Sunday, May 18th, 2008
Playing Classical Cricket?
This article on cricinfo actually does a good job of summarising my discussion with Atomsmasher on the decline of traditional disciplines in the arts. The following paragraph is particularly insightful in drawing out the similarities between classical training in music and cricket.
People frequently say of Indian playback singers that this singer or that was classically trained. It is generally meant as a compliment. Lata Mangeshkar’s virtuosity and longevity were attributed to her classical training. But over time it has become clear that classical training is an optional extra for the successful playback singer because there have been so many who never had any, starting with Kishore Kumar. In the same way, Twenty20 tournaments like the World Cup and the IPL have thrown up players like Yusuf Pathan who have achieved great success and recognition via this upstart form of the game without any sort of track record at the Test level.
What do you guys think about the qualities of say opera. Is a lot of it pretentious and elitist or should I not blind my classist sentiments from appreciating the beauty of the art? I’m inclined to think that its somewhere in between. That while a lot of people are part of the ’scene’ or are patrons of the arts in order to gain social status, i shouldn’t let that cloud my judgement in trying to appreciate art in all its forms.
May 18th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
al-tahafut said:
well, it’s an interesting thing to think about. i guess, change in art and sport are bound to happen as long as people — and their cultures, their ways of life — change, since these things are elements of culture. the thing is, cultures around the world seem to evolve towards directness and instant gratification. maybe that relates to the article on literacy and digiracy, in the sense that writing, as a skill and an art, is succumbing to graphics and three letter acronyms. and maybe this is all symptomatic of the speeding-up of everyday life, courtesy near-instant telecommunication. it seems like having spare time is elitist these days.
but, to your question, i don’t know about the elitism associated with certain types of cultural pursuits. i don’t think there’s anything wrong with believing in ‘classic’ forms. and i think it’s definitely a good thing to experience everything from opera singers to buskers in subway stations.
but i guess it’s also true that different forms of art represent different ideas about life and society. some might say a a DIY [yes, 3 letters] punk show is more open and egalitarian than the typical opera performance, but it’s easy to generalise.
and there are elements of elitism everywhere. in indie scenes, in punk, in cricket, in equestrian sports. it can be difficult to break into a scene if you don’t look the ‘right’ way or say the ‘right’ things or have the ‘right’ background or training. personally, i think such ideas are foolish. skill and intelligence and creativity can’t really be measured or represented by dress or accent or resume.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
unsuitable_boy said:
yeah, i was thinking about the digiracy article when i wrote the post. i think instant gratification is certainly a problem with a lot of culture today.
maybe the evolution towards directness and instant gratification is a result of increasing levels of wealth and consumer control over culture. e.g. middle class people have money to spend on film whether before only the moneyed class had the chance to spend on leisurely pursuits. following on from that, most of them had the chance to follow elaborate things rather shorter ones.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Playing Classical Cricket? | Tea Break said:
[...] Share on Facebook [...]