Carl:
I agree with you. I think he's talking about the expression of the idea,
rather than the idea though. In visual art, there are rules about
composition, etc. (even Piccaso had to stick with the basics; i.e. a nose
is
a nose is a nose, even when it's stuck to a kneecap) and in writing there
are the basic rules of grammar. They can be butchered, but if they are,
the
piece descends into the nonsense he's talking about. In my opinion, the
difference between the mundane and art is the arrangement of those
basics.
To achieve the level of art, they need to make sense, but in a way that's
recognizably different than anything previously experienced. One of my
favorite definitions of art is, "An object that is done in such a way
that
the viewer is never again able to look at a similar object and not think
about it." A friend here did a ceramic cup like that. I have never
looked
at a cup since then without thinking about the cup she did. In that
instance, the cup she did was sq, but it brought a touch of DQ with it,
IMHO.
Mark:
There is also a theory that art can precede "sense". That is, an
artist is able to paint or compose something that is ahead of its
time. It is when static quality catches up with the artist that sense
is made of the misunderstood artist. Much of modern painting art does
not subscribe to the painting of "known" objects, but rather is based
around the application of paint to a canvas. Often poetry does not
make sense in the traditional way. For this, the left brain must give
way to the right brain in terms of static interpretation. There are
also many kinds of music which appear "senseless" in their time of
composition.
Carl:
My first reaction to your first sentence was thta art does precede sense, in
that we get an "AHHHH" before we get the idea of it. I wrote a haiku once
that covers it:
breathtaking beauty
beheld in a passing glance
once captured is lost
This is what I'm talking about in regards to art that leaps out at us. Once
our logical mind catches up, applies labels, etc. we lose that AHA! of the
artwork. I think this is the reason we can take a picture of a beautiful
sunset and later, when we look at the picture, it's a nice picture, but we
didn't capture the essense of the scene. That moment when the scene came
together with our perception is gone, never to return, unless we see another
beautiful sunset. Even then it's different. I wonder if the subsequent
sunsets aren't diminished by our previous experience? The idea of art
that's "before its time" is more a matter of fad or fashion than art, imho.
It's not the aesthetic that catches up, its the culture. It become "okay"
to like it, even though years ago it was considered nonesense.
Mark:
It is an interesting area, and has bearing on MoQ. Some would say
that such artists are less encumbered by static quality. I suppose
one could say there is a scale there with artists and athlete less
encumbered, all the way up to philosophers who are the most encumbered
by SQ. Breakthroughs in philosophy are much rarer than art or science
because of the restrictive rules. There is much more freedom in art
and music than in philosophy. It takes a long time to turn this MoQ
ship. Full steam ahead!
Carl:
Yeah. Someone wrote a poem once that contained the line, "those move
easiest who have learned to dance" and that pretty much sums it up. To be
an effective artist, one must learn how to use a brush, chisle <sp?> or
whatever. A writer must learn the rules of grammer. A photographer must
learn his or her equipment. After they learn the basics, then they can
learn to get the effect they want to get. Even the so-called 'self-taught'
artists spend years doing it before they hit their niche. I don't know
about philosophy. I've never taken a class, and other than what I've seen
on the web and read on my own, it would appear that every step forward is
much more dependent on those who came before. With art, someone can pick up
an entirely new medium and run with it, but not philosophy. I don't think
it's impossible, but I think it would be extremely difficult for someone to
get something published that was way out of the mainstream.
Just my opinion,
Carl
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/md/archives.html
