I think if we could read as well as he writes, in an elegant sophisticated dialectic manner, we could see that he brilliantly resolves the problem of 'techne'. " Calling art techne does not at all imply that the artist's action is seen in the light of craft. What looks like craft in creation of a work is of a different sort". And than he is skillfully shows this difference. It is not simple reading, I agree, but like all great philosophers eventually he makes our dumbness little lighter. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Heidegger and techne Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 13:32:43 GMT
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? ____________________________________________________________ Get a life insurance quote online. Click to compare rates and save. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxcDYWRrzYMC5v4sxASf9hD8y x4XEdKIheG89LcLBwrCoBxa2NlLQM/
