From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Jul 17 2003 - 17:55:04 BST
Hi Rick,
>J
> > But most of the people here who "like the MoQ" seem to like contrarians
>and
> > breaking from static patterns. To me, contrarians are people who put
>the
> > wrong color in the painting, or the wrong dialog in a play.
>
>R
>"Wrong" dialogue? "Wrong" color? I thought you were all about
>"expectations" Johnny. Don't you mean that the contrarian artist is the
>one
>who puts the "unexpected" color in the painting? Or the "unexpected"
>dialogue in a play?
Yes, wrong is unexpected, in a broad sense. I was using 'wrong' cause
that's what was in Platt's quote.
>J
> To harmonize or
> > be beautiful, something has to be there for it to harmonize with -
>static
> > patterns.
>
>R
>Agreed. Sometimes art is better when it conforms to our expectations (ie.
>"that dialogue sounded so real, that's just how I'd expect real people to
>talk"). On the other hand, we usually walk away disappointed when an
>artistic creation completely conforms to our expectations (ie. "that movie
>was so predictable, there wasn't one twist I didn't expect". It's about a
>balance of static and dynamic elements, a harmony of the expected and the
>unexpected.
We expect a movie to do something in some new way, we don't expect it to be
exactly the same as the other movies we saw. And we like the new way to be
in harmony with old ways, to seem right, to seem like it fits and repeats
the pattern of good movies, while introducing the right mix of new patterns
that also fulfill our expectations. We like to sort of predict what would
make The Hulk good before we go see it (I hope it has a good yet cynical
vibe, with cool stuff about DNA and stuff), and if our predictions are met,
we are satisfied. If our expectations are not met we aren't. (Sometimes we
aren't really aware of what we are expecting, we might think we want one
thing, but if it turns out we like something different from what we said we
were expecting, then that is what we were subconsciously expecting all
along. yes, it seems like a loophole, but I think it is true that we aren't
always aware of what we truly like, nor what we fully expect) I say nothing
can be good unless it continues a static pattern, that continuing a static
pattern is the very essense of good. That balance of Dynamic and Static you
refer to is a certain expected balance, there is a static pattern of how
much to "twist" a movie plot to make it fresh but familiar. The changes may
seem like changes, but they are really just static patterns carrying forward
and interacting with other patterns in expected ways. Nothing comes from
nowhere (or from DQ), every "new thing" is made by existing things according
to reasons by DQ.
Johnny
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
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 Jul 17 2003 - 17:55:52 BST