Hey Arlo!
Firstly, many thanks for referencing the "The MOQ at Oxford" DVD which, of
course, is available at all high quality websites though namely at
robertpirsig.org!
> Included on Ant's DVD is a 2010 interview with Pirsig, which Ant has titled
> "The MOQ and Art". Here, Pirsig clarifies (again) his position on art. "“I
> agree with Patrick Dourly that this corresponds to Gengrich’s(?) notion of
> "art as mastery". He does not think of art as an object (I think that was
> his first sentence) and neither does Zen and the Art of Motorcycle
> Maintenance or my ideas of the Metaphysics of Quality. Art is endeavor."
Otherwise, the name you misheard here is Ernst Gombrich!!! The fine art critic
who wrote so many great books (such "The Story of Art") about fine art history
around the mid to late 20th century. Gombrich (an intellectual giant in his
own particular field for many decades) saved people like me and Patrick Doorly
years of research time and writing. To nail down "art", "Art" and "fine art"
conceptually is an intellectual task that makes understanding quantum physics a
proverbial "walk in the park". IMHO.
Best wishes, as ever,
Anthony
N.B. For anyone interested, here are some details of Ernst Gombrich's major
publications & papers:
Professor Sir Ernst Gombrich OM was born in
Vienna in 1909 and
died in London on November 3, 2001, aged 92. He studied at the
Theresianum and then at the Second Institute of Art History at the
University of Vienna under Julius von Schlosser (1928-33). He then
worked as a Research Assistant and collaborator with the museum curator
and Freudian analyst Ernst Kris. He joined the Warburg Institute in
London as a Research Assistant in 1936. During World War 2 he was
employed by the BBC as a Radio Monitor. After the war he rejoined the
Warburg Institute eventually becoming its Director in 1959.
His major publications include The Story of Art (1950), Art and Illusion: A
Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation (1960), Aby Warburg: An
Intellectual Biography (1970), Symbolic Images (1972), The Sense of Order: A
Study in the Psychology of Decorative Art (1979). His book, The Preference for
the Primitive, which he completed before his death, was published by Phaidon in
July 2002. The long-awaited English translation of A Little History of the World
(Eine kurze Weltegeschichte für junge Leser) authorised by Gombrich
himself, was published by Yale UP in October 2005. Yale has now
published a newly illustrated edition that will form a perfect companion to The
Story of Art. A selection from his work, The Essential Gombrich was published
by Phaidon in 1996. A full bibliography of his publications to 2000, edited by
J. B. Trapp, E. H. Gombrich: A Bibliography,
was published by Phaidon in 2000 (the Trapp numbers in this archive
refer to that volume)...
The Warburg Institute Archive
now also incorporates the working papers and private correspondence of
E. H. Gombrich, consisting of some 10,000 catalogued items. To access
those items that are open to readers, permission must be obtained in
advance from the Literary Estate of E. H. Gombrich, 6 Celia Road, London
N19 5ET. Please allow sufficient time for a response, which may not be
immediate, before making travel or other plans. On obtaining permission,
please contact the Warburg’s archivist in the usual way.
http://gombrich.co.uk
----------------------------------------
[John Carl said late June 2014]
Here's a big problem, I have. Where's art? Where does art fit in? You can
say "intellect" but when you make intellect the arbiter of all reality, it
tends to decide for itself what is art and what is not and that is a very bad
idea. I don't misunderstand Pirsig on this subject, you dolt. I argue with
him. And if you don't think it's permissible to argue with authority, in
philosophical discussion, then you are in the wrong field completely my friend.
[DMB responded June 29th 2014]
This is NOT Pirsig's view and in fact Pirsig makes quite an effort to dispute
the view you are pinning on him. This is not a matter of disagreeing with
Pirsig but a matter of misunderstanding Pirsig - and in a very big way too.
> [Arlo]
> Yeah, this is a horribly confused thing to say for someone who claims to "I
> don't misunderstand Pirsig".
Jc: I believe I understand Pirsig. I felt like I got him, the first
time I read him, and subsequent readings just improved the
relationship. There are places where I don't agree. I've enumerated
them, so why do you say I claim to misunderstand Pirsig? Surely I've
made it perfectly clear that I disagree with Pirsig in specific areas.
I don't mind somebody arguing against my position, but to repeatedly
argue that "that's Pirsig's position is so completely irrational and
asinine that I don't know what to think.
Probably the fault is mine. I've been lax lately, in responding
promptly - what with a wedding going off in 5 days and the World Cup
to watch, I haven't gotten around to setting you straight.
> "Where is art?" Besides in the title of his first book? In Chapter 8 (ZMM),
> Pirsig likens "the art of motorcycle maintenance" to "the art of
> rationality". Here even a casual reader should be able to discern the role
> of "art", something Pirsig makes explicit later on. "Art is high-quality
> endeavor. That is all that really needs to be said. Or, if something more
> high-sounding is demanded: Art is the Godhead as revealed in the works of
> man."
>
> Granger captures the implication here by noticing, "Art is thus a part of
> our most elementary and indigenous mode of being in the world." (John Dewey,
> Robert Pirsig, and the Art of Living)
>
> In LILA, Pirsig clarifies even further the nature of "art" within his MOQ.
> "In a subject-object metaphysics morals and art are worlds apart, morals
> being concerned with the subject quality and art with object quality. But in
> the Metaphysics of Quality that division doesn't exist. They're the same."
> To make his position ultimately clear, he states, "there's a fourth Dynamic
> morality which isn't a code. He supposed you could call it a "code of Art"
> or something like that..."
>
> "Where is art?" Art is Quality revealed in the works of man.
>
> And which works? Just painting, sculpting, dancing? No. ALL works. Art is
> high quality endeavor in philosophy. Art is high quality endeavor in
> motorcycle repair. Art is high quality endeavor in culinary practice. Art is
> high quality endeavor in composition. In assembling rotisseries. In
> sculpting images from clay.
>
> And the goal? As Granger explains it, "In learning to conduct more of
> everyday experience in an artful manner, we increase our ability to liberate
> and expand the potential meanings of things."
>
> Included on Ant's DVD is a 2010 interview with Pirsig, which Ant has titled
> "The MOQ and Art". Here, Pirsig clarifies (again) his position on art. "“I
> agree with Patrick Dourly that this corresponds to Gengrich’s(?) notion of
> "art as mastery". He does not think of art as an object (I think that was
> his first sentence) and neither does Zen and the Art of Motorcycle
> Maintenance or my ideas of the Metaphysics of Quality. Art is endeavor."
>
> I'm just going to encourage you to get this DVD, so I won't copy more than
> this one paragraph, which I think reflects precisely what Pirsig has already
> elaborated on in his earlier works.
>
> "Oh, art as placed in the levels of evolution. Well, if you read the
> Metaphysics of Quality, you know there are four levels of evolution: the
> Inorganic, the Biological, the Social, and the Intellectual. And art is a
> mixture of all of those with Dynamic Quality if it’s really art – not – I
> say mixture - I don’t say it’s completely Dynamic Quality. Finger painting
> by a two year old is Dynamic. But it’s a mixture of somebody who knows how
> to satisfy the art traditions of history but at the same time has a
> direction that he wants to go on his own to some extent, so he’s not a
> complete copy-cat and he’s not a complete wild-man – he’s in between. And,
> the amount of Dynamic Quality should not be overcome by Intellectual
> Quality, by these static patterns. At the same time, the static patterns or
> the intellect- the Dynamic Quality should not overcome your static patterns
> to a point where it’s meaningless to a person who writes."
>
> Which itself is simply an elaboration of this statement in ZMM: "...the art
> of the work is just as dependent upon your own mind and spirit as it is upon
> the material of the machine."
>
> [DMB]
> And there are many pieces of evidence showing that art is not to be confused
> with the fine arts, as Arlo so patiently and fruitlessly tried to show you.
>
> [Arlo]
> My money is on this confusion persisting.
>
John Carl concluded:
I guarantee it. And that's not a bad thing. our discussion is
intellectual in scope (words are ) from the outset, talking about
"art" in any rigourous way is virtually impossible.
But the effort is righteous and the cause is good. So I say we continue...
.
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
