[email protected]> From: Jan-Anders Andersson <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11D201) In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> Message-Id: <[email protected]> Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 22:29:57 +0200 To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Thanks for the tip Ant. I'll read it tomorrow on the train. Later, or as we s= ay in swedish, Sen.=20 Tut a l'or.. Jan-Anders > 15 maj 2014 kl. 21:49 skrev Ant McWatt <[email protected]>: >=20 > Dear all, >=20 > I don't want to tread on Ian G's effort to get some responses he's happy w= ith to his thread about post-intellectualism so consider this a new thread. >=20 > Just a quick couple of points about art, artist etc. What I now find help= ful in this context when discussing the MOQ is Patrick Doorly's 2013 book "T= he Truth About Art". I'll keep reminding anyone that I meet who is interest= ed in both fine art AND the MOQ is there is no other text better than Patric= k'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 (espe= cially if you're looking for a more "factual" explanation) straight forward t= han Pirsig's two books. My review of Patrick's book can be found via this l= ink: >=20 > http://robertpirsig.org/Doorly.htm >=20 >=20 > Now, Patrick firstly disposes of the notion (reflecting some key ideas fro= m 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 specif= ically the work of Kant. The latter and his supporters made fine art a litt= le bit more mysterious and esoteric than it really is when - in practice - f= ine art is actually something that every kid starting school has no problem h= aving a "good bash" at. (I believe Kant never entered a fine art studio in h= is life so probably didn't really know what he was talking about). >=20 > No matter, that was "Zen" and this is now... Coming back to Pirsig, the l= atter would say (and Patrick agrees with him on this point) that we are ALL a= rtists; you can rebuild a motorcycle artfully or you can "bugger around" (su= ch as the monkey like mechanics in ZMM who only secured one of Pirsig's moto= rcycle wheels with one properly tightened nut). You can write artfully, dea= l with your personal relationships in an artful way; in fact do ANYTHING tha= t requires a little bit of concentration in an artful way. I think that's th= e important issue when looking at art in the context of Pirsig's work. >=20 > Finally, regarding the recent notion of "Artists" (invented by Kant & frie= nds) is that Patrick replaces the latter term with the more accurate (and al= ways in lower case!) term "fine artists". >=20 > I hope that helps anyone who was wondering how art, artists and fine art c= ould 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 o= f art in itself! >=20 > Best wishes, >=20 > Ant =20 > =20 >=20 > ---------------------------------------- >=20 >=20 > On May 15, 2014, at 12:20 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote to R= on Kulp: >=20 >>> 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 b= e >>> 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. >>>=20 >>> 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. >=20 > Ron Kulp to John Carl, May 15th 2014: >=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> I think people call that elitism, and yes seeing intellect as an artist= ic >> extension certainly does piss on that >> Point of view. It means letting go of that whole hippie self righteousn= ess >> 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 far= mer >> About the dynamic artist is that some how they think they are above or >> beyond them. >=20 >=20 > dmb to John Carl, May 14th 2014: >=20 >>> 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. >=20 >=20 >=20 > . >=20 >=20 > =20 > 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 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
