-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Miller <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 1:39 pm
Subject: Re: shoes
Saul, have any of these three writers suggested that is possible to
have a
"mere image" -- i.e. one that has nothing that can be unfolded or
unpacked?
And, have any of them proposed how one might objectively determine that
one
work has more to be unpacked than another?
For example, Heidegger unpacked a great deal from that Van Gogh
painting --
it's just that others have wondered whether it was ever there to begin
with.
I remember how an anthropologist once showed me how much could be
unpacked
from a book of matches. (it was even more than Heidegger found in those
shoes!)
They all address why it is a work of art in that they all propose that
the
van gogh is not ta picture of shoes butmore and because of this as a
painting
it is more than a mere image - it is this more-ness that allows for a
unfolding or an unpacking of the work that makes it art - - in that
the work
of art (its labor) resides in the fact that it can not be known in its
totality and it can not be reduced to a singularity - but opens us to
possibilities - potentialities that can not and are not bound by
language -
____________________________________________________________
Compete with the big boys. Click here to find products to benefit your
business.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxUkjCGGQvBwcJfXFNeJzEqL9
ufbj3jhJZ5aSwOrSRk03JjCM1Xjqw/
