From: David Harding (davidharding@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Wed Jun 01 2005 - 02:18:57 BST
Hi Platt,
Platt Holden wrote:
> Hi David H:
>
>>What is a work of art? DH : Anything.
>
>
> PH : In SODV, Pirsig says, "In 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' art
> was defined as high quality endeavor. I have never found a need to add
> anything to that definition." So your answer, "Anything" is too broad IMO.
> A fluorescent painting of Elvis on black velvet hardly qualifies as art.
>
>
DH:
Yes, this is an interesting definition and I hadn't noticed this division.
>>Is high art superior? DH : No. Although some who appreciate the art and the word
>>argue that their social standing increases if they do so. At one stage
>>this was the popular opinion and this explains the existence of the term.
>
>
> PH: Like everything else, some art is better than other art. Recall Pirsig's
> analogy of truth being like paintings in a gallery, some being higher
> quality than others. Also see Ken Wilber's comment below. Some people do
> use art for snob appeal as you rightfully point out, but that merely
> reflects human nature which, in spite of some people's wishes, is unlikely
> to change.
>
DH:
Of course some things are better than others, and some works of art are better than
others. It has been said by Pirsig of works of art in an art gallery, that those
works which we value, we should keep. The proponents of 'high art' kept their
paintings because they thought their social standing would increase if they did so
irrespective of what the contents of the artpiece was and whether it had high quality.
I think that in the MOQ this is a form of evil as a work of art, as you point out,
is a high quality endeavor and according to the MOQ the intellectual value of
the paintings labeled 'high art' is being neglected by their supporters to increase
their social value. The MOQ says these patterns are cultural, they are a form of evil,
they can change and mostly have.
>
>>Can science help? DH: Yes, science is simply another form of the same thing.
>>(SODV)
>
>
> PH: Pirsig differentiates art and science as "different aspects of the same
> human purpose." So I'm not sure that one aspect can "help" the other, even
> though the purpose is the same.
>
DH:
I have looked back at SODV after my neglegence of not realising that art should be
kept as a 'high quality endeavor' and notice that in the final paragraph where you
have taken this quote, Pirsig claims the following of the scientists Niels Bohr and
Werner Heisenberg:
"what I saw here were two artists in the throes of creative discovery. They were at
the cutting edge of knowledge plunging into the unknown trying to bring something out
of that unknown into a static form that would be of value to everyone. "
In otherwords Bohr and Heisenberger are in fact themselves artists. This doesn't mean
however that painters should drop their brushes and start a career in science, or
even that chemists should drop their goggles and start a career in the arts.
To me, this is why Pirsig claims that
"In the largest sense it is really unnecessary to create a meeting of the arts and
sciences because in actual practice, at the most immediate level, they have never really
been separated. "
This is why I have answered yes. Science is an art.
>
>>Do the arts make us better? DH: Of course.
>
>
> PH: My first reaction was to agree. But then I thought of some of the Nazis
> who coveted the arts.
>
DH:
With Pirsigs definition "art as a high quality endeavor", it's relationship
to value is made blantantly clear. If the Nazis liked to squander intellectal
art because of it's social standing, or even squander 'social' art in favour of
biological art, then these acts according to the MOQ are a form of evil.
>
>>Can art be a religion? DH: Is art religion already? As said earlier, art is
>>anything. What I think he was referring to here however is a 'devotion' to
>>the concept of art, kind of like a religion complete with heretics and
>>priesthoods. In this regard he is probably right but it is a stretch and
>>in my opinion it doesn't improve our understanding of art or religion, so
>>such a devision, while not incorrect, is not very valuable either.
>
> PH:
> I agree in the sense you describe. But, art, like religion, has the power
> to show Spirit, if only for a fleeting moment. It's power is aptly
> described by a line from the play, "Becket" by Jean Anouilh:
>
> "Beauty is one of the rare things that do no lead to doubt of God."
>
> Or, from Ken Wilber:
>
> "An object possesses beauty to the extent that it is transparent to the
> Divine, that it allowes the One to shine through it."
>
> And also from Ken Wilber:
>
> "Bad art copies; good art creates; great art transcends. To the extent
> that an artwork can usher one into the nondual, to that extent it is
> spiritual and universal, whether it actually depicts bugs of Buddhas. I am
> not the only one, for example, who sees Van Gogh's landscapes as drenched
> in Spirit." (both quotes from "Eye to Eye" by Ken Wilber)
>
> Anyway, thanks for your response. Art, Beauty and Quality are subjects of
> endless fascination as they lie at the heart of what it means to be a
> human being. The total inability of materialists to come to grips with
> Art, Beauty and Quality is their Achilles heel. Of that which is most
> important to us, that makes life worth living, materialists have nothing
> to say.
>
> Best,
> Platt
>
Agree,
-David
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Wed Jun 01 2005 - 02:30:47 BST