To: alt.pagan,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick
From: tyagI@houseofkaos.Abyss.coM (tyagi mordred nagasiva)
Subject: Art and Magick (Was Re: possibility of ritual as art)
Date: Kali Yuga 49940923 kaos yad!
Quoting: |christy@rschp2.anu.edu.au (Andrew Christy) 
	 |>hstpierr@cisco.com (Hendy St.Pierre) writes:

|>A craftsperson takes raw materials and creates something that is the sum of
|>those materials.  An artist takes those same raw materials and creates
|>something beyond the limits of the materials.
|>
|>Based on that definition, ritual MUST be an art form!  Ritual isn't the sum
|>of lighting candles, burning incense, and chanting for a while - it
|>transcends those material things.

|Hendy's implicitly pinpointed a relationship between two processes that 
|could be termed 'Art' and 'Craft'. To define vaguely: Art is the Way, 
|Craft the Means. Art is the Vision, Craft the depiction.

This is what I was pointing out with my 'science' and 'art' distinction:
Way-art; Means-science; Vision-art; Technik-science.


| I agree that performing off the sheet/out of the book is Craft.

That is an interesting distinction, I think.  You seem to equate 'formula'
with 'science' and 'feeling' with 'art'.


|The only opening for Art in that context is *interpretation* (which
|is an Art). This applies  equally to music or ritual, or dance, etc..
|   Improvisation, on the other hand, involves Art as the dominant
|process:- Craft is necessary to communicate the inner "creation" ;) to
|the outer world.  

Improvisation and interpretation as varying degrees of artistry.  I think
these are valuable items to consider.  Perhaps we could generate a range
of the artistic process, from the following of strict formulae (craft)
through usage of these formulae as guides (interpretation) and the
abandonment of formulae completely (improvisation).  What else is there?


|The match between intent and result is only as
|good as both. Both processes are distinct, and involve both
|natural aptitude and *learnable ability*. Don't know any effective
|way of learning an Art other than to be surrounded by it and
|remove obstructions, though.

It appears to me that there is more to learning art than the strict
absorption of the formulae (as our distinction above makes clear).  The
first step is to learn the 'language', the second is to interpret that
language as we are able, the third is to improvise on the basic structure.
Perhaps the fourth is to forget the structure altogether and free-flow.

When can we be said to be 'doing art'?  Perhaps this question is
irrelevant.  Perhaps it is always a combination of art and science no
matter how much we may like to think differently, which is what you
imply (using your terminology) when you say:


|...an effective ritual will always involve competent Craft and a  
|significant amount of Art....

Yang and yin, mayhaps. :>


|Without the latter, there is just a sterile going through of motions. 
|Without the former, something is invoked/evoked but with little
|definition or direction. The consequences can be anything between
|educational, exhilirating, irritating and dangerous.

Not to mention noneffective, or lukewarm, whch I suppose may qualify
as 'irritating'. :>  I enjoy your speculation on the elements of rite
and think that this polarity (using whatever terms) is quite important
study in an understanding of the relation between ritual, magick and art.

tyagi
nagasiva
nagasiva@yronwode.com