"Artificial Difficulty"

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 1 - 72 of total 72 in this topic

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.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Walla Walla, WA

Topic Author's Reply - Sep 16, 2009 - 12:19am PT

jstan: now you've conflated legality with morality. We HOPE that our legality bears some sort of relation to morality, but, sadly, it ain't often so. At any rate, to even ask the question: "Is that a just law?" or, "Is that law right?" presupposes the difference between legality and morality. I'm not concerned with legality here, as legality encompasses almost the whole continuum of tactics employed by climbers in Yosemite. But climbers don't debate about the legality of a tactic (much). THIS question is about whether or not the term "artificial difficulty" actually refers, or if it is just a fictional concept that doesn't really pick out anything objective in the world.

If we're just going to say, "Well, the game is just subjective," that's certainly fine, and then I guess we're done.

But the pontificators employing the term treat the term as though it actually refers. I just want to know what it refers TO... unambiguously.

Karl Baba

Trad climber

Yosemite, Ca

Sep 16, 2009 - 02:01am PT

I feel that the "why" a certain level of difficulty is sought is the most important factor. Why are we motivated to do things a certain way, to a certain level?

Important to who?

To the person and their relationship with themselves and this activity.

People seek to push themselves or attain a certain level of difficulty for many motivations..

? Egoic need for self valuation

? Reaching deep within to seek inner limits and focus intensely. Self exploration

? Egoic need for validation in relation from others.

?????

We play these games to box ourself in a corner so we can't cheat ourselves, or we play the game to tell ourselves our way is right and we're better.

It makes a huge difference in our experience but it's not objective so we don't really know the combination of motives in others, and it's tough to be honest enough to know ourselves.

We risk our lives and we get our panties in a bunch, but we can't admit the underpinnings of our stake in the game.

The rest are mostly details.

Peace

Karl

Greg Barnes

climber

Sep 16, 2009 - 02:17am PT

Jeez, it's not even winter yet. Too much thinking about climbing, not enough climbing.

Eschew obfuscation...

Jaybro

Social climber

Wolf City, Wyoming

Sep 16, 2009 - 02:40am PT

Hi
Just back from a facility where human animals have manipulated their habitat to their own twisted ends. Among other things I was publicly chastised for spacing my belay credential. Though I'm sure all the resin for the holds was poured ethically, after 3 hrs, including four .11's, my fingertips "hurt like a bitch!™"
-and even though it was in San Francisco, the majority were shallow enough to keep their clothes on...

What important stuff did I miss?

Karl Baba

Trad climber

Yosemite, Ca

Sep 16, 2009 - 06:25am PT

Geez, it's bad enough folks complain about non-climbing topics but look at all the dissing of this topic in just a few dozen posts?

Why go on a climbing board and whine about climbing topics? If your suggestion is go climbing, what are you doing here?

Peace

Karl

donini

Trad climber

Ouray, Colorado

Sep 16, 2009 - 10:14am PT

I think that this post is "artificially difficult."

Ray-J

Social climber

east L.A. vato...

Sep 16, 2009 - 10:24am PT

Jaybro - LOL!

johnboy

Trad climber

Can't get here from there

Sep 16, 2009 - 10:38am PT

"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."

Then;

" I'm wondering about the moving target called "artificial difficulty."

Why is it a moving target if it is undeniably defined in your first statement.

And BTW, stark-naked free-soloing is creating an artificial difficulty if you if you don't absolutely have to be there in the first place.

Gary

climber

Desolation Basin, Calif.

Sep 16, 2009 - 10:51am PT

Is this meant to be a rationalization for chiseling and gluing?

powderdan

Social climber

mammoth lakes

Sep 16, 2009 - 12:55pm PT

stimilating!
dare i ponder if it is fair for a 5.12 rock climber to forever monopolize a 5.7 sretch of rock on PUBLIC LAND because he can climb it with few if any bolts. of course its bad ass at the time but history will ultimately render such an approach as truly chicken sh#t. thank heavens for sport climbing!

Mungeclimber

Trad climber

sorry, just posting out loud.

Sep 16, 2009 - 02:44pm PT

naturalistic fallacy in full discourse here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

but that doesn't resolve a question. if the question is reduced back to objective vs. subjective behavior and where we draw the prescriptive line, then determining that line is political, or for lack of a better term, based on the exercise of power in its many facets.

I'd love to go back to the original post and pull out the nuances but gotta pack for Hoffman Mtn.

But if we want to crystallize the definitional aspect of what is the 'right' thing to do when it comes to climbin behaviors, then I suspect we don't have much to rely on other than the communal definition. So an objective view is "a view from from nowhere" is actually to be read as "a view from no singular particular place" (thx Nagel)

Is it possible to explicate a vast dynamic continuum of behavior as a prescriptive mechanism? I'm not sure.

but at the least we can definitely discuss it, since it is not without all meaning if we can say there is at least a continuum, aka there is a scale upon which we can slide the tuner up or down for better fidelity.

donini

Trad climber

Ouray, Colorado

Sep 17, 2009 - 12:47am PT

Pate,you described the kind of climbing that definitely improves with age.

Matt

Trad climber

primordial soup

Sep 17, 2009 - 02:01am PT

re: "I think that this post is "artificially difficult."

you beat me to it w/ that.

to describe naked free soloing as the only thing absent of ___ is to somehow relate everything BUT naked free soloing as somehow the same...

i could not disagree more.
the premise is flawed.
obfuscate away in meaningless unending dialogue, it solves nothing, it means nothing, it illuminates nothing, and yes, it has EVERYTHING to do with WOS.

to deny that is a poor attempt, even if you've fooled yourself into believing it.

Roman

Trad climber

Boston

Sep 17, 2009 - 07:15pm PT

Something about this is oddly reminiscent of the Coonyard Mouths Off Pt 2 article posted a while back...

Mungeclimber

Trad climber

sorry, just posting out loud.

Sep 17, 2009 - 08:05pm PT

interesting, it's easy to rip the questions up and utilize logical analysis to deconstruct, but can we say anything affirmative about the signification and why we 'should' obey the stop sign?

we can all ask the "how" question of how we got to be here with our existing climbing culture, and whether there is or is not general acceptance of the mores.

but what reason (or why) should we adhere to a particular more?

what value does it hold? what negative value does it fend off?

is that what the madbolter1 is getting at?

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Walla Walla, WA

Topic Author's Reply - Sep 17, 2009 - 11:43pm PT

Some amazing thoughts here. I'm still not clear on the concepts, but I guess the point is made: put ten different climbers in a room (or thread) together, and you'll get fifteen different answers about pretty much any topic. Entertaining, though.

I still don't think that naked free-soloing is artificial difficulty. Climbing is different from hiking, and the point to it is a function of exactly that distinction. The point is to introduce an element of risk in the face of conformity to what the rock has to offer. The whole "game" is "artificial" insofar as it is a "game," (it is not necessary, as has been pointed out). But the "game" CAN be stripped to its purest essence, which is naked free-soloing. I mean, we're not discussing what CLIMBING is. I was wondering what makes one set of tactics "natural" and another set "artificial."

And, Dingus, sorry to lose you, but if you can compare being defamed for decades by people with an ax to grind, who have never even been ON (for many, not even NEAR) the route in question... if you can compare that to Mark and I climbing a route in good faith and reporting what we found on the route, then I think you were "lost to us" long before that incident.

Matt... spewing as always. Get a grip, dude. Just because I'm IN a thread does not make it a WoS thread. YOU always try to turn things that way, but that game is obvious to all now. You don't like us... we're entirely baffled by you. Let's leave it at that.

Back to topic, as I said earlier... it sure seems to me that people can respond that it's all just subjective, and then we're done. The answer is before us.

But, as I also said, it strikes me that the pontificators are attempting to pronounce about OBJECTIVE facts, and that's what confuses me. If there is something objectively real about climbing difficulty being "artificial," then I simply want to understand what this word "artificial" picks out in the world. I know what "dog" picks out in the world, and I can accurately say, "That's a dog." I'm trying to understand what are the truth conditions for accurately saying, "That's artificial difficulty."

If the contrast is between "natural difficulty" and "artificial difficulty," then in the context of modern climbing I just want to understand what is remotely "natural" about it on ANY level, and hopefully that can help explicate what is "artificial" about a host of other tactics.

This doesn't seem like a difficult question. If there is any legitimacy to the distinction, then we should be able to get clear about it pretty quickly. Don't you think?

WBraun

climber

Sep 18, 2009 - 12:32am PT

"But the "game" CAN be stripped to its purest essence, which is naked free-soloing."

That just sounds plain stupid to me. Sorry.

There's so far more at play then just a material naked body.

There's consciousness which controls that body.

Any idiot can run up some pitch naked .....

Mimi

climber

Sep 18, 2009 - 12:37am PT

WB, you are fully aware, that Richie and Marky have been trapsing around naked of all credibility for years now. For lo, these many decades. Gag.

Oh, and Matt, really nice breakdown. Almost enough to usher forth full blather.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Sep 18, 2009 - 01:21am PT

madbolter asserts:
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."

I think the meaning of "artificial" used here is a bit confusing. If by artificial it is meant "contrived by humans" then, of course by definition, the sport of climbing is artificial, that is, not natural, "man-made." It doesn't matter if you do it naked or whatever.

However, if you presume that humans are just a part of nature, nothing more and nothing less, than "artificial" has no meaning, as it is a "natural" activity since humans are natural.

In either case, the supposition doesn't make much sense if the usual definition of "artificial" is used.

Matt

Trad climber

primordial soup

Sep 18, 2009 - 02:27am PT

whatever goofball-
you cannot put up an artificaially difficult route, create endless controversy by putting up said artificially difficult route, have endless threads debating said artificially difficult route (and resulting controversy), and then post a new thread about "artificial difficulty"...

and then pretend it has nothing to due with the afore mentioned route.
that's just silly, and intellectually dishonest as well.

and i don't dislike you at all.
in fact i don't know you at all.
i disagree with you about one thing, ok, well now about two things...

that's not the same as disliking you.
quit being so thin skinned, seriously, after all this is the internet.

Paulina

Trad climber

Sep 18, 2009 - 09:18am PT

Interesting thread to read!

To the OP, I'm not sure why you speak of ethics as so intimately tied to ownership. There are plenty of situations in general (and in climbing) that require ethical judgment without any relationship to ownership of anything (e.g., should I attempt to save a drowning person? or some such). But even if you think that ownership is important in determining what you can ethically do with a thing or a resource, it's often not the most important thing. And many ethical questions can be answered without resolving ownership. For example, is it ethical for me to beat and abuse a dog, even if I own it? Does the answer change if I don't own it?

As for your specific argument that any one of us has equal right to do whatever we want because "nobody owns" or equivalently "everybody owns" El Cap, I don't think that flies either. If you and I jointly own a house (or El Cap) is it ethical for me to blow it up without your consent? Presumably, as an equal owner, you would say 'no'. So when a few million people jointly own something, the ethics surrounding what can and can't be done to it have to come in form of a social-contract type of consent (which we hope that our laws reflect, as you point out, but not equivalent to current laws). So figuring out the ethics of climbing (or in any other manner doing something with) a joint resource is not only ok, but in fact a moral imperative --- so we may establish a more perfect social contract.

Makes sense?

jstan

climber

Sep 18, 2009 - 11:01am PT

MB1:
I would not dare to "spew", but you have to deal with something. It is you who is stuck on WOS. Every idea you raise revolves very closely around WOS. It is you who can not leave it alone. I would guess were you to talk about the weather, only a very small number of people would raise WOS. I am sure someone would however.

Let me ask a question. Did you folks come up with the Wings of Steel thing or did someone dump it on you?

If you did originate it, did you not consider the downside of a name like that? How about Schlong of Steel? Do you think that a good name for a route?

Oh yes. Your argument that you represent the "true law" better than does the NPS is really rich. Saturday Night Live stuff.

Now I am going to assume you folks did not modify public property in any way. Under that assumption, other than the really poor name I don't have a problem with what you did.

I also have no problem with no one wanting to do the route. And I don't really care why they don't want to do it. It's a free world. Or at least I think it should be free.

Now if you did modify public property, we have a real problem. But it's a problem involving a lot of people.

The question is, how can we get better? Not perfect. Just better.

Roman

Trad climber

Boston

Sep 18, 2009 - 11:15am PT

I cant weigh in on anything done to or in the Valley that many are referring to. I can however say...

That the saddest example of 'artificial difficulty' to me are east coast 'eliminates'. "Yo man that hold is off route" ... for god sakes making the outdoors into a climbing gym sucks. Why couldn't we just have more states like New Hampshire and West Virginia out here.

PS: I believe anyone chipping or gluing anything other than private property is just outside the realm of my understanding.

Matt

Trad climber

primordial soup

Sep 18, 2009 - 12:38pm PT

nicely put jstan, thanks.

so there you have it-

post up another thread about, say, hooking technique, or all about how real men take tumbling falls on long slabby aid routes, and we'll all be in the same place.

alternatively if you post up about something having nothing to do w/ that climb of yours, and then if i start in on how WoS is a PoS, you then can say with some credibility that i'm stuck, i'm spewing, and i baffle you, etc.

as yet i don't remember seeing any threads started by you that do not seem to be talking about the samesamesame ol' thing as the last...

WBraun

climber

Sep 18, 2009 - 12:42pm PT

"Yo man that hold is off route" Hahahaha too funny. People do this?

jstan

climber

Sep 18, 2009 - 02:27pm PT

"That the saddest example of 'artificial difficulty' to me are east coast 'eliminates'. "Yo man that hold is off route" ... for god sakes making the outdoors into a climbing gym sucks. Why couldn't we just have more states like New Hampshire and West Virginia out here."

Yes and Yes on NH and WV!

Even BITD when a boulder problem was too easy people would suggest eliminates. No hands, whatever. It was fun. No one was compelled to follow suit. And there was no damage. We would accuse the other person of touching the rock with a knee. Arguments when no one cares are great fun.

As for gluing on public property take a look at the recent posts in the southern Yosemite thread. This is the worst treatment of public property I have ever seen. Unparalleled.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Walla Walla, WA

Topic Author's Reply - Sep 18, 2009 - 09:43pm PT

jstan, the subject of artificial difficulty has come up many, many times on the taco, mostly not about WoS, or even Intifada. Some examples I easily found in less than five minutes:

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=520429&tn=0
An entire thread on the subject, particularly about what metal to put into drilled holes, given the trade off between wanting to maintain some boldness, while have longevity of drilled placements. THIS point (what metal to put into drilled holes) is the one I find most interesting regarding the topic question.

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=447487&msg=448479#msg448479
Dingus posts up, ironically making virtually the same claim I made in the beginning about everything except but "rock, man and rubber" being "artificial." He allowed "rubber," which I do not, but that's a detail.

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=447487&msg=447928#msg447928
Bachar posts defending the "artificial" difficulty imposed by the run-outs on the Bachar-Yerin.

In fact, that entire thread sports many, many references to "artificial difficulty" and "contrived difficulty." Hmmm... no mention of the "off limits" climbs there.

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=276856&msg=277812#msg277812
More discussion about what to put into drilled holes, with an eye to avoiding "artificial difficulty."

There is more, and even off-taco discussions employ the concept of "artificial difficulty" willy-nilly. I have perpetually found this concept baffling, yet it has often been used as a club (in many contexts, having nothing to do with any climbs of mine, btw).

Sadly, you and Matt both are apparently projecting, as it is demonstrably not the case that "Every idea raise revolves very closely around WoS. It is [me] that cannot leave it alone." The fact is instead the reverse. A few die-hards simply cannot get past WoS enough to engage in non-WoS conversations about norms, tactics, and ethics... if I am in the thread.

I said it at the beginning of this thread, I meant it, and I have now demonstrated it: I'm interested in a general discussion of this concept, because I hear it used quite a lot, and it simply makes no sense to me, particularly when it is pontificated. If you read WoS into that, take a look in the mirror and get over it.

Regarding what you said that was in fact spew, I have addressed all of those WoS issues ad nauseum on other threads. A quick search can find you the answers about our name choice, etc.

And, Matt, your thread-topic suggestions are downright hilarious! Honestly, I laughed out loud. ME put up a thread on hooking technique??? Ha! I would instantly be dog-piled by the critics: "Oh, the mad enhancer is going to tell us about hook-enhancing techniques..." on and on. You should know better by now. You yourself are quick to chime in EVERYWHERE I post to dog me about something and blame it on WoS. If you want, I'll be happy to find and post that evidence also.

But the funniest part to me, reading your WoS tirades, is that you seem to have taken it upon yourself, with a little help from a few, to act as the forum WoS police. "No WoS posting here, folks... just move along!"

Let's say that this thread WAS just a thinly veiled WoS thread. The question I asked is no less interesting, and those that don't find it interesting don't have to attend. You are here, repeatedly. So, either YOU find the question interesting (although, as usual, you don't seem to have anything positive to contribute), or, what your history with me shows as the actual truth is: You are on constant guard for "WoS threads" so that you can hop on and play cop.

So, let's say that I really AM as pathetic as you and a FEW others suggest: I'm just FIXATED on WoS, and EVERYTHING in my universe revolves around it (hahaha, sick, pathalogical laughter). In that case, do you really think that YOU are going to police ME into some sort of reformation?

Come, on, Matt... what do you really think that you are accmomplishing? You're like old folks I've ridden with in the car: "OMG! Martha, do you see how fast he's going??? He's at least six miles over the speed limit! What a crazy guy! We shouldn't have to share the road with the likes of him! If I were a cop, I'd pull him over and give him a good ticket!" On and on.

If I'm NOT fixated, then you're simply (and seemingly pathalogically) misguided in your constant policing efforts. If I AM fixated, then you have no hope of policing me. Are you hoping to "show the world" who and what I really am? Why do you care? Whatever my mental state is regarding WoS, so what?

So, regardless of who and what I am, can we get back to the topic question?

Now, Paulina actually posted something that seems to me both informed and thoughtful! She seemingly has some formal ethical background... a woman after my own heart! On Sunday I'm hoping to reply to that post with the attention it deserves. Good stuff, Paulina!

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Sep 18, 2009 - 09:56pm PT

so in the end, this thread was about Wings of Steel, gee, I'm surprised.

I think the I'd draw the line at what is done to the route, rather than what we take up to do the route.

Leaving the route essentially unaltered, in such a state that climbers coming later wouldn't be able to tell if the route has been done or not, is the measure of a "natural" ascent. It doesn't matter if you climb it solo-onsight-nude or if you just use usual methods of ascent.

My point above was that any climb is artificial by the common definition that artificial is an artifice of humans... leaving the other discussion for later...

The extent of altering the natural line of the route is a measure of artificiality, if the alteration is by humans. This would include gardening, cleaning, trundling, brushing, chipping, drilling, fixed gear, etc...

jstan

climber

Sep 18, 2009 - 10:00pm PT

I would call attention to the fact Ed gets to the point very quickly with few words.

This used to be called "composition.:"

Mimi

climber

Sep 18, 2009 - 11:06pm PT

Hey Chief, do your homework prior to defending. You appear a fool otherwise regardless of who/what you quote. Clearly, just climbing the route and going about their business was not nearly enough.

Cheers,
Mimi

jstan

climber

Sep 18, 2009 - 11:09pm PT

The Chief has a PART of it when he says you need to do what you do

only for yourself.

What's the other PART?

You should NOT do to others what you would NOT have them do to you.
(Hillel about 110BC)

You would not be happy if others completely IGNORED what you value.

You may violate it,

But you may not ignore it.

Captain...or Skully

Social climber

Idaho, also. Sorta, kinda mostly, Yeah.

Sep 18, 2009 - 11:16pm PT

Hmmmm, Mullet, anyone?
Anyone?

Bueller?

Mimi

climber

Sep 18, 2009 - 11:27pm PT

I don't have a clue about you Chief, but be sure you don't have to lecture anyone on here about life being short or otherwise more important. Especially regarding WOS=POS=WTF threads.

But honestly, aren't you deeply curious about what they were gonna do with 250 bolt hangers?

Captain...or Skully

Social climber

Idaho, also. Sorta, kinda mostly, Yeah.

Sep 18, 2009 - 11:28pm PT

Build a house?

A very, very small one, maybe.......

dogtown

Gym climber

JackAssVille, Wyoming

Sep 18, 2009 - 11:34pm PT

Mad bolter # 1 what, Jensen is this you?

Mimi

climber

Sep 18, 2009 - 11:36pm PT

Chief, why didn't you go for the whole thing since you'd done the crux already?

Mimi

climber

Sep 18, 2009 - 11:42pm PT

That's MimiDude by the way.

Chiefy, you seem like a good kid. If you'd reached for your trusty drill and whooped up an instant BwanaDimple, you'd have been golden. You'd have 'blown right by' until the next zmac. What up?!

Chiefy edit: Ammon was bored to tears and PTPP doesn't count. He failed miserably on TR. Neither of them cheated. That actually matters in this case.

Mimi

climber

Sep 18, 2009 - 11:51pm PT

Read my backedit. I guess you don't care about the 500 copperheads either. We'll never agree. Or the 200 or so pitons on a slab route.

Mungeclimber

Trad climber

sorry, just posting out loud.

Sep 19, 2009 - 12:12am PT

"it simply makes no sense to me, particularly when it is pontificated."

I get the sense that we all agree with this above statement despite the way we are speaking about it.

It is in the implementation and action that we find that our artifice and our art is defined, not in the pontification abstractions after the fact.

Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, sculpture, and paintings. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics cf Wikipedia.

Art analysis often, to me, smacks of relativistic evaluation. Are we afraid of ethical relativism in our climbing context?

what is the impact (on others) when we practice one type of artifice vs. another type of artifice?

does ones personal ethics necessitate a change in behavior? i.e. to use a pin or not use a pin when a very highly questionable brassie will fit?

if the question were easy, then we wouldn't ever talk about these types of decisions.

Captain...or Skully

Social climber

Idaho, also. Sorta, kinda mostly, Yeah.

Sep 19, 2009 - 12:18am PT

You just keep packin' the bag, & shut up.

Or somethin'.

TwistedCrank

climber

Ideeho-dee-do-dah-day

Sep 19, 2009 - 12:27am PT

WoS belongs in a museum.

Or a side show.

Captain...or Skully

Social climber

Idaho, also. Sorta, kinda mostly, Yeah.

Sep 19, 2009 - 12:32am PT

I use this on the poli-threads, too.
Hi, ya'll. Is someone gonna pack the fricken' bag?

Mimi

climber

Sep 19, 2009 - 12:34am PT

Bad style and ethics. End of story. A matter of principle. Some of us don't find this important. Hence the move along attitude.

A matter of honest disclosure at the minimum is important. Disgusting egotism and a 'manifest destiny' approach to climbing IMO. A bad-for-the-game attitude IMO. An unsustainable approach. These guys attempt to liken their experience to the pioneers. I say bullshit! They dream that they qualify! Even Harding tried a few things around the Valley before biting off El Cap.

I guess Mark Smith is the only one with enough integrity to provide a hole count which will provide a true indication of the 'artificial difficulty' imposed by WOS. Richard studiously avoids answering any questions that might make him look bad or otherwise seem to diminish his position. Or otherwise conflate it with something credible.

Chief, do you believe being honest about what you do on an FA is important?

Captain...or Skully

Social climber

Idaho, also. Sorta, kinda mostly, Yeah.

Sep 19, 2009 - 12:42am PT

Well, It is a big fricken slab that nobody climbs on much,anyway.

a big, untraveled TARGET.

Have at it, I'm out. Do as you will.
That's what we DO.
As we will.

jstan

climber

Sep 19, 2009 - 01:21am PT

Forty or fifty years ago how things were done received a lot of attention. Since that time so many different ways of doing things have come about and become accepted the Chief (and I, for one) don't care. With one proviso I say go do whatever floats your boat.

But there are so many people now you really can't go changing a shared resource. At this time we have a lot of modification going on. But unlike fifty years ago something like the method of climbing is not the issue. The chance for the rock to remain available to others in the condition we found it is now the issue. It is down to the rock itself.

Oh we can toss this off as just another interference that will disappear eventually as have others. In Teddy Roosevelt's time people wanted to do all kinds of things with the Sierras. Now we want to do all kinds of things with the rock.

Same difference.

People probably will know they have finally come to grips with this choice only
when they leave the drill in the car.

That's probably the watershed moment.

Matt

Trad climber

primordial soup

Sep 19, 2009 - 01:26am PT

bolterguy-
kinda wish you could see you through my eyes.
wrt your last post there- yes, others post about "artificial difficulty", but no, they are not the guy that put up WoS, so when they talk/ask about that, it's not going to make everyone think of your route. you on the other hand did pot WoS up, so if and when you post about that same subject, well...

you are either going to learn that is true, or you are going to continue to be surprised by it. makes no diff to me either way.

as for the humor in my suggestions, yes- they were funny, and yes- that was my intention. thanks for catching on (to at least that part).

jstan

climber

Sep 19, 2009 - 06:37am PT

Woke up early.

Chief:
If I posted a picture of a strip mine and said,"Yes it does matter." then we would have a competition between hyperboles going. In my post upstream I tried to deal with that by saying we need simply to get "better." By that I meant our overall impact on the rock needs to become less than it is at present.

I'll give you that it matters that you get up whatever you are climbing,

if you will give me that it matters that others get to enjoy the same rock you faced when you came to that climb,

If that is not fair can you tell us how it is not fair?

If we agree this is fair, the worst is over and we all can begin to puzzle out how best to achieve both.

In another post above I wondered if the turning point might come when we begin to leave the drill in the car. In the early 70's it was a real moment when we began leaving the hammer in the car. The action signalled our intention. It was not clear leaving the hammer behind was always a good thing. Who knows you might suddenly need it very badly. Turns out everyone was very capable and we never did really need hammers again.

So the question in this new situation may be this. Chief, in your opinion is it essential for reasons of safety or for success that you always have access to a drill?

It is really interesting what goes through the mind when facing a big question, such as that of leaving behind something one has never been without. Were I taking the big one, with a hammer I would at least be able to leave a mark showing I had passed that way. Perhaps that thought traces back to the days when we had left the trees and had begun wandering the savannah. While assuredly an odd thought there is no way it was random and meant nothing.

There is also no way our search for a way to live with the rock today means nothing.

hooblie

climber

Sep 19, 2009 - 10:26am PT

overnight, leaves settle in pot. jstan pours a lucid brew

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Walla Walla, WA

Topic Author's Reply - Sep 20, 2009 - 09:26pm PT

Matt, so let me get this straight. You are telling me that even when I explicitly state that I want to talk about general ethical issues (which is my professional training, btw), I am being somehow disingenuous? There are certain subjects that I am unable to talk about because of WoS, even when there is a whole raft of other material out there, not WoS related, to which I might respond? So, I'm somehow lying or not being honest (even with myself) to post on "certain subjects?" Thus, to be "honest," certain topics are just off limits to me???

Well, all I can say is: BS.

I'll post what I want, about such subjects that I have time and interest to post. And I'll call BS whenever you or anybody tries to turn it into whatever YOU imagine it to be by psych-babbling about me.

Back on topic....

Still hoping to get to Paulina's response tonight. But, perhaps I can clarify things and cut through the "ownership" and "impact" discussions by getting to the rivet vs. bolt controversy that is really in the back of my mind.

There have been numerous discussions about whether a drilled hole should have a bolt or a rivet in it. I'm calling the "impact" the same (if anything, a rivet has less "impact"), and I take the "ownership" issue to be irrelevant in this case (assume that the FA team has the "right" to do the route and that it is "legitimate" for them to drill x number of holes). The question in this context is: why is a rivet "artificial difficulty?" Keep in mind the Bird's idea on P.O. Wall to use rivets "to keep the commitment level high."

The tension is between the idea of "keeping the commitment level high" and the idea of "artificial difficulty." What I'm wondering is what is wrong with the Bird's idea. What makes a rivet (or bat hook, or enhanced hook, etc.) "artificial difficulty" in some negative way?