[MD] Romantic/Classic knowledge

[MarshaV]

Greetings,

I certainly agree.  Both posts were wonderful.


Marsha



At 04:35 PM 1/27/2009, you wrote:
>Hi All:
>
>It appears Mel has struck a deep responsive chord with his recent
>description of lessons from a boat builder.
>
>Mel's post was preceded just a day or two by Arlo's post citing the
>importance of ZMM reuniting ''art' with everyday activity.
>
>I don't know about anybody else, but if after a decade of discussions this
>site was compelled to come away with just one message for the world, I
>think it would be these recent posts from Mel and Arlo.
>
>I wonder how many other contributors agree that they neatly and memorably
>summarize the MOQ's guide to personal fulfillment.
>
>Regards,
>Platt
>
> > > mel:
> > > A boat builder with whom I used to work
> > > frequently repeated a phrase: 'beauty is free'.
> > > The first few times he said it, the timing was
> > > a mystery to me--Why did he say that, now?
> > >
> > > Eventually I got it. He was prodding me
> > > towards seeing that how I made the structural
> > > pieces of the boat look were more important than
> > > the simple plan-form of structure. Analogous
> > > to how different the musical score is from the
> > > performance.
> > >
> > > Inevitably, the 'beautiful' elements found
> > > efficiencies that the purely functional lacked.
> > > What seemed an accident or a trick was instead
> > > a deeped insight. Whenever I made a part
> > > more beautiful in appearance, it was also stronger,
> > > better fit, more efficient, etc. It was so, because
> > > I had unknowingly paid attention to more parts
> > > than simply the abutting or adjacent bits.
>
>[Arlo]
>This may be slightly off your topic, but I've always thought the most
>important part of ZMM was in reuniting "art" with everyday activity. That
>is, what both the classisists and the romanticists got wrong was that
>"art" was divorced from other forms of human activity into a realm of
>particular behaviors. We (in the general sense) tend(ed) to see "art" as a
>very specific subset of painting, theatre, music, literature, etc. What
>ZMM resolved was that "art" was an aesthetic/Quality that could be (and
>should be) (and IS) an integral part of everything from building
>rotisseries to repairing a motorcycle to welding a chain guard.
>
>In ZMM, both the classisists and the romanticists were seeing "art"
>from its old perspective, the classisist shrugged off "art" as
>un-important or trivial (syrup of style kind of stuff), while the
>romanticists were seeing "art" as a bounded domain of particular
>activity (drumming or painting or the like). The "rotisserie builder" and
>the "abstract sculptor", Pirsig reminded us, are both "artists" when they
>follow Quality in their particular activity. Thus the resolution to the
>romantic/classic divide is a larger view that begins with a redefinition
>of "art" and its relation to everyday, lived "life".
>
>
>
>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/

.
_____________

Look, there's no metaphysics on earth like chocolates.
(Fernando Pessoa)
.
.