Hello all,
I will try to trace back my steps on how to improve MoQ [I did it a few
years
ago] one by one, I'll be happy to get your critique as well as other options
to my choice with a qualitative judgement attached to it [MoQ is not much
without quality].
Step1
Understanding that Pirsig didn't really laid out a SPQ structure, I tried
to look for one. However Pirsig gave me a clue, by mentioning that in all
fields of meaning the most obvious that goes by quality nowadays was the
field of ART.
All I had to do is look for a mutation in this sort of cultural complex
creatures, namely an Art theory which is young and rejected by most of the
Art philosophy/ history establishment.
Here I was extremely lucky, not only I have found such a theory, the theory
I have found had big problems with evaluation of Art [HA HA HA], just what I
needed to make this two ways beneficial. To the Art world to solve the
problem of Art evaluation [within the theory] and to provide a possible
structure for SPQ in Art and maybe generalize it for other SPQ use [making
Art SPQ a private case of the same form].
We can easily split Art theories are into two kinds:
1. Theories that attribute quality to a certain ingredient in Art [like
unity, beauty, harmony between the elements of an Art work etc.]. I call
them "Ingredient x theories".
2. Theories which suggest that quality in Art is due to a relationship
between the artist, the art work and the context [society times etc.]
Because quality in MoQ can appear in any content, quality does not have to
be attached to a certain material, attribute etc.. We can learn that from
the fact that a SPQ can loose its quality over time [get dogmatic etc. for
instance].
In Art we see artists that get reevaluated and re re evaluated all the time.
The content of their work did not change, but the quality changes [so does
the context]. Values themselves[once formulated] are subjected to changes,
if you want them to continue to hold quality, or loose their quality.
Because quality is a situational experience, a holistic experience, prior to
any S/O division [I hope we all agree on that], we should go with Art
theories of the second kind.
Among those is an Art theory [the potential mother of all other SPQ form]
that is called The Institutional Theory of Art. It was launched in the 60
ies
by Prof. George Dickie and was almost abandoned by him [it was constantly
attacked by almost everybody in that field for more than 20 years]. However
I ran into young Mr. Graves [today Doctor of philosophy David C. Graves] who
was teaching in Tel Aviv University a course about it [he wrote his thesis
on the subject]. This was just after I finished Lila, and instantly I made
the match that can benefit the two worlds.
We met for 18 months trying to improve on this Art theory, trying to do some
field jobs too, checking if we can improve artistic quality after exposed to
this theory [the artist I worked with made a quantum jump regarding his
painting quality]. Our work yielded some changes that were important, but
afterwards I continued alone writing all my art papers using this theory and
subjecting them to the old academic dingoes of Tel Aviv university [I
finished this degree with excellence, so it wasn't so bad after all].
Enough with history and let me try to say what it says.
It claims that in Art, the question what is Art [an ontological and a
qualitative question combined] is a fusion of 4 elements:
1. Artist - An agent that created Art work [one or more], according to an
Art theory, for an Art audience.
2. Artwork - A work created by the Artist, according to an Art theory, for
an Art audience.
3. Art theory - A set of rules that constituted Artwork [one or more], made
by the Artist , and is judged by an Art audience [aware of the particular
art theory involved].
4. Art audience - An educated group of people [knowing the particular art
theory involved], appreciating the Artwork, made by the Artist, by the Art
theory.
The revolution of this theory is that it says THAT IT HOLDS QUALITY ONLY IF
ALL 4 ELEMENTS ARE FUSED, namely holding the cycle together [you must have
noticed that we have here circular definitions, so according to Dickie, the
quality is there as long the cycle is there [he called his original book
"The Art Cycle"].
In order to help you to digest this let me point out:
1. There is no point to judge one kind of art according to another theory
[like jazz music don't have to be judged by classical music rules]. This
reminds me remotely the different quality Lila has to Phaderus, or the
inability to compare biological quality to social quality etc.
2. The art cycle containing Artist, WT [working theory], Audience, Artwork,
suggest that an Artistic quality is experienced once the cycle is closed,
namely AFTER facing the publishing/performing situation, and this is similar
to biological quality [in a mutation] present after facing a particular
situation [in Darwin theory for example]. So here to QUALITY IS A
SITUATIONAL EXPERIENCE.
If I make the next step it is to realize that a particular Artwork can have
many qualities of different kinds:
Economic quality
Historic quality
Educational quality
Scientific quality
Etc.
The Artistic quality will be judged by its WT [working theory], and will be
called autonomic quality.
All other qualities will be called hetronomic qualities, using non artistic
WT as their measure of quality.
An artcycle can be in a autonomic state or a hetronomy state, but not in
both in the same instant [remember, quality is an experience]. Logically
formulated, these two states are a necessary condition[alternately] but
neither of them is sufficient. This creates a constant shift from one state
to
another.
Generalizing the model it would look like this:
SPQ is made of a fusion of 4 elements:
1. An Agent - creating an object, according to a WT [working theory] for a
perceiving and judging audience.
2. An Object - created by an agent, according to a WT [working theory] for a
perceiving and judging audience.
3. A WT [Working Theory] - A set of rules that constituted Object[one or
more], made by the Agent, and is judged by an audience [aware of the
particular WT involved].
4. An audience - An educated group of preceptors [knowing the particular WT
involved], appreciating the Object, made by the Agent, by the WT.
Remember, the revolution of this theory is that it says THAT IT HOLDS
QUALITY ONLY IF ALL 4 ELEMENTS ARE FUSED, namely holding the cycle together.
Please notice:
1. There is no Object or subject standing alone, and they all are part of a
definition cycle that is a holder of quality.
2. If we put in the layers we could easily see that the agent and the
audience come from a previous order and the WT and the object are of the new
order.
3. The active holders of quality are the audience, they are those who alter
the quality in time.
4. Here too autonomical and hetronomical qualities stand.
5. The circular definition guarantees that DQ cannot stand alone, or be
defined, all meaning is internal to the field of meaning [hence the cycle of
SPQ is an ever active cycle] alone, it has no meaning whatsoever outside the
cycle [circular definition].
Happy digestion [and happy hunting].
I hope this is not too much [it is just step 1 in a long way].
Avid
p.s.
Thank you Roger to assist in this baby delivery.
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:10 BST