From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Mar 07 2004 - 14:04:17 GMT
Hi
Agree with most of this, would add that whilst
high quality art is possible in any medium there
has simply been more produced for orchestra than
for guitar, bass and drums. I say this as a rock and classical
fan. If you do not appreciate both how can you comment.
Sure it is harder to appreciate more complex art forms.
In fact someone rightly said that it is harder to be a great reader
than a great writer. Appreciating art is an active and dynamic
activity, the static element only means you can try to repeat
a performance and experience. When I heard my first Wagner
it was a unique not a static experience for me as an individual
evern if not as much for many other people present who had been before.
In a way rock music is less static because very little music gets taken up
and performed by other people/bands. Therefore unless the actual
music gets taken up by others it will not last. Sure the beatles or whoever
get played by other people, and the stuff has been recorded, but even in my
life time they get played on tv/radio less and less.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 2:09 AM
Subject: RE: MD Speaking of musical excellence
> Steve, Platt and all:
>
> dmb says:
> I think Steve has done a good job taking on Platt's view of music and art
> and mostly agree with him. Its not that I have anything against Mozart or
> The Mona Lisa, but to supply a list of the most acclaimed composers as a
> description of the best art strikes me as painfully stale, as a kind of
> elitism without imagination. In any case, I'd like to add a few thoughts
> about two of the quotes Steve presented along the way...
>
> In ZAMM chapter 21 Pirsig says:
> Art is high-quality endeavor. That is all that really needs to be said.
Or,
> if something more high-sounding is demanded: Art is the Godhead as
revealed
> in the works of man. The relationship established by Phædrus makes it
clear
> that the two enormously different sounding statements are actually
> identical.
>
> dmb says:
> Clearly, when Pirsig says "art is the Godhead as revealed in the works of
> man" he is talking about Gregorian chants and paintings of Jesus and stuff
> like that. Just kidding. If the Godhead can be found in lotus flowers and
> motorcycle gears equally, and bike repair is an art, I see no reason why
> should expect to find more divinity in an orchestra than in an electric
> guitar. Don't get me wrong. I'm just as big a snob as the next guy. Its
just
> that experience has convinced me that mind-blowing art can come from
> something as humble as the naked human voice. In fact, in our time there
is
> a certain soullessness, sterility and emptiness about the highly polished
> and overly produced music that dominates the form. Great paintings have
> become commodities, investments, status symbols and ranked celebrities in
> their own right. Their value AS a work of art has all but been lost in all
> that. But the next quote is even better...
>
> Pirsig also says this in his intro to LC:
> 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. ...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."
>
> dmb says:
> I'm convinced that Pirsig is describing a principle that applies to much
> more than just painting and philosophy. The DQ of the painter in the
> present, the DQ of the philosopher in the present. DQ in the present.
That's
> what its all about. I tend to think of the static achievements of the past
> are a good sign that the artist was in touch with "the Godhead" and the
> canvasses they leave behind are certainly "art" in the normal sense of the
> word. But I think Pirsig's description of art as an "endevor" tells us
that
> art is a verb. Its a kind of activity that produces things we call art.
And
> since the real motorcyle you're working on is your self,... Was it Pirsig,
> or did he quote somebody else? Somebody said that its easy to paint a
> perfect picture. All you have to do is be perfect and then paint
naturally.
> See what I'm getting at?
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 : Sun Mar 07 2004 - 14:08:43 GMT