Hi John B., Victoria, All:
John, I join Victoria in saying that I enjoyed your thoughts on art. I'm also a
tradionalist in my own art, exploring the ideal of beauty. We're definitely
on the same wavelength. My favorite quote about much of what passes for
art today is from Al Capp, the creator of Lil Abner:
"A product of the untalented sold by the unprincipled to the utterly
bewildered."
Why Quality has suffered such a downfall since "modern art" appeared
on the scene is a mystery to me. Perhaps it has to do with the socialist
value of equality wherein the lowest common dominator becomes the
ideal. Entertainment and consumerism surely play a part. In any event,
count me as a member of the Puritan elite who still values perfection.
Incidentally, there are several artists who contribute regularly to this
site. Wouldn't it be fun to have a "showcase" section in moq.org where
you and I and other members could display some of their work? I
wonder if anyone else would be interested.
Platt
John B. wrote:
> My own art is 'traditional' in the sense that it still explores the ideal of
> beauty. John Carroll, in his fine book 'Puritan, Paranoid, Remissive', says
> it well. In describing "the decline of art into entertainment" he says,
> "Beauty exhilarates; in its intimation of some eternal harmony, some image
> of perfection, some mysterious and enduring truth, it brings a serene and
> compelling joy. Beauty mediates reality, it reveals deepest essences ...
> Morover, its images endure; it is not transitory." (Pp 55/56)
>
> He goes on to state "The argument is rather that culture and art, which
> depend on care, on cultivation over a long period of time, and which exhibit
> the property that they endure, are being destroyed by being transformed into
> entertainment goods, subject to the principles of novelty, accessibility and
> transience; that is, subject to the principles of consumption." (p 56)
>
> I would add to this that there is a further transformation, described by Ken
> Wilber, from a focus on depth to a focus on surface. I suspect this is what
> Pirsig is alluding to when he describes "thin art".
>
> Carroll describes how some Puritan characters will "survive the constant
> pressure towards remissive adaptation; their securing attachments to the
> values of perfection, discipline and responsibility may resist erosion with
> each new generation. But they will face a hostile public domain ... at the
> most [they] will maintain a small, marginal, though possibly widely
> respected elite." (p 92)
>
> This last sentence remains very real to me as an artist, who can look at the
> twenty finalists in the most lucrative sculpture prize in Australia last
> year, and fail to find one which clearly illustrates a sense of quality,
> though plenty illustrate the consumer values Carroll enunciates so well.
> Beauty is indeed marginalised in our remissive consumer society.
>
> However, as Pirsig reminds us in Zen, "the real cycle you're working on is a
> cycle called yourself." (What a pity that Lila didn't follow this trail,
> rather than become a metaphysics.)
>
> Ultimately working on oneself becomes the creation of beauty.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:27 BST