Greetings, Both Dan's and Arlo's perspectives sound right as rain to me, but I'm still thinking......
Marsha At 12:19 PM 6/9/2007, Platt initially wrote: >[Platt] >Yes, but as Pirsig suggests, not all art is good, much less beautiful. ----- At 01:56 PM 6/9/2007, Marsha wrote: How would the MOQ differentiate the artwork from the experience of creating it. An artwork may depend and reflect the technical skill of the artist and be less than accomplished. While the experience of making it, even though executed with less than adequate skill, can be a very beautiful and extremely joyful experience. ----- At 03:58 PM 6/9/2007, Dan wrote: I think the MOQ would say the experience of creation is Dynamic while the results are static. I believe Robert Pirsig comments in the introduction to a book on zen that the result of zen artistry is often rough-hewn. I don't have access to my library at the moment and I cannot recall the name of the book nor the author right off hand. Mr Pirisig seems to be saying that the roughness of the art in no way detracts from the skill (the Dynamic experience) of the artist and in fact enhances it (the static results) in many cases. ----- At 04:11 PM 6/9/2007, Arlo wrote: I am reminded of this from ZMM. "Phædrus felt that at the moment of pure Quality perception, or not even perception, at the moment of pure Quality, there is no subject and there is no object. There is only a sense of Quality that produces a later awareness of subjects and objects. At the moment of pure quality, subject and object are identical. This is the tat tvam asi truth of the Upanishads, but its also reflected in modern street argot. "Getting with it," "digging it," "grooving on it" are all slang reflections of this identity. It is this identity that is the basis of craftsmanship in all the technical arts. And it is this identity that modern, dualistically conceived technology lacks. The creator of it feels no particular sense of identity with it. The owner of it feels no particular sense of identity with it. The user of it feels no particular sense of identity with it. Hence, by Phædrus definition, it has no Quality." "That wall in Korea that Phædrus saw was an act of technology. It was beautiful, but not because of any masterful intellectual planning or any scientific supervision of the job, or any added expenditures to "stylize" it. It was beautiful because the people who worked on it had a way of looking at things that made them do it right unselfconsciously. They didnt separate themselves from the work in such a way as to do it wrong. There is the center of the whole solution." (ZMM) With this in mind, I do not think the MOQ separates the art work from the creation process. Indeed, just the opposite, the MOQ reminds of that they are precisely INSEPARABLE. "The machine that appears to be "out there" and the person that appears to be "in here" are not two separate things. They grow toward Quality or fall away from Quality together." (ZMM) ----- At 11:01 PM 6/9/2007, Dan wrote: Yes... but the question was: How would the MOQ differentiate the artwork from the experience of creating it? The MOQ was introduced in LILA, not ZMM. I don't see where you've addressed the question other than in a subject-object way of thinking that the MOQ subsumes. Thoughts? ----- At 01:02 AM 6/10/2007, Arlo in reply wrote: [Dan] Yes... but the question was: How would the MOQ differentiate the artwork from the experience of creating it? [Arlo] Isn't this "subject-object thinking" to even ask such a question? [Dan] The MOQ was introduced in LILA, not ZMM. [Arlo] Was it? Gee... [Dan] I don't see where you've addressed the question other than in a subject-object way of thinking that the MOQ subsumes. [Arlo] Really, and to think I imagined the question itself as "subject-object thinking" and my short answer a reminder that such a division was answered in ZMM. By the way, I think labeling the labor as "dynamic" and the product as "static" is simply to replace one dualism with another, and in this case furthers the unnecessary distinction between "experience" and "object". In my little opinion, "art" subsumes (to borrow your word) the division between between "creation" and "artifact". That said, art IS experience, an experience that for the "creator" and "viewer" includes BOTH the "object" and their respective activity. As I said once before, "art experience" is a generative, participatory process, deeply contextualized by not only the immediate surround, but the personal and cultural histories of those involved... and as such is not relegated to some remote "object" (any more than it is the whimsical individual fantasy of an isolated "subject"). But I obviously don't have the answers you are looking for, if you want labels for differentiating "art creation" from "art object" you'll have to talk to someone else, guess I'm too caught up in "subject-object thinking" to see these as separate things. Good luck. 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/
