C.L.R. James on Cricket as Art

C.L.R. James on Cricket as ArtAuthor(s): EARL McKENZIESource: Caribbean Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 3/4 (September-December 1995), pp. 92-98Published by: University of the West Indies and Caribbean QuarterlyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40653946 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 16:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of the West Indies and Caribbean Quarterly are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Caribbean Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.115 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:50:13 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uwi

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cariquar

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40653946?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


92

C.L.R. James on Cricket as Art

by

earl McKenzie

By his own admission, C.L.R. James has "made great claims for cricket"

(James 1963, p. 191). He goes on to claim, further, that cricket is an art form. More

specifically, he defends the following theses: (1) that cricket is a dramatic art akin to the theatre, dance and opera; (2) that cricket is a visual art; and (3) that the

philosophical quest for a definition of art would be aided if it included sports and

games. In this essay I wish to examine James's arguments in the light of some ideas in philosophy of art.

First, I shall consider the claim that cricket is a dramatic art. James admits that cricket "does not allow that representation or suggestion of specific relations as can be done by a play or even by ballet and dance" (James 1963, p. 194). He also admits that "Sir John Gielgud in three hours can express adventures and shades in human personality which are not approached in three years of Denis Compton at the Wicket" (James 1 963, p. 1 92). He admits, too, that cricket is not unique and that all games may be dramatic. His aim is to describe those characteristics of the game which, in his view, identify it as dramatic art.

According to James, the drama of cricket is to be found in two characteristics of the game. First, the game

is so organized that at all times it is compelled to reproduce the central action which characterizes all good drama from the days of the Greeks to our own: two individuals are pitted against each other in a conflict that is strictly personal but no less

strictly representative of a social group. One individual batsman faces one individual bowler. But each represents his side (James 1963, p. 192).

Conflict between individuals and groups is seen as the traditional stuff of drama. James also believed that fundamental relations such as those between the



93

individual and the group, parts and wholes, one and many, leaders and followers, representatives and those they represent are built into the structure of the game. He claimed that cricketers begin with these relations while other sports and arts have to aim at them. These relations, he thinks, are important in life, and cricket, like drama, is founded on them.

James describes the other characteristic of the game as follows:

The second major consideration in all dramatic spectacles is the relation between event (or, if you prefer, contingency) and design, episode and continuity, diversity in unity, the battle and the campaign, the part and the whole. Here also cricket is structurally perfect. The total spectacle consists and must consist of a series of individual, isolated episodes, each in itself completely self- contained. Each has its beginning, the ball is bowled; its middle, the stroke played; its end, runs, no runs, dismissal. Within the fluctuating interest of the rise or fall of the game as a whole, there is this unending series of events, each single one fraught with immense possibilities of expectation and realization (James 1963, p. 193).

Here James describes the dynamic relationship between the heart and body of the game. He seems to be saying that just as a play is made up of a series of events, each of which is significant for the drama as a whole, cricket is similarly made up of a series of episodes each of which is fraught with significance for the total game. There is dramatic tension between the unity of its structure and the diversity of its possibilities. The game is so structured that there is drama in every ball bowled.

The gist of James's argument, as I understand it, is this: if the kind of conflict which he describes and the links between event and design as characterized by him are present in both the drama of the stage and cricket, it is unfair to regard the former as art and to deny this status to the latter.

It is true, I think, that conflict is an important element of drama and perhaps all sport, including cricket. It is James's contention that conflict is a drama-making and an art-making characteristic. The structural similarities between cricket matches and plays which he describes also show considerable insight. But the most important question that arises, it seems to me, is whether or not the differences between cricket matches and plays are more important than the similarities. The differences that James himself admits to - "specific relations" (James 1963, p. 194) or "shades in human personality" (James 1963, p. 192) - may be the characteristics which



94

warrant a distinction between the two, with artworks being the kinds of things that are better able to explore and communicate such features of human experience.

I turn now to his reasons for regarding cricket as a visual art. James has been influenced by the formalist theory of art, especially by the writings of Bernhard Berenson. Berenson describes visual art as 'significant form,' a phrase made famous by Clive Bell (1984). It is not at all clear from his writings what Bell means by this mysterious phrase. Berenson's meaning, as interpreted by James, is that the term refers to 'tactile values' and sense of 'movement' (James 1963, pp. 196-197). By 'tactile values' Berenson means "the corporal significance of objects" (James 1963, p. 197). James interprets Berenson as claiming that tactile values can make a painting life-giving and life-enhancing to someone who views it. James contends that cricket can also do this for spectators, but he does not develop this argument. He is more interested in cricket and sense of movement, and it is to his exploration of this idea that I now turn.

James (1963, p. 197) quotes Berenson as saying that an artist can extract the significance of movements from an athletic event like a wrestling match. James argues that in the case of cricket "the significance of movement" is present without the intervention of an artist; significant form is present in its "most unadulterated" form (James 1963, p. 198). For James, what aestheticians call significant form in visual art is what cricketers call style. He quotes Steele's definition of style: "no flourish, but the maximum of power with the minimum of exertion" (James 1 963, p. 199). In his view, significant form, or style, is "the perfect flow of motion" (James 1963, p. 202). According to James, our quest for the perfect flow of motion comes from our nature as human beings. Our survival depends on "effective physical activity" (James 1963, p. 203). Consequently the perfect flow of motion will always be sought. This quest is universal and is found in the work of children and primitive people. It is part of the process by which our humanity is achieved and maintained. James argues that the

basic motions of cricket represent physical action which has been the basis not only of primitive but civilized life for countless centuries. In work and in play they were the motions by which men lived and without which they would perish (James 1963, p. 204).

His conclusion is that the notion of significant form is as central in cricket as it is in the visual arts. He feels that it is therefore inconsistent to regard one as art while excluding the other.



95

The expression 'significant form' is, in my view, an empty phrase that one may fill with whatever one likes. James, inspired by Berenson on art and Ernest Haas on bull-fighting, has filled it with the notion of the perfect flow of motion, and has applied it in an interesting way to cricket. James succeeds, I think, in linking this notion both to real life and cricket. His point is that cricket, like art, has its source in real life, and that this is a way in which the two can be fruitfully compared.

There is no uncontroversial answer to the question: what is art? It is one of the central questions of aesthetics and has been given many traditional as well as contemporary answers. Weitz has argued that works of art have no essence and that art therefore cannot be defined (Davies 1 991 , pp. 4-22). But in spite of Weitz's arguments the quest for a definition of art continues.

The formalist theory of art which has clearly influenced James - although he does not use the term - is one of the traditional definitions.

There is also evidence of the influence of another traditional theory on James's thought. This is the expression theory - the view that art is the expression of emotion. James admits that there are limits to what cricket can express; according to him it "cannot express the emotions of an age on the nature of the last judgment or the wiping out of a population by bombing" (James 1963, p. 206); these are things which artworks can express. But James insists on the expressiveness of cricket from the point of view of both players and spectators.

In the case of players he claims that cricketers "are always players trafficking in the elemental human activities, qualities and emotions - attack, defence, courage, gallantry, steadfastness, grandeur, ruse" (James 1963, p. 194). It is easy to imagine the emotions which may be the basis for activities like attacking and defending, for courageous, gallant or steadfast behaviour - and even ruse - or the achievements which may give a player a feeling of grandeur.

I find the view that a cricketer can express his emotions through his playing convincing. Before reading James I described a character in one of my stories as follows:

It was well-known that Vincent did poorly at school. But put a bat in his hand and he was transformed: he became expressive, confident and masterful. He said things with his bat that he could not put into words (McKenzie 1991, p. 22).

With regards to spectators James claims that in viewing cricket, like in viewing art, what matters "is not finer points but what everyone with some knowledge of the



96

elements can see and feel" (James 1963, p. 194). He claims that the spontaneous response of thousands of spectators to outstanding performances on the field "are as genuine and deeply felt expressions of artistic emotion as any I know" (James 1963, p. 203).

Discussions of the expression theory often focus on the emotions of the artists, the artwork itself, and the emotions of the spectator. In the case of cricket - if we

agree that it is an expressive art - the players are the sole artists. There is no

playwright, as in drama, or choreographer, as in dance, or director, as in film,

although the captain of the team may resemble these in some respects. As far as the artwork is concerned, it is as difficult here to separate the player from the artwork as - remembering Yeats - it is to separate the dancer from the danpe.

Photography, which is perhaps less controversially an art form, may record the

images of cricket for later perusal. Cricket, then, would have to be seen as drama without a script, dance without choreography, or as a tansitory visual art. The

images of cricket, James says, may be carried around in the minds of fans for years (James 1963, pp. 200-201).

I will say no more about traditional theories. But are James's views relevant to

contemporary developments? Davies (1991) argues that contemporary definitions of art tend to reflect two approaches: the functional and the procedural. I shall try to show that James's ideas are indeed relevant to the two main examples discussed

by Davies.

Beardsley, who is a functionalist, argues that the provision of aesthetic ex-

perience is the main function of art. According to him something is a work of art if it is created for this purpose. It is clear that James regards cricket as a source of

aesthetic experience. He praises Neville Cardus whose "work is eloquent with the aesthetic appeal of cricket" (James 1963, p. 191). His own aesthetic enjoyment of

the game, which shines through his writings, seems to be at the root of his wish to

defend the game as art. It is true that we can receive aesthetic enjoyment from

objects not usually regarded as art, e.g. natural objects. But cricket is man-made and this would satisfy those who believe that art must be created by man. Cricket

would also satisfy Beardsley's international requirement, since those who arrange or perform in cricket matches usually intend to provide aesthetics experience for

spectators. James, I think, would see Beardsley's definition of art as one which is

in his favour.

Dickie, who is a proceduralist, argues that something is a work of art if it is so

dubbed by a person or persons authorized by the Artworld to do so. According to

him, a work of art must be created according to certain rules and procedures before

it can be declared an artwork. He views art as a social institution. What would



97

James think of this? It is James's wish that the Artworld recognize cricket as art. Writing about the quest for significant form he argues that it "is an unspeakable impertinence to arrogate the term 'fine art' to one small section of this quest and declare it to be culture" (James 1963, p. 205).

James has a challenge for what Dickie and other contemporary philosophers call the Artworld. According to him:

The aestheticians have scorned to take notice of popular sports and games - to their own detri- ment. The aridity and confusion of which they so mournfully complain will continue until they in- clude organized games and the people who watch them as an integral part of their data (James 1963, pp. 191-192).

He observes that Neville Cardus introduces music into his writing on cricket but does not introduce cricket into his writing on music. This, James contends, is because "Cardus is a victim of that categorization and specialization, that division of the human personality which is the greatest curse of our time" (James 1963, p. 191). We will be able to define art, he contends, only when "we learn to integrate our vision of Walcott on the back foot through the covers with the outstretched arm of the Olympic Apollo" (James 1963, p. 206).

I think that James in his call for a broadening of the scope of philosophy of art can be interpreted as making four possible claims.

The first claim is that, in the case of cricket, the distinction between art and sport should be abolished. If cricket is essentially an art form, is it still necessary to call it a sport? If James is in favour of the abolition of the distinction - and his views are not clearly worked out - he would be going against the evidence of our language and our usual ways of conceptualizing. We usually distinguish between art and sport, and we can point to important differences between them, like the greater competitiveness of sport, for example. It is far from clear what kinds of arguments could be advanced in support of a total abolition of the distinction.

The second possible claim is the view that a comparative analysis of the concepts of art and sport could shed light on both. Such an undertaking could, I believe, prove to be interesting and productive. It would, among other things, seek to identify similarities and differences between the two. James himself points to an important similarity when he observes that "in our world human beings are on view for artistic enjoyment only on the field of sport or on the entertainment stage" (James 1963, p. 202).



98

The third possible claim is that art and sport merge into each other and are at times indistinguishable. It can be said that the two do not exist in water-tight compartments but are integrated, to use James's word. It is easy to think of borderline cases like synchronized swimming and figure skating which could

belong either domain. These examples suggest that the link between art and sport is something of a continuum from one realm to the other.

The fourth possible claim, which also centres on the notion of integration, is the view that there may be artistry in all forms of sport, including cricket. Some sports may have greater degrees of artistry, and cricket, James would say, is one of these. On this model it is possible for a game to have more art-making than

sport-making characteristics and so be more of an art than a sport. The opposite is also true. On this view, while art and sport may be separated conceptually, in

everyday life they work together reflecting that integration of the human personality so valued by James.

Philosophers of art should study art wherever it is found. If there is artistry in

sport then I think James is right in arguing that philosophers should study this

artistry. As far as I know his important challenge to the Artworld is still unmet.

REFERENCES

Bell. Clive. 1984. "Significant Form" ip Patricia H. Werhane, ed., Philosophical Issues in Art, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Davies, Stephen. 1991 . Definitions of Art, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

James, C.L.R. 1963. Beyond a Boundary, London: Hutchinson.

McKenzie, Earl. 1991. A Boy Named Ossie, London: Heinemann.



Documents

C.L.R. James on Cricket as Art