[MD] Percepts and Concepts

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[John]
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.

[Arlo]
Well you have to "care", you have to "identify" with your activity, you must
have the agency to flow in your activity dependent only upon the evolving
aesthetic of the relationship. Sure. I'm not disputing this. 

[John]
Well there's nothing too far wrong with "common". 

[Arlo]
There is when the commonly accepted usage points away from where the MOQ
points. It is not "common" that is the problem, of course concepts diffuse via
their accepted commonality. And this is, to repeat, why I see the battle the
MOQ faces to re-conceptualize/re-vision/re-define "art" as being a major (but
foundational) encounter.

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

[Arlo]
Cool. Although I'd say, "Anything can be done artistically, given enough
caring". It's nitpicking, to be sure, but I think its better to keep the
emphasis on the relational activity rather than the object-outcome. 

Consider the welder who fixes Pirsig's chainguard in ZMM. There is no doubt
Pirsig portrays this welder as an "artist" in how he interacts with the
materials at hand. I would say that focusing on the finished chainguard as
"art" detracts from the dynamic "welder-tools-object" triad. 

Same thing with paintings in a museum. The "art" was in the activity that
produced them. And I think that just looking at the paintings misses two-thirds
of the equation. Not that this can't be valuable, aesthetically pleasing or
worthwhile. But this is the problem with the common view that "art" is somehow
"the object produced" rather than the dynamic activity from whence the object
derived. Make sense?

[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.

[Arlo]
Agree fully. And I think the MOQ supports this. I don't have my digital LILA on
this computer, but Pirsig says so much when he talks to Lila about the boat
ride thing she was telling him about. 

[John]
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.

[Arlo]
Yes, I think "non-Art" is better term. Because its not really "art" at all, is
it? 

[John]
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.

[Arlo]
I am not denying your distinction, but I don't think calling one a "craftsman"
and the other an "artist" is good. And I think doing so conflicts with the idea
in ZMM of seeing the "craft/art" distinction as erroneous. 

[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]
Sure they are. And I said so much, although you skipped over that. Even the
most skilled "artist" still has a general framework, a hierarchy, a rubric, a
system, call it what you will that s/he applies to the activity. That welder in
ZMM was following a basic protocol of "welding thin metal", using techniques
and materials and tools that had been successful in past repairs. But the
welder was in control, and could change/adapt/flow in the moment rather than
being restricted by pre-conceived sequential stages.

[John]
You know where instructions come from?  Instructions come from the guy who
wants to be "an authority".

[Arlo]
There is nothing wrong with instructions. They are the mediational support all
novices need at one point in their learning. I bet that welder learned many of
his techniques by following instructions. They are scaffolding as people learn
new skills. 

The problem is that we have forgotten that the goal is to overcome the need to
stick to prescriptive instructions and to become agenic in one's activity. This
is what the "artist" has done. He has transcended the need to follow
instructions, by mastering them to the point where they serve him/her, rather
than the other way around.

[John]
Instructions come from the insecure and go to the ignorant.  What a waste of
time.  Assemble that rotisserie yerself.

[Arlo]
Yikes! I'd say that instructions are a necessary and valuable scaffolding tool
for novices, but become imprisoning when/if the individual is never able to
transcend their use, to take control of them rather than being controlled. 

A novice heart surgeon learns the instructions of her/his trainers, s/he
follows the procedures and instructions given to her/him. But is s/he never
grows to the point where s/he is able to adapt to new situations, to apply
dynamic solutions to the changing situation, then s/he will never attain
"artisanry" in her/his skills.

The problem is not "instructions", its remaining dependent on them.