From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Feb 11 2004 - 14:05:55 GMT
Hi Steve,
> Hi Platt,
P:
> > Disagree. Great art transcends societies. The only standard for great art
> > is, "Does it reflect Spirit?," i.e., the ineffable beauty of the
> > conceptually unknown.
S:
> That is an interesting view of art. This is a strong point of
> departure for you and Ayn Rand since she denies Spirit in the sense you
> mean. She thought art should depict what can and should be, and she
> criticized the idea of the artist as mystic channelling some non-material
> reality.
Yes. When it comes to aesthetics, I definitely depart from Rand.
> I agree with you that there is something to the idea of artist as
> mystic and "Does it reflect Spirit?" is a good question.
>
> Yet, in a way, it makes no sense to ask that question since I am sure we
> agree that "The Buddha, the Godhead, resides quite as comfortably in the
> circuits of a digital computer or the gears of a cycle transmission as he
> does at the top of a mountain or in the petals of a flower. To think
> otherwise is to demean the Buddha -which is to demean oneself." In other
> words, how can anything not reflect Spirit? So it is also a bad question.
> Does this art reflect Spirit? "Does a dog have Buddha nature?"
>
> Perhaps there is some important distinction to be made. Pirsig felt no need
> to make one, calling motorcycle maintenance art and when he was pressed on
> the subject he still found no need to add anything to the definition of art
> as a high quality endeavor.
The distinction to be made, like in most things, is a matter of degree.
Some cycle transmission gears are better than others.
> Platt said:
> > "Style" is irrelevant.
>
> Can you give me some examples of music that rises to your standards
> that is not in the classical style?
Some examples of great performances:
Pop: "Lazy River" Mills Brothers
Religious:: "Ave Maria" Perry Como
Gospel: "God Will Make a Way" Janet Paschal
Jazz: "They Can't Take That Away from Me" Errol Garner
Country: "Okie from Muskogee" Merle Haggard
Irish: "Danny Boy" John McDermott
. . . but by and large, I'm a classical music fan.
> >> (I don't think we are seeing anything new in Britney Spears, but we
> >> did
> >> in Madonna in the 80's though Madonna's influence was cultural rather
> >> than musical.)
> >
> > Madonna's influence was sexual and thus anti-social.
>
> Because her influence had to do with sex does not necessarily make her
> anti-social from an MOQ perspective (the Shakers had a sexual influence,
> too). She could be viewed as helping to liberate women from outdated
> taboos and thus improving society.
Just shows one can rationalize behavior. Jackson's breast exposure was
likewise liberating for women no doubt. :-)
> >> The importance of an understanding of context in modern music is a part
> >> of the postmodern movement which is a logical progression if you can see
> >> how static quality goes stale. I think you may be selling short the
> >> dynamism of modern music. Despite the beauty of the mathematical
> >> sophistication of Bach, that mode ran its course. It lost its dynamism.
> >
> > To you, perhaps. To others Bach remains forever dynamic in revealing ever
> > deeper subtleties with each performance.
>
> I think there is something important about this idea of great art being
> rich enough that it seems to never be exhausted. It can be returned to
> again and again and you always seem to find something new. But suppose you
> listened to the same piece of music every single day over several
> years--maybe even several times per day. Do you still contend that it would
> never go stale for you? The MOQ suggests that eventually you would stop
> finding something new. It would lose it's dynamic quality.
Under the circumstances you proscribe, anything would lose its DQ,
including the MOQ. :-)
> >> It was followed by the innovations of the likes of Mozart. Mozart
> >> can be
> >> viewed in the context of the evolution of music that Bach
> >> participated in,
> >> and Mozart's music can be seen as "better" than Bach if you understand
> >> Mozart as including Bach without necessarily rehashing Bach. There was
> >> no need for Mozart to rehash it since we still have Bach. Perhaps
> >> Mozart even helped people appreciate Bach in new ways.
> >
> > Disagree. You seem to believe there is "progress" in art. I do not. There
> > has never been, nor possibly ever be, a more profound depiction of
> > animals than on the caves of Lascaux. Beauty doesn't improve with time.
>
> I don't mean there is progress as in individual pieces getting better and
> better. Again, with the "does it reflect Spirit?" idea, this is
> impossible. Nothing can ever be closer to or further from Spirit.
>
> What I mean is that the art as a whole progresses as it expands and
> depends and diversifies. If there is no progress in any sense in art as you
> contend then there would be no reason for anyone to create new art.
There isn't much reason to create "new art." Novelty for novelty's sake is
anti-art, like dung pasted to a canvas or a urinal framed. Show me
anything being created today that is better than great art created in the
past which would indicate "progress."
> > Finally, to suggest that Radiohead or any other rock band is
> > creatively on
> > a par with Beethoven or Mozart is to me ludicrous, like comparing jelly
> > glasses to fine crystal stemware. Even a child can see the difference.
>
> I can tell the difference but I don't see why the godhead can't reside as
> comfortably in a rock song as it does in a classical song.
Again I would appeal to the matter of degree. The godhead is everywhere,
in jelly glasses and in fine crystal stemware. The question I would ask
is, "Which would you rather drink your champagne from?
In addition to emblazoning "Truth is a species of good" on every page of
the MOQ syllabus I'd add "Some things are better than others." In other
words, great art is drenched in Spirit while lesser art (like most art
being created today) is as Spiritually dry as dust. What's more, I claim
all of us can tell the difference! (Recall Pirsig's experiment with his
students regarding their ability to discern quality writing.)
Regards,
Platt
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 Feb 11 2004 - 14:06:10 GMT