Dear friends,
I must say something about a criticism received about this month's thread.
It's a must for me, as I am the one who suggested it.
The thread is considered by someone a ZAMM question, not very inherent MOQ.
But IMO, if we consider MOQ a complete philosophy, we must be able to look
at everything through MOQ glasses, and also we must surpass the ZAMM vision.
Phil, for example.
"I think this is a ZAMM question. Let's not forget that you can divide
dynamic quality up however you like and I think the classic/romantic split
explains this dilema much better than the Lila split does. [.... ] I'm only
22, so it's pure conjecture, but I believe this problem was far worse in
the 1960's when technology really was ugly. Now we have nice technology that
looks nice and a lot fewer people are scared by it."
IMO the classic / romantic split is not the best "map" (Pirsig also in Lila
says something about it). My father was a photographer. I remember him in
the 70s: he was attracted by photo cameras, Hi Fi, and all the hi tech of
that times. In last years of his life he changed: computers, digital
cameras, cell phones seemed to him something difficult, unnecessary and
maybe dangerous. Usually young people are considered more "romantic" while
old people more "classic"; but usually (I'm generalizing) young people love
new technologies, while old people are scared.
We can explain this fact with difficulty using the classic / romantic split.
It's easier if we use Lila's idea of "immune system": the fast development
causes that technology don't pay a great attention to aesthetics. Market
requires new products to be rapidly "working" and sold. Only in a second
time new versions are created, with more attention to aesthetics. So if you
are young, and
not used to some old technology, you are happy to have something new to
solve your requirements. But if you are older, your "immune system" make
you build a defense against all what's new.
Even if using moq glasses, it seems possible to reach opposite conclusions.
Jaap's post and mine were written the same day , but my "formula":
Technology : Social = Art : Intellectual
seems completely overturned by Jaap :
"Mostly technology comes from logical (obvious fourth level) thinking; art
(being romantic) more comes from feelings and emotions which could be
classified second or thirdth level."
The difference is in your "obvious 4th level" about logical
thinking. IMO every human activity is at the same time a sort of jumble of
emotions, feelings, rationality, creativity, fantasy, experience,
ability.... and so
on. The kind of SQ we create is in the main idea that moves our acts:
the idea behind technology has always been mainly (but not only) to solve
the "social" problem to get rid of "biological". This is the "function", the
"usefulness" of technology. We can measure very well the level of a
society by the development of its technology, while the development of arts
can be better a gauge for culture.
And there's also to say that if you consider technology at "4th level",
while art at 2nd or 3rd, you are saying that technology is morally higher
level than art, and, sorry, I can't accept this fact at all.
I must give some clarification about the "divorce". I concluded it's
definitive and moral (but I prefer to use the word "divergence"), and this
seems difficult to accept.
Gene:
"I think, the level of divorce between technology and art will be
diminishing with the growth of esthetic demands and wealth among the
population (social level). I don't think art has to be useless (to
paraphrase and may be distort Marco's "His creation had a meaning, and maybe
it was not useful.").
Some day we all will be buying our teapots and office supplies at the MOMA
store and watch only Woody Allen's movies."
That "maybe not useful" (maybe!) wanted only to say that while the main
value of technology is to be useful, and only secondly to be aesthetically
good, the main value of art is to convey a meaning, mainly through
aesthetics.
We all in Italy consider a Ferrari something closer to Art. It's maybe the
"best" existing car, worthy to be exposed at the MOMA. The idea of Enzo
Ferrari was to create a perfect car, both functionally and aesthetically.
The dream (DQ) of that young Italian boy in the first half of 20th century
became reality (SQ). Attention to
details, enthusiasm in every engaged craftsman, no line assembly,
creativity, perseverance, passion .... this was the formula. I consider
Ferrari a great example of technology, very close to Art... but there's
something missing, the message.
This example shows how both technology and art can seek the good. A
different good, I guess. An Italian proverb (very pessimistic) says "Worse
never ends!".
Well I think also "Better never ends!" so every kind of pattern has this
Quality mission, seek a better value. So if technology follows the mission
to increase the social welfare, that's a good technology, and it's moral to
remunerate it with money and celebrity. On the other side the mission of
art is IMO to increase the culture of a society, expressing to the many the
inspiration of the single artist, and it's moral to remunerate art with
public agreement and success.
In the end, some consideration about the great popularity of technology Vs
the difficulty of art to reach the same success.
Leighton writes:
"This corkscrew moved me. More than half the paintings I have seen
hung in various galleries I have seen over the world... more than
most of the sculptures I have walked past in the parks round the cities..
in the galleries..."
(....I'm sure it was a good wine, that you shared that bottle with a
lot of good fiends, while eating good foods and talking of philosophy and
art all night!....)
I'm also moved by a Ferrari more than a lot of paintings. But also I'm moved
by a beautiful girl more than paintings and more than cars. We are moved by
all what's "good", independently by its "level". Or better still, it's
easier to be moved by good "low level" patterns. Biologic value is
recognized instinctually. To
recognize social value we must compare a lot of pros and cons, and we need a
long training (the time of our infancy). And to recognize an intellectual
value we need a great effort to comprehend the meaning (and sometimes it's
not enough).
tks for your attention.
Marco.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:18 BST