John, Yes, very good... Probably the best post that I've ever read on MOQ Discuss or, in fact, in relation to Pirsig. It's great to have such a great talent on board at MOQ Discuss. As Clint Eastwood said once, "it made my day" to read your incisive contribution here.
Cheers, Ant ---------------------------------------- > > Ant, > > It makes sense to me that we're all artists but it doesn't make sense to me > that everything we do is art. Everything we do, could be art, but it > depends upon the kind of attention - or caring - we give to our endeavours > or acts. As usual I'm not interested in what you're saying or what Pirsig> > said but just my own ego and producing more nonsense here than a very large> > shed with a very large herd of cows in it with severe diarrhea. > > Couldn't it be said that art is an offshoot or development from caring? If > we care about the plumbing, we'll pay attention to what we're doing. But > if we don't care too much, so we're obsessing over minutiae, we won't > notice that ant has rewritten my post full of bull. So the guy who takes up > clubbing, so he can dance to his heart's content we call a "swinger" or a > "piss artist". And I do think there is an invalid distinction to be made, > even in "pollution space" (see above comment about cow sheds) since we > can't care about everything, all the time. However, ignoring the above jc > drivel, I suppose it's just unrealistic to expect that everyone here can > make a positive contribution which would be good. > > > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Ant McWatt <[email protected]>wrote: > > 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 alone 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 ---CUT--- . 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
