From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Thu Feb 12 2004 - 15:22:37 GMT
Hi Platt, Poot, all,
You might find the following essay on art and criticism by Ken Wilber
interesting:
http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/misc/tosewo.cfm/
> If Mozart were alive today, what kind of music do you think he'd be
> making? I doubt he'd be composing in the classical style.
>
> -Platt: Disagree. Great art transcends societies.
>
> -=*POOT*=- Your answer seems muddled Platt. You seem to be saying
> that if Mozart were alive today, he would be composing his musics, in
> the manner in which he composed them hundreds of years in the past.
> If he lived today, how could he possibly write in that style? This is
> why no one writes like mozart today. Todays world is not the same as
> his, and thus his music, which is a reflection upon his world, would
> not be the same. He would not be trying to express the same emotions
> that were dominant in his life then, because his life would be totally
> different now(and this is all assuming he would even choose to write
> music!).
Steve:
Thanks, Poot. This is the point I was trying to make.
Steve said:
>>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.
Platt said:
> The distinction to be made, like in most things, is a matter of degree.
> Some cycle transmission gears are better than others.
Steve:
But can gears really be compared to music based on degree of reflecting
Spirit? Can the Mona Lisa be compared with Beethoven's Moonlight
Sonata, or The Grapes of Wrath, or fine crystal stemware, or Einstein's
Theory of Relativity? I don't think so. (On the other hand within the
narrowly defined context implied by Relativity we can say that it is
better than Newtonian physics since it concerns the same context but it
includes and expands it.)
>>>> 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. :-)
Steve:
Sure. Pirsig even says as much. I can't find the quote but remember
him saying that the MOQ will be replaced by something better.
>
> 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?
>
You might also ask, "which would you rather store jelly in?" Some
things are better than others within a specific context. Such
comparisons can be made, but the postmodern claim that truth is context
dependent is important.
> 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.)
>
What Pirsig concludes in ZAMM in his discussion of building up
analogues is that if we have similar experiences we will make similar
judgments. I don't think that Pirsig would agree with you that all will
experience the same thing when they hear a song or make the same
comparison when they hear two songs. A child who has never before
heard music for example is likely to be turned on by sing-songy
melodies that have long ago gone stale for us and also likely to hear
more sophisticated music as noise. With enough experience of
sing-songy melodies a song with a simple harmony may make the hair on
the back of their neck stand up and cause a shiver down the spine.
Later, hearing simple harmonies will not be such a dynamic experience.
It will be a while before the child will have the prior experience that
would be needed to appreciate one of Bach's fugues.
Regards,
Steve
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 Feb 12 2004 - 15:22:20 GMT