Why Do We Idolize Athletes, Musicians And Actors?

[Bells]

Originally Posted by Hawk

Apparantly every british olympian recently recieved a knighthood for competing in the games last year. Surely I'm not the only one who thinks that's a bit much?

Clearly the Queen is plotting to create a Highly skilled Knights to overtake the British parliament!!

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Sports are evil, so I can think of no more suitable reward for athletes than giving them a knighthood- a trifling facade of an award thrown down from the corrupt overclass which they prop up.

[Amake]

Originally Posted by Aerozord

physical capabilities matter little in modern society.

Tell that to the people who spend most of the winter sitting in their house because trudging through the snow in heavy clothes is completely exhausting to them. . .just to take a first world example.

I like that we celebrate athletes, if only so we don't completely forget that we have bodies and should take care of them in our mad dash to pursue artistic and intellectual achievements.

[Magus]

They create things that are enjoyable in and of themselves and make life more than just about survival and work.

Like there are business scions making zillions of dollars but the dollars are basically worthless except for the things they buy, such as 1. necessities and 2. artistic or entertaining things. And I mean Carlos Slim never personally bought me anything, either.

I think we should also put at a higher tier people who genuinely help others through their actual work, though, such as people building orphanages or emergency room doctors or EMTs or firefighters. They certainly deserve more accolades than artists. But artists deserve more accolades than, whatever, guy doing data entry at Whatever Corporation, Inc.

[Aerozord]

Yea thats what I'm saying. Athletes deserve some respect for their abilities. Just not as much as artists, scientists, and engineers. Sorry but I feel taking part in creating a piece of art that helps define a moment in our culture is abit more important than being good at throwing a ball.

Admittedly there is tons of crap in art, but even the crap still affects cultural representation and movements of a medium. Exploitation movies of the 70's were mostly, well exploitative movies, but they still give insight to the culture which created them and influenced the medium.

[Lumenskir]

Sorry but I feel taking part in creating a piece of art that helps define a moment in our culture is abit more important than being good at throwing a ball.

But what about the fact that sports is also a contributor to culture? The narrative of sports aren't as planned out as other things in 'culture' (pro wrestling aside), but I was as moved by my Rays going from the worst team in baseball to beating the Red Sox and becoming champions as pretty much any piece of entertainment that year. And I'd hazard a guess that sports represents a much bigger entertainment/cultural influence than pretty much anything else you could care to list, seeing as it's the closest thing we have to a pancultural ideal of "Something frivolous to talk about with others."

But getting to the point(?) of the thread, we tend to 'idolize' the best examples of a particular thing. Sports, movies, and concerts tend to represent/showcase only those examples that have survived the winnowing process of their respective fields (i.e., you only get to go pro if you have the skills to rise above your college/high school peers, you only get to play in front of crowds if you have the musical/comedy skills to draw those crowds in, you only get to be an actor on the movie/television screen if you out perform all those who tried out for the same spot, etc.)* I mean, I'm sure there are people out there who 'idolize' their ability to sleep around or get rich or whatnot, but usually it's an extension of the "I wish I could do [X] as well as that" mindset.

*Of course, the free market/capitalism also plays a role in this, since usually only that which sells (which doesn't necessarily equal that which is best) get to the position in the first place...well, excepting for sports, where raw ability is usually more important that ostensible crowd appeal (barring exceptions like Tim Tebow).

[Magus]

It should just go like

Useful people > Artists > Athletes > Nonuseful people > Murderers.

[Aerozord]

Originally Posted by Lumenskir

But what about the fact that sports is also a contributor to culture? The narrative of sports aren't as planned out as other things in 'culture' (pro wrestling aside), but I was as moved by my Rays going from the worst team in baseball to beating the Red Sox and becoming champions as pretty much any piece of entertainment that year. And I'd hazard a guess that sports represents a much bigger entertainment/cultural influence than pretty much anything else you could care to list, seeing as it's the closest thing we have to a pancultural ideal of "Something frivolous to talk about with others."

Affecting culture isn't the same as contributing to culture. Anything with high societal visibility affects culture. I will use something else I find equally stupid but related to the arts. Award shows. They affect culture in the sense that many people are aware that they took place. Can also affect things tangentially since it carries some clout (this thread being about how warrented that is) but ultimately doesn't do much to evolve the culture save for it being an excuse to make oscar bait.

Whether or not team A beats team B has absolutely no baring on your life what so ever. It does not alter social mores, cultural paradigms, or philosophy. If anything its the opposite. Our cultures values is why sports are important to you. Because you want to be successful, to beat rivals, and share in that common mindset. Your team acts as an avatar for that.

Its why sports fans often use inclusive pronouns when talking about a team such as "we won the superbowl" or "I don't want to go against the cowboys" or "you need to change your defensive line"

[Nique]

Whether or not team A beats team B has absolutely no baring on your life what so ever. It does not alter social mores, cultural paradigms, or philosophy. If anything its the opposite. Our cultures values is why sports are important to you. Because you want to be successful, to beat rivals, and share in that common mindset. Your team acts as an avatar for that.

Maybe? I'd have to give this some more thought but this sounds like reductionist reasoning and I could kind of apply the same thing to fiction. ('There are only 7 stories').

[Aerozord]

Originally Posted by Nique

Maybe? I'd have to give this some more thought but this sounds like reductionist reasoning and I could kind of apply the same thing to fiction. ('There are only 7 stories').

Its not the caring that bugs me. Its the fact a win or a loss can result in mass riots of no good reason. Or to be more exact its people finding this in any way socially acceptable. If someone gets in a fist fight over a love triangle in some fiction its treated as an issue. Someone gets in a fist fight over a football game and its "a heated rivalry".

Sports should be allowed to exist and those talented in them deserve recognition, but societies concern with them is vastly disproportional to their cultural relevance.