Chris, there is no true essence in an identifiable thing. the essence is
always personal at most.
if A is essence , B in art can never be A...never and no way!
mando
On Apr 12, 2009, at 5:12 AM, Chris Miller wrote:
"If someone is making a work that unconceals the true essence of
something,that person is making art"
It's the same as looking or thinking of a chair and drawing a
large rock. I
agree. That"s what I've always done, because it's our only
choice. mando
But if your drawing does not unconceal the "true essence" of some
identifiable
thing, then you haven't made a work of art, Mando -- at least,
according to
Heidegger.
And since art is logical, there is only one true essence for
everything (even
for Mando) : if A does not equal B, then the essence of A does not
equal the
essence of B. This is especially problematic for a painter like
William who
intends to make that which appears meaningless. I doubt that
Heidegger would
hold that intention against him, but he would only consider William
an artist
if he failed to achieve it.
Heidegger is something of an imperialist.
In any period of time, there is one, and only one set of true
essences --
there are no exceptions for cultural diversity. (just as there
weren't in the
great totalitarian states of the 20th C.)
The contemporary artworld is the same way. It will only recognize
artists
from China or India if those artists have abandoned their own
traditions and
are presenting the tropes of contemporary art. (the public art now in
Millennium Park, Chicago, is a fine example - from Anish Kapoor's
bean to the
hot new Chinese sculptors now on temporary display.)
____________________________________________________________
Click for free information on top investing websites and services.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/
BLSrjnxQyrrZI48KKCoUZ853CjpaFK
DQDsVtTAibqtWk3M0TxxyViKKa6re/
