Tercer período 1975-1991

I concluded the previous section by saying that one cannot ignore the institutions that surround art if we want to deliver a theory of art, that art lives through a community of social relationships and assumes meaning (or rather a constructed one) as such. I would like to make the claim that the evolution of the institution of sports from mere play, survival and diversion towards the global phenomenon of modern sports can likewise in a parallel fashion be understood as a function of social connectivity. This is tantamount to a kind of social aesthetics, the cultivation of culture.

“Sport as an institution” parallels “art as an institution” insofar as one can make the observation that the art and sport of a particular historical moment takes the form it does based on the world view which is endorsed by the institutions of the day⁹⁶, which sometimes

96 Only since the 1960s, for example, has science come on board to improve and enhance sporting performance.

In a second interview (24/02/11) with Noakes (University of Cape Town), he makes the point that science as an institution is using its knowledge of physiology and human kinetics in order to get the best out of the sportsperson and thus sport today reflects the prevailing ideology of competitiveness which may be harmful. In fact, Noakes still maintains that sport must be fun and enjoyable and not only for the elite athlete. Personally, I feel one needs to inculcate this into the prevailing culture.

171 produce an overlap of the two. The modern form of art and sport could only have arisen in the context of certain historical changes such as industrialization, nationalism and capitalism, notwithstanding the long prehistory of art and sport⁹⁷.

When considering the history of sport, the shift from the premodern to the modern world-consciousness reveals the following: One can imagine this shift as an amorphous form wherein all activities occur simultaneously, such that there are no clear distinctions and consciousness of isolated activities. In this “state” – art, sport, religion, philosophy, dance, song are not separate areas of activity – the tribe engage in all and none specifically. They do not consciously define and circumscribe any of these areas of human expression. There is clearly some level of consciousness in that the rite is somewhat organized; specific practices are performed and an order is discerned. We may call it directed “play”, but this “play” may be serious too. The point I wish to make is that no one area is specified and exists in its own right. It is more akin to a fair or pageant or ceremony where all sorts of activities and disciplines come together in one arena. This refers to the premodern world-view. The modern consciousness, by contrast, is a taming of this hodgepodge of expression and a rigorous defining and shaping and separating of areas of human enterprise, that is, the creation of institutions. Rationality, discipline, science and knowledge guide this new way of dealing with reality. One might say the premodern way of knowing is to exist in the singularity, the modern way is an expansion of this point of “origin” into separate domains – stars, galaxies, planets – to extend the metaphor – specific and more limited, autonomous forms. We may say that the former is a kind of wild ecstasy tempered with the order of a specific ritual or festival or ceremony, and the latter is a more scientific approach and control of nature and society, though this latter project perhaps failed to a degree leading to what we now call postmodernity. However, one finds traces of premodernity, modernism and postmodernism within each phase of history⁹⁸, though one such world-view predominates at various points in time and place. To the extent that this is the case, sport contains traces of the earliest human culture and they reveal a process of secularization. By establishing a premodern towards a modern shift in consciousness and the prevalence of both at the same time, one can argue that the institution of sport is both a pre-cognitive and rational enterprise. Sport is a meeting point

97 Zuchora (1980) makes the observation that both art and sport are related to the hunt, a kind of magical quality in order to control one’s surroundings and rise above nature. The convergence of art and sport in the experience of the hunt and its cultural expression as cave paintings or organized athletics means that however complex our institutions of art or sport may be, one can trace its origins in pre-literate societies.

98 This is observed in cases where art and sport come together as in the “opening ceremony” of the Olympics and other major sporting events.

172 of – and satisfies – instinctual, aesthetic and cerebral aspects of self. This is substantiated by the Ancient Greek principle applied today in which a healthy mind is said to “reside” in a healthy body. Another way of saying this is that sport both expresses an instinctive need and an aesthetic “play” – to order, to form and to communicate.

In terms of “secularization” (modernisation), I agree with Womack (2003:220) who states:

... the same existential conflict that lies at the heart of religion also gave rise to the sporting contest.

Originally, the parallel symbolic systems of religion and sport operated in tandem. However, they diverged through time. Religion has adhered to the realm of the sacred, whereas sport has undergone a process of secularization. As a result, athletic contests have had to leave the protection of the gods and enter the forum of public debate.

Modern sports are therefore no longer aimed at appeasing the gods but at making a mark in the record books.⁹⁹ Womack (2003:223/24,) goes on to say that:

…when we can no longer distinguish the sacred from the profane or even the good from the bad, we content ourselves with minute discriminations between the batting average of the 308 hitter and the 309 hitter. Once the gods have vanished from mount Olympus or from Dante’s Paradise we can no longer aim to appease them or to save our souls, but we can set a new record. This is a uniquely modern form of immortality.

However, the elements that have gone to create the desire for the “record”: human need, combative spirit, spectacular excitement is not so modern. Techniques of survival developed into random practice, organized practice, competition in practice, competition for its own sake, interest in competition by the non-competitor, audience participation and then, almost audience control (adapted from Olivova 1984). As such some sports developed from older athletic contests, others were artificially created, and some were the result of adapting to the needs of modern sporting kinetic activity and games from all parts of the world and from the most varied periods of human history. Hence the ancient past is encoded in sports today.

Historically speaking, sport also originally had a secular meaning. From the fourteenth to the seventeenth century, it was considered a “pleasant pastime”, “entertainment”, “amusement”,

99 Cf. Guttman in Dyck (ed) 2000: Guttman fleshes out this modern idea of sport as follows: 1) secular nature of modern sport (one runs not in order that the earth should be more fertile), 2) equality of opportunity to compete and the creation of equal conditions of competition, 3) specialization of roles in modern sport activity – professionalism, 4) rationalization through standardized rules, 5) beauracratic organization of sport to decide and enforce the rules and manage competition, 6) quantification – national and international standards of achievement, and 7) “record” concept – whereas Greek, Roman and medieval Europe does not keep such records.

173

“recreation”, “diversion”, “taking one’s own pleasure” (Welsch 2005:4). In the late sixteenth century sport came to mean “lovemaking”, designating sexual intercourse as a “game”

(Welsch 2005:4). Only later did the concept of sport shift from pleasure to discipline, though Nietzsche refers to sexual love as a kind of sport. Thus contemporary sport is such that “the recognition of games and bodily exercises as an important cultural value was withheld right up to the end of the eighteenth century” (Huizinga 1949:196). Sport as the institution we are so very familiar with in contemporary society may have occurred relatively late that is, under the British Empire in the nineteenth century, but the argument can be made that the necessary process of secularization which gave rise to sport as we know it, is merely like the proverbial chameleon that changes hue depending on the environment and thus whether sport is a means of enacting the activities of the god, as mere diversion, or as a means to etching a record in history, the drive to engage in sport of some kind remains a constant, though it is structured in a particular way by the institutions – sporting or otherwise – of the day. In this sense, it is useful to recognize the historical development that gave rise to sports as we now have it.

Behringer (2008) argues that the institution of sport began with the establishment of permanent sports grounds¹⁰⁰ from the fifteenth century onwards. The modern period of sport was further developed with the advent of the printing press, resulting in the binding of rule books, standardized sporting grounds and halls, professionalism and commercialism, sports instruction, equipment, sport tenders, sports reporting and promoting. In short: the rise of modern sporting history coincides with early capitalism, state formation, or the “civilizing process” or in other words, the military revolution, the communication revolution and the industrial revolution (Rowe 2004).

The result of such change meant the intermeshing of sport and media through the rise of capitalism and industrialism, mass consumption and the co-modification of leisure time in particular. Rowe (2004: 14) writes that “the world of sport in the age of mass media has been transformed from nineteenth century amateur recreational participation to late twentieth century (and early twenty first century) spectator-centred technology and business”, the Olympics being the quintessential example. It must, however, be noted that the history of sport, in particular the Olympics, does not reveal a steady evolution from Ancient Greek Olympic games; not only because the original games were discontinued for at least sixteen

100 C.f. Uhrich, Bekenstein’s (2010) study of Arousal and Sports Stadiums, Journal of Sociology, Vol. 3, No. 8, pp 24 – 41.

174 centuries until its revival by the French aristocrat, Baron Pierre de Coubertin, but because sport as a recognizable social and cultural institution is not universal, but emerged in Britain at a particular time, namely during early industrialization.

A whole economy of sport developed: clubs and associations with subscribing members were formed, competitions with attractive prize money were established, imposing venues with large crowd capacities were built, a labour market was established to handle the transfer and valuation of professionals, state funds were used to develop sport as part of nation building, sports gear and fan merchandise were manufactured and sold, and the media became devoted to sport. The latter is what Rowe (2004:14) calls the “sport-media-cultural complex”.

Modern sport is precisely the institutionalization¹⁰¹ of sport as media, economics and politics converge on a scale never exceeded in history. Therefore this section, while assuming the incessant flow of text, image and dialogue around sport in contemporary society, deals with a historic unfolding of sport and the institutions that have given rise to the current global phenomenon. In contrast, in the earlier section on art, I did not deal with the institutions of art historically, but contemporarily, as I wished simply to deduce an institutional theory and apply it to the current debate, though, one could, admittedly, also develop the argument that there is a historical dimension to taste and the very nature of the contemporary art world is indeed informed by the various institutions that shape “art”. In this sense, aesthetics could be described as fashion.