The mixture in this case is of knowledge and skill. You probably missed it, but when I said a skill cannot be taught, I added that it can be developed - which is what a teacher can do. But, if there is no skill, it cannot be taught. You remember when I kidded myself for destroying Henry Holst as a violin teacher, even as I created a soloist. He could tell me what to do, but I was dead wood.
No doubt with superhuman effort he could have got me to play "Chopsticks" or something , but the result would have shown my lack of skill, rather than fiddling fame.
But you indicated something further. Along with the technical skills must come knowledge, for which he needs a Ray, or someone like him. He has to know (I'm just guessing) whether his bow is affected by the humidity, or temperature and how to compensate. Perhaps, the idiosyncrasies of the conductor come into play - before he does. I don't know the questions he must answer - but he does.
Which answers your point below. Everything will be a mixture of knowledge and skill. Remember, we separate to analyze. In practice they happen together - each surely affecting the other. So, we can have a skillful scientist - or a maestro who really knows Beethoven.
I was answering Lightman's point about tension. It seems an imperative of people in the limelight to throw out banalities as if they were profound. Art isn't so much intuitive as sweaty. It's a lot of work - ask Ray, on whose field we are trampling. When a violin sings, it isn't something that just happened. When a voice ascends into the heights, it isn't the result of something she just thought of.
It takes massive effort and, probably not a few tears, to produce the final product.
Not to mention considerable tension for every performer! I think it comes with the territory and is anything but negative. Perhaps tension is necessary to a superlative performance.
Intuition, to me, describes how you come to a right conclusion without really knowing how you got there. I think you draw on things you know, but that you don't know you know. Don't worry about any differences because we are saying what we mean when we use a word.
Then you make a big step upward. Toward the spiritual experience that transcends reality.
The question that comes to mind is whether that is something that is outside of ourselves - or completely within ourselves. I would argue it is completely internal - though it can be shared with others.
Don't be concerned with sharing personal details. It makes you a person rather than a correspondent.
We are lucky - both of us - to have enjoyed long relationships and a crowd around the table. Wouldn't have missed either for anything!
Harry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry wrote:> Selma, > > One of my pet peeves is how economic scientists try to work with mixtures - > an exercise that verges on the impossible. One has to separate the > components - find out about them, then perhaps to bring them together. Selma: I'm not sure I know what mixtures you're referring to here. It sounds a little bit like what I am referring to when I complain that the conversations have no 'ground'. What I mean by that is that the theories that are presented do not make clear what kinds of assumptions are being made. But I would argue that skill can be taught-to a point. A gifted pianist will not be able to express her/his gift to their full potential without being taught the technical skills necessary. Those technical skills must then be mastered to the point where the artist can then forget about them in order to express what I believe is something much more than intuition. I believe the highest expressions of any art are a spiritual expression that other people would call religious. Perhaps this can be more clearly understood this way: one of my daughters and I frequently will refer to a particular piece of music-e.g., Mozart's requiem, as having been possible because "He had a direct line to God". I don't believe in the god that most people seem to-for me the spiritual force that I refer to is a cosmic force to which I believe we all CAN be connected to if we are open to it, and some, like Mozart (whether he was aware of it or not) was connected to a great deal of the time. And I do not believe that that spiritual connection is or should be limited to certain times or places. It is something that, for me, is part of my everyday life. So I believe that skill and knowledge are the tools necessary in order to make spiritual expressions possible. They are, so to speak, necessary but not sufficient. Harry: > I think we are talking about two components that are often used > synonymously - but shouldn't be - knowledge and skill. > > Knowledge can be taught - skill cannot, although an existing skill can be > developed. > > You can tell me completely and properly how to use a saw to make a right > angled cut - but, although I know how - I just can't get the saw to work. > > On the other hand I might be able to make that cut accurately every time - > but not know why it's important and useful. > > (Perhaps this is where the old cliche comes from - if you can't do, you teach.) > > Obviously any of our activities will be a mixture of the two. > > The artist, for example must know how to mix his paints and how brushes > behave - before using his skill to lay paint on the canvas. If either is > poor, he won't be as accomplished a painter. > I would equate knowledge with science and skill with art. Selma: I find some of this confusing, Harry. I don't think you're saying that knowledge isn't necessary in order to creat art? It sounds as though you are saying that art is just a matter of technical skill and I know you don't mean that. I am probably misreading or misinterpreting what you are saying.
Harry: > Which leads me to argue that there is no tension between science and art > (though perhaps between scientists and artists). Selma: I think there is an important tension between science and art but I am not using tension in a negative way here. I think there is a very productive tension between the intellectual and emotional and spiritual and psychological components that are part of all of us but I think those tensions can be positive and productive.
I'm using tension here to express the way the questions and issues arise in either science and/or art and then may ( or mayb not) be forthcoming in either/or/and both sources. I also believe that, though all of those components that I keep referring to are part of all of us and of the societies in which we live, there has to be a balance between and among them. That is, We cannot be, and would not want to be, always in a state of spiritual ecstasy, nor would we always want to be in a state of intellectual or artistic creativity. For me, the good life consists in a BALANCE of all of those components such that each component feeds into the whole and enhances all of the other components. When I have been engaged in intense intellectual activity for some time, I then need to go swimming; when I have been spending many hours and sometimes days with my family, I then need time to be by myself (and even during those days I may need breaks from all the tumult-I have a very large family and we are not always together so when we are it can get pretty intense); even when my husband and I have been having wonderful sex and intimacy for a few hours, I then need to get on with something else, usually some intellectual or artistic endeavor. Although, I have to say, in regard to that last comment, that after being together for over 56 years, we are very blessed that the intimacy continues, even through the day which may contain very pedestrian activities and that kind of intimacy I never need a break from. Which leads me to another point, which is that as one grows spiritually, psychologically, emotionally, etc. all of that growth becomes incorporated into all of the elements that are part of our lives. My spiritual growth has enhanced my intellectual activity enormously as it has enhanced all of my relationships and my ability to be carried away by music, literature, nature, etc. At the societal level this manifests as a BALANCE between and among all of the institutions-and for this, we can go back to Plato. I have a tendency, at this point to feel a little uncomfortable with all of these very personal revelations but I know clearly that the very personal and the theoretical are all very intimately connected so when I am talking about what constitutes *the good society* or the distinction between art and science I am also talking about what constitutes *the good life* of an individual. As a sociologist, I know the two are intimately connected; as a feminist, one of the first things I learned was that *the personal is political; the political is personal* and I relearned it over and over as I have progressed in my personal and intellectual growth. So I will simply tell my discomfort with these personal revelations to go away and will continue to do this as long as I believe it contributes to the ongoing conversation of Future Work. I don't think semantics is the only thing that differs between us, Harry. I doubt that your use of 'tuition' or 'hunch' is quite the same as what I mean when I refer to the 'spiritual' aspect. When I refer to this spiritual aspect of art and/or science (see the quote from Einstein that I posted earlier) I am referring to something that exists in a dimension that is not what we are usually talking about. It is akin to the mysticism that Einstein referred to; it is characterized by joy and ecstasy and 'flow' -are many of you familiar with the work of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi?-he writes about 'flow' and 'creativity' in work; it is a sensation of being in the moment in a way that excludes time and space. Csikszentmihalyi's first book, entitled *Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience* is all about this sensation, feeling, psychological-emotional state, in everyday WORK situations. > So, I agree with Lightman that science and art are complementary, but agree > with your criticism of his argument. > > Everything is interconnected - even though they may better be understood by > separating the bits and examining them separately. (We can dig down deeper > into both knowledge and skills if we want.) > > But, after the separating comes the combining, which brings us back to reality. > > Harry Selma: I couldn't agree with you more, Harry. Selma
****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/27/2003
