Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Sep 15, 2009 - 02:17pm PT
|
Perhaps it is possible to have a discussion without personalities and specific route-bashing at this point. I find the notion of "artificial difficult" profoundly interesting and also opaque. Here's how it seems to me.
FIRST:
Let's agree with the undeniable (and, I think, obvious) fact that ANY climbing besides stark-naked free-soloing is a function of "artificial difficulty." Add a pair of shoes, and you've just crossed the threshold! Add a pair of shorts (to keep your little wee wee from getting caught on or in something), and you've magnified "comfort" at the expense of "natural." Give the naked free-soloist ANYTHING, and you've turned the game into just a continuum of tactics where any "difficulty" that remains is purely arbitrary and hence "artificial."
SECOND:
Let's agree with the less obvious but still undeniable fact that once you are on the continuum of tactics, "less impact" or "more natural" fail to explicate. Free climbing is "more natural" than aid climbing, but, from a "low impact" point of view is often much, much worse (a huge spectrum of free climbs demand bolt protection). The counterexamples are endless!
"Clean" climbing an aid pitch is often much more "difficult" than using a hammer, but this is "artificial difficulty" because it gives lip service to the quest for "natural" while still buying into the whole "artificial" continuum. I mean, it seems mighty disingenuous to pound your chest about how "natural" and "clean" your AID climbing is! Hehe
Once the hammer (and, gasp, drill) comes out, well, all bets are off! Bat hooks are "artificial difficulty," because "a hole should be filled by a decent bolt." But why? The entire game that is being played is artificial top to bottom! CLIMBING (as opposed to hiking) is just a game for ascending via artificial difficulty! If not, then take the trail to the top and call it good. If you want some "artificial difficulty," take a steeper alternative... at a run.
THIRD:
This point is neither unarguable nor obvious, but I think is demonstrably true. The vast majority of climbers conflate the concepts of style/tactics and ethics. The subject of ethics is too vast to responsibly discuss in this context, but if there are actual ETHICS in the climbing game qua climbing, then they are founded in a radical subjectivism/relativism/egoism. It is fairly easy to demonstrate that such do not qualify as ETHICS at all. No, what we are dealing with in climbing are concepts of style and tactics.
CONCLUSIONS:
People argue vociferously for their particular version of "ethics" (really just style) because it is within THAT CONTEXT ONLY that their accomplishments can even count as "accomplishments," much less "great." It is only when people have gained a certain consensus that a particular set of tactics is "the way" that ascents done in that style are "great." In that context alone does the phrase "artificial difficulty" have any reference. Harding's genius was that he deeply understood and articulated these ideas.
MUSINGS:
But even in a context of a certain style, the phrase seems virtually devoid of meaning to me.
I remember the early pitches of Aquarian Wall quite vividly, and one pitch in particular stands out in my memories as particularly difficult. The pitch ascended a bulge and long blank section, and at that point in time the drilled placements were aluminum dowels that had been pounding into holes and then bent somewhat up to better hold a small sling. Quite high on the pitch some dowels were missing, and someone had hung a length of 5mil perlon cord from a higher dowel, so that you could clip into knotted loops of this cord to get past the missing dowels.
FREAKING OUT! I remember looking down this line of dowels as I got onto that cord, looking at a fall down that slab FOREVER if the cord snapped. The cord was stiff, rotten, creaking, and had bits of fluff flaking off of it with every move. The loops were so brittle that I larks-headed slings above the knots rather than to clip into the loops!
EVERY aspect of that pitch was "artificial difficulty," but I well remember how it struck me then, and continues to do so today, that THAT pitch provided everything mentally for me that climbing is "supposed" to. Everything beyond that mental game (which is a whole thread in itself) is just engineering tactics; and to single some tactics out as "artificial" instead of other tactics has no objective foundation. ALL of climbing (except for stark-naked free-soloing) is nothing but tactics for scaring ourselves in various ways to see how we cope with it.
When we have literally risked life and limb for a particular set of tactics, it is natural to magnify that style into an "ethic" and presume that others should "advance" to our style (the one context in which we are GREAT). But, perhaps we would be more tolerant and humble if we regularly reminded ourselves that only the nude free-soloist is really STYLIN, and all the rest of us are just posers employing tactics of artificial difficulty.
|
|
cragnshag
Social climber
san joser
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 02:37pm PT
|
OK, prepare to see me stylin' this weekend!
I will free solo naked whilst my unlucky partner snaps a few photos to record my noble achievement.
|
|
BrianH
Trad climber
santa fe
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 02:39pm PT
|
He's a witch! Burn Him!
--------------------------------------
I was thinking about this lately and agree with your points. Luckily I'm long past the time when I need to prove anything to myself. Fear is not the end game for me, feeling comfortable up there, pushing down the fear so I can be in the flow, is.
|
|
matty
climber
po-dunk
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 02:45pm PT
|
* Main Entry: con·flate
* Pronunciation: \kən-ˈflāt\
* Function: transitive verb
* Inflected Form(s): con·flat·ed; con·flat·ing
* Etymology: Latin conflatus, past participle of conflare to blow together, fuse, from com- + flare to blow — more at blow
* Date: 1610
1 a : to bring together : fuse b : confuse
2 : to combine (as two readings of a text) into a composite whole
I learned something new. Well written, I'll need some time the chew my thoughts before I fully respond.
Matt
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 02:48pm PT
|
I know better, but I'll take a stab at this.
Granted that anything beyond a naked soloing Duncan Ferguson is in in some way contrived, or at least at some level of "Acomodation" , as we say in sped ( though even soloing on rocks by homonids is contrived; why do those knuckledraggers need to go, there?) here has grown a dynamic concensus as to what's 'the way it's done' or, if you will, standard style.
There are always outliers.
Free climbing, as defined by 'from bottom to top ( in approved footwear ) without weighting the rope, if there is one,' is almost clear.
Other areas are more nebulous...
Where does Hugh Herr, fit into this?
in the end we each play a different game.
Be honest about what you do, don't claim an achievement on anyone else's game if you bend their rules.
get on with your life, awready, everyone.
It's all too short...
|
|
Rhodo-Router
Gym climber
Camper is packed and ready to go
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 02:50pm PT
|
Ethics refers to that which the climber does that has an effect on the rock.
Style has none.
How tough is that?
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 02:57pm PT
|
" ...ALL of climbing (except for stark-naked free-soloing) is nothing but tactics for scaring ourselves in various ways to see how we cope with it.
..."
Why is stark naked free soloing less of a tactic than any other means of ascent? If using the least possible amount of assistance is the most pure, than there must be a continuum of stylistic quality between the most and the least.
I thought I had a pretty good idea about climbing, but now I am hopelessly dazed and confused.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 03:02pm PT
|
You beat me to it, Rhodo-Router.
Use of a finite resource that we don't own (which describes virtually every climbing area) necessarily involves ethics. Comparison in competition usually involves style, but it can also involve ethics if our actions adversely affect others who wish to use the resource. In that sense, use of chalk, e.g., could be both a stylistic and ethical issue.
John
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 15, 2009 - 03:08pm PT
|
I'm with you, Jaybro.
Others, please explain the "ethics" for me, as we don't "own" anything in the robust sense your use of "using" seems to imply.
And, such a discussion will also fail to explicate the topic issue. This is because a "free climb" is not demonstrably less "usage" than an aid climb. Is a bat hook less "usage" than a bolt, or vice-versa; and how does that discussion explicate anything about "artificial difficulty?"
|
|
Rhodo-Router
Gym climber
Steck-Salathe', anyone?
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 03:17pm PT
|
This conversation has now driven me to go climbing.
Later.
|
|
G_Gnome
Trad climber
In the mountains... somewhere...
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 03:19pm PT
|
Ho Hum....
|
|
Jingy
Social climber
Flatland, Ca
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 03:44pm PT
|
Very interesting read... Going to have to come back for more.. to help digest it all..
Then I'll give some feedback..
But from what I've read, it sounds like you're making a case to the sujectivity of climbing grades..
|
|
TwistedCrank
climber
Ideeho-dee-do-dah-day
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 03:57pm PT
|
When you have an itch it may or may not be worth it to scratch.
Really, it doesn't take much to see which side of the bread gets the butter.
|
|
nutjob
climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 03:58pm PT
|
"Artificial Difficulty" = climbing as a hobby because life for many of us is pretty darn safe, tame, and well just not that difficult! Sometimes we crave a struggle, to give some relief and definition to the uniform landscape of our quotidian lives. We long to feel connected to something meaningful, to create special moments that float above a sea forgettable ones. We want to immerse ourselves in the illusion that we matter, that what we do matters, that when we are gone we will leave behind something more than dust, and that someone will care or even remember.
When we keep it all in perspective, the rules of these games don't matter much! I just like to have fun and not sweat the rules too much.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 04:19pm PT
|
Hmmmm.... naked free climbing is the standard and everything else is merely ones personal idea of what artificial tactics to employ and, therefore, pretty much equivalent. Yes, and creationism and evolution are both "theories" and therefore equivalent. Not a perfect analogy by any means, but you get the drift. If one does except the theory of evolution, the idea of the development of a human brain capable of making nuanced distinctions should follow.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 04:23pm PT
|
Rhodo and JE have provided the waysign that should help us.
-------
Ethics refers to that which the climber does that has an effect on the rock.
Style has none.
How tough is that?
---------
When we modify for our personal purposes a public resource that others have sacrificed for in order that it may survive unchanged, we cross the line on which society is based.
It is more than unethical. It is uncivil.
This is about WOS right?
If there were no changes to the rock in that case and no damage done, as far as I can see matters of "style" are simply matters of opinion.
There are many opinions.
There will always will be many opinions.
I hope there always are many opinions.
There really should be no argument of any kind, IMO.
If the rock was damaged or changed we have a problem. The problem is made difficult to resolve because any time we place a pin, trundle, place a bolt, etc, we are selfishly changing a shared resource.
Everywhere that is happening we need to ask ourselves what we need to change in order to become better.
Arguments about style are really just for fun.
The exploration to find how we can become better
is for real.
That exploration is the path to the future.
|
|
deuce4
climber
Hobart, Australia
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 05:22pm PT
|
MadBolter--
The problem with the concept of "Artificial Difficulty" as a guiding principle, is that a climb established with artificial difficulty as an objective will be infinitely easier for the first ascentionists, since they have complete control of the level of difficulty, an option that subsequent climbers don't have.
This moves the activity into a much more ego based realm.
Better to move towards the awareness of "Natural Difficulty", a concept that personally I feel El Capitan taught me.
|
|
Ray-J
Social climber
east L.A. vato...
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 05:53pm PT
|
Some random thoughts:
Human animals manipulate their habitat.
When what we explore becomes an "apparatus"
It gets tweaked for human consumption.
Thinking of a climb as an apparatus is easy
If you watched guys like Largo and them soloing
@ HVCG, because it looked like they were just cranking pullups.
Anyway, to see an analysis of the word "free" in conjunction
With climbing is good - hey, marketing gets to all of us, that's
How we know what works :)
And, the word free is full of seductive promise.
"Free". Rolls off the lips nicely...nice to hear.
When a free climb results in a lot more impact at the cliff,
asking questions is healthy.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 15, 2009 - 11:55pm PT
|
Some interesting thoughts. Responses, in no particular order:
jstan: This is not about WoS, as I said explicitly at the beginning. There have been many threads on the Taco about "artificial difficulty," where that term has been used to bash or diminish a whole spectrum of climbs based upon a whole spectrum of tactics. I find the concept of artificial difficulty opaque, so I was wondering if you all could clarify it. The idea that ethics is about what changes the rock does not help, imho. Here is why. Climbing inherently changes the rock. Every time anybody is on it. We add and remove with every ascent, even the "cleanest" ones. So, the best one can say about such "ethics" is that there is a continuum, and even that fails to explicate because some pretty heavy-handed, rock-damaging tactics have been applauded over the decades. So, it appears that the "ethics" move all over the place depending upon who is doing what to the "limited resource." Finally, this "limited resource" idea doesn't work. Let's take El Cap. Nobody owns El Cap. To say that we all own it accomplishes nothing, as this just brings El Cap into a "state of nature" sort of relation to us all. In such a relation, we ALL have "equal rights" to do whatever we can do. It's like finding an "owned by all" apple tree and taking what you want from it. To make ethics apply to a "shared resource" like El Cap, you first have to get a clear theory of stewardship and ownership going; and I haven't heard any such thing yet.
donini: I'm baffled. The analog doesn't work at all, as far as I can tell. You mention "nuanced distinctions," but the point of my question was to tell me about the QUALITATIVE differences the continuum supposedly has. I can give you a qualitative difference between utterly natural climbing and all other climbing that utilizes "aids" of various sorts. The one is pure climbing; while all the other forms of ascent are just tactics to "get the difficulty just right," where "right" is entirely arbitrary, and where ego-pumping alone is the basis for claiming that your "right" is the best "right" compared to others' version of it. "Nuanced distinctions" is just hand waving without saying WHY one tactic is "better" than another.
dingus: If you are referring to Intifada, then you are misinformed about what our "express purpose" was. Our express purpose, and one we have expressed repeatedly, was to test ourselves against what was supposedly the hardest aid climbing on the loosest heap in the world. That we didn't find it that hard, that we found blatant sabotage, and that we reported those facts was a distant side effect of our ascent. If a man claims to be playing a certain game on the rock, and he is lying, then we don't "kill the messenger" who reports that fact. Right?
deuce4: Thanks for the stab at it, but it seems to me that you've just flipped the coin, and now I need to know what "natural difficulty" is. Does driving a piton count as natural difficulty? Does drilling a single hole, regardless of what you put into it, count as natural difficulty? I say again, naked free-soloing is clearly natural difficulty, but adding ANY aids of ANY sort just introduces tactics and the game of making difficulty conform to you. And, personally, I disagree with you about whether first or subsequent ascents are easier. I have always found the reverse to be the case, on both free and aid.
ray-j: I'm not trying to figure out the notion of "impact." I'm wondering about the moving target called "artificial difficulty." THIS notion seems inexplicable. Was Bridwell just full of it when he talked about rivets "keeping the commitment level high?" What is "artificial" about "keeping the commitment level high" with one tactic, while wearing shoes, chalk, etc. as one "free climbs" a bolted line is admirably "natural?" THAT is what I don't understand!
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2009 - 12:07am PT
|
MB1:
"To make ethics apply to a "shared resource" like El Cap, you first have to get a clear theory of stewardship and ownership going; and I haven't heard any such thing yet. "
I am afraid this is not true. You have forgotten that there is a National Park Service. It has formulated rules for use and, to the best of its ability, it is trying to have people follow these rules.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!