Dear all,
I don't want to tread on Ian G's effort to get some responses he's happy with
to his thread about post-intellectualism so consider this a new thread.
Just a quick couple of points about art, artist etc. What I now find helpful
in this context when discussing the MOQ is Patrick Doorly's 2013 book "The
Truth About Art". I'll keep reminding anyone that I meet who is interested in
both fine art AND the MOQ is there is no other text better than Patrick's about
this subject IMHO. In fact, even if you are interested in the MOQ alone,
Patrick's exposition of it is extremely sharp and in many ways (especially if
you're looking for a more "factual" explanation) straight forward than Pirsig's
two books. My review of Patrick's book can be found via this link:
http://robertpirsig.org/Doorly.htm
Now, Patrick firstly disposes of the notion (reflecting some key ideas from the
fine art historian, Ernst Gombrich) that there is anything such as Art with a
capital "A". Both Patrick & Gombrich say such an understanding of "Art" is a
myth located largely with 18th century European culture and specifically the
work of Kant. The latter and his supporters made fine art a little bit more
mysterious and esoteric than it really is when - in practice - fine art is
actually something that every kid starting school has no problem having a "good
bash" at. (I believe Kant never entered a fine art studio in his life so
probably didn't really know what he was talking about).
No matter, that was "Zen" and this is now... Coming back to Pirsig, the latter
would say (and Patrick agrees with him on this point) that we are ALL artists;
you can rebuild a motorcycle artfully or you can "bugger around" (such as the
monkey like mechanics in ZMM who only secured one of Pirsig's motorcycle wheels
with one properly tightened nut). You can write artfully, deal with your
personal relationships in an artful way; in fact do ANYTHING that requires a
little bit of concentration in an artful way. I think that's the important
issue when looking at art in the context of Pirsig's work.
Finally, regarding the recent notion of "Artists" (invented by Kant & friends)
is that Patrick replaces the latter term with the more accurate (and always in
lower case!) term "fine artists".
I hope that helps anyone who was wondering how art, artists and fine art could
be fitted in a coherent way in the MOQ. Anyway, whether you agree with my
points here or not, do try and read Patrick's book. I think it's work of art
in itself!
Best wishes,
Ant
----------------------------------------
On May 15, 2014, at 12:20 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote to Ron
Kulp:
>> About art: Art is a very special kind of human endeavor. Artists don't
>> force art but art forces artists - that is, a certain patterning calls to
>> the artist. Something new, built out of the old. All great art is born
>> of
>> conflict, some kind of conflict, between polar opposites that Have to be
>> blended but can't be blended in the current paradigm. Artfulness is
>> different that intellectuality but artfulness is necessary for
>> intellectuality. Mish-mashing both art and intellect into one "quality
>> endeavor" label is mis-naming because there are important distinctions in
>>experience.
>>
>> If you want to mish-mash something together meaningfully, mish-mash
>> "problem space" and "solution space" into one general category called
>> "experience" and be done with it.
>>
>
Ron Kulp to John Carl, May 15th 2014:
> I see, an "artist" needs something like
> Intellect to rail against in order to produce anything culturally
> meaningful and you are saying that
> Solving that problem only de emphasizes the artists role as a culture
> bearer. It levels artists and intellectuals and you see that as counter
> productive. Artists can't rightly feel like they are some how
> Smarter or "beyond" intellectuals
> Anymore and that just ruins the whole
> "Artist lifestyle" preconception mAkes it less noble or something.
> I get it.
>
> I think people call that elitism, and yes seeing intellect as an artistic
> extension certainly does piss on that
> Point of view. It means letting go of that whole hippie self righteousness
> And accepting that there is something redeeming about the "man" and
> society, that squareness
> That's every bit as important as tree hugging and spinning to the dead.
> It's probably what really pisses off that blue collar plains spoken farmer
> About the dynamic artist is that some how they think they are above or
> beyond them.
dmb to John Carl, May 14th 2014:
>> Seems that you're not really a MOQer so much as a mocker, which wouldn't
>> be so bad if you could really see what you were mocking.
.
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
