best doing it for sport. A really stupid, aimless sport.

I think you are dropping everything that distinguishes bullfighting from killing animals for the thrill of it. There is more to bullfighting from that from my limited knowledge, it involves a very complicated sort of process that is not significantly distinguishable from performances like dancing. Killing a bull is merely a consequence. It is also important to recognize that people don't see bullfights *because* bulls get killed. At best the animal slaughter comparison is a complete misunderstanding of what bullfighting is about. If CGA knows more about the details of what bullfighting involves, he should explain it to us. Presumably, being from Spain, he knows a fair deal about them.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, according to you every performance of your favorite song after the first one by whoever singer (not an artist by your standard) is a pointless repetition.

Not an argument.

I think you are dropping everything that distinguishes bullfighting from killing animals for the thrill of it.

I'm not. I've addressed the essential difference between bullfighting and performance art. While performance art is essentially about the art (the artistic recreation of reality), the essence of bullfighting is the killing of the animals. The fact that it is done in fancy outfits and with people dancing around is incidental, not what defines it. If it was about the art, the recent Catalan ban on bullfights wouldn't even put a dent in the "art form", they would just simulate the bull's slaughter.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not an argument.

I think it is a clear argument. I have shown you that your argument leads to a contradiction and that two instances of the same piece of art may be art, if the different artists add or express thing in different ways. That´s very clear in music, which I believe you know much better than bullfighting (and that´s why I used thar partiocular art form in my comment), but it is also true for painting: a cubics version of the Mona Lisa might be art.

I'm not. I've addressed the essential difference between bullfighting and performance art. While performance art is essentially about the art (the artistic recreation of reality), the essence of bullfighting is the killing of the animals. The fact that it is done in fancy outfits and with people dancing around is incidental, not what defines it. If it was about the art, the recent Catalan ban on bullfights wouldn't even put a dent in the "art form", they would just simulate the bull's slaughter.

The killing, although necessary, is not the essence. You may like or dislike it but I think is clear that:

a) it is a recreation of reality (the struggle of man and his realtionship with nature)

B) there are metaphysical values involved, mainly mind over matter, man having the right & necessity to command nature

Thus is an art form.

Although objetivisim won´t validate the killing of a living being for the sake of it, it does validate it if a (right) value is achieved, like food or art (mind´s food)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What relevant part did he drop?

For the sake of argument, Ellison granted that the first person who came up with bullfighting might have done so as art. He pointed out that this was unlikely, but that even if it were so, subsequent bull-fighting was not art. If the first guy did art (not saying he did) then perhaps it was some type of display of man's victory over animals, or some such thing. Whatever it was, why would that not be true of those who re-enact it? CGA was responding to this distinction between the first person and the subsequent copiers, and questioning such a distinction.

Point made. I reread it (I read it twice before my original post) and it seems I misinterpreted. My apologies to CGA.

I am not joking. You don't see a wild cows around here, I don't know why we would see wild (dangerous) bulls. Bulls are raised in big rancho-like places called "dehesas" and only for this purpose.

So you are speaking about your country/location specifically then? The reason I critiqued the original statement was because I thought it was a general comment, in which case that is not the only purpose for bulls, I know this as one of my relatives is in cattle business w/ bulls etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, anyway, art is a value as legitimate as food. Art is the food of human mind. I think this sentence is quoted in Leonard's book on Objetivism.

Peikoff states the following: "But art pertains to man precisely qua subject of philosophy: art is a need of the mind, i.e., of man qua thinker and valuer."

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are speaking about your country/location specifically then? The reason I critiqued the original statement was because I thought it was a general comment, in which case that is not the only purpose for bulls, I know this as one of my relatives is in cattle business w/ bulls etc.

Well, these bulls are not regular bulls (stud bulls), they are a subspecie raised especifically for bullfighting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Fighting_Bull

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is bullfighting the only art form in which killing is necessary?

I don´t know if there are more art forms where the killing is necessary but, what if it is?.

I think that your point is that something that involves killing an animal is not art, which is something a little bit risky to say, because most of our living involves killing animals, and as a matter of fact many of the tools used by artists are made from animals (the painters pen, for example)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bulls are raised in big rancho-like places called "dehesas" and only for this purpose.

En una dehesa de la extremadura? Teneis una casina blanquina y chicuna? :)

Desgraciadamente el espectaculo taurino, amigo, no es un arte: es una funcion de distraccion, si, pero no es arte. De la misma manera en la que la distraccion proporcionada por Las Ketchup difiere de la distraccion proporcionada por el cantor flamenco apodado Tomate o la misma Montserrat Caballe-- hay dos niveles distintos en juego en donde, en un ambito, se tiene como proposito principal el proporcionar entretenimiento, mientras que en el otro se tiene como proposito principar el crear un mensaje coherente artistico que encierra una declaracion artistica de los valores metafisicos del artista. A veces el segundo puede encontrarse dentro del primer ambito, pero de manera accidental cuando la mayor prioridad es el entretenimiento o show.

La lucha taurina esta al mismo nivel que el futbol o el futbol americano, el tenis y la natacion: son ejercicios primariamente fisicos con ciertos aspectos estrategicos intelectuales (de menor a mayor capacidad de acuerdo al deporte) pero en ningun momento entran dentro del ambito artistico. A veces un deporte puede ser usado de manera significante dentro del ambito de una obra de arte (Por ejemplo la susodicha lucha de toros en la opera "Carmen" de Bizet, donde el personaje de Escamillo encarna la mistica y estatus que los toreros adquirian en ese tiempo), pero no es de por si artistico.

Espero que esto pueda esclarecer un poco las cosas.

(English translation will be posted after I get out of my appointment)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don´t know if there are more art forms where the killing is necessary but, what if it is?.

I think that your point is that something that involves killing an animal is not art, which is something a little bit risky to say, because most of our living involves killing animals, and as a matter of fact many of the tools used by artists are made from animals (the painters pen, for example)

I'm glad this topic came up, there is a lot to think about.

When I try to analyse the question for myself "Is bullfighting art?" I am conflicted.

I know I'm harboring some contradiction and have yet to figure out how to correct it.

* Having watched some televised bullfights I see where CGA is coming from. There is a beauty and grace to the performance that is hard to deny. I also see the part about being a representation of man against primal nature.

* However, I do find it barbaric. While bullfighting should rightly be permissable (animals having no rights to violate) it does not change the distastefulness of causing drawn out suffering to a living creature.

CGA, you point out that we (as a society) kill animals all the time for food, to clear space, leather, so on. True.

Those animals are generally humanely killed.

Permissable. Yes.

Oddly beautiful. Yes

And yet, I still find something less than noble in a mind that needs to torment a living thing for entertainment purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don´t know if there are more art forms where the killing is necessary but, what if it is?

There aren't any art forms that necessitate killing, because conveying the death of a fictional character in a performance (be it man or animal) can be done without actually ending a life just fine.

I wish you had answered the question (instead of replying to it with another question): why is actually killing the bull necessary, for a bullfight to accomplish its artistic goals? I've seen great plays that involve death, and they all did a wonderful job of selectively representing reality without hurting a fly. What is different about the "art" of bullfighting, that necessitates the killing, to supposedly accomplish the same thing Shakespearean actors accomplish with stage props?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CGA, you point out that we (as a society) kill animals all the time for food, to clear space, leather, so on. True.

Those animals are generally humanely killed.

Well, of course I'm not saying that everyone should enjoy or understand or find interesting bullfighting, as I don't enjoy, or understand or find interesting most of modern art, but I won't claim it is not art.

I think that most animals killed for foof or leather are not humanely killed (most of them are really tortured and stressed in the process, which is something that I think should be improved), as a matter on fact bulls get treated very well all their life untill they get to the arena, and there they get what not long time ago would be called a soldier's death, a death with honor. It does seem very human in fact, doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(English translation will be posted after I get out of my appointment)

De paso mira a ver si puedes añadir algun argumento a tu comentario. Yo he empezado por dar la definicion objetivista de arte y he tratado de argumentar que los toros lo son.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There aren't any art forms that necessitate killing, because conveying the death of a fictional character in a performance (be it man or animal) can be done without actually ending a life just fine.

I wish you had answered the question (instead of replying to it with another question): why is actually killing the bull necessary, for a bullfight to accomplish its artistic goals? I've seen great plays that involve death, and they all did a wonderful job of selectively representing reality without hurting a fly. What is different about the "art" of bullfighting, that necessitates the killing, to supposedly accomplish the same thing Shakespearean actors accomplish with stage props?

I am not an expert, but I will try to do my best to give you some practical explanations:

A bull can only be "bullfighted" once, so even if it were not killed in the arena it would have to be killed later on. Besides, a bull can''t be bullfighted without hurting it badly: there would be no way that the bullfighter would get really close to the bull.

But from a phylosophical point of view, I would like to know what the problem is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CGA: So, according to you every performance of your favorite song after the first one by whoever singer (not an artist by your standard) is a pointless repetition.

Jake Ellison response: Not an argument.

Actually, it is an argument. It is an apt comparison, in fact. It applies your objection to another situation, a song, and the false conclusion that the first time the performance took place is the only time it might be valued as art is succinctly countered by common experience--we listen to our favorite songs over and over.

Perhaps that should be called an illustration, rather than an argument? No matter, its pertinance is clear.

Mindy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To clarify, you mean humane, not human, yes?

Well, It does not seem that humane is the most fortunate adjective to be used in this context:

hu·mane   [hyoo-meyn or, often, yoo-]

–adjective

1.

characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, esp. for the suffering or distressed: humane treatment of horses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y yo he argumentado que no lo son. Te pregunto: Cual es la meta de la lucha de toros?

Yo no veo argumentos en tu comentario por ningun lado.

El toreo es un arte porque:

A) es una recreacion de la realidad

B) en la que ponen de manifiesto valores metafiicos, como el que la consciencia esta antes que la materia, que el hombre debe utilizar su mente para dirigir la naturaleza y vivir

Lo que si no me equivoco con los dos requisitos necesarios para que algo se pueda llamar arte segun la Sra. Rand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not an expert, but I will try to do my best to give you some practical explanations:

A bull can only be "bullfighted" once, so even if it were not killed in the arena it would have to be killed later on. Besides, a bull can''t be bullfighted without hurting it badly: there would be no way that the bullfighter would get really close to the bull.

But from a phylosophical point of view, I would like to know what the problem is.

The problems with torturing animals or men for pleasure (be it Christians vs. lions "fights", bull "fights", dog fights, cock fights, or plain blonde girls in red jumpsuits versus a litter of puppies thrown in the river "fights") has been covered extensively on this site.

My position is that pleasure from torture is the essence of a bullfight (and all the other activities I listed), I see no reason why the torturing of animals would otherwise be necessary. It is not necessary in any other performance art, and you have not explained why it is necessary here. (you did repeat your opening post at least three times, and in a couple of languages though)

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(you did repeat your opening post at least three times, and in a couple of languages though)

... And even then you still don't get it. Nobody feels any pleasure from the bull's suffering, and bullfighting is not about that.

But you have stated your postion also a number of times, although in just one languaje, without any explanation but your misunderstandig of bullfighting, and I don't agree with it either, so I guess we should stop at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...