[MD] Joshua Bell piece in the Washington Post

[Arlo Bensinger]

Hi Ben,

Nice to have you with us.

Unlike some of our contributors, I find the arrogant elitism of 
"afficienados" typically insulting. But before I get into that, let 
me say a few basic things.

First, I think Dan nails it when he says "Art does not have Quality, 
Quality has Art". What this does is shine the light away from the 
art-object and onto the art-experience.

Second, the working definition I have for art is something like this. 
"Art is the use of culturally-significant static patterns in such a 
way as to prompt a non-static (DQ) experience from the person viewing 
the object". That is, the value of "art" is in its ability to use 
static patterns to break static patterns, and point beyond static 
representation. As such, you could say, "art" is DQ revealed in the 
moment of experience.

Now, of course, it is possible for us to look back historically and 
ask, which works of "art" have been most successful in prompting this 
sort of experience over time? Why "tactics" were employed to achieve 
this? And then we can notice patterns and these patterns become 
"suggestions" for students in how to "paint" or "write" or "dance" or 
whatever. But, as Pirsig points out in ZMM, these suggestions are 
always "retrospective", and hence are typically stiffling when 
adhered to without a recognition of what they really are.

If I can rephrase this experiment, hypothetically, and propose a 
"swap", where an Australian Aborignee with a didgeridoo stands and 
plays on a NYC streetcorner while a Philharmonic violist plays in the 
Australian outback and ask... what would we expect to happen. The 
elitists will tell you that the NYC crowd will cringe at the 
"lowbrow" quality of the didgeridoo, while the Bushman lack the 
necessary sophistication to appreciate the violist. But this is not 
what happens.

What happens is that the music of the aboriginal uses 
culturally-significant cues that are simply not effective signposts 
outside his/her culture, and the same is true of the violist, s/he is 
also using culturally-significant cues that are lost outside her/his 
particular culture. So the experience (didgeridoo versus violin) is 
not one of higher or lower "Quality", but one of ineffective 
signposting. Within the didgeridoo culture, and within the violin 
culture, these signposts may very well produce equally moving and 
effective "art experiences", moving people beyond static perceptions 
and touching (for a fleeting moment) DQ.

In the case you mention (echoing Ham's likely correct observation of 
it unfairness due to the typical hustle and bustle of commutes), it 
was not that the lowbrows did not "get" the Quality, it was that the 
experience was ineffective. "Art", although we typically refer to it 
as a DQ experience, is rooted in static symbols. And as such it must 
rely on using static symbols to point outside of static symbols. The 
better it does this, the better the art-experience. But for it to do 
this, it must rely on symbols recognized by its audience. Otherwise 
it is like a book written in Russian in the hands of a monolingual Frenchman.

We have to speak the language of the "art" in order for the "art" to 
be able to move us outside of language.

For me, then, there is no difference in Quality between a piece by 
Bach and a piece by The Clash. They are both effective or ineffective 
only insofar as they move YOU away from static perceptions and 
towards DQ, as they shatter YOUR static bubble. If Bach doesn't do it 
for you, despite your learning the language of Bach, then Bach has 
little "art value" for you. On the other hand, if a CD of 
didgeridoo-ing leaves you floating in a mystical, extra-static 
experience, then it has high "art value".

What we must always be cautious of, and the elitists are perennially 
guilty of, is thinking that because something moves ME into this 
DQ-experience, it must be "better" for all people. And if something 
does nothing for me, then it must be "inferior".  Despite our 
seemingly common cultural connections, each of us is the product of a 
uniquely assimilated trajectory. The symbols that have to come to 
hold great value for you, are those symbols that have evolved 
meaningful connotations over the course of a life spent 
reconstructing, through not only larger cultural symbols, but 
micro-genetic cultural symbols on region, town, family, friends, and 
solitary musings. You will always respond to "art" (and "artists") 
that call to you in your language, that speak your voice, and then 
use that voice to point outside of what voice can say. Don't let 
anyone, ever, demean that which brings you this experience; whether 
it be Sinatra or Joey Ramone, J.S. Bach or Sebastian Bach.

But with this comes a reverse caution. While we can respond to the 
"artists" who speak to us in our voice, we should also ourselves 
learn new ways of speaking. That monolingual Frenchman should not 
toss the book aside because he can't read it, in favor of books 
written exclusively in French. Although he may find Quality 
experiences that way, he will find more, and potentially richer and 
greater ones, by learning other languages, other symbols, other ways 
of seeing.