[MD] Defining Art (was Churning Point)

[Margaret Warren]

Thank you Arlo!

This is what I was wanting to read in these posts about art and why I used
such a vulgar example to illustrate how ridiculous it seemed to me to argue
about what each person finds artistic. 

I was hoping the thread would get back to discussing Pirsig, static and
dynamic quality and move away from each person defending what they
personally like or dislike.

I've been amazed at how base our culture is and yet, as a fellow human being
on the planet I can't just summarily dismiss a person because they don't get
why Yosemite is so beautiful, or Mozart or Digeridooing, or why they call
something I happen to find absurd 'art'. I might feel an inclination to try
to educate (in the case of the woman who thought Yosemite was just a pile of
rocks), but sometimes I think the most loving thing to do is just to share
what we know and why we feel the way we feel without trying to be judgmental
about someone elses experiences. 

Some people don't want to be educated about art. They don't want to listen
to Jazz at all because they don't want to have to understand art
intellectually in order to enjoy it. Art sometimes exists for some people to
move them from a static level of experience into a dynamic one, but for
others, they just
want to enjoy it (enjoy their understanding of the quality of it, even it's
now become part of their static experience). Somedays I prefer Bach over
Mozart or Jimi Hendrix over Wagner, or Thelonious Monk over Bach. Somedays
it's just about the enjoyment of it. Whether or not a piece of art is going
to become an eye-opening experience for someone, I think, has a lot to do
with the things Arlo
mentions and reminds us about. When art has quality for us can be very
personal and subjective. When art creates a 'movement' (fauvism to cubism
for example), it becomes a collective experience and do we really know when
this is happening or do we only recognize it after the fact? Anyone heard of
culture jamming, which falls somewhere after 'post modern'? 

Everyone has only their own experiences to think with. 
We all have a potential for art to be found in many, many different
expressions - visually, aurally, emotionally, intellectually/conceptually,
etc. 

Most musics we listen to (in the US), have come out of a Western European
aesthetic also mixed in with Afro-Cuban musics (and others) (which until
very recently in the last century had not been 'codefied') which arrived
here and comingled with European music during slave trading and the
colonization of the new world. 

(I want to note here that I use the word 'aesthetics' defined as 'underlying
principles', but the root of which, means simply 'to percieve' - somehow
along the way we added beauty and good taste to the definition.)

I personally would find it difficult to recognize what would be 'quality' or
not in Eastern Asian or Middle Eastern music. I don't have any 'static
quality' reference for this, I'm not even familiar with a feel for the
scales used in composing these musics. 

As for Digeridooing, I think I enjoy a 'quality' about the sound of it,
because I know a little bit about the instrument, I know people who play it
and who have incorporated it into contemporary music I'm familiar with and
the sound of it (to me) seems to exist without a reference to time or
location. A 'primal' sound that has been heard across many, many thousands
of years and (in me) seems to open up some channels to something more
universal (again, though, this is all simply my own interpretation). It
reminds me of the similar Tibetan instrument which I think is also meant to
mimic a cosmic 'aum' sound. Would I know the difference between a good
player and a poor one? Who knows? What qualities does a good player have:
good lung capacity for playing longer, stronger notes? What are common
themes a digeridoo musician plays? I can't answer a thing about the quality
of this aspect of the music. 

To know something about the rules and have a cultural and historical
reference point defines something about the quality and how many people are
going to be enriched by it which is why I really appreciate what Arlo is
saying about roadmaps out of the mythos, from static quality to dynamic. 

>Mozart uses "markings" in his roadmap out of the mythos that give his
creations 
>potentiality "vertically" (spans historical time) and "horizontally"
(across 
>larger cultural groups). 

I had forgotten about the particular passages in Lila that Arlo qoutes, but
they come back clearly now...about examining the rules of rhetoric after the
fact and I remember now how important this concept seemed to me when reading
it, that all of the 'rules' that we have to supposedly understand
art...unity, form,
(Just reading the Mario Livio book on Symmetry now) - mathematical rules of 
group theory - mathematics and the Greek principals of aesthetics,
asymmetrical harmony, in general, all contribute to our concept of quality;
the more rules you know...the more you will recognize a work as having
quality. 

I heard a Miles Davis quote once (which I'm sure I don't remember word for
word) in which he basically said, a musician should 'learn everything' (read
music, understand it historically, study ALL music theory academically) and
then FORGET it when you play. (And let's not forget about the uproar when
Miles moved away from 'classic jazz' and recorded 'Bitches Brew'). Many
great art works were hated at first: Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon,
Stravinsky's Rite of Spring...Bach was considered 3rd rate during his
lifetime.

As Pirsig wrote about...applying the rules doesn't necessarily help you
create better writing, but if you learn the rules and then forget about them
while you are creating OR intentionally break the rules...it's all about the
balance.
And because these artists were educated about the rules, they employed more
markings to give the creations vertical and horizontal potentiality for
quality and for moving us beyond the static into dynamic, which then has to
become static again. 

Question: what role do channels of distribution have in art that challenges
our static quality? We're educated about musical, visual and literary
'classics' in academic institutions, but when and how are we moved
artistically by something radically new? The music industry and radio
stations don't support artist development these days and they tend to
produce for the masses. (Back to the media is the message/massage) - was
anyone inspired by the recent conceptual art piece in Central Park by the
Christos? I have mixed feelings about it. Does anyone think
this is something that has 'quality'? Is it something that will mark a move
from one static level to another in our current culture? How exactly do we
define where we are NOW culturally. Mass marketing addresses so many
vertical and horizontal movements at once, aren't we all overwhelmed by so
much stimulus it's difficult to
see where one movement starts and another begins?

Are any of us (in this group or outside of ourselves) really going to be
aware of something artistic in this moment that has significance related to
static/dynamic quality or are we just going to hate it the same way the
people hated and rioted at The Rite of Spring concert?
 
And...one more question: which I'm sure should probably be another thread
(perhaps one exists already that I'm not sure of) -  who says we actually
have to be 'evolving' at all?  Can't we just move from the static to the
dynamic back to the static again relative to time moving (i.e. our
perception of time progressing from past to future) - something like just
breathing? Static to Dynamic, Static to Dynamic, Static to Dynamic. 

I just read a definition of 'evolve' which says: 'to develop or achieve
gradually'. To me, both of the terms: develop and achieve imply something
'better' - more advanced, greater, etc. I'm vaguely familiar with Dennett -
'Freedom Evolves', which sounds lovely, but what about entropy? 

Note to SA: Thank you very much for welcoming me!
As for the John Cage quote, the context of course related to this thread was
in the way this thread had seemed to be eroding away from a discussion of
quality
with respect to Pirsig into personal arguments of why one person likes this,
but not that and how inferior that made the other person's point of view.  

I've also questioned Cage's inclusion of the word 'curiosity'. Funny, I had
the quote laying around on my desk 3 weeks ago and had even struck the word
with a pencil. Curiosity (opening Pandora's box) can get us into trouble.
Sometimes all I think we need is simply 'awareness'. But simple awareness
alone doesn't seem to be much in the nature of man, and curiosity is (have
an apple anyone?). 

I just read an Einstein quote on what you were talking about:
"Concern for man himself and his fate must always constitue the chief
objective of all technological endeavors...in order that the creations of
our mind shll be a blessing and not a curse to mankind." 

your comment: 
>Curiosity with restraint - the old idea of balance

just as Arlo mentions with regard to art...balance is crucial.

Margaret

www.zeroexp.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zeroexp/



-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Arlo J. Bensinger
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 8:46 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Defining Art (was Churning Point)


Greetings SA (and All),

I wanted to consolidated some thoughts, and answer your question about "how
much freedom is granted to the art student" vis a vis "art teacher
influence". I'll do that first.

Pirsig answered this, at least in part, in ZMM, when he recounts his time as
a composition instructor in Bozeman. His job was to teach rhetoric (art) by
strict adherence to the "rules of good writing". He remembers, " The
students seldom achieved anything, as a result of this calculated mimicry,
that was remotely close to the models he’d given them. More often their
writing got worse."

Pirsig admits that "what he really thought was that the rule was pasted on
to the writing after the writing was all done. It was post hoc, after the
fact, instead of prior to the fact. And he became convinced that all the
writers the students were supposed to mimic wrote without rules, putting
down whatever sounded right, then going back to see if it still sounded
right and changing it if it didn’t." And also, "that no writer ever learned
to write by this squarish, by-the-numbers, objective, methodical approach."

In addition, rhetoric suffered under "prescriptive rhetoric, which
supposedly had been done away with but was still around. This was the old
slap-on-the-fingers- if-your-modifiers-were-caught-dangling stuff. Correct
spelling, correct punctuation, correct grammar. Hundreds of rules for
itsy-bitsy people. No one could remember all that stuff and concentrate on
what he was trying to write about."

Finally, after convincing his students that THEY were capable of seeing
Quality, "Their question now was "All right, we know what Quality is. How do
we get it?" Now, at last, the standard rhetoric texts came into their own.
The principles expounded in them were no longer rules to rebel against, not
ultimates in themselves, but just techniques, gimmicks, for producing what
really counted and stood independently of the techniques...Quality." ... "He
singled out aspects of Quality such as unity, vividness, authority, economy,
sensitivity, clarity, emphasis, flow, suspense, brilliance, precision,
proportion, depth and so on; kept each of these as poorly defined as Quality
itself, but demonstrated them by the same class reading techniques."

I'm quoting Pirsig a lot here, but I think its part of his writings that
often gets omitted when we talk about the MOQ. Anyways, there is a balance
here between "using the rules" and "breaking the rules". One can do neither
exclusively and have success. It is the same balance that Pirsig would later
call "static" and "dynamic". There is always danger in teaching, as Pirsig
noted well, on focusing on the static, "the rules". But I have also seen the
danger when professors err in the other direction, and give A's in a sort of
"anything goes" free for all where attacking the rules is all that matters.

Now, let me take a moment to clarify some thoughts, and expand on this a
bit. First, for an art object (be it music, painting, theatre, text, dance,
etc.) to function it has to meet one and only one objective. It has to take
the viewer/participant/creator out of the static patterns of her/his life.
This is defined at the moment of the event by the individual engaging with
the object. As such, I'll call it Art. Culturally then, we can look at
patterns of success, see which objects have succeeded historically and with
what profoundness, and call those patterns "art". That is, there are two
things that should be disambiguated when talking about art. The moment of
Art as defined by the individual, and the use of cultural trends to label as
"art" that which has had cultural success.

What we also learn from looking at those cultural patterns of success is
what types of "cues", or as Pirsig calls it, "aspects of Quality" may imbue
an object with greater potentiality to be art within a culture. That is, if
art is a roadmap out of the mythos, it will have greater success "for you"
if you are able to recognize the markings.

Culture, however, is not a walled city. The "markings" that you, as an
individual with the gift of culture, recognize are echoed in a culture that
spans back in time and across civilizations recorded in the voices of your
culture. In this sense, there are (as Pirsig ZMM thesis demonstrated) strong
influences of Ancient Greek culture in our voices. There are also Native
American voices (as Pirsig noted in Lila) that strongly influence our
culture.

If you look at these like concentric circles, beginning with the innermost
rings being very localized cultural values radiating out towards historical
and assimilated cultural values, with the outmost rings bordering on the
"monomyth", one finds that as the "art object" uses cues from the outmost
rings, the value of the art increases. Let me explain.

Someone suggested (David M?) that although The Clash produce art, if one had
to choose between Mozart and The Clash, one would choose Mozart. The reason
(and I
agree) with this assessment is that Mozart uses "markings" in his roadmap
out of the mythos that give his creations potentiality "vertically" (spans
historical time) and "horizontally" (across larger cultural groups).

The Ultimate Art Object (which exists as an object only hypothetically for
this is really just a synonym for Quality) would be one that for all people,
in all times, and in all cultures, always succeeds in shattering static
patterns of perception for the viewer/participant/creator. As objects move
outwards on the concentric circles of culture, one moves broadly and deeply,
and as one learns to manipulate the markers that resonate on these outer
rings, one produces "art" that is closer to the Ultimate Art Object.

Now, let me end with this thought. This is not to say that the outmore rings
bring more potentiality simply in terms of popular success. I believe that
the outmore rings also have greater potentiality in profoundity of
experience (if that's a word). That is, when one builds a roadmap from cues
moving outward through cultural circles, the potentiality for deeper, more
revelatory experience goes up.

Because Mozart's "cues" are from more outer cultural rings, it has a greater
potential not only to succeed as "art" for more individuals (through time
and assimilated cultures) but to cause the "art event" to be deeper and more
profound for the viewer/participant/creator.

Oddly, this is sometimes why familiarity with "art" tends to minimize
impact. That is, those "circles" aren't static. As cultural values become
"habituated", they move inward through the concentric circles. Pirsig
mentions this in Lila, about a song on the radio, "imagine that you walk
down a street past, say, a car where someone has the radio on and it plays a
tune you've never heard before but which is so fantastically good it just
stops you in your tracks. You listen until it's done. Days later you
remember exactly what that street looked like when you heard that music. You
remember what was in the store window you stood in front of. You remember
what the colors of the cars in the street were, where the clouds were in the
sky above the buildings across the street, and it all comes back so
vividly".

Later, after you have listened to the song more and more, the "depth" of the
experience of listening to the song changes. "the same kind of division
between Dynamic Quality and static quality that exists in the field of
morals also exists in the field of art. The first good, that made you want
to buy the record, was Dynamic Quality. Dynamic Quality comes as a sort of
surprise. What the record did was weaken for a moment your existing static
patterns in such a way that the Dynamic Quality all around you shone
through. It was free, without static forms. The second good, the kind that
made you want to recommend it to a friend, even when you had lost your own
enthusiasm for it, is static quality. Static quality is what you normally
expect."

And this gets right back to "obeying the rules and "breaking the rules", and
why "art" needs to be continual fresh. Those concentric circles are not
"static", what was an outermore ring value, can easily become an innermore
ring value, and thus lose its potentiality for depth. Mozart's works are
high Quality art, but if the individual limited their "art experiences" with
this and similar art objects, one (I believe) dangerously diminishes the
potential for deep and profound experience via "Art".

I'll end with this. This is why I personally found didgeridooing (I'll spell
it correctly today) to be a High Quality experience. Because the roadmap out
that it provided was unlike any I had used before, and because I was able to
recognize some of the markers on that map (the music I listened to, I'd
argue, does contain markers on the outermost rings of cultural value) the
experience was glorious, and deeper I'd argue than my listening Bach's "The
Art of the Fugue" for the umpteenth time.

And so it gets back too to "a sign is a sign only when it is recognized as
such". Generally speaking, we are very aware of what is a sign on the
innermore circles of culture. We tend to "forget" (symbolically), although
it is always there in echoes, the signs on the outermore circles. Sometimes
the art object is powerful enough that the signs make immediate impact,
sometimes one has to stop and think and figure out the signs on her/his own
(this is the reason for "music appreciation" classes). At any rate, it is
balance, balance between breaking and obeying the rules, balance between
dynamic and static experience, balance between localized cultural values and
historical-monomythical cultural values, balance between new and habituated
roadmaps.

Arlo

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.11/264 - Release Date: 2/17/2006
 
  

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.0.0/266 - Release Date: 2/21/2006