The recent argument that motor-racing ought to be counted among the fine arts is certainly stimulating, even seductive in its rhetorical flourish. Yet as a curator entrusted with both the preservation and interpretation of works within the canon of art, I must dissent. To conflate motor-racing with the fine arts risks eroding critical distinctions that have been carefully maintained across centuries. The automobile race may be beautiful, thrilling, and culturally significant, but these qualities alone do not suffice to grant it entry into the company of painting, sculpture, music, or theatre.
I. On Movement and Line
The previous Motor-racing is Art essay by Hedge Fund invokes Myron’s Discobolus and the Renaissance’s fascination with motion, suggesting that the racing driver’s trajectory is analogous to the painter’s brushstroke. But here lies a fundamental category error. Myron’s statue embodies movement through stillness, and Leonardo’s sketches transform fleeting corporeal action into a fixed pictorial form. Their artistry resides in representation, in the act of making visible that which escapes perception. Racing, by contrast, does not represent motion,it is motion. However elegant a driver’s line may be, it lacks the mediating activity of artistic representation. To collapse this distinction is to mistake the experience of performance for the creation of art.
II. The Status of the Machine
The claim that racing automobiles are “kinetic sculptures” is likewise problematic. To describe a Ferrari 156 “Sharknose” or Lotus 49 as sculpture is to indulge in metaphor. Their primary ontology is mechanical: they are machines engineered for speed and competitive advantage. When displayed in museums,as at the Museo Ferrari or the Petersen Automotive Museum,they are presented not as works of art but as design artifacts or industrial heritage. The Futurists’ proclamation that a racing car is more beautiful than the Victory of Samothrace was never meant as sober art criticism but as a polemical gesture against the past.[^1] To adopt it literally risks mistaking manifesto for taxonomy.
III. Ritual and the Question of the Sublime
The ritual drama of the race,its grid, its start, its climax,is undeniably theatrical. Yet theatre itself is a fine art precisely because it articulates narrative, character, and text through performance. Racing lacks these elements. Its drama is contingent upon competition and risk, not artistic intention. Tragedy on the Greek stage derived its force from a script crafted by Sophocles or Euripides, who shaped contingency into meaning. The death of a driver, by contrast, is not an artistic device but a tragic accident. To aestheticize such moments as tragic poetry is to risk trivialising genuine loss under the veil of theory.
IV. On the Gesamtkunstwerk
The suggestion that motor-racing constitutes a Wagnerian Gesamtkunstwerk likewise stretches the concept to breaking point. Wagner envisioned the integration of existing art forms,music, poetry, dance, scenography,into a unified whole. Racing, however, is not a synthesis of arts but a hybrid of sport, engineering, and spectacle. That these domains produce rich cultural experiences is undeniable, but not every synthesis produces fine art. The Super Bowl halftime show is also a synthesis of choreography, music, design, and ritual, yet few would argue that it belongs to the category of beaux-arts.
V. Criteria for Art
What ultimately distinguishes fine art from sport or entertainment is intentionality. Works of art are created primarily for aesthetic contemplation, not functional outcome. A painting may serve ideological or devotional purposes, but its central condition is its existence as an object of aesthetic form. Racing, by contrast, is defined by its outcome: the victory of one driver over another, the efficiency of machine and team. Its beauty is secondary, an epiphenomenon of function. To call this art would be to render the term meaningless, expanding it to encompass any human endeavor that produces beauty or thrill.
Conclusion
Motor-racing is a powerful cultural practice. It has inspired artists, designers, and writers; it has produced machines of extraordinary elegance; it stages rituals of modernity charged with drama and danger. Yet it is not a fine art. To insist otherwise is to weaken the very concept of art, dissolving its specificity into a vague celebration of “aesthetic experience.” Let us value racing as racing,sublime and spectacular,but let us also preserve the critical distinctions that safeguard the dignity of art.
Notes
[^1]: Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, The Futurist Manifesto, 1909.
1 thought on “A Riposte to Hedge Fund: Against the Aestheticization of Motor-Racing”