[Ben] Arlo, in your comment about didgeridoos, I thought you were going to go the opposite direction. I think there's some degree to which, in the Bell experiment, a didgeridoo would have had a larger effect. The fact didgeridoos are so uncommon in subway stations gives it dynamic quality and would get people's attention.
[Arlo] Interesting. I had not seen this angle. You're right, of course. My point was anticipatory of a common Western perception that "didgeridoo-ing" is somehow "primitive" or "inferior in expression" when compared to Western music such as violin-ing (not only in "sound", but also in "score'). My overall feeling is that we must have some familiarity with the static language of a signpost, otherwise it becomes unlikely that signpost will point to a transcendent experience fort us. (Or, saying this more MOQish, that the experience will involve a transcendence of static patterns). Kinda like an untranslated Anna Karenina in the hands of a non-Russian speaker. Its ineffectiveness has nothing to do with an inferiority on behalf of the object (or even an inferiority on behalf of the "subject"), this is still a dualistic approach. [Ben] With regard to your definition of art, there still is a static context for the high-quality experience in that it's still music, which is a static institution. [Arlo] I'm not 100% sure I understand what you're saying, but I'd agree that "art" (as used in this context) is about manipulating static symbols, of course. Where the transcendence arises is when those symbols are crafted in such a way as effectively point outside the (or "any") symbol system, whether its a painter manipulating pigmented goo, or a musician manipulating vibrational waves, or a mechanic manipulating the steel of his/her motorcycle. 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/
