the personal truth, at best,
mando
On Apr 12, 2009, at 6:39 AM, Saul Ostrow wrote:
Obvioulsy you do not understand what it means to bring forth
something new -
the shoe is always circumscribed by its function - the painting's only
function is to bring forth the truth - that is reveal someting
On 4/12/09 9:32 AM, "Chris Miller" <[email protected]> wrote:
Heidegger would like to distinguish the artist who painted some
shoes from
the
shoemaker who made them, but unfortunately the ancient Greeks used
the same
word, techne, for the process used by both (and as every educated
European
should know, the ancient Greeks understood important things much
better than
we do)
So Heidegger has a problem, and on page 58, as he begins his final
assault on
"Truth and Art", he will devote several thousand words to explain
what
'techne' really meant, in order to distinguish craftsmen from
artists.
Did anyone find his rather long-winded argument very convincing ?
Heidegger tells us that both the shoemaker and the artist are
bringing forth
something into being -- but the artist is bringing forth something
new.
However --- what if the design of that particular pair of shoes has
never
been
used before? Wouldn't the inventive shoemaker be just as much an
artist as
Van
Gogh ?
Heidegger then tells us that the shoes are made only to be used (as
equipment)
so whatever truth they might be unconcealing will be ignored.
But what if they're not ignored? What if they are kept for
contemplation --
just as Van Gogh was contemplating the pair that he used as models
for his
painting ?
And what about all that stuff, like ceramic bowls in China and
Japan, that
are
made both for drinking tea and aesthetic contemplation ? Or, like
an elegant
pair of fashionable shoes that might well be preserved and
collected long
after anyone thought of wearing them ? (Heidegger had conveniently
chosen a
pair of peasant's shoes for his example-- because, God knows,
peasants are
too
coarse to care about such things)
Heidegger's special meaning for 'techne' only applies to a very
limited range
of examples -- and it even excludes most of what the ancient Greeks
would
have
considered to be 'art' (if they even had a concept similar to
Heidegger's)
When visiting a gallery filled with ancient greek sculptures --
which ones
do
you think were unconcealing a new truth -- and which ones were just
following
a pattern for how shoes -- oops, I mean statues --- were supposed
to be
made.
How can you tell the difference?
____________________________________________
Saul Ostrow | Visual Arts & Technologies Environment Chair, Sculpture
Voice: 216-421-7927 | [email protected] | www.cia.edu<http://
www.cia.edu/>
The Cleveland Institute of Art | 11141 East Boulevard, Cleveland,
OH 44106
____________________________________________________________
Get a life insurance quote online. Click to compare rates and save.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/
BLSrjnxcDYWRrzYMC5v4sxASf9hD8y
x4XEdKIheG89LcLBwrCoBxa2NlLQM/
--
