Hello all,
Glad to be back to writing after a few days,
Let me start off with an apology and a warning;
1.The apology; I was not able to write for a few days, kindly forgive the break
2;The warning;I am a start-stop-start writer
Today was another rainy day, and when I say rainy, its a bit of an understatement, as the two photos show, they were taken in space of 3o minutes and while I was hunkered down in the confines of the room adjacent to the ground,mind you all, it was not a cozy room , the roof was leaking all the time and the spray was drifting in along with a chilly wind.
This was the ideal scenario for the philosopher in me to take over and I started ruminating,
Is cricket a Science or is it an Art?
What do u feel?
To an earlier post, a reader, knowledgeable and by all, I feel a good cricketer, had posted a comment which was illuminating to say the least. I salute your knowledge and feel for the game Mr Abhi.I hope that this post will be of interest to you.
I feel that the Science is in the execution of the skill and the Art is in the eye of the appreciative beholder.
I will explain,
The eye sights the ball. the brain takes over, computes the trajectory and pace of the ball, suggesting an area of impact, the brain in conjunction with previous experiences derived from memory decides on the best possible response, here lets say cover drive. proper footwork makes sure that there is a marriage of stability and mobility, ensuring that the body levers are aligned and the summation of force is in the proper direction, and the ball is hit with required force.
What all sciences where at work here?
Let me count. Bio Mechanics,Exercise Physiology, Psychology, and what else?. OK
Kin Anthropometry ,excuse me have i got a spelling wrong?I have an excuse,
I am a poor speller. hahaha
Now where is the Art?
The art is in the glorious arc of the flashing willow, The art is in the innate timing,The art is in the sweet sound of the ball hitting the bat, The art is in the speed of the ball across the lush green, finally the Art and the enjoyment is in the heart of the beholder(In all our hearts a little David lives, thirsting to vanquish the giant Goliath), who roots for the under dog, relishing the way the diminutive batsman dismisses the flaming red missile hurled by the menacing fast bowler to the pickets with a wave of a flimsy piece of wood. Is that not magic?
Oops, is Magic an Art or is it a science?
YOU DECIDE
Posts
1 comment:
thanks for the post.
i would like to clarify some conceptual issues regarding Art and Science. How do we differentiate art from science? the issue gets complicated due to the various senses in which these words are perceived. For eg. an art musium is a place where we expect paintings, literature, artifacts like sculptures and so on. whereas in a science museum, we expect to see models of inventions related to physics, chemistry, biology and so on.
when we use this concept in relation to a game, say cricket, the sense or meaning of the terms art and science changes. For eg. Don Bradman wrote a book named The Art of Cricket (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Cricket) and later Bob Woolmer named his book as The Art and Science of Cricket (see http://content-www.cricinfo.com/england/content/story/351008.html). what do they mean by these words?
Even in these books, the meaning of these concepts may overlap.
For me, an artist is one who is able to exercise human ability to imitate, appreciate and innovate natural, intuitive instincts and communicate those in a manner that pleases the aesthetic senses of the receiver, whatever the mode is.
However artistic a player is, for example, brian lara or david gower or Gundappa when they play test cricket, still it can be boring for those who do not have a sense to appreciate it. so art is very much in the eye of the perceiver.
Whereas science observes and studies such phenomena, and discovers the techniques that makes such a phenomenon happen, for eg, a cover drive. Scientific analysis also helps us to develop methods to repeat such a phenomemon in another place or with another person, even if the person may not have the innate ability to do so.
science is also a leveler as it helps in skill training and enable poorly gifted players also to work hard and improve their game. I was one such player.
hence art and science are to be understood juxtapositionally.
for coaches, this becomes very important. there would have been no modern coaching as it has developed, without science. but the point is that it is the very art of cricket that we are analysing and replicating by developing method (scientific).
i was not contradicting biju, just clarifying certain overlapping thoughts. Cricket is an art which, when subjected to scientific analysis, discovers the science of cricket i.e. the techniques and methods, underlying in the art of cricket. The purpose of this process is to control the game and improve the productive ability of the players - in other words, maximising the innate talent.
thanks again for initiating the discussion.
of course magic is an art, which can be studied scientifically and then the science of magic emerges which makes those less talented to do magic!
the conceptual error that happens to us is when we try to see most concpets in binaries i.e. black and white, good and bad, out and in, art and science etc. In truth, there are many gray areas in between. looking at such areas helps us to think differently and see things which others may overlook.
Post a Comment