Hey Dave, IMO your striving for higher architectural quality (or any other high quality endeavor) is what Pirsig meant by a code of art. I don't think he meant it as a a static pattern like a universal criteria for good art or something like that. Instead I see the code as adopting a lifelong attitude of doing well. I recall not long ago being called upon to judge some students' papers. One them was signed, "Beautifully done by ______" If we all were to honestly sign our work that way, Pirsig's code of art would be fulfilled.
But, I could be wrong. Regards, Platt On 9 Sep 2009 at 17:28, David Thomas wrote: > On 9/9/09 11:13 AM, "Andre Broersen" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Andre: > > Long, long ago, in a momentary lapse of reason, I was able to half > > understandingly follow Bodvar and make the suggestion (which was a sort of a > > epiphany for me) that the inevitable concluding answer was the > > Code of Art > > > (the 'level'...rather the 'code' above the intellectual level) Bodvar > > transmitted :'Houston, Houston we have a breakthrough' (do you remember > > Bodvar?) > > Thinking about it ( which is probably the problem... I started to have > > mis-givings)...with what Pirsig says, Ant says, dmb says...but the SOL does > > make sense. The only thing I still have difficulty with is exactly what you > > ask Ian: FROM WHERE DOES BODVAR ARGUE HIS POINT? Is it the intellectual > > level? If so, which 'part'? Above? > > Damn, I feel like a one armed paper hanger. Good thing it is raining. > > "Code of Art" was another one of those phases that got my blood boiling > during my review of last few months' threads. > > Since art is part of my "substantive field", (learned that from the ZMM > "chairman") as in, "The ART and science of building" when I first read this > years ago I got that warm and fuzzy feeling. I, little old me, am involved > in the penultimate, goodest, most dynamic activity in all of reality. How > cool is that. After I cooled down a bit and started to search around both in > ZMM and Lila for any expansion or clarification of this statement there was > little or nothing to illuminate or substantiate this claim. Now since my > primary attraction to the MoQ was the potential application or understanding > of Quality in relation to architecture I found this extremely frustrating. > Still do, up to a point. Realize, I'm not talking about the MoQ concerning > the appreciation of art, I'm talking how it might improve doing it. Improve > our actual built world. > > But over the years I have realized maybe it would be better if everybody > just forgot he said this. Probably one of his self proclaimed biases for the > Dynamic. I'm not sure which would be worse for the whole MoQ theory and > reality in general,than having a code of art (and artists) at the top of > heap trying to dominant the lower levels or a one of a kind dynamic "pattern > or code" floating around in the Dynamic soup outside the realm of human > SPOVs all together. > > The artifacts called "art" show it has been around for at least 30,000 years > but if you add in music, dance, tattooing, body painting and decoration of > organic tools and shelters that have disappeared it is surely much, much > older. I think we can agree that it is a purely human endeavor. So the > earliest it could have arrived on the scene was with the emergence of > biological humans. When did that it emerge time wise? I don't think we'll > ever really know for sure. > > So, if "Art" per se emerges on sometime during the biological or social eras > (let's guess 500,000 years ago) prior to the evolution of the intellectual > level (say 10,000 years ago) and then sometime later the "code of art" level > evolved (or maybe even will evolve) out the intellectual level, Huh? We have > those patterns of value, quality, called "Art" thousands of year before the > level dealing with it appears. Logic doesn't work for me. > > Human artifacts evolve in parallel and slightly behind humans themselves. > And where artifacts, art included, are concerned IMHO, "Experience leads to > Thoughts leads to modifying existing things into new things" with as much > dynamic quality thrown in as you can handle. Art is not the leading > indicator of human evolution but a trailing one. But to suggest that "true" > and "good" art emerges from Dynamic Quality whole cloth above and beyond the > physical, biological, social, or intellectual SPOVs of humans just doesn't > make sense to me. > > To put it in another way I believe that intellectual values,social values > and maybe even biological values will have to evolve to higher levels of > good prior to seeing any great improvement in the art of rebuilding our > cities, towns, or countries. I hold out hope for the MoQ, but not much in my > life time. > > But I could be wrong. And I am sure it will be pointed out. > > Dave > > > 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/ 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/
