Dan Wilson on thu 20 jun 96
excellence: Of the highest or finest quality; exceptionally good of its kind.
When an object, which I create, is evaluated on the basis of this
definition; is there a standard by which it is evaluated that does not take
into account the history of the class of objects into which it is placed?
Can one who makes objects strive for excellence in the absence of the
history that is connected to its manufacture?
May we all shake hands in Yanagi's "Kingdom of Beauty".
Bill Aycock on fri 21 jun 96
At 06:38 PM 6/20/96 EDT, Dan Wilson wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
>excellence: Of the highest or finest quality; exceptionally good of its kind.
>
> When an object, which I create, is evaluated on the basis of this
>definition; is there a standard by which it is evaluated that does not take
>into account the history of the class of objects into which it is placed?
>Can one who makes objects strive for excellence in the absence of the
>history that is connected to its manufacture?
>
>May we all shake hands in Yanagi's "Kingdom of Beauty".
>
One definition; two sentences; and an invitation. One of the more worthy
stimuli to hit the lists in a while. This one package has built in
contoversy (over definitions) contradictions (if these are rhetorical
questions, why send them out ?) and impossibilities (clear-cut answers) In
addition, the invitation to circular reasoning is beautifully baited.
Question one HAS to be answered NO, by the qualifications in the
definition. ie, "of its kind" places it in a class that must have a
history. In reality, the history of a class often starts with the creation
of one exceptional thing (not necessarily object) that serves to define the
class thereafter. The judgement of "excellence", in this case has to be
given by audience or observer, not participator, and is usually after the
fact, which is when it becomes history.
And, if this is circular, is it clockwise, or counter-clockwise?
Question two contains one of the contradictions: the answer must be YES if
the satisfaction of meeting the criteria of "Excellence" is in the judgement
of the maker; it is , at best, MAYBE,
if the judgement is at the hands of an outsider with no standard (ie,
history) by which to judge, but with the will to form a judgement; but it is
NO if the judgement is by the greater number of people that must have an
assurance that the creation is "OK". This is why salesmen will say "I'm
selling a lot of these", because that is supposed to assure me that it
will keep me acceptable to the herd if I have one.
This will keep me thinking for a long time, like trying to catch the eye of
the "Veiled Lady"
Bill - still (looking like I'm thinking) on Persimmon Hill
Suzanne Wolfe on sat 22 jun 96
Not unless you are Plato!
Especially in terms of current thinking (whether or not one agrees with it
is irrelevant, since that does not change the dominence situation) -- the
question of "excellence" is even questioned -- usually (as you may have
gathered from Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, which
was heavy into this idea of quality or excellence as something that,
although indefinable, was readily evident to the "educated") the idea of
excellence to which we subscribe is only one of many different
definitions, depending on cultural circumstances.
My personal definition of excellence is, after waiting for at least one
year to make the assessment, how well it achieves the generally vague
feeling that I was looking for. It is pretty obvious that since our ideas
of excellence change with time, that there can be nothing but a
provisional definition of that term.
On Thu, 20 Jun 1996, Dan Wilson wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
>
>
> excellence: Of the highest or finest quality; exceptionally good of its kind.
>
> When an object, which I create, is evaluated on the basis of this
> definition; is there a standard by which it is evaluated that does not take
> into account the history of the class of objects into which it is placed?
> Can one who makes objects strive for excellence in the absence of the
> history that is connected to its manufacture?
>
> May we all shake hands in Yanagi's "Kingdom of Beauty".
>
rballou@mnsinc.com on sat 22 jun 96
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>At 06:38 PM 6/20/96 EDT, Dan Wilson wrote:
>>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>>
>>excellence: Of the highest or finest quality; exceptionally good of its kind.
>>
>> When an object, which I create, is evaluated on the basis of this
>>definition; is there a standard by which it is evaluated that does not take
>>into account the history of the class of objects into which it is placed?
>>Can one who makes objects strive for excellence in the absence of the
>>history that is connected to its manufacture?
>>
>>May we all shake hands in Yanagi's "Kingdom of Beauty".
>>
Cultural anthropology's theory of cultural relativism and its technique of
the participant observer in studying other cultures may be useful in
thinking about these questions. Briefly, the theory of cultural realtivism
holds that we can fully understand human behavior only within the context
of its mother culture (taking the anthropological meaning of culture as
those institutions created by a group of people living together in a
defined geographical area to perpetuate and preserve a way of life). In
other words, an observer must have a frame of reference in which to place
an observed action or artifact before it can be fully understood and
appreciated. What is acceptable in one culture may be unacceptable or
meaningless in another. Recognition of cultural bias is an outgrowth of the
study of cultural relativism. Cultural anthropologists try to avoid bias in
observing cultures other than their own by being a participant observer:
someone who joins activities and records oberservations without
interjecting personal comments or bias. Such impartiality is difficult to
maintain and the success of participant observation has been questioned by
many.
In evaluating an object, we must have a frame of reference in which to
place it. My question is what are the limitations when defining that
"history of class of objects". Are we taking into account objects made
across time,and across culture?
For example, think of the concept of "bowl". A bowl that is "excellent"
according to classical Greek esthetics is not judged within the same frame
of reference as an "excellent" bowl according to Mengei esthetics. Studio
Potter's issue "Toward a Unified Theory of Craft" is thought provoking in
this regard.
Human beings are classifiers and categorizers. We like to pigeon-hole
things -- everything from people,to objects,to ideas. Sometimes objects
judged outside of the frame of reference in which they were created are
either deemed to be worthless or are elevated to heights far beyond their
original purpose. The Cargo Cults that occurred in some remote areas during
and after WWII are examples of the latter. Isolated, native cultures who
had never seen an airplane, were found worshipping downed cargo planes and
their 'meaningless' contents.
Personal growth occurs when one expands a frame of reference. Within the
context of a beginner class, a piece may be judged as "excellent" based on
the history of objects made in the class. Growth and learning occurs for
students when their frame of reference is expanded beyond the history of
objects made within the confines of the class,to include objects made
across time and culture.
We're all a mixed bag of overlapping frames of references,cultural bias,and
personal,idiosyncratic experiences tossed in to spice things up. I wonder
if objects based on personal,idiosycratic experiences end up being
creations of art with an audience of one, because no one else posesses a
similar frame of reference so that it can be placed within a history of a
class of objects.
Time also plays a role in judging an object "excellent". Frequently, things
that are just a few years old are judged as "out-dated". Yet as more time
passes, sometimes those same objects are appreciated again.
For me, excellence is a moving target, one that I catch glimpses of out of
the corner of my eye. Exploring the limits of my personal frame of
reference and expanding my understanding of the history of a class of
objects will easily take more than one lifetime.
Ruth Ballou -- looking into Reincarnation
rballou@mnsinc.com
| |
|
