ROGER FINALLY REPLIES TO AVID'S TREATISE
ON ART & THE MOQ
To Avid (& Ryan) and Lilacs
Before I comment on Avid's Art Post, I wanted to recognize J Ryan Conlon's
great post of August 3rd. Go back and reread it if you missed it. My only
concern at all is his use of "a priori". Does this concept have a place in
the MOQ?
AVID:
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 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.
ROGER:
I agree strongly. The MOQ is a relational, process metaphysics.
AVID:
The Institutional Theory of Art.
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".
ROGER:
Quality is the relationship of all four. Quality creates the relationship. I
would add that in the MOQ all is Quality. Therefore it may be more
appropriate to say "Artistic Quality involves the fusion of all four factors."
AVID:
So here to QUALITY IS A SITUATIONAL EXPERIENCE.
ROGER:
Yes indeed.
AVID:
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.
ROGER:
What? Allow me to drop your two new confusing terms. You seem to be saying
there is Artistic and non artistic quality. Right? Then you say that the
art cycle can't be in both cycles at once. Why? Can't an experience be
multidimensional? (I bet Glove will love your statement here though).
AVID:
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.
ROGER:
The artistic quality involves the quality and fusing of all four elements.
AVID:
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.
ROGER:
Put in what layers? What is the new and the previous order?
AVID:
3. The active holders of quality are the audience, they are those who alter
the quality in time.
ROGER:
Huh? What is an Active holder? Do you mean on a temporal level?
AVID:
4. Here too autonomical and hetronomical qualities stand.
ROGER:
???
AVID:
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].
ROGER:
I agree that reality has no meaning at all without this cycle of DQ to SPQ.
If you could walk me through slower I would appreciate it.
Roger
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