57place
Philosophy In Action All the ideas and discussions
14 votes Vote

Can chess be regarded as a kind of art?

Can the concept of art be legitimately expanded to domains like chess? I find some chess combinations beautiful and enjoy contemplating them. Isn't that similar to enjoying a work of art? If so, can we recognize different schools of art in different chess combinations? Particularly, could we see romanticism versus naturalism in chess?

Mike , 17.10.2012, 02:41
Idea status: under consideration

Comments

Tjitze de Boer, 02.11.2012, 04:34
I don't see how chess could qualify, but if architecture qualifies as art I think a well written program would too.
And while I don't think combinations in chess would be art playing chess or any other game could qualify as performance art.
Reply
Michael Mansberg, 03.02.2013, 09:05
I think a more general question might be: Can anything that may potentially give rise to esthetic feelings (good or bad) be considered a form of "art" (in addition to whatever else it also is, such as a game, computer program, etc.)? Or should the concept of "art" be limited to things or activities whose primary purpose is to elicit esthetic feelings?
Reply
jack, 08.10.2014, 18:23
You both imply that the definition of Art is heavily bound by invoking aesthetic feelings in the observer, whether by the creator's intention or not. I might be mistaken, but my recollection is that some define Art such that those feelings are completely beside the point, in effect irrelevant. Someone please correct me if I am mistake, but I think maybe Ayn Rand might be one of them. So maybe more generally, how can we arrive at a rational definition of Art in the first place? And then what of all those things that seem like Art, but aren't quite - if they aren't "Art", then what are they, as a group?
Reply

Leave a comment