Re: MD What Good Are the Arts?

From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Mon May 30 2005 - 15:49:59 BST

  • Next message: Scott Roberts: "Re: MD Time"

    Several other good side issues in the article too ..

    If the only tool you have available is the "analytic machete" then you
    can't help but conclude art is worthless. Long past Occam's bedtime
    I've said before.

    Re philsophy vs philosophology "literature - is the only art that can
    criticise itself, criticise anything" - nice point even if it's not
    strictly true.

    I like the review, whatever the book.
    Ian

    On 5/30/05, ian glendinning <psybertron@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Interesting too Platt, that George Steiner (Pirsig's reviewer) is also quoted.
    > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2102-1626588,00.html
    >
    > I tend to think Pirsig made the point already that the divison between
    > arts and "sciences" is a fiction anyway - I always believed his
    > etymology of Rt / Art / Craft / Rite / Right etc was particularly
    > telling.
    >
    > I would say, MoQ iluminates real life - in general - art is just an
    > aspect of it.
    > Ian
    >
    > On 5/30/05, Platt Holden <pholden@sc.rr.com> wrote:
    > > Hi All:
    > >
    > > Those interested in the arts and their relationship to the MOQ might be
    > > interested in a new book by John Carey entitled "What Good Are the Arts."
    > > I haven't read the book (it's published in Britain) but was interested in
    > > the review of it written by David Lodge in the May 30 Sunday Times.
    > >
    > > Carey, writes Lodge, ". . . tackles the question raised in his title by
    > > posing a serious of sub-questions: What is a work of art? Is high art
    > > superior? Can science help? Do the arts make us better? Can art be a
    > > religion? His answers are brief: anything; no; not much; not as a rule;
    > > no."
    > >
    > > To get some flavor of Carey's criticisms, he points to Nazis who were
    > > connoisseurs of music, visual art and architecture to demonstrate that art
    > > doesn't necessarily have "an ennobling affect on those who appreciate it."
    > >
    > > A couple of comments by the book's reviewer, however, brought art directly
    > > into the realm of the MOQ. Lodge writes:
    > >
    > > "Value is certainly an unreliable basis for formally defining art, but it
    > > is at the very heart of the experience." I take this to mean that there
    > > can be no experience without value -- good, bad or indifferent.
    > >
    > > and:
    > >
    > > "You only have to imagine the dreariness of a world without art to know
    > > that it is a good thing." I was reminded by this thought of Pirsig's
    > > assertion that a world without value would be unrecognizable.
    > >
    > > Although I disagree with some of the conclusions of the author, I look
    > > forward to getting a copy of the book when it becomes available in the
    > > U.S. Whenever the subject of art arises, the MOQ sheds light. The two
    > > illuminate each other.
    > >
    > > 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
    > >
    > >
    >

    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 : Mon May 30 2005 - 16:11:47 BST