The essence as sensed by each in individual cannot be destroyed or
reproduced, except as a unique different identifiable form or symbol.
Art is not science, yet
mando
On Apr 13, 2009, at 6:01 AM, Chris Miller wrote:
Wrong again pretty boy - it is the essence that is the identifable
thing
(Saul)
If that were so, then the artist would only need to present
something which
we could identify in order to unconceal its essence. Regarding a
pair of
peasant's shoes, a quick polaroid would do the trick -- no Van Gogh is
required.
But, come to think of it, Heidegger's explanation of Van Gogh's
shoes could
just as easily be applied to any quick, cheap, disposable image.
So, I suppose Saul is right.
According to Heidegger "it is the essence that is the identifiable
thing".
(which is why Heidegger's thinking is so confused)
"our hypothetical artist looks at a chair and draws a single
quivering line
- that sums up the essence of the being of things in general and
the object
they were looking at in specific." (Saul)
But in order to identify a hypothetical scribbler as an artist,
don't we first
need to identify the specific object whose essence he is
unconcealing ?
Does Heidegger ever suggest that an artist can "sum up the essence
of the
being of things in general" without unconcealing something
specific? (whether
its the shoes of a peasant or the god in a temple).
____________________________________________________________
Click here for free information on how to become certified as a
project
management professional.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/
BLSrjnxZ9l0iTmjEMz29yODXMFzYZl
YSwIyl3GURXNpfkMq5A5IlJZjMgMo/
