Decontructing "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"

Classicism and Romanticism: Opposing Realms of Consciousness or Consituents of Quality?
by Anna Chan

Page 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 6 | endnotes | bibliography

As previously stated, naturalism is connected with classicism in art. Yet, "nature" is also mentioned when describing the literary language of the romantic poets. As Wordsworth, who himself was typified as a romantic poet by others, once wrote,

"In Art as in Literature...there are two modes by which men endeavour to attain the same end, and seek distinction...[one being] he seeks perfection at its PRIMITIVE SOURCE, NATURE." (endnote 19)

So the question arises: Is art, whether romantic or classic, really just part of the romantic reality Pirsig has suggested? The book Classicism and Romanticism with Other Studies in Art History opens with this statement: "Few conceptions in the terminology of art history are as vague and indefinite as those of classicism and romanticism." (endnote 20) If such classification is deemed so "vague and indefinite," then perhaps the division in art is only relative to the artworks themselves and not to the categorizing Pirsig sets up, which means that we have just proven that Art belongs to the romantic realm. Or have we?

If Art does belong to the romantic realm, then, as Pirsig has already stated, Science would undoubtedly fall into the other realm. Science is the name mankind has given to 'truth-finding.' It contributed to the ease of communication (note: a classical idea!) and the rise of technology. However, are the results from Science facts or truths that the presumably classic man has discovered? Or does he merely make it up as he goes along, perhaps in an effort to conform to society's changing needs? As Barzun remarked in Classic, Romantic, and Modern:

"Classicism forgets that its truth has not been found but made; that its social order does not represent concurring wills but is imposed by a caste; and that its boasted reason is mere maxims of prudence, useful in their place, but incapable of stilling forever the diverse claims that men do in fact make upon life, and make good." (endnote 21)

This is interesting because, if the classicist's quest for truth is by creating hypotheses and proving them only on the basis of relative circumstances, then truth is "not found but made." A conclusion to any scientific experiment becomes void if new evidence works against it. Hence, the conclusion to any experiment is only the relative truth, which can be conjured up by the scientist-in-charge; only the ultimate truth, which according to Pirsig is a thing impossible for classicists to achieve, can be found.

In a sense, Pirsig agrees with the speciousness of the scientific method, though his insistence on the superiority of classicism can become quite annoying. (By this point, one should realize Pirsig's incongruities; however, one must take into account that a former mental patient's thoughts are being analyzed here.) He writes,

"The purpose of scientific method is to select a single truth from among many hypothetical truths.... But historically science has done exactly the opposite. Through multiplication upon multiplication of facts, information, theories and hypotheses, it is science itself that is leading mankind from single absolute truths to multiple, indeterminate, relative ones. The major producer of the social chaos, the indeterminacy of thought and values that rational knowledge is supposed to eliminate, is none other than science itself...[which is] scientifically produced anti-science - chaos." (endnote 22)

So it seems that romanticism is not alone when it comes to creating clutter in society.

Page 4 of 6

Return to Top | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 6 | endnotes | bibliography