Is Bodybuilding an Art?
My provisional answer: I don’t know. In what follows, I’ll build a case for an affirmative answer and then raise and reply to a hexad of objections.
In Pumping Iron, Arnold Schwarzenegger claims that a bodybuilder is like an artist, and particularly a sculptor.[1] His point is interesting. I’ll use it to construct the following brief argument:
1. If bodybuilding is relevantly like sculpture, then bodybuilding should be counted as an art.
2. Bodybuilding is relevantly like sculpture.
3. Therefore, bodybuilding should be counted as an art.
This argument is deductively valid. Its soundness depends on the truth of its premises. Why accept them? I’m getting ahead of myself. First, we need a working definition of ‘art,’ or at least some initial characterization, since our question depends on what art is.
Now, ‘art’ is notoriously difficult to define. Perhaps there is no precise definition.[2] For the sake of our dialectic, I’ll suggest a working definition. Let’s start by distinguishing between practical and fine art. Ostensively speaking, practical art is something like carpentry or shoemaking, while fine art is something like painting or poetry. Sculpting is recognized as the fine art of forming solid objects from physical material such as clay, wood, or stone, typically by carving the finished piece from the initial solid slab. What is fine art? Roughly, it is the systematic attempt to create objects of beauty or otherwise express aesthetic value.
Back to the premises. Why accept (1)? As noted above, sculpture is a fine art. Moreover, it is plausible that relevantly like cases should be treated alike. The “like-cases principle” is widely accepted in philosophy, law, and other areas of thought. Hence, since sculpture is an art, whatever is relevantly like sculpture should also be classified as art. Thus, if bodybuilding is relevantly like sculpture, then bodybuilding should count as art.
(2) is Schwarzenegger’s claim. Is (2) plausible? It seems so. Sculpture involves chiseling solid objects out of physical material, which the artist uses with sufficient skill to create something of aesthetic value. The bodybuilder uses his or her body, which is a physical and relatively solid object, to express something of aesthetic value, namely, an approximation of the ideal human physical form; and the bodybuilder uses skills and techniques such as weightlifting, cardiovascular exercise, precise nutrition, aesthetic insight, and something like chiseling to achieve that form. Bodybuilders are judged on the basis of properties such as symmetry, composition, clear lines, proper use of lighting, etc., as would a sculptor or a painter.
I have provided support for (1) and (2), thereby making (3) a reasonable conclusion, at least prima facie. But we must consider objections.
First, the solid object that a sculptor works with must be non-living. Reply: Why? That condition seems arbitrary.
Second, bodybuilding seems to be an exercise in vanity. Reply: Perhaps so for some bodybuilders. But vanity is neither necessary nor sufficient for bodybuilding. Moreover, one can claim, not implausibly, that any of the fine arts might involve vanity. A vain painter or novelist is not a non-artist merely for his vanity.
Third, bodybuilding lacks creativity. Reply: No, it involves creatively and imaginatively carving a new bodily form from a starting piece of material which is different in the sense of being less developed. In this way, bodybuilding is like sculpture. Michelangelo began with an undeveloped marble slab, but after working with it for about three years, he created a new object from that material – the David statue.
Fourth, art cannot be about the human body. Reply: Why not? This objection seems arbitrary as well. Note that Michelangelo’s David concerns the human body, and David is a paradigm case of art.
Fifth, bodybuilders lack skill. Reply: Not so. Bodybuilders possess skills in weightlifting and other forms of exercise. Bodybuilders understand and practice precise nutrition, altering their caloric consumption depending on whether they are bulking or cutting (i.e., something like chiseling or sculpting). They have aesthetic insight like sculptors, imagining what needs to be done with the original bodily material and then accomplishing that vision via the use of pertinent aptitude, innovation, intentional activity, and noteworthy determination over a long period.
Sixth, no sport is an art. Yet bodybuilding is a sport. Hence, bodybuilding is not an art. Reply: This is probably the best objection of the hexad. Is bodybuilding a sport? The answer is debatable. But addressing that debate would require a working definition or characterization of ‘sport,’ and I don’t want to pursue that challenge hic et nunc.
Suppose bodybuilding is a sport. Why hold that a sport cannot be an art? Arguably, figure skating is both sport and art. Ditto for gymnastics and diving. One might suspect that sports are competitive and art is not. But this is not so. A painter, sculptor, poet, or photographer might submit his work to an art competition. There is much more to say on this point. For the sake of brevity, I’ll leave the reader to ponder further.[3]
Conclusion
Is bodybuilding an art? I still don’t know. There is a reasonable case for an affirmative answer. I don’t doubt that there are other objections I haven’t addressed yet. (E.g., What about tattooing? Is that an art? Why not, if bodybuilding is?) But this here is a blog post, and my entries are provisional, as the name of my Stack indicates. I thus leave the reader to consider the matter further. Comments welcome.
[1] The conversation starts around 8:45 and ends around 9:30. See here:
[2] For example, Morris Weitz argued that art has no fixed essence and, hence, that there is no essential or analytic definition of art. (See https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/art-definition-of/v-1/sections/early-definitions-of-art) Dimitris Platchias makes the same point in Sport Is Art: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17461390300073403?journalCode=tejs20
To put the point using Wittgenstein’s terms, there might be only a family resemblance among the arts. In other words, it might be the case that there is a cluster of artistic properties, such as creativity, intentional activity, beauty, other aesthetic properties such as symmetry, aesthetic meaning, or style, the involvement of sufficient skill, etc. An activity or an object might count as art if it possesses a sufficient number of these properties. What is this sufficient number? Does anyone know?
[3] Here are good places to start: Art and Sport (David Best: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3332478 ); A Response to Best on Art and Sport (S. K. Wertz: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3332634 ); Sport Is Art: Demetrius Platchias: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17461390300073403?journalCode=tejs20 )