On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 5:57 AM, David Harding <davidjharding@gmai...> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> Though the interviewer I found a little stuffy at times - it's a good Doco.
Yes I found that to be true as well. But I think we need to look
beyond that at the artist being portrayed, don't you?
I think the role of rta within the MOQ is at the crux of the interplay
between DQ and sq. We can talk about a 'balance' of DQ and sq all we
want but really that's all just sq. The real signpost to DQ is
mastering sq. You and I have talked about this before, but after we
have got something 'mastered' then the static quality disappears and
there's nothing left but DQ. That's how you experience Dynamic
> It's all in the practice of sq and the care of sq and the suffering which-comes-from-breaking-up of sq. If you do something over and over again with the aim of doing it good, you end up forgetting about it and it's gone...
Well, possibly... but I'm not sure you're taking this part into account:
“It’s very important to remember,” Evans says, “that no matter how far
I might diverge or find freedom in this format, it only is free
insofar as it has reference to the strictness of the original form.
And that’s what gives it its strength. In other words, there is no
freedom except in reference to something.”
He is adamant that there is always a reference base pertaining
strictly to the original form. That part is never gone... if it were,
the work of art isn't good... in fact it would devolve into nonsense.
At least that's how I read this.