Hi folks, We spent a fair bit of time on MD debating what is art during Grayson Perry's Reeth Lectures last year. http://www.psybertron.org/?s=reith+perry
Obviously anything CAN BE art, but not anything IS art. Depends on things like care, craft and purpose from the creator side. And context, experience and understanding from the beholder and/or critic. But this is Ant's specialist subject, so I'll butt out. Ian On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 6:47 PM, John Carl <ridgecoy...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 endeavors > or acts. > > 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 care too much, so we're obsessing over minutiae, we won't get any > work done. So the guy who gives up plumbing, so he can solder to his > heart's content, we call a "sculptor" and artist. And I do think there is > a valid distinction to be made, even in "solution space" since we can't > care about everyting, all the time. It's just unrealistic to expect. > Caring more than we do now, would be good. > > > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Ant McWatt <antmcw...@hotmail.co.uk>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 >> >> >> 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 bleive Kant never entered a >> fine art studio in his life so 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). > > > > Jc: Okay you've got a logical paradox going here. If we are all artists, > then buggering around like monkeys, bopping to the music while we're > getting paid to work on motorcycles, IS our art. Don't be square, man. > > See where that gets us? > > Ant: > > >> 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. >> >> > Jc: > > I agree. But I still say the distinction is valid and that it's the ability > of certain individuals to express their caring well, that earns the > distinction "artist" and not all rise to their level so as to make a > profession of it. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't all try to find > something, to be excellent in, to experience the creative in a tangible and > personal way. > > Ant: > > 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". >> >> > Jc: Oh, I see. He doesn't have a problem with the term, just the > capitialization. I get it. Yeah, capitalization of generalizations oughta > be banned in philosophy, for sure. I'm sure W. James would agree on that > one. > > Ant: > > >> 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! >> >> > Thanks for the recommendation ,Ant. It does sound interesting indeed. > > Take Care, > > John. > > > > >> ------------------------- >> >> >> On May 15, 2014, at 12:20 PM, John Carl <ridgecoy...@gmail.com> 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 >> > > > > -- > "finite players > play within boundaries. > Infinite players > play *with* boundaries." > 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
