[MD] Defining Art (was Churning Point)

[Platt Holden]

Arlo:

> [Platt]
> I guess by your question that you have decided primal screaming and
> farting contests are art forms. If not, who decided they aren't ? You?
> 
> [Arlo]
> I would say that in our culture, no, these have not emerged as viable
> "art forms". However, whether or not they could, culturally or
> historically anywhere, for anyone, is a question I don't know.

Once again you defer to "our culture." You have no opinion you can call 
your own?  

> I don't personally favor the idea of "live burial" to shatter static
> patterns, nor has our culture embraced such a activity, but there are
> cultures where it has emerged as a viable device for shattering static
> patterns.

There are cultures that practice cannibalism to shatter static 
patterns. You consider this a "viable device?" How about getting high 
on cocaine?

> [Platt]
> So now it's the culture who decides what is art?  Is that your
> position?. 
> 
> [Arlo]
> Its always been my position, Platt, in every post we exchange, that
> there is a structurating effect of the cultural mythos on the
> individual. "Art", as I've said in several posts, relies on culturally
> significant clues to point out. So, a "work of art" can only serve as
> such if its "cues" (or pointers) are recognized as such by the
> viewer/listener. We learn cultural metaphors in ever-decreasing circles,
> from those that continue to exist in the mythos from ancient cultures
> from which we descend, to very local-immediate circles of our town,
> valley or hollow. In a less specific way, you could say culture orients
> the individual towards valuable metaphors learned over historical time
> within that culture.

And I say while cultures influence their inhabitants, it is the contrarian individual who ignores such influences who is the catalyst for evolutionary progress, e.g. the brujo, Galileo, Vermeer, Edison, Ford, Rockefeller, Einstein, and other of history's movers and shakers. 
 
> [Platt]
> So in your world what is art is up to a vote?
> 
> [Arlo]
> Not at all. "What art is" is defined at the Quality event by an
> individual who, having appropriating a cultural mythos, has learned to
> interpret certain cultural cues in certain ways. If the event is such as
> to produce a "static pattern shatter", then the individual may choose to
> define the moment as "art".

I say art is indefinable and thus subject to whatever anyone wants to 
say it is. I say noise is not art. If you say it is, so be it. But, I 
don't blame me if I say you lack artistic taste.

> However, as I've said before, "art" is also used in the vernacular to
> categorize specific genres of activity (painting, tromboning, ballet,
> mime, theatre, etc.). Pirsig has shown the ill effects of such
> separation between "art" and "non-art", saying in effect that all
> activity, from english composition to rotisserie construction to
> motorcycle repair, has an element of "art", a way of doing it that
> reveals the Godhead, and a way of doing it that does not. My morning
> ritual of making coffee is "art" to me, when I do it with right mind and
> right heart (with care and identity) for me, in the same way repairing
> his motorcycle was "art" for Pirsig, and in the same way the Japanese
> Tea Ceremony is considered very High Art in Japanese culture.

I agree. You are saying the definition of art is whatever an individual 
thinks it is. But, somehow, I don't see what making coffee has to do 
with shattering patterns.

> [Platt]
> So why question what I consider art?
> 
> [Arlo]
> I don't question what you consider art, I question your belief in having
> "superior discriminatory ability" in that you can tell others what art
> is and what is not.

I don't claim any superior discriminatory ability. I know what I like, 
just as you do and an aborigine does. However, I believe that there are 
experts, critics and connoisseurs of art who I can learn good taste 
from, or else what's a university for?   

> For example, while I personally don't think "throat
> singing" is listenable, I don't tell others who find it beautiful that
> they are wrong, that it is nothing but "noise", and that it is truly
> "not art" because it lacks certain cultural cues (like tune or song)
> that work "for me".

I have no problem telling others what I think. I don't detect that you 
have a problem in that regard, either -- thank goodness!
 
> When you make such statements that digiderooing is "not art" because it
> lacks "tune" and "song", or that Barry Manilow is "art" while Mick
> Jagger is "not art", it is not to express which "art" has succeeding in
> shattering your static patterns, but to say which art should also
> shatter mine. Or better, only that which shatters Platt's static
> patterns is "art" for everyone.

And for you to say digiderooning and what Mike Jagger does is art is to 
do precisely what you criticize me for doing -- voicing your opinion. 
 
> Unless I've misunderstood, do you recognize that, although digiderooing
> does nothing for you, it is an art form for many that is not only
> beautiful but very powerful? Can the Godhead be revealed through
> digiderooing? (Arlo says yes)

Not for me, no. As for others, I cannot say. To you, making coffee is 
beautiful and powerful. 

> Also, for the aboriginals (and many westerners as Khaled, I think,
> pointed out) who consider digiderooing "art", do you think they are
> indiscriminatory? Primative? Uneducated? What?

Primitive and uneducated. 
 
> [Platt]
> If Platt tells you noise isn't art, who are you to tell him otherwise? 
> 
> [Arlo]
> Because you're not saying it isn't art "for you", you are saying it is
> not art "period".

No. As I've said repeatedly, art cannot be defined. It is up to each 
individual to define it. I define getting drunk, blowing farts, making 
coffee and banging pots and pans as NOT art. If you want to call those 
things art forms, be my guest. You have every right to do so, just as 
you have every right to publish a cartoon of Mohammed. Just don't 
expect everyone to agree with you. 

The great thing about art (beauty) is that it transcends behaviorial 
morality. There is no right or wrong in art. The problems arises when 
this transcendence is applied to social codes of morality  whereby no 
behavior is  considered right or wrong but relative to culture where it 
is practiced.. Fortunately, Pirsig has shown us a morality based on 
reason that precludes the morality of "Whatever is is right."

Platt



Platt




> 
> Arlo
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/