[Craig]
And if an architect creates a beautiful building that falls down,
it's not well-crafted.
[Arlo]
And from a ZMM eye, its not very beautiful either. I mean, this is
the sort of conflict Pirsig attempts to resolve in ZMM. "Beauty" is
not mere "surface aesthetics", it is not just "romantic appeal".
Right? I mean, from the ZMM eye, what makes a building "beautiful" is
a merging of form and function, where the builder has no
differentiation between "romantic" and "classical" form, where the
TWO are bound/interwoven/united. No??
[Craig]
A well-crafted totem-pole will be ugly.
[Arlo]
Only in a view that differentiates "romantic" surface appeal from
"classical" form. I am sure to the Indians for whom this totem works,
it is "beautiful", even if the faces lack a certain "romantic appeal"
by some standard. "Beauty", with the totem as with the building,
transcends considering the romantic view and the classic view as
separate, but unites them.
At least that's how I read ZMM.
[John]
Art also, is not always beauty and likewise beauty is not always art.
[Arlo]
Again, this statement kinda stings of this same separation. How can
"art" not be "beauty" from a ZMM gaze? How can something "beautiful"
not be "art" from within the ZMM view? It seems to me the only
sustainable way to make that case is to retreat back to the
separation of "romantic" from "classic", of "surface appeal" from
"underlying form". And why do this? Isn't the view from ZMM so much better?
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
