[Arlo previously] Broadly, for Tolstoy, "art" is (high-quality), deliberate, communicative endeavor, but bear in mind that this endeavor is historical, becoming a "relationship both with him who produced, or is producing, the art, and with all those who, simultaneously, previously, or subsequently, receive the same artistic impression."
[John] But communication is more than personal. Who communicates with himself? If Art is communicative, then some other must be intended, no? [Arlo] Just a quick answer here, because its a little off-topic. You have to remember that in the Russian tradition 'communication' is both 'internal' and 'historical'. Bakhtin summarized this with the term "ventriloquation". Simply, the manipulation of symbols is inherently social, inherently communicative, as it always is 'responsive' and 'anticipative'. That is, everything we 'say' (through language or some other form of symbol-system) is at heart a response to a previous statement and at the same time framed to anticipate being itself responded to. In addition to this historical aspect, Bakhtin explains the interalized-sociality of expression by pointing out that all expressed symbols inherently include the voices of others. In the simplest sense, thinking to yourself in a quiet room all by yourself is a social-communicative act. In this light, to answer your last point, yes, communication always anticipates (or intends) some 'other', as well as itself being responsive to some ' other'. [Arlo previously] Last point about Tolstoy's essay, which I think is still relevant today (and echoes, IMO, the central theme of ZMM): "Art, in our society, has been so perverted that not only has bad art come to be considered good, but even the very perception of what art really is has been lost. In order to be able to speak about the art of our society, it is, therefore, first of all necessary to distinguish art from counterfeit art." [John] What art really is, cannot be defined, except badly. Art can't be defined. Art can only be experienced. Art IS Quality. [Arlo] While I agree that art cannot be defined, I think it can be understood, and I think what Tolstoy (and Pirsig) are saying is that the modern social-cultural understanding of 'art' has been perverted. Neither are proposing a rigid definition, but neither are both saying that its so mystic we can't talk about better ways to understand what art is. For example, Tolstoy writes, "It is true that this indication is an internal one, and that there are people who have forgotten what the action of real art is, who expect something else form art (in our society the great majority are in this state), and that therefore such people may mistake for this aesthetic feeling the feeling of diversion and a certain excitement which they receive from counterfeits of art." This correlates strongly with what Pirsig saw in ZMM, "Along the streets that lead away from the apartment he can never see anything through the concrete and brick and neon but he knows that buried within it are grotesque, twisted souls forever trying the manners that will convince themselves they possess Quality, learning strange poses of style and glamour vended by dream magazines and other mass media, and paid for by the vendors of substance. He thinks of them at night alone with their advertised glamorous shoes and stockings and underclothes off, staring through the sooty windows at the grotesque shells revealed beyond them, when the poses weaken and the truth creeps in, the only truth that exists here, crying to heaven, God, there is nothing here but dead neon and cement and brick." "Art is the Godhead as revealed in the works of man" is not a bad definition of art. It is, I'd argue, quite good. But "good" in a MOQ sense, as a map that does a good job of orienting our travels (and importantly, a better job than the one currently in use by many). 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
