From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Feb 24 2004 - 13:24:46 GMT
Hi Steve,
> Let's see what Pirsig has to say about such "experts":
>
> (From Pirsig's intro to LC)
>
> "What we see in the following pages is what I would call “real
> philosophy” rather than “philosophology.” This term, philosophology, is one
> I find myself using all the time to make a point that most academic
> philosophers seem unaware of: that when they speak of the ideas of such
> famous philosophers as Plato or Hegel they are giving us a history of
> philosophy, an “ology” of philosophy, not philosophy itself. Philosophy
> itself is opinions of the speaker himself about the general nature of the
> world, not just a classification someone else’s opinions. This may seem a
> minor point but I remember hearing many years ago how a professor of art,
> Jerry Liebling, was outraged when he heard that an Art Historian told one
> of his students that he should give up painting because it was obvious the
> student would never equal the great masters. At the time I didn’t see what
> Liebling was so upset about but as the years have gone by I understand it
> better. Liebling loathed this attitude of Art Historians because, while
> they thought they were preserving the standards of art, they were in fact
> destroying them. Art is not just the static achievements of the masters of
> the past. Art is the creative Dynamic Quality of the artist of the present.
> Neither is philosophy just the static achievements of the masters of the
> past. Philosophy is the creative Dynamic Quality of the philosopher of the
> present."
>
> I think Pirsig's statement that "Art is the creative Dynamic Quality of the
> artist of the present" supports modern music's claim to artistic status and
> it even supports experiments with trash cans. I wonder whether in your
> defense of musical excellence you like the art historian run the risk of
> destroying it.
Thanks for the Pirsig quote. I'd forgotten it. He makes the point that
people should not be discouraged from pursuing DQ on their own terms. I
have no argument with that. Individual freedom is the ultimate moral good
of the MOQ. However, I don't think Pirsig would claim that in terms of
human achievement that trash can "music" is equivalent to Beethoven's 5th
Symphony or that a Joan Collins novel has the same quality as a
Shakespeare play. I'll take the combined judgments of art historians over
the inexperienced and often inarticulate assertions of self-appointed
counterculturists any day, but will always keep an eye and ear open for
high quality no matter what the source. As for art historians running the
risk of destroying artistic excellence, I doubt it. If you have some
evidence of that, I'd love to hear about it.
Best,
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 : Tue Feb 24 2004 - 13:23:05 GMT