Chris asks: > Does anyone want to read Heidegger's "The Origin of the Work of Art"? > If any lister unfamiliar with the disciupline does try to read it, I hope he or she won't say silently, "So this is philosophy!" I think Heidegger has been a deeply pernicious, distracting voice for many philosophers.
When you read, constantly ask yourself, "How sure am I that I'm replicating in my mind the notion that was in H's mind?" Don't settle for a vague "impression" where you sense you ought to have a clearer "thought". I urge this because I (and I'm not alone in this) feel H willfully used opaque cult-worthy terms and purposely refrained from explaining them. His defenders might say, Well, H thought that was the best way to get you to think about what he was saying. Besides working hard to clarify the thoughts that arise as you read, the second thing I'd urge is to ask challenging questions. We don't want thinkers setting up straw men, but also don't want them to set up golden men -- that is, choose only useful examples and ignore obvious counter-examples. Here below is an outline of H's initial example of a "work of art" -- Van Gogh's painting of the peasant's shoes. Besides asking if he is convincing about that work, ask how any of it would be useful in thinking about a Mozart concerto or a Conger painting. Search for the "equipmental character of equipment". 1. Consider a painting of a pair of peasant shoes by Van Gogh. 2. Equipmental character consists in its usefulness. Thus, we must consider the shoes as they are used, not in some abstract or formal sense. [33] 3. The equipmental being of equipment is reliability. [34] 4. This is discovered by an imaginative engagement with Van Gogh's painting of a pair of shoes. In other words, the work of art allowed us to understand "what shoes are in truth". 4 [36] 5. Thus, the work of art has allowed the entity to emerge "into the unconcea Search for the "equipmental character of equipment". 1. Consider a painting of a pair of peasant shoes by Van Gogh. 2. Equipmental character consists in its usefulness. Thus, we must consider the shoes as they are used, not in some abstract or formal sense. [33] 3. The equipmental being of equipment is reliability. [34] 4. This is discovered by an imaginative engagement with Van Gogh's painting of a pair of shoes. In other words, the work of art allowed us to understand "what shoes are in truth". 4 [36] 5. Thus, the work of art has allowed the entity to emerge "into the unconcealedness [or "truth"] of its being." ike the "thingliness of things", Heidegger's notion of the "equipmental being of equipment" is his way of talking about the "real nature" of equipment, its essence, what makes it equipment. 4 Notice how, in the description of the peasant shoes, Heidegger includes a reference to the earth to which the shoes belong, and the world of the peasant woman in which they are "protected". This distinction will play a central role in Heidegger's discussion of art. ************** Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make meals for Under $10. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000002)
