Chris wrote : "every educated European should know ....." hahahaha ! that's a good one. What about the others...
Then: "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)" Exclude ? Wrong ! Techne: may I suggest the reading of The Question Concerning Technology by the same Heidegger, Harper Torchbooks. 1977. I quote from page 34: "In Greece, at the outset of the destining of the West, the arts soared to the supreme height of the revealing granted them. They brought the presence (Gegenwart) of the gods, brought the dialogue of divine and human destinings, to radiance. And art was simply called techne. It was a single, manifold revealing. It was pious, promos, i.e., yielding to holding.sway and the safekeeping of truth. .... Why did art bear the modest name techne? Because it was a revealing that brought forth, and hither, and therefore belonged within poiesis." If you are interested in the concepts of "revealing" and "essence", this short essay by Heidegger is a must read. It is a tricky job to translate a philosophical text written in German into English. Luc www.lucdelannoy.com ----- Original Message ---- From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 8:32:43 AM Subject: Heidegger and techne 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/
