From: bahna@rpi.edu
Date: Thu Mar 13 2003 - 03:36:05 GMT
Listen Squank,
I have no problem with your idea of dynamic quality. I don't even want to
beat you on the head with your stick (I shouldn't need to explain this uh -
threat[?] as an artist, I thought you would appreciate the irony). I think
you have presented a good (artistic) description of dynamic quality. I just
think you get carried away with passion and art. I don't think I need to
point out to you that every single serial murderer, psychopath, and brutal
dictator has performed their heinous crimes with passion.
My only problem with you is your criticism of Matt's work without providing
any substance. There is a time for art and maybe even for incoherence.
Placing words together, seemingly at random, can produce interesting
patterns. I am a fan of this type of poetry, art and music. So, go ahead
and write with passion. But, I think you have a problem with your
self-esteem. You are not confident enough to throw your art out there to
stand on it's own. So, you create a context to present it and use slander
and insult in order to make your work seem more credible. You would rather
insult the work of others, who display a confidence in their own work, than
actually throw something out there of your own. You don't need to do that.
I, at least, will appreciate posts such as this one. I may not respond to
it, as I would your insultive posts, but you don't need my assurance anyway.
So, keep up the art. have fun as you say.
Let's just drop the confrontational posts, because we are boring everybody
else on the forum.
Back to hoping,
Andy
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:25:45 EST SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com wrote:
> Hello all,
> The term Dynamic Quality places a block between our capacity for
> attempting
> to understand and that which drives the attempt in the first place. We
> experience the dynamic flux of experience while old patterns generated
> from
> our early inorganic history are still attempting to pattern, 'It.'
> Saying this rather makes one sound a little screwy? One may be viewed as
> one
> who feel themselves to be a genius, a God basher, a moral crusader? A
> vulgar
> good for nothing degenerate? A master artist?
>
> Imagine a society in which all doing was delighted in as art, from the
> opening of a gate, the tending of a garden, a walk in the rain, the
> maintenance of an arthritic hip, the writing of a daft nonsense verse;
> helping a friend. In such a society, trappings of wealth are also art,
> and
> most of it is low quality. High Quality is here, is now, is everyday -
> the
> Rolls Royce is high quality engineering, but they mostly belong to the
> people
> who designed and made them. The owners of Rollers may only have them when
> the
> car and the driver have lived together and influenced each other in
> relationships that are born from a dynamic source. But not many people
> experience a Roller to such a degree - for the most part they are symbols
> of
> social status. As such, they are ugly and ill becoming the artist in
> them.
> Thinkers write art. But they all write from a dynamic source, and if that
>
> source is disregarded, then the work is more bereft of Quality. Some of
> the
> best works are not written with thought at all; they appear of their own
> accord; they measure themselves and align subsequent readers from a
> similar
> dynamic, like magnetic rings joined together from first to last by we
> know
> not what. Not Knowing does not mean lack of understanding. Very often,
> explaining hides more than is revealed; to explain automatically denies
> something. The more you feel you know, the more likely it may be that you
>
> delude yourself.
>
> What can be said that helps?
> What ever said has the possibility of art, of being beautiful and
> inspiring;
> shocking and disrupting; revealing Dynamic Quality. Dynamic Quality
> blocks
> your attempt to understand it. Hold on to that. Anyone who leaves it out
> for
> very long periods of time is in severe danger of deluding themselves and
> of
> deluding you.
>
> squonk
>
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 : Thu Mar 13 2003 - 03:36:41 GMT