[MD] The difference between a Monet and a finger painting

[David Thomas]

> Ant McWatt comments:
> 
> I would tend to agree with John here. This is because the MOQ implies that a
> master in fine art is not totally working Dynamically (i.e. just within the
> code of Art) but also incorporates the intellectual techniques (i.e. The
>accepted manipulation of painted symbols and motifs in which to produce
>traditional ³good² art) of the fine artists  preceding him or her (even if only
> to a small degree).  As with the best literature or music, the accepted rules
> for high quality work usually need to be learnt before they can be broken; if
> this step is avoided you risk ending-up with an "art" piece by a Tracey Emin
rather than an art piece by a Picasso (at his best anyway).

Picasso at his best before his celebrity diminished his work. For years I've
had the coffee table book "Understanding Picasso" that shows some of his
earliest work like a portrait of his mother in a traditional pictorial
manner done in his early teens. Then to read along side it that pieces like
these he did in one day to gain entrance in to the big name art schools when
the allot time was a month just boggles the mind.

I always been leery of those who translate ZaMM  Romantic directly to MoQ's
Dynamic. As an architect with at least a rudimentary understanding of "the
arts" that has not been my experience. Artists are directly engaged with the
social and intellectual life of their time and use those skills in their
work like everyone else. In addition subheading in the ZaMM diagram under
Romantic says, "pre-intellectual awareness" Recent brain research indicates
there is a whole world of "mind things" that  artists (actually everyone)
have access to before the cutting edge of reality reaches his intellectual
awareness. 

By the way, John, artists invented finger painting too.

Good to see you around Ant.

Dave