Hello everyone
Platt wrote:
Hi Avid, Roger, Ian and group:
Since Avid has brought up the subject of Art and the MOQ I'd like to
throw in my 2 cents.
Hi Platt
So would I! So here it is...
Platt:
Avid’s Fusion Theory of Art may be helpful to some. But, for me it's
far too complicated and, if I may say so, too scholarly.
Dan:
I agree. If MOQ cannot be explained to small children then that explanation
is too complex. Very intriguing intellectually, however. Thank you for
sharing it with us, Avid.
Platt:
Art is, first of all, an experience. The intellectual patterns come
afterwards and are mostly irrelevant to the aesthetic experience.
Dan:
Beautifully put! :)
Platt:
Here’s my favorite Theory of Art:
“Imagine that you walk down a street past, say, a car where
someone has the radio on and it plays a tune you've never heard
before but which is so fantastically good it just stops you in your
tracks.” (Lila, Chap. 9)
IMHO, whatever is so fantastically good that it stops me in my tracks
is art. It doesn't make any difference what it is, who made it, what
period it comes from or what art critics, historians or theorists say
about it.
Dan:
Yes, I can agree here too. Quality. Impossible to define yet undeniable when
we feel it around us.
Platt:
Aesthetic impact—that’s the reason for art if a reason must be
found. Great art gives you a sudden, immense pleasure of
aliveness. Your static patterns are weakened momentarily. You're
suddenly pulled out of subject-object duality into unity with the
timeless. “Dynamic Quality all around you shines through."
Walter Pater put it this way:
“For art comes to you proposing frankly
To give you nothing but the highest quality
To your moments as they pass,
And simply for those moments' sake."
To tie art directly to the MOQ, here's what Ian P. Hornsby wrote at
the end of his wonderful thesis "On Quality" that was recently added
to the Forum:
"In turn, ethics is a component of aesthetics because ethical
guidance is directed towards values and values are conceived and
perceived aesthetically.
"Quality is a form of harmony and this is why things such as
language, DNA, and the physical forces which bond particles
together, survive. It is because they have beauty. Beauty, poetry,
quality, maybe this is the reason that there is something in this
universe rather than nothing.”
As Ian suggests, I think art (quality, beauty) lies at the center of
existence. To say much more about it is to detract from directly
experiencing that essence through artistic works. I agree with
whoever said, “The only valid thing in art is the one thing that cannot
be explained.”
Dan:
Very good point! Given all potential evolvible alternatives, beauty is
always better. Beauty not contained in subject or object, but in harmonious
interaction. This indeed seems to be center to existence. But it also seems
beauty can blind us into making low value decisions if intellectualized and
socialized. For then, beauty becomes defined and some "thing" Dynamic is in
all ways lost no matter how we try and define "it". I guess meaning in life
is found in reconciling this seeming paradox, each in our own individual
way.
Thanks for sharing your comments, everyone.
Best wishes,
Dan
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