Showing posts with label Aesthetics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Aesthetics. Show all posts

Saturday, January 8, 2011

Exploit of the Year

otl_joycetags_600
Every year, Bicycling Magazine names a rider (or more accurately, a ride) as earning the "Exploit of the Year". In a sport of diffuse, peripatetic events without any architectonic hierarchy, the very ambiguity of the award is its strength. Like one of those sudden irruptions of beauty and order soccer fans love so writ large1, a rider's seizure of a race, a chase, or a heroic single-day ride is held up as exemplary and emblematic of the ideals of the sport. We here at No Fours love this model. Its dismissal of objectivity mirrors the diverse, occasionally conflicting standards of an aestheticized fandom. More importantly, it can be expanded to the whole of sports we follow. So, following Picasso's putative quip ("Good artists borrow; great artists steal"), our first inaugural Exploit of the Year. Let's begin with a few honorable mentions.
1: This is not to belittle those moments or soccer in general, because they're the shit.




*******


But for all the spectacular2 goings on this year, there really was only one viable pick: Armando Galarraga's Imperfect Game. You've got a transcendent individual performance, historicity, thorny questions of ethics and merit and justice and their imperfect actualization within the juridical framework of sport, failure, redemption, personal ethical classiness all around, a shamelessly plugged Norman Einstein's article and a poignant, catchy name.
2: Really, our working definition of "Exploit" here is looks a fair amount like the Situationists' concept of spectacle divorced from its Marxist critique: "We live in a spectacular society, that is, our whole life is surrounded by an immense accumulation of spectacles. Things that were once directly lived are now lived by proxy. Once an experience is taken out of the real world it becomes a commodity. As a commodity the spectacular is developed to the detriment of the real. It becomes a substitute for experience." (Larry Law, Images And Everyday Life). Respectfully ignoring that business about "the detriment of the real", we're collating the year's spectacular sporting commodities, like any other sort of cultural critic. Song of the year, movie of the year, book of the year. Keep on rolling, Guy Debord.
With all of those tangled, poignant issues, the game's emotional impact runs deep. But that's only half the story, because they're all yoked to an exquisite, almost melodramatic narrative structure. Tension inexorably built over 1:44 of playing time, to an exquisite climax-- the one out away from perfection, less than a foot from the base, perhaps a fifth of a second. All of the weight of a century of sport, a lifetime honing pitches, and generations of fandom, all the unresolved angst over reconciling truth, technology, and humanity with the soul and the future of baseball, all forcing the stiletto point of a moment. Aesthetically, it was literally unimprovable.

Monday, January 3, 2011

Elevate, Detonate, Exploit


“The Homeric poems conceal nothing, they contain no teaching and no secret second meaning. Homer can be analyzed, as we have essayed to do here, but he cannot be interpreted. Later allegorizing trends have tried their arts of interpretation upon him, but to no avail. He resists any such treatment; the interpretations are forced and foreign, they do not crystallize into a unified doctrine. The general considerations which occasionally occur…reveal a calm acceptance of the basic facts of human existence, but with no compulsion to brook over them, still less any passionate impulse either to rebel against them or to embrace them in an ecstacy of submission.”
— Erich Auerbach, Mimesis


Derrick Rose has a problem. His hyperathletic game around the rim isn’t drawing enough fouls to make his production as efficient as the true top-flight talent in the league. His fast-twitch forays into the paint, knifing between and around much larger men to tomahawk a dunk or gently lay in an improbable basket are apparently too effective at avoiding contact. His game leverages the fact that he’s faster and more nimble than anyone else on the court; he is a point guard who racks up assists by collapsing defenses en route to the rack and dishing it to newly-open teammates if he can’t quite complete his solo trip. Other top creators in the league create looks for their teammates by engineering situations; Rose engineers a chaos in which his gifts allow him and his compatriots to thrive. The knock on him is that he’s simply too good at making others miss, at sliding next to where the defense expected him to end up. If he tried a little less to avoid contact, the thinking goes, he’d get to the line more often and have to rely less on making the circus layups he forges.

This criticism may be accurate, but it’s odd to tell a player that the hole in his game is that he’s too good at confounding his opponents entirely, rather than just partly. The suggestion isn’t that he do any one thing differently, but that he do a better job at leveraging the rules of the game. Rose plays a game within the rules, trying his best to score and shooting free throws when he earns them. He is engaging with the diktats of the rulebook at face value as they are intended, as negative regulations that punish transgressors. He’s trying to game the guy guarding him and the help defenders who will collapse on him. His approach would be the same in a college game or in a pickup game. Score the ball; deal with the fouls when and if they come up. Rose seems to see his job as playing by the rules governing dribbling, pivot feet, traveling and the grab bag of other offensive regulations. The rules restricting the defense are its responsibility.




It is all very different in the Biblical stories. Their aim is not to bewitch the senses, and if nevertheless they produce lively sensory effects, it is only because the moral, religious, and psychological phenomena which are their sole concen are made concrete in the sensibile matter of life. But their religious intent involves an absolute claim to historical truth. The story of Abraham and Isaac is not better established than the story of Odysseus, Penelope, and Euryclea; both are legendary. But the Biblical narrator, the Elohist, had to believe in the objective truth of the story of Abraham’s sacrifice—the existence of the sacred ordinances of life rested upon the truth of this and similar stories. He had to believe in it passionately; or else (as many rationalistic interpreters believed and perhaps still believe) he had to be a conscious liar—no harmless liar like Homer, who lied to give pleasure, but a political liar with a definite end in view, lying in the interest of a claim to absolute authority.”
— Auerbach


Dwyane Wade often has the opposite criticism leveled at his game, that it is aesthetically shameful for a man with his quicksilver gifts to spend so much of his effort trying to wrong-foot his defender into fouling him. Many of his drives seem engineered to create contact with his defender to get a whistle, and then put up a shot somewhere under the umbrella of continuation. He has averaged between nine and eleven free throw attempts per game every year of his career since his rookie year, when he averaged 5.1. (Rose is attempting 5.3 attempts per game this season, the best mark of his career.) Wade can and does dazzle us when he uses his gifts to do things others cannot, so his occasional dedication to turning a game into a whistle-filled stop-and-start affair with play dictated more by referees than players is a betrayal of the fans and the game, an amorally utilitarian use of the rules to score points at the expense of transcendence.

The problem is that Wade, rather demonstrably, benefits from this. Unless you think his injury-prone body suffers at the hands of all this contact in a way that will shorten his career appreciably1, no substantive case can be made for why he should stop doing anything he’s doing. He’s a better player for those fouls, scoring more points on fewer shots than he might if he worked harder to make every basket and stopped worrying about fouls. It may make his game uglier, but why should he care? Any solution to the problem, if it is a problem, lies in the hands of the refs making the calls and the rules they enforce. Wade is taking advantage of a situation he didn’t create, maximizing his impact at the expense of the occasional transcendent moment worth no more than the points he’s already getting at the charity stripe.
1: This is entirely possible, and maybe even provable on aggregate, but seems pretty unknowable for the specific case of Dwyane Tyrone Wade.




“The old man, of whom we know how he has become what he is, is more of an individual than the young man; for it is only during the course of an eventful life that men are differentiated into full individuality; and it is this history of a personality which the Old Testament presents to us as the formation undergone by those whom God has chosen to be examples. Fraught with their development, sometimes even aged to the verge of dissolution, they show a distinct stamp of individuality entirely foreign to the Homeric heroes. Time can touch the latter only outwardly, and even that change is brought to our observation as little as possible; whereas the stern hand of God is ever upon the Old Testament figures; he has not only made them once and for all and chosen them, but he continues to work upon them, bends them and kneads them, and, without destroying them in essence, produces from them forms which their youth gave no grounds for anticipating…And how much wider is the pendulum swing of their lives than that of the Homeric heroes! For they are bearers of the divine will, and yet they are fallible, subject to misfortune and humiliation—and in the midst of misfortune and in their humiliation their acts and words reveal the transcendent majesty of God. There is hardly one of them who does not, like Adam, undergo the deepest humiliation—and hardly one who is not deemed worthy of God’s personal intervention and personal inspiration.”
— Auerbach


Rose and Wade are players at two ends of a spectrum. At the end I’m calling Homeric, there are the players who seem to play for baskets, not points. If they get fouled they’ll happily take their free throw(s), but the goal is to put the ball through the hoop. This is the basketball of theory, where fouls exist to reign in behavior out of step with ideal play. Rose seems to play within this frame, as do many others. Young players often do their work here, but some veterans also do. There’s no one reason why a player would play his game without taking strategic advantage of its arbiters; Rose seems to play this way because his quickness and proprioception allow him to take shots anyone else would have trouble replicating, but others do because they don’t yet have the refs’ biases internalized, because they’re not smart enough to do it on the fly, or because they’re not deft enough to effectively execute.2
2: Shaq, for instance, by dint of being the closest thing the league has ever seen to a ball-playing wall of meat, doesn't seem to ever get the benefit of the doubt you need to manufacture a call.

At the far Elohist end of said spectrum, there are the players actively maximizing the parts of their game that subvert the rules to their advantage. Most obvious is the creation of contact to draw calls on offense, long the calling card of Dwyane Wade and Paul Pierce3. Rip the ball through the extended arms of the defender. Drive directly into his torso and flail up a shot. Flopping also falls squarely in this category. Exaggerating real but minimal contact, flailing and/or falling over almost nothing, making the incidental look like a mugging creates turnovers, puts your counterpart in foul trouble. Part of what makes Manu and Chris Paul so good is that they’ll happily commit what amount to physical lies to gain an advantage. It can be ugly basketball, but these players know that, for all the moments of transcendent physical magic, the job of the NBA player is to win, and the rules that were invented to govern play can be used to manipulate it.
3: As a Celtics fan who has seen a lot of the Truth in action, I've noticed a funny thing about his calls: he gets a lot of calls he doesn't strictly deserve, but he also doesn't get a decent number he does. He's the wing player who cried wolf, and refs often seem to think a real foul is him playing up nothing. I suspect he still gets more calls than he maybe should, and this development is entirely his fault, but he does lose a number of them because of how he's played over the years. It's an interesting dynamic to watch in action. I doubt he's the only guy for whom this is true, but it's more dramatic for him than for anyone else I've noticed.

The difference here is one of degree and emphasis, not anything like a pure dichotomy. The debate about Rose’s ability to draw fouls is noteworthy because it falls so far to one side of the spectrum. While explosive athleticism has its high water mark in a player’s youth, it doesn’t desert older players so much as slowly dissipate.4 At the same time, the savvy to exploit the duties and weaknesses of the men with whistles grows for all but the most blockheaded players as their service time rolls on, but there is nothing to stop a precocious rookie from using the same bag of tricks. All it takes is to recognize that playing NBA ball is a performative act, and that adjusting one's actions to those that judge the performance is as smart as good shot selection.
4: Catastrophic and chronic injuries are the wild cards here, of course, cutting players down in their tracks or leaving them diminished in a moment. They're something that can't be planned for or anticipated, however, and lie outside of what we're discussing here.

The other factor in this, of course, is the star call. For all that officiating strives to be fair to all in all situations, the NBA is a league where an established star gets the benefit of the doubt, and that is exactly what we’re talking about here. If Kobe Bryant draws a lot of contact in the lane against a rookie, even if the rookie managed to stay within the tenets of verticality, Kobe is going to get the call more often than not. The narrative of a career makes the established star of the NBA firmament “more of an individual” than a scrub who isn’t on a first-name basis with the ref. You don’t have to posit conscious bias to see how this colors calls. Again, so long as this discrepancy exists, players would be foolish not to exploit it as much as they are able.

The ideal player, of course, would walk in both these worlds. Derrick Rose isn’t going to stop being able to jump through the roof even if he succeeds in getting more calls, and Dwyane Wade, for all his ref-leveraging, also spends plenty of time leaving mouths agape. The friction comes on our side of the TV set, where we want to be thrilled with high wire acts of derring-do and where playing to the ref, especially done by our team’s opponent, is an abasement of the game. The players in the league would do best, and I think largely are, to try and be both. Athletic plays raise awareness in a way that can fuel a career. Blake Griffin is on a bad team and plays little defense, but every game he plays is must-see. Leveraging the calls helps a player maximize his efficiency and manufacture wins. When the two conflict at the margins, like with Derrick Rose, we get the only real disconnect. Fans, I think, are and should be rooting for spectacular acts of Homeric heroism, but players would probably be better served to look toward the Elohist side whenever in doubt. Here’s hoping not all of them figure that out. Whenever there’s friction between aesthetics and efficiency, I hope it's a fair fight.

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Aesthetics And/Or Justice


"I fear indeed that we shall never rid ourselves of God, since we still believe in grammar." -Nietzsche, The Twilight of the Idols

"The first umpire said, 'There's balls and there's strikes, and I calls 'em like they is.'
The second umpire said, 'Well, I think it's a bit more complicated than that. There's balls and there's strikes, and I calls 'em as I sees 'em.'
The third umpire smiled. 'Well, there's balls. And there's strikes. But they ain't nothing until I calls 'em.'" -Allegorical

In a recent post, The Run of Play's Brian Phillips discusses the structural role of blown calls. His defense of bad calls is beautiful: whereas if a sport's1 meaning exists in terms of its skeleton of rules, any flaw in enforcement necessarily undermines the sport, "[i]f soccer is a story... the narrative can take in anything and... its aesthetic greatness doesn’t depend on the sympathy between actions and the rules. You wouldn’t stop Macbeth from killing the king, because then you wouldn’t have Macbeth."
1: Run of Play is going steady with soccer, but the issues at hand are obviously more universal. I'm not gonna bother mangling quotes in the name of semantic consistency or avoid relevant non-soccer examples.
The post's paradigmatic example is Maradona's Hand of God goal. In Phillips' exegesis, "the Hand of God was too great and all-comprehending a moment for the rules to have created it: it was a total summation—of Maradona’s character, of the nature of that rivalry, of everything on up to the international climate in the years after Falklands War and arguably the entire 1980s—that couldn’t possibly have existed if it weren’t at a slant to the rules. Lose that and you’re left with a fair, pure, antiseptic match that fulfills the ideal of the sport but sacrifices almost all its truest and deepest significance."

But that presupposes that narrative power is somehow endemic to the moment; or that it occurs in a vacuum; or that, depending on circumstances, it happens or it doesn't. Narrative is constructed retrospectively, though, making that counter-factual sort of glib. Had the Hand of God been called in strict, omniscient compliance with the rules, you're left with an intensely competitive World Cup quarter final featuring "The Goal of the Century", charged with all the baggage of the Faulklands War and ending regulation in a 1-1 tie. Fair, sure. But pure and antiseptic? The hypothetical match might not match the historical match's depth of significance, but there would be no sacrifice, no lack of truth: it would be a different game, signifying differently. But the point remains that la mano de Dios did happen, and it was a pure, searing Moment that transcended its match and struck hard at some supposed locus of truth and justice.


So we're left with the moment as it really happened, to interpret how we will. Analyzing this choice, Phillips offers up a dichotomy that I can't quite get behind. On one hand, there is "the game", a stern, legalistic endeavor seeking only to operate within its parameters. On the other is "the story", casting wide its net without judgement so much as interpretation. For one, there is no good and bad; for the other, no right and wrong2. But that formulation both limits the aesthetic possibilities of sports and ignores the very real link between game and story. To my mind, the proper analogy is the relationship between grammar and literature. Language, like sport, is a consummately human realm, with its formal rules and suggestions and exceptions, susceptible of a whole slew of teleological and aesthetic significances. There is value in both Wittgenstein and Gertrude Stein. And just like in sports, the rules and the beauty of language overlap imperfectly.
2: This is, of course, a huge oversimplification, and just like in real life, something is lost when you boil things down this much. Demi-glace this ain't.
A bigger problem is how Phillips tries to reconcile his ideal of soccer's philosophical acceptance of bad calls with the governance of the sport, what he calls the "'game as a story/save the Hand of God' line... as an argument for design". He fully recognizes that premeditated bad calls are a hopeless cause, but totally misses why: "There’s no doubt that a certain amount of bad refereeing enhances the narrative of the game, but that isn’t FIFA’s angle, and in any case giving match officials a certain quota of blown calls to reach would just trade epic accidents for bureaucratic stupidities. The Hand of God wouldn’t mean anything if it had resulted from discretionary refereeing choice built into the rules of the game, because you can’t program spontaneous mysticism."


What's really missing here is the recognition that a blown call is not merely an error or an aberration, it is a failure. To ignore that is to reduce the referees to automatons, to deny them their dignity, agency, and yes, their narrative and tragic power. The NBA has reached the point where referees have name recognition and individual reputations3 for fairness, bias, or incompetence. This is fine grist for the narratively-inclined, but the uncertain ground from which it springs doesn't simply reduce out. It's a necessary part of the game as it is played, by athletes and referees alike, because the parameters are fluid. There is a long history of diegetic whistle-swallowing4 in basketball, especially come playoff time. Fundamentally, refereeing is a human endeavor, fluid and rife with contingency.
3: In more concrete analysis, there's some fascinating work going on collecting referee stats.
4: To say nothing of "star calls". Really, let's say nothing about them.
So to say "human error is part of the game" is a lame excuse only holds water if you reduce the game to its rules or reduce the referees to an abstraction. Phillips claims, "The wider the circle within which you’re willing to see the game as aesthetic, in other words, the more you wind up relying on chance and accident," but I don't think that's it at all; the wider the circle within which you're willing to see the game as aesthetic, the more you wind up relying on people.

 
Google Analytics: