4 ms·
I think you're on the right track, but it's more complicated than that. It's not just success/failure, it's success/failure relative to one's perceived innate
by lisper 3y ago
I think you're on the right track, but it's more complicated than that. It's not just success/failure, it's success/failure relative to one's perceived innate abilities. Take this example:
https://old.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/17ql19y/how_to_work_a_crowd/ https://old.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/17ql19y/how_to_work_...
The fact that the audience member wearing the cargo pants clearly had a learning disability changed everything. The source of the comedy switched from teasing someone about poor fashion choices to being in the presence of a zen master who wore whatever the fuck he wanted. (It was actually a brilliant response on the part of the performer.)
This is almost universal. We celebrate (say) people confined to wheelchairs playing basketball, but only if they have no choice but to use a wheelchair. Able-bodied people playing wheelchair basketball would be a grotesque farce. (But it's not completely universal. The DAAA games [1], for example, are not nearly as widely known as (say) the special olympics [2].)
[1] http://www.daaa.org/ http://www.daaa.org/
[2] https://www.specialolympics.org/ https://www.specialolympics.org/
- JohnFen 3y agoI see a parallel with that to "art". My favorite description of art is that it is "creativity under constraint". Pure, raw creativity isn't art -- art happens when that creativity is expressed inside of limitations. The limitations of paint, for instance, or of a particular literary or musical form, etc.