From: Mari (mld2001@adelphia.net)
Date: Mon Dec 09 2002 - 13:50:27 GMT
Matt said:
>
> If we take art and music as our first two examples, the problem will
> present itself. The first question is, "Can art and music students do
> without art history and music history?" At first one might think, "Sure,
> why not? What does it matter if a really good painter knows who Monet and
> Picasso are? Why does a singer need to know about Schoenberg and what he
> was up to? I'm sure they're not thinking of any of them when they're
> singing and painting." At first the demand to know the history of your
> discipline seems like a reactionary thing to demand. Made by the
old-guard
> before the avant-garde changes the rules. If that was all there was to
> this, just some left over snobbery from the old establishment, it might
> seem well enough to chalk this difference of opinion over philosophology
to
> a difference in opinion about whether Verdi's La Traviata or Madonna's
> "Like a Prayer" is more respectable. Over whether pop singers who are
> classically trained (like Mariah Carey) are more respectable then those
who
> are not (like Brittany Spears). Over whether there is a thing called
> <ahem> "bullshit" art.
>
> But after this initial thought, I would have some questions about how a
> person, ignoring history and tradition, learns how to sing or paint. If
> you ignore everything done in the past, will you turn out to be a great
> singer or painter? Will you, indeed, even know who to draw or sing a
note?
> The answer is, "Yes, possibly." One can train themselves in all sorts of
> activities. If a person grew up in the wild and heard no music and talked
> to no musicians, had no contact with the outside world, and had a guitar,
> it is possible that the person could teach herself how to play like Jimmy
> Page without ever having heard of Jimmy Page. Is it statistically likely?
> I doubt it.
Mari says:
Studying art history doesn't necessarily make an artist a
better artist. If you consider what you say later in your post:
"......there's an adage to
> remember, 'Reading is the enemy of writing......" i think the "adage" rule
can apply to studying art history as well as studying art principles and
techniques. The can influence can be a plus or minus ordeal me thinks.
Matt goes on:
Pirsig speaking: "Any time I did read a book
> during the years of writing ZMM and Lila it would stop the writing for as
> much as a week while memories of what I just read or heard gradually
> faded." This would explain why Pirsig's such a poor scholar, but it also
> shows him desperately wanting to say something new without being
influenced
Mari says: Did Pirsig say something to the effect that the reason he kept
"slips" was so he could empty his head so new information could be more
easily accessed? Didn't he also say something to the effect of 99%(?) of
everything we know we have been told or read. In other words there isn't
much that is original? And Matt can you elaborate on your comment that:
"This would explain why Pirsig's such a poor scholar, but it also
> shows him desperately wanting to say something new without being
influenced"
What exactly is your definition of "scholar" . Dictionary.com says:
A learned person.
A specialist in a given branch of knowledge: a classical scholar.
One who attends school or studies with a teacher; a student.
A student who holds or has held a particular scholarship.
By their definition Pirsig appears to qualify IMHO.
Thanks,
M
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 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 09 2002 - 13:51:33 GMT