Hi Ant, (I feel tempted to defend Tracy Emin, but that is a side issue.) I'm reading Brian Boyd "On the Origin of Stories" at the moment, most of which so far is on the history of arts generally from a natural evolutionary perspective - and not surprisingly finger painting (by children or less evolved social groups) is seen as part of learning - particularly learning people's reactions to your creativity.
The thing about the evolutionary perspective is that despite no obvious explicit refences to Pirsigian dynamic and static patterns of quality, is that it is all about evolved layers - biological, social, intellectual ... Some fascinating stuff on established art techniques vs deliberately creative breaks with tradition. Still reading. Anyway, just thought you might be interested from your art history perspective. Regards Ian On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 3:03 AM, Ant McWatt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 18 Jan 2010 at 12:53, John Carl wrote (in the [MD] thread "Atheistic > Philosophy vs Anti-theistic"): > > “ I believe I'll salute Ed Abbey's ragged flag of reason, posted to Platt > earlier.” > > > Platt responded January 18th: > > “Except reason cannot tell the difference between a Monet and a finger > painting.” > > > John Carl then replied January 18th: > > “Well maybe not your Reason, Platt, but mine and Ed's can tell the > difference.” > > > Ant McWatt comments: > > I would tend to agree with John here. This is because the MOQ implies that a > master in fine art is not totally working Dynamically (i.e. just within the > code of Art) but also incorporates the > intellectual techniques (i.e. the accepted manipulation of painted symbols > and motifs in which to produce traditional “good” art) of the fine artists > preceding him or her (even if only to a small degree). As with the best > literature or music, the accepted rules for high quality work usually need to > be learnt before they can be broken; if this step is avoided you risk > ending-up with an "art" piece by a Tracey Emin rather than an art piece by a > Picasso (at his best anyway). > > Like Picasso, Monet initially studied and emulated previous masters (for > this, he attended the École des Beaux-Arts and the Académie Suisse) so even > in a later painting where his cataracts were seriously impairing his sight > (such as 1923’s “Japanese Bridge”) there are both traditional and Dynamic > elements seen here not found in a conventional finger painting (such as that > of a young child where the rules of previous artistic tradition haven’t been > largely grasped yet or, for that matter, any new, successful techniques > introduced). This is why a half decent art historian should be able to tell > the difference between a Monet and a child’s finger painting without too much > difficulty! > > > > > . > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Got a cool Hotmail story? Tell us now > http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/ > 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/
