From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Jun 01 2005 - 05:13:39 BST
Interesting, it is good to be reminded of Pirsig's words.
David quoted "In the largest sense it is really unnecessary to create
a meeting of the arts and sciences because in actual practice, at the
most immediate level, they have never really been separated." This was
one of my starting points - a eureka moment when I first read it -
covered in highlights and notes in my original copy.
Dare I point out that that quote includes art and science, but not religion.
Maybe not.
Also, the creativity relationship to "high" quality and creative =
dynamic rather than static, will no doubt worry Scott, but it does
seem to be there implicitly.
Ian
On 6/1/05, David Harding <davidharding@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Hi Platt,
>
> Platt Holden wrote:
> > Hi David H:
> >
> >>What is a work of art? DH : Anything.
> >
> >
> > PH : In SODV, Pirsig says, "In 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' art
> > was defined as high quality endeavor. I have never found a need to add
> > anything to that definition." So your answer, "Anything" is too broad IMO.
> > A fluorescent painting of Elvis on black velvet hardly qualifies as art.
> >
> >
> DH:
> Yes, this is an interesting definition and I hadn't noticed this division.
>
> >>Is high art superior? DH : No. Although some who appreciate the art and the word
> >>argue that their social standing increases if they do so. At one stage
> >>this was the popular opinion and this explains the existence of the term.
> >
> >
> > PH: Like everything else, some art is better than other art. Recall Pirsig's
> > analogy of truth being like paintings in a gallery, some being higher
> > quality than others. Also see Ken Wilber's comment below. Some people do
> > use art for snob appeal as you rightfully point out, but that merely
> > reflects human nature which, in spite of some people's wishes, is unlikely
> > to change.
> >
>
> DH:
> Of course some things are better than others, and some works of art are better than
> others. It has been said by Pirsig of works of art in an art gallery, that those
> works which we value, we should keep. The proponents of 'high art' kept their
> paintings because they thought their social standing would increase if they did so
> irrespective of what the contents of the artpiece was and whether it had high quality.
> I think that in the MOQ this is a form of evil as a work of art, as you point out,
> is a high quality endeavor and according to the MOQ the intellectual value of
> the paintings labeled 'high art' is being neglected by their supporters to increase
> their social value. The MOQ says these patterns are cultural, they are a form of evil,
> they can change and mostly have.
>
> >
> >>Can science help? DH: Yes, science is simply another form of the same thing.
> >>(SODV)
> >
> >
> > PH: Pirsig differentiates art and science as "different aspects of the same
> > human purpose." So I'm not sure that one aspect can "help" the other, even
> > though the purpose is the same.
> >
> DH:
> I have looked back at SODV after my neglegence of not realising that art should be
> kept as a 'high quality endeavor' and notice that in the final paragraph where you
> have taken this quote, Pirsig claims the following of the scientists Niels Bohr and
> Werner Heisenberg:
>
> "what I saw here were two artists in the throes of creative discovery. They were at
> the cutting edge of knowledge plunging into the unknown trying to bring something out
> of that unknown into a static form that would be of value to everyone. "
>
> In otherwords Bohr and Heisenberger are in fact themselves artists. This doesn't mean
> however that painters should drop their brushes and start a career in science, or
> even that chemists should drop their goggles and start a career in the arts.
> To me, this is why Pirsig claims that
> "In the largest sense it is really unnecessary to create a meeting of the arts and
> sciences because in actual practice, at the most immediate level, they have never really
> been separated. "
>
> This is why I have answered yes. Science is an art.
>
> >
> >>Do the arts make us better? DH: Of course.
> >
> >
> > PH: My first reaction was to agree. But then I thought of some of the Nazis
> > who coveted the arts.
> >
>
> DH:
> With Pirsigs definition "art as a high quality endeavor", it's relationship
> to value is made blantantly clear. If the Nazis liked to squander intellectal
> art because of it's social standing, or even squander 'social' art in favour of
> biological art, then these acts according to the MOQ are a form of evil.
>
> >
> >>Can art be a religion? DH: Is art religion already? As said earlier, art is
> >>anything. What I think he was referring to here however is a 'devotion' to
> >>the concept of art, kind of like a religion complete with heretics and
> >>priesthoods. In this regard he is probably right but it is a stretch and
> >>in my opinion it doesn't improve our understanding of art or religion, so
> >>such a devision, while not incorrect, is not very valuable either.
> >
> > PH:
> > I agree in the sense you describe. But, art, like religion, has the power
> > to show Spirit, if only for a fleeting moment. It's power is aptly
> > described by a line from the play, "Becket" by Jean Anouilh:
> >
> > "Beauty is one of the rare things that do no lead to doubt of God."
> >
> > Or, from Ken Wilber:
> >
> > "An object possesses beauty to the extent that it is transparent to the
> > Divine, that it allowes the One to shine through it."
> >
> > And also from Ken Wilber:
> >
> > "Bad art copies; good art creates; great art transcends. To the extent
> > that an artwork can usher one into the nondual, to that extent it is
> > spiritual and universal, whether it actually depicts bugs of Buddhas. I am
> > not the only one, for example, who sees Van Gogh's landscapes as drenched
> > in Spirit." (both quotes from "Eye to Eye" by Ken Wilber)
> >
> > Anyway, thanks for your response. Art, Beauty and Quality are subjects of
> > endless fascination as they lie at the heart of what it means to be a
> > human being. The total inability of materialists to come to grips with
> > Art, Beauty and Quality is their Achilles heel. Of that which is most
> > important to us, that makes life worth living, materialists have nothing
> > to say.
> >
> > Best,
> > Platt
> >
> Agree,
>
> -David
>
>
> 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 : Wed Jun 01 2005 - 05:17:57 BST