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.
AVID:
I can understand you are not interested in ART HISTORY [which is of historic
quality], and often confused with Art. However Art theory is another thing.
How can you NOT be interested in Art theory, and discuss Art? Try to
translate it to Quantum mechanics. It will sound something like this: >
IMHO, whatever is so fantastically good that it stops me in my tracks
> is Quantum mechanics. It doesn't make any difference what it is, who made
it, what
> period it comes from or what Quantum mechanics critics, historians or
theorists say
> about it.
Is that your honest opinion?
If not where lies the difference?
I think you confused Art [as field of meaning] with quality. Your quote
sounds better [IMHO] this way: > IMHO, whatever is so fantastically good
that it stops me in my tracks
> is QUALITY. It doesn't make any difference what it is, who made it, what
> period it comes from or what [any field of meaning] critics, historians or
theorists say
> about it.
This is IMHO what Pirsig was pointing at in your quote: QUALITY [not art].
> Dan:
>
> Yes, I can agree here too. Quality. Impossible to define yet undeniable
when
> we feel it around us.
AVID:
Dan, I know you felt a rush to agree with Platt, but on the above you
disagreed with him, and [unfortunatelly you agreed with me]. Platt was
talking about HIS favorite ART theory. We both recognized what he was REALLY
talking about as QUALITY.
> 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."
Avid:
This is a very old historical explanation of Art as experienced quality
[Schoppenhauer, to name one]. But as you said History is no interest of
yours, so let me disregard its historical origin.
Your description is good only for NEW Art [a new *ism in Art], but because
you stated Art theory does not interest you too, I'll move on to the FREEING
experience of ART FROM THE SUBJECT OBJECT DUALISM cage we are in.
So big news, we don't have to be any longer in this cage. We have MoQ. But
in order to enjoy this union with quality, we must construct this world of
SPQ, to make this liberty ONCE FELT ONLY IN ART CONTEXT , an ever present
experience in our daily life [as zen masters of different ages pointed at
this possibility]. But for this we have to work and construct [to put the
dream of flying into nuts bolts, metal, and different theories and
calculations], both are needed SPQ [static patterns of Quality] and DQ.
The cage of SOM is there because S/O can exist regardless their quality. In
MoQ the existing of a SPQ is quality dependant [it exists as long as it has
quality], therefore it DOES NOT create a new doungon , and it has structure
in the same time.
Ian P. Hornsby :
> "In turn, ethics is a component of aesthetics because ethical
> guidance is directed towards values and values are conceived and
> perceived aesthetically.
Avid:
So romantic, as if Plato [or hegel] would be alive..... but no details.
Ian P. Hornsby:
> "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.
Avid:
If a beautiful language, or DNA, isn't in use at all, nowhere by nobody, how
can it survive?
Platt[?]:
> 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.”
Avid:
Can you not distinguish quality in art [the experience] from art the
cultural field? can one BE a bad artist? If so they can be distinguished.
Ask any child.
> 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.
Avid:
Beauty = quality in aesthetics [and in Art]
Good = quality in ethics
Value = quality in any other field.
and don't forget to be gentle
Avid
icq 6598359
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