[MD] Defining Art (was Churning Point)

[Leif Gunnar Alvær]

Hi there, I have been lurking on this group for quite some time now, and 
must admit that the enourmous amount of messages being sent is rather 
intimidating. Not easy to digest all infromation, but finally I find that I 
can contribute (if only in a small way). Please apologise if I word myself 
difficult, as the social valuepatterns refered to as the english language, 
is not my native.

Anyway, in discussion between Platt and Arlo regarding "defining art" it 
seems to me that your angle of approach are limiting the discussion.

As far as I understand art is a term used for reaching towards dynamic 
quality, or rather presenting dynamic quality in the static. It is ways of 
letting the observer percieve fractions of the dynamic.
Accepting that, however will imply that anyone can claim that about 
everything is art, and I think it's safe to say that noone accepts that.

Mozart is art  because it helps us percieve "the value experience", the 
"betterness" compared to ie otherr music with lower dynamic quality in it 
(typical your average pop tune, the dynamic quality is no longer to be seen, 
only stable patterns remains)
But without the supporting stable social (and biological I would recon) 
patterns supporting it, it will not be percieved as art. I would recon that 
there are alot of cultures that would percieve mozart as Platt percieves 
farting.

Now one might argue that then art is purely subjective, but that is not 
entirely correct. Supporting vlauepatterns creates a "point of viewt" where 
one can percieve/ experience the art (or quality) in both Mozart and 
digiderooing.

This at least is how I percieve things, not claiming anything except my 
humble perception of moq

Leif