[MD] Percepts and Concepts

[John Carl]

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

>
>
> [Arlo]
> I think the problem here is in the "common" application of the term. I'd
> argue, if you CARE, evidenced by high-quality work, then there is no reason
> NOT to consider your "regular old framed stairs" as "artistic". What looks
> to me to be happening here is the desire for a prescriptivist definition of
> "art" rather than a "descriptive". In other words, we shouldn't bother with
> "what must something BE to be considered art", we should care only "is this
> artistic activity?"
>


John]

Yesyes. My caring does make my activity artistic - if I care to.  But I care
artistically about certain endeavors whereas others I don't.  Despite
Mapplethorpe, I don't consider taking a crap artistic.  I didn't really
consider framing conventional stairs artistic.  I do consider the log work
that way.  It's a distinction I make myself in my own head, granted, but
when I get to be creative, I call it art.  When I'm following the manual, I
don't.  When I'm following the manual, I'm just an extension of the
instructions handed to me - to the mind that wrote the manual.  In order to
feel artistic about what I'm doing, it has to come from inside of me - a
genesis genius genie rears its head and I think about the endeavor
differently.

Now, I could apply this to a whole range of behaviors.  And certainly
rhetoric is one of the most important of all.  But for everything else I
have to choose to make it art.

  Art, like self, is a choice.


>
> [Arlo]
> Again, this is a problem with the "common" application of the term "art", a
> situation resolved by the MOQ which would say that both COULD be art,
> depending on the quality of the endeavor.
>


John]

Well there's nothing too far wrong with "common".  You don't want your
metaphysics to flounder in esotericism.  Or to be confusing with big words.
 It's nice when common understanding jibes with the whole schlemiel.

But yeah, I think we basically agree.  Anything could be art, given enough
caring.



>
> [Arlo]
> And this right here is a nutshell description of the problem the MOQ faces
> as it diffuses and runs into the ingrained, habituated discourse of the
> culture. I don't think such as  thing as "bad art" makes any sense from
> within a MOQ perspective at all. And if "fine craftsmanship" isn't art, then
> what is? Indeed, the very distinction between "craft" and "art" is
> blurred/resolved/united in the MOQ. So much so I'd go further to argue that
> "fine craftsmanship" is a redundancy, like "good art".
>


John]

Well the distinction I do see that does fit with the MoQ is as big as the
line between static and dynamic.  That which is known ahead of time, is
color by the numbers, between the lines, follows the manual, is static.
 Through and through.  That which originates in the true individual genius
of the moment is dynamic and can be art, if intended that way.

An individual can intend a genuine work that is actually derivative and
"copying" and that static quality makes it seem "bad".  We'd call it, "bad
art" in the common vernacular you academics despise :)  but according to the
MoQ it wouldn't be "bad art" so much as Non-art because it was not dynamic.
 Which I think works for your thesis... but I'm not sure.

Whew.  Now my brain is tired.  My brain tires easily.  Fortunately, this guy
you quote says it all...


>
> "... The craftsman isn't ever following a single line of instruction. He's
> making decisions as he goes along. For that reason he'll be absorbed and
> attentive to what he's doing even though he doesn't deliberately contrive
> this. His motions and the machine are in a kind of harmony. He isn't
> following any set of written instructions because the nature of the material
> at hand determines his thoughts and motions, which simultaneously change the
> nature of the material at hand. The material and his thoughts are changing
> together in a progression of changes until his mind's at rest at the same
> time the material's right."



John]

See?  There is no social control over him in that moment - he is interacting
directly with reality without a voice of authority telling him how to
interact or what to do.  He feels free, autonomous and dynamic.  But even
while  a craftsman feels the exact same connection and loss of self in his
task, as an artist does, they themselves define their intention differently,
and I'd say there is a fundamental difference in the thing produced when the
intention is different.



>
> [John]
> When the lines are all laid out for you, it's craft.  When you have to come
> up with the lines yourself, it's art.
>
> [Arlo]
> I don't think the MOQ supports this distinction.



John]

Ah.. well then.  Just wasted ten minutes of my tired brain's time.  No
biggy.

Arlo]



> Maybe better to say, when all the lines are laid out for you, its good
> work. When the lines are unnecessary, its art.



John]

Ah but the lines are always necessary Arlo.  Even on a log which doesn't
have them naturally, you have to have lines.  The difference is whether I
create them vs. when they are already created for me.  That's the difference
right there.


Arlo]


> (Or in both cases, "could be", respectively). But the goal (I'd say) of
> instructions should always be to mediate the activity until such a time as
> the experience of the person leads to an agency that makes them unnecessary.
> I think we forget that "instructions" or "lines" are temporary guides for
> novices, learning aids as it were, mediational support, and the "goal"
> should always be to overcome the need for prescription. And I think this
> goes for any field, for any form of human activity.
>

John]

You know where instructions come from?  Instructions come from the guy who
wants to be "an authority".  Why would anybody want to  be "an authority"
unless they had some need for affirmation?  See?  Instructions come from the
insecure and go to the ignorant.  What a waste of time.  Assemble that
rotisserie yerself.  Sculpt the bejeezus out of it.  Just don't come crying
to me when you burn your garage down.

Its easy to say, "figure it out" when you got it all figured out.





>
>
>
> 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/
>



-- 
------------
There are differing interpretations of Reality, some are just better than
others, that's all.
------------