by #9's "extraneous act of self expression/method of sensuous communication" definition the "clockrunner or ragequitter" in #2 is actually the greatest artist out of all chess players.
Target: acquired. Skill: nonexistent. Nobel Peace Prize: received.
Art should inspire awe. I've seen many games of chess and on occassion I'll see someone play with such great finesse and command of the board that just makes me shake my head and say, " That was beautiful. " It's rare, but, when it happens, it's Art. // Curiously I find that I'm only able to perceive beauty in chess if the game I'm looking at is being played 'Live' and in real time. Looking over games of the masters does not provoke the same response... The difference between a 'Live game' and a game played by a master a hundred years ago is like the difference between looking at an image of the moon on your tablet versus the real thing through a telescope. To me Art has got to be alive, awe inspiring, and beautiful... it exists in chess - but very rare. There are artistic chessplayers. One in a hundred... maybe.
Dr. Tarrasch, The Game of Chess (1931), Preface
"Chess is a form of intellectual productiveness, therein lies, its peculiar charm. Intellectual productiveness is one of the greatest joys -if not the greatest one- of human existence. It is not everyone who can write a play, or build a bridge, or even make a good joke. But in chess everyone can, everyone must, be intellectually productive and so can share in this select delight. I have always a slight feeling of pity for the man who has no knowledge of chess, just as I would pity for the man who has no knowledge of love. Chess, like love, like music, has the power to make men happy."
I'd say yes, chess players are artists. Whenever I'm playing or watching a game of chess, I like to imagine it as a symphony, with buildups which may lead to amazing moves or terrible blunders followed up by quick punishment, all of which emphasized with strong, impactful notes. Each game is like a fantastic duet, and always results a finale, in which one player who was playing weaker notes suddenly overtake the other, or that one player gradually plays louder and more impactful notes. Ironically, as I play chess, I always have music playing to help me focus so I guess that's one of the reasons I imagine this, haha!
In reply to #1: Yes.
Life is art, and chess is life, therefore- we are all artists! A+ for effort everybody!
But also, Arthur Danto says that art has ended. So there is that.
If chess is art, then I'm a 3 year old with their first colouring in book.
Well, itself it can be seen as some form of art like baseball or football also might be seen as a form of art. Sometimes chess is presented in the same spaces as art like when John Cage played Duchamp or when Carlsen played Nakamura in a museum. But the meaning of it, if any is definitely hard to grasp.
You don't have to be any good to be an artist.
The set of people who consider Chess to be art are usually Chess players themselves — either because only Chess players can appreciate the elegance/artistry of a particularly aesthetic combination, or because of a desire to validate their Chess-related endeavours.
Personally, I feel that Chess can be artistic, but is not necessarily 'art', per se. By my own definition, art is usually an endeavour undertaken by one or more people to create a certain product. Chess is diametrically opposed to this definition, since by its very nature two people are working adversarially to one another. Therefore, I submit that while certain combinations or sequences of moves can be artistic, a game of Chess as a whole cannot be considered art.
@astromode ... I believe that adversity is the prime mover of Art... and artists are very competitive. Van Gogh comes to mind: He was very competitive with himself, society, 'The Impressionists'... // Warhol vs. Basquit... // Davinci was a beast. // McCartney vs. Lennon... // And Art is not about creating a 'product'... Art is about the genius within needing to express itself.
