ROG SUGGESTS THAT IT IS
BETTER TO PUT INTELLECT IN ART THAN ART
IN INTELLECT
To:Danilla, Marco and Platt
RE: Where does Art fit in the MOQ?
DANILLA:
In asking “Where does Art fit?” Roger and Marco give different answers to
the question: Should we assign Art to a level by its intention/method, or
by its effect?
Roger says: by its method. Art is not Intellectual because it doesn’t use
logic, rationality, etc.
Marco says: by its effect. Art is Intellectual because it can give a person
insights into reality that rationality cannot.
ROG:
Hmmmmm, careful here. We need to sort out my argument from other's
interpretations of my argument. I said that intellect/science was a type of
Art defined by its methodology. I don't know if I said that Art is defined
by its methodology, other than by being "HIGH QUALITY ENDEAVOR." (And this
was Pirsig's definition of Art in ZMM) In addition, I would like to clarify
that the EFFECT CAN BE THE INTENTION. It doesn't have to be of course, but
it CAN BE.
DANILLA:
There are four definitions of art. Platt provided the dictionary
definitions, which are substantially the same as the ones I wrote. “Art” in
common language can mean
a) the fine arts,
b) craft/skill,
c) the attempt by a person to create “art”, and
d) the successful (beautiful) creation of art.
Marco is referring only to sense (d), which is successful art. He is
saying that good art can give a person insights into reality that
rationality cannot. Good art enriches perception, allows a person to think
about new things, etc.
ROG:
Regarding the last two sentences, I don't know if Marco agrees with these,
but if so, I would like to mention that this again limits Art. Not all Art
is about insights or effects on others. The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,
for example, is a metaphor for the ART OF LIVING. (remember the cycle is the
self). Art -- HIGH QUALITY ENDEAVOR -- does not have to communicate.
DANILLA:
This is true and critically important for an understanding of Intellect.
But… is unsuccessful art Intellectual? It is not Intellectual because it
has no effect. And what about craft/skill, where DQ comes in accidentally,
or is a secondary reason for creation of the object? These objects can be
“art” but they have no effect on Intellect.
If you say, next, “Well, I want to judge art by its intention/method” then
you agree with Roger, that intention/method is the way to categorize art.
ROG:
I think it would be more accurate to say that is how to sort TYPES of Art
into science, painting, dance, motorcycle repair, etc. And again, I think
that effect can be the intention.
DANILLA:
I put intention and method together. Why? The intention of art, as I see
it, is to either a) shake people up (bring DQ) or b) show the DQ in an
existing situation. The method is to focus on the production of beauty
without utility. But what is beauty? Beauty is a result of our perception
of a high-quality experience. We can perceive beauty at any of the four
levels. (From this fact I assume that Art can occur at any of the four
levels.)
So the intention of art is to bring or show DQ, and the method is a focus
on the production of high-quality experience. It seems to me that intention
and method are both essential to the definition of art and that therefore I
agree with Roger, that Art should be separate from Intellect.
ROG:
I agree that it is separate, but i am leaning toward Intellect/science being
a subset of Art rather than vice versa. My only caveat to your method is to
emphasize that the production of High Quality Experience can be personal
rather than public.
DANILLA:
Then, should Art be a higher level, or something that exists along all the
dimensions? Or, as I proposed, a level above the Social that is separate
but equal to Intellect?
ROG:
Again, it seems like we have all been trying to force the greater into the
lesser. Intellect is a better subsegment of Art than Art is of intellect.
DANILLA:
But first, where to fit the other definitions of art: the fine arts and
art=craft/skill? The fine arts are a topic or field that includes all the
attempts by artists; “the fine arts” are an artifact of language that isn’t
important to this discussion. What about art=craft/skill? Art here is
secondary to some other work. I would argue that Einstein, in this sense,
is an artist. Beauty/harmony are produced but that was not the person’s
primary intention.
Art=craft/skill is a problem if we want to create an Art level above the
Intellectual level. Because an Art level above the Intellectual level would
imply that the Intellectual level created Art for its own purposes, but Art
broke away and started organizing reality for its own purposes.
Historically, that is not true. The fine artsart with no functional
purposeare new. The fine arts began to exist around the time the
Intellectual level came into existence, and beauty was no longer were tied
to religion. The fine arts are a product of secularization, and also of
surplus wealth. Most of what we recognize as art throughout history has
been craft art: textiles, religious statues, jewelry, manuscript
illustrations, etc.
ROG:
Let me offer that HQE (high quality endeavor) has always existed, and that
living and cooperating can be viewed in some sense as HQE's. But where they
really came into their own is when societies became big enough and complex
enough to allow specialization and expertise. Entire new fields of HQE opened
up, with the time and ability to develop fine Artistic talent at painting,
singing, weaving, knitting, philosophising and theorizing.
DANILLA:
So I don’t see how Art can be above Intellect.
But what about Art as a parallel development to Intellect, both above the
Social level?
Let’s look at the relationship of Art to Intellect. We know:
The experience of art can have an effect on a person’s Intellectual
patterns. And Intellectual patterns can affect an artist’s decisions
throughout the process of making art. Both of these relationships are
“apples and oranges”; I feel that Intellect and Art are two completely
different kinds of patterns (even with Marco’s good point in mind). They
seem more different from each other than an ecosystem seems from a tree
(both are Biological, but the ecosystem is much more advancedanother post
someday). Neither Art nor Intellect can dominate each other.
ROG:
But you are denigrating art to a certain type of HQE. I have deleted the rest
of what you wrote, because I have no comments that differ from the above.
Science and Opera and painting and Zen are all types of Art -- high quality
endeavors. Scientific/Intellectual patterns have the dynamic ability to
bootstrap knowledge and lead to more and more knowledge and technology and
hence to significantly modify the world (in good and bad ways), and as such
have been incredibly influential and powerful in a limited subject/object
rational way that is inherent in the methodology. Every type of Art has its
methodologies, intents and purposes, its strengths, and its weaknesses, but
Marco has convinced me that Art is absolutely not a sub-element of society,
and I now offer that it is not a sub-element of intellect either.
I will probably regret writing this tomorrow. But...Merry Christmas anyways!
Rog
PS -- The definition of "Knowledge" in an OLD copy of The Oxford English
Dictionary: "knowledge is a branch of learning; a science, an art."
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:55 BST