I've never thought of William's work being non representational.
mando
On Apr 10, 2009, at 6:03 AM, Chris Miller wrote:
Following his discourse on Van Gogh's shoes, Heigegger then begins a
discussion of "the Greek temple" (page. 41) - which might be
especially
interesting to those, like Cheerskep, who have noted that truth in
representation does not apply to non representational art (like
William's
paintings)
As I've already noted, Heidegger does not specify which Greek
temple he saw
"standing there in the middle of a rock cleft valley" -- and
probably he's
never seen one -- at least one that wasn't in ruins.
(have any survived with their statuary and roofs still intact ?)
But if his "Greek temple" is just his personal ideological
construct - why
doesn't he say so ?
He then begins to walk us through his construct, and imagine all
the ideas
that he would like to have associated with it - including one that
has an
ominous tone of national socialism about it: "The all-governing
expanse of
this open relational context is the world of
this historical people. Only from and in this expanse does the
nation first
return to itself in the fulfillment of its vocation" (which is
somewhat
fanciful, since the Greeks did not become a nation until more than
2000 years
after these temples were built)
The following passages must exemplify the poetry that Boris finds
in this
text:
"Standing there, the building holds its ground against the storm
raging
against it, and so first makes the itself manifest in its violence"
How Romantic! And, I suppose a poet is entitled to imagine that
some things
have come into existence just to suit his imagination.
But it would be more reasonable (and historical) to say that temples,
paintings, statues etc came into existence to suit the imagination
of those
who made them.
____________________________________________________________
Buy and sell stock online. Best online broker. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/
BLSrjnxQzmiIQiYuRvhaRqwKU9zuK6
eky8nF1WIFUgTt31Lf89QH0djE4l6/
