[MD] MOQ and Art

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Mike Craghead <mike at humboldtmusic.com>:

> Hi, Folks!
> 
> I have been wrestling with the meaning of art for a long time, viewing the
> question through various goggles: those of a visual artist, of a musician (singer
> & songwriter), and (to a much lesser degree) of an actor. I'll contribute my ideas
> on the subject, since they seem to fit quite nicely within the MOQ, and might help
> with Ham's question (above).

If the following essay were a performance, it would deserve a standing ovation.
Thanks for taking the time to put your ideas about the meaning of art on paper and
sharing them with us. It's a boffo addition to the literature surrounding the MOQ.  
You've explained the inexplicable about as well as anyone I've read. I especially
was struck by your comparison of creating DQ (solitary arts)with perfoming DQ
(performing arts). Having done a bit of both, I agree with your description of 
the difference. The only bone I would pick would be with your downplaying the
visual arts. The rewards for the creator may be not be immdediate, but the work
itself can provide a DQ experience for "consumers" over many generations without
the need for an audience to be there at the moment of creation. Rembrandt is
still enthralling millions.

Thanks.
Platt
 
> For me, the appeal of these pursuits has always been the piece of them that is
> undefinable. Ask anyone about their favorite art or music or theater performance,
> and at some point they'll have to start using some really amorphous and
> unsatisfying language that will never really approach the goal of "capturing" the
> experience in words. I've always enjoyed that "next level" aspect of art; I've
> called it "the most tangible form of magic" that we've got. 
> 
> I've always said that creating great art is "finding the balance between the heart
> and the head." Art that fails can be said to be off-balance: either too cerebral;
> overworked and underfelt, or too visceral; lots of feeling which is lost because
> the structure failed. In terms of the MOQ, Dynamic Quality is visceral and Static
> Quality is cerebral.
> 
> Art is a means of communication. If it weren't, no one would need galleries or
> theaters or concert halls, artists would just stay in their rooms and paint and
> sing and act all alone. I believe that any artist that claims not to care about
> their audience at any point in their process, is fibbing; it's a "controversial"
> sentence in their press kit, not a statement of fact. And art that fails, does so
> because it fails to communicate. The joy or angst or fear or hope doesn't make it
> to the audience. It's the performance by an actor in a theater that is utterly
> believable and moving, but can't be heard by the folks in the back row because the
> actor doesn't project their voice (the performance has plenty of DQ but not enough
> SQ: Stage blocking, voice technique, etc). It's the song on the radio with an
> irresistible, poignant melody that you can't get out of your head, whose lyrics
> turn out to be utterly banal (DQ in the music, probably born of great inspiration,
> but lost because of 
>  low-SQ, 
>  "phoned-in" lyrics). It's the sculpture that can't be appreciated without an art
> degree and thousands of words worth of exposition (DQ lost because the artist
> didn't "let the viewer in" with some SQ thinking; or provide a path into the
> vision). 
> [An aside about visual art here: I realise that my "sculpture" comment may reveal
> my own bias about visual art, so in the interest of full disclosure I'll spill
> those beans. Shouldn't work have inherent Quality woven into it's fabric, that any
> viewer can perceive, not just the folks who know the artist's life story or the
> history of the movement they're a part of? Those facts  may sometimes convince us
> that a work has higher Static Quality than we would have thought otherwise, but
> should those facts be crucial to enjoying the piece? The cliche, "I don't know
> much about art, but I know what I like," is far more valuable than the art critics
> would have us believe: it's Dynamic Quality, which only reaches us (as audience
> members) when the artist balances it with Static Quality. Leaving all of the
> Static Quality bottled up in words (the descriptions, expositions, histories,
> etc), is, in my view, a cop-out (for more airing of this particular pet peeve, see
> Tom Wolfe's "The Painted
>   Word," 
>  1975). But I digress.]
> 
> Back to the MOQ: 
> Ham speaks of the end result being more satisfying than the process. I've felt it
> and seen it, and it's opposite. I think the reason lies in the fact that the
> creation of the work is a completely separate experience from it's "consumption,"
> i.e. writing is entirely different than reading. Writing (and any other creative
> process) is taking the "inspiration" (DQ) and communicating it (using SQ
> effectively) to the audience. If you wrote it, you're not going to read it like a
> reader, you're going to read it too critically and think about it using different
> pieces of your brain. To circumvent this pitfall in judging our own work, the best
> thing to do is develop a split personality of sorts: become an objective observer.
> Sometimes distance (physical or temporal) from the work helps. But in any case,
> you try to put on the goggles of a reader. If you do it right, you can experience
> your own work from a fresh perspective, and get a better idea about what your
> reader sees and feels. If
>   you man
>  age to trick your brain properly (a "Method" acting trick; "The Actor's Studio,"
> Sanford Meisner, etc), you may even achieve the same forehead-slapping moment of
> epiphany that you're hoping to induce in your reader! Read it again and again and
> you'll find it's DQ giving way to it's SQ, just like it probably will for your
> reader. So, Ham, the act of writing isn't just DQ; it's DQ filtered through SQ.
> And the end result, for you (unless you manage to read it like a reader) will be
> nearly all SQ. Isn't that the goal of writing? To create something with very high
> Static Quality? It's DQ appears only at the moment of conception (writing), and
> comes back at the moment of consumption (reading). If you're finding the end
> result more satisfying than the creative process, perhaps you've mastered the
> "split-personality" trick, and are reading your work like a reader.
> Congratulations! 
> 
> In my own realm of experience, I find visual art to be the least satisfying,
> because the Dynamic part(creation) is private and short-lived, then the Static
> part (consumption) can happen when I'm not even there. I feel good when I know
> I've made Quality work, but I'm not held immediately accountable, and that's not
> as rewarding. 
> 
> In contrast, I find acting to be a bit of an overdose of DQ; if you're doing it
> right, you're so "out there" that it's downright spooky. That's why great actors
> (with VERY few exceptions) have to develop massive egos, just to survive the
> process. "Acting is living truthfully under imaginary circumstances" (Boleslavsky,
> If I recall): the "living truthfully" is behaving (like Lila?) as YOU really would
> in the situation; not as a character, because you have fooled your brain into
> thinking like the character would think, using intellectual tools you've developed
> ("preparation") which are designed to elicit Dynamic behavior in yourself. At the
> same time, you've managed to believe in the "imaginary circumstances:" the camera,
> the stage, the costumes, the audience. It's an experience alive with DQ, but it's
> exhausting!  
> 
> So for me, music is the perfect balance. Writing a song is the "private"
> experience that's akin to painting in that it's balancing DQ with SQ to create the
> song. But then I get to perform it, which is an entirely different experience: DQ
> (performing: give & take with the audience) and SQ (remembering the lyrics,
> deciding what song to play next, using correct mic technique). Recording is yet
> another rewarding experience, balancing DQ with SQ. 
> (Incidentally, as a musician, I took great issue with Phaedrus when he criticized
> the singer Lila had seen on the riverboat. But I'll leave that rant for another
> day...)
> 
> Thank you for your time!
> 
> Mike Craghead


-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/