When people try to "explain" art, my initial dynamic reaction is always
irritation. Art, like beauty, IMO is in the eye of the beholder. Whenever the
subject arises, I always think about the old analogy involving the butterfly.
A beautiful butterfly fluttering above a sunny field of flowers. There's no
denying its beauty. Then a scientist comes along with a net, catches it,
kills it, and pins it to a board in a glass case so everyone in his class can
"analyze" it. It's still beautiful....but just as dead as horse shit. I think
you can kill works of art in much the same way. I don't think you can explain
pure art any more than you can explain pure Quality; words don't cut it; once
you put words to it, it becomes something less. The best art IMO speaks to
those unnamed parts of our soul which we sense but can't, as yet, put into
words.
As Pirsig writes in ZMM: "Quality, when pointed to, tends to go away." He
writes this, I believe, in the short section involving his visit to Crater
Lake with Chris. It's a profound statement; a statement I'm sure all the
Dialectic People love to pounce on. I think this statement should be, if
nothing else, kept in mind when discussing art.
There's no denying the historical evidence that *techniques* of art can be
taught with success, but pure art IMO can't be taught. Maybe it's possible to
think of works of art like people; either they pretty or they ain't :o)
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
