Cntryforce:
> When people try to "explain" art, my initial dynamic reaction is always
> irritation. Art, like beauty, IMO is in the eye of the beholder. Whenever
the
> subject arises, I always think about the old analogy involving the
butterfly.
> A beautiful butterfly fluttering above a sunny field of flowers. There's
no
> denying its beauty. Then a scientist comes along with a net, catches it,
> kills it, and pins it to a board in a glass case so everyone in his class
can
> "analyze" it. It's still beautiful....but just as dead as horse shit.
Avid:
Are you sure this reaction of yours is primal? Why do you think it is the
one of highest quality? Why not mark it as prejudice?
Beauty in nature has nothing to do with art [as killing butterflies], the
agent here is a scientist [not an artist], artist don't kill butterflies,
they create. Your criticism is pointed toward science not toward art.
Cntryforce:
> I think
> you can kill works of art in much the same way. I don't think you can
explain
> pure art any more than you can explain pure Quality; words don't cut it;
once
> you put words to it, it becomes something less. The best art IMO speaks to
> those unnamed parts of our soul which we sense but can't, as yet, put into
> words
Avid:
This directness appeal to our souls covers only small part of what art is
suppose to do to us, Picasso is not pointing to our souls. To say art HAS to
be directed to our soul belittles art.
Pirsig:
> As Pirsig writes in ZMM: "Quality, when pointed to, tends to go away." He
> writes this, I believe, in the short section involving his visit to Crater
> Lake with Chris. It's a profound statement; a statement I'm sure all the
> Dialectic People love to pounce on. I think this statement should be, if
> nothing else, kept in mind when discussing art.
Avid:
The limits of language should be present in any characterization of
anything, of any SPQ [static pattern of Quality]
Cntryforce:
There's no denying the historical evidence that *techniques* of art can be
> taught with success, but pure art IMO can't be taught.
Avid:
What is pure art?
Cntryforce:
Maybe it's possible to
> think of works of art like people; either they pretty or they ain't :o)
Avid:
People have DNA to say whether they will be pretty, and an audience of
fellow men to treat them so [as they are pretty], both determinate the
prettiness of the man, same with art a code WT [working theory] is
determining if it will be pretty and an audience judging the artwork as
pretty, is what will be considered pretty in art too, you are right no big
difference, between them but different then you think. What is the use of
constructing it this way?
Wait and see.
and don't forget to be gentle
Avid
icq 6598359
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:11 BST