Where do we find Heidegger speaking about "the relationship between form, subject, style, materiality, composition, point of view, scale, aesthetics, ethics, rhetoric,conception, etc." ?
Are these relationships considered in the 1600 words that he devotes to the discussion of Van Gogh's shoes, or in his subsequent discussion of an unidentified Greek temple ? Heidegger tells us that "art is the becoming and happening of truth" -- so aren't you just a little disconcerted, Saul, when the "truth" that he recognizes in the Van Gogh painting is probably not there at all ? And do you really think that "the god is present" in every Greek temple, as Heidegger tells us ? Builders may have intended that divinity be present in every church/temple that was ever made -- but isn't there an important difference between certain remarkable structures (like Chartres) ... and all the rest? And, since Heidegger likes to contemplate how words are commonly used -- hasn't the the word "art" been usually chosen to memorialize the importance of that difference ? BTW, Saul, might you present an example of an image that cannot be "complex and represent a knowing - a source of self reflective experience" ***************************** >I'm not speaking of just the literary narrative that one can attribute to aimage - I'm talking about the relationship between form, subject, style,materiality, composition, point of view, scale, aesthetics, ethics, rhetoric,conception, etc. to say that something is a mere image does not mean you can not have associations - means that they are not complex and do not represent a knowing- a source of self reflective experience ____________________________________________________________ Don't work harder, work smarter. Get info on an Online Bachelors here. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxXkaoFyvTGPPM7omZD1hSfTs PUntEtvbP0f8U669Z2oYcg6w64AGs/
