Dear Friends,
I thank all the people taking part on this discussion. I got a lot of
answers to my initial questions, some of them conflicting, all however well
explained and justified, and therefore stimulating.
Thank to your posts, I think I found some good answers, some of them very
personal, and I invite you to read and, if you have the wish, to comment.
Among my questions, it seems that more stimulating has been: "Is the
divorce definitive?" .
Let's see some of your answer (edited for rhetoric reasons).
Magnus: "The divorce is quite definitive".
DLT: "The divorce is artificial. It is a philosophical problem. Definitive?
Certainly not"
David B. "The divorce is not definitive".
And also about the causes of the divorce I got different answers:
Magnus, in his Micro$oft example seems to say it's caused by money.
David B., with " The split between art and science was finalized by
scientific objectivity. The divorce paper were sealed by the industrial
revolution". and "the nature of invention is largely driven by the market
and the military" seems to be onto a similar position.
DLT blames all divorce on Aristotles and his SOM, and Andreas seems to
agree.
Bo finally says that "it's the eternal DQ/SQ struggle at work" (I admit I
WAS
on this position, but ....)
Over all a smart post by John Beasley. I appreciate a lot his artist point
of view, very important for this discussion. With his usual provocative
words, he says that the Pirsig's statement that "Rotisserie assembly is
actually a long-lost branch of sculpture" is crap. And that Pirsig perhaps
is not an artist.
Wow, it's very difficult to find a solution! How is it possible to have so
many different points of view? Did we read the same books?
Well, I think the main problem is that we say "Art" we are thinking
different things.
In Italian we the word "Artista" (artist, in English). And the word
"Artigiano" (craftsman, in English). You see that we have similar words, in
fact the Italian "Arte" is both the "Art" of John B. , an undefinable
activity of creation, and the English "Craft", that is the Pirsig's "Art of
motorcycle maintenance". This means that the idea of a past unity of Art and
... precision , craft, technique was not invented by Pirsig, as it is
present in Italian and in Latin since thousands years.
It's a very old concept, it's RT.
The first post of this month by Magnus is very important. "I'd better
refrain from calling "art" Linux". Well, surely Linux is technology. And
surely Windows also is technology. Are they art? Let's admit yes, for a
moment. If yes, what is art? It could be the human activity of creation.
This is the Pirsig's art. In this sense Bill Gates was an artist. The
problem to give a value to his creation could be individual.
John B. is surely on a different position. It's important to say that from
his point of view sculpture is not an art: it's a technique. His art is
undefinable. His art is value.
Well, my position is that it's only a problem of language. We must use two
different words "rt" and "Art".
Let's try this:
1) rt is the human activity of creation.
2) technique (sculpture, rhetoric, programming by events ) is the static
side of rt.
3) Value is the dynamic undefinable side of rt. You are a high quality
artist when you are able to give high value to your creation.
This starting point was already reached last September.
The mistake I made last September was to say that Art is a Language. It's
better to say the contrary: language is an rt. It's the rt to communicate
concepts, and sometimes to give new concepts to the world.
Let's go on.
4) technology is an rt. It's still an rt. It's the art to create useful
objects. Useful for social purposes. So technology is the social rt.
5) The most people use the word "Art" to mean a subset of "rt": Sculpture,
Rhetoric, Painting. In this sense, Art is the high level rt. It conveys
cultural values. Art is the intellectual rt. Language is an art, also.
I summarize my point of view with this formula:
Technology : Social = Art : Intellectual
So these are the replications to some of your sentences, by my point of
view:
Magnus:
"Technology is supposed to be beautiful". But firstly, technology is
supposed to be useful.
"When the main goal is $ windows emerges". But also Michelangelo painted the
Sistine Chapel in Rome for money. Maybe we put to much blame on money.
DLT:
"The divorce is artificial. It's a philosophical problem".
By my point of view, technology is a branch of rt. Art is another branch of
rt. The divorce is not really a divorce, it's a divergence on the evolution
line. It's the Social/Intellectual split.
David B.:
"Oliver Stone and Woody Allen have visions, but they know how to use a light
meter too".
The right use of a light meter is a technique. It's not technology. Cinema
is Art. It conveys an intellectual meaning (I admit, sometimes it conveys a
zero meaning..... in this case it's an immoral activity, as it's a false art
just to get money).
"The nature of invention is largely driven by market and the military". Yes,
technology is driven by money, that is a social value.
Andreas:
"What Do You think would the world look like today if Aristoteles would not
have planted his SOM seed 2300 years ago ?" It's not a foolish question
Andreas. I hope it will be the Focus in one future month. I just say that
SOM has been useful in past times, and today it's ... "old". Maybe the world
would like just as it was 3000 years ago?
John Beasley:
"I think Pirsig's statement that "Rotisserie assembly is actually a
long-lost branch of sculpture" is crap, and I am surprised that it comes
from someone who both taught writing and actually wrote one very good book.
David B has pointed out that Pirsig is "a mystic, but he's also a mechanic,
a chemist and a philosopher." Not an author? Perhaps not an artist then. "
That statement comes from the ZAMM Pirsig. In that book, P. was not able to
split value in static patterns and dynamic quality, so he was not able to
understand the divorce. I think the Lila Pirsig give us the tool to
understand that divergence: it's the intellectual/social split.
By your point of view the only possible rt is art. Art is the human activity
of creation closer to DQ. Inspiration is DQ. The masterpiece you create is
the attempt to translate that DQ in a static form, and make it possible to
be communicated outside. In fact it's usual for an artist to be a little
disappointed by his creation. It's however static, it's impossible to get an
hardcopy of initial Dynamic inspiration.
Bo:
"the art/technology question. I think ... that it's the eternal DQ/SQ
struggle
at work". By my point of view the DQ/SQ struggle is Art vs Technique. Art vs
Technology is the intellectual/social struggle.
And finally these are my answers to my initial questions:
1) Does art still have a dynamic role today?
Yes. In moq terms it evolves toward DQ, seeks good. (thanks DLT).
2) What is technology? (in moqist terms: what are its values?).
It's the rt serving the social. Precision, skill, ability are important
properties for a good craftsman. A good technology has to "work well", if
not, it's not very useful. The same properties are maybe less important for
an artist.
3) How can technology evolve everyday faster (in moqist terms: what is its
dynamic aspect, its meaning?)
Its evolution is driven by market, by money, by success ( social values).
Maybe Linux was not created for money, but indeed it gave to his creator a
great success. And also success is a social value. The evolution is very
fast today just as it's fast today the evolution of social world, toward a
sort of a "unique giant".
4) What happened to separate art and technology?
It was not important the date of the separation, but the evolution step in
which it happened. Well, it happened for the very first time when a human
being invented something to communicate an internal inspiration. His
creation had a meaning, and maybe it was not useful. Since then, evolution
worked to separate social rt , technology, from intellectual rt, Art.
5) Is this divorce definitive?
Yes. And moral. Just like it's moral the divorce between intPoVs and
socPoVs. But it doesn't mean that technology has no values. It must be
useful and easy, to be appreciated. And it never has to clash Art. At the
contrary, it's good when someone is able to put a little bit of art in
technology. So a good design, for example, is a small step beyond when
creating a new technology product.
That's all boys.
DQ bless you.
Marco.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:18 BST