Hi Ben, Nice to have you with us.
Unlike some of our contributors, I find the arrogant elitism of "afficienados" typically insulting. But before I get into that, let me say a few basic things. First, I think Dan nails it when he says "Art does not have Quality, Quality has Art". What this does is shine the light away from the art-object and onto the art-experience. Second, the working definition I have for art is something like this. "Art is the use of culturally-significant static patterns in such a way as to prompt a non-static (DQ) experience from the person viewing the object". That is, the value of "art" is in its ability to use static patterns to break static patterns, and point beyond static representation. As such, you could say, "art" is DQ revealed in the moment of experience. Now, of course, it is possible for us to look back historically and ask, which works of "art" have been most successful in prompting this sort of experience over time? Why "tactics" were employed to achieve this? And then we can notice patterns and these patterns become "suggestions" for students in how to "paint" or "write" or "dance" or whatever. But, as Pirsig points out in ZMM, these suggestions are always "retrospective", and hence are typically stiffling when adhered to without a recognition of what they really are. If I can rephrase this experiment, hypothetically, and propose a "swap", where an Australian Aborignee with a didgeridoo stands and plays on a NYC streetcorner while a Philharmonic violist plays in the Australian outback and ask... what would we expect to happen. The elitists will tell you that the NYC crowd will cringe at the "lowbrow" quality of the didgeridoo, while the Bushman lack the necessary sophistication to appreciate the violist. But this is not what happens. What happens is that the music of the aboriginal uses culturally-significant cues that are simply not effective signposts outside his/her culture, and the same is true of the violist, s/he is also using culturally-significant cues that are lost outside her/his particular culture. So the experience (didgeridoo versus violin) is not one of higher or lower "Quality", but one of ineffective signposting. Within the didgeridoo culture, and within the violin culture, these signposts may very well produce equally moving and effective "art experiences", moving people beyond static perceptions and touching (for a fleeting moment) DQ. In the case you mention (echoing Ham's likely correct observation of it unfairness due to the typical hustle and bustle of commutes), it was not that the lowbrows did not "get" the Quality, it was that the experience was ineffective. "Art", although we typically refer to it as a DQ experience, is rooted in static symbols. And as such it must rely on using static symbols to point outside of static symbols. The better it does this, the better the art-experience. But for it to do this, it must rely on symbols recognized by its audience. Otherwise it is like a book written in Russian in the hands of a monolingual Frenchman. We have to speak the language of the "art" in order for the "art" to be able to move us outside of language. For me, then, there is no difference in Quality between a piece by Bach and a piece by The Clash. They are both effective or ineffective only insofar as they move YOU away from static perceptions and towards DQ, as they shatter YOUR static bubble. If Bach doesn't do it for you, despite your learning the language of Bach, then Bach has little "art value" for you. On the other hand, if a CD of didgeridoo-ing leaves you floating in a mystical, extra-static experience, then it has high "art value". What we must always be cautious of, and the elitists are perennially guilty of, is thinking that because something moves ME into this DQ-experience, it must be "better" for all people. And if something does nothing for me, then it must be "inferior". Despite our seemingly common cultural connections, each of us is the product of a uniquely assimilated trajectory. The symbols that have to come to hold great value for you, are those symbols that have evolved meaningful connotations over the course of a life spent reconstructing, through not only larger cultural symbols, but micro-genetic cultural symbols on region, town, family, friends, and solitary musings. You will always respond to "art" (and "artists") that call to you in your language, that speak your voice, and then use that voice to point outside of what voice can say. Don't let anyone, ever, demean that which brings you this experience; whether it be Sinatra or Joey Ramone, J.S. Bach or Sebastian Bach. But with this comes a reverse caution. While we can respond to the "artists" who speak to us in our voice, we should also ourselves learn new ways of speaking. That monolingual Frenchman should not toss the book aside because he can't read it, in favor of books written exclusively in French. Although he may find Quality experiences that way, he will find more, and potentially richer and greater ones, by learning other languages, other symbols, other ways of seeing. 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
