Saul wrote: >"It is not the explanation that reveals the essence it is the work that art does - the essence is objective - our interpretation of it is subjective"
Then there is no need for art criticism, and no need to read an essay about the "origin of the work of art", Those who "love understanding" works of art should just be looking at them. Although, immediately Saul backs off from the above assertion, and suggests that our response (including certain explanations, no?) are "part of its revealing". (try Googling the phrase "double talk") If Heidegger's essays are considered as poetry, and every "is" can be replaced by "seems to me" -- then I suppose this poem does present a certain way of being in the world -- nothing like mine -- but interesting for its rhythms of circular thinking and the dark, romantic undertones shared by national socialism. When he concludes that art has been dying for several centuries -- for him, it has been (and judging from how he writes about Van Gogh, art is as dead as a pair of muddy old shoes.) Boris's response is best: i.e. to celebrate Heidegger's "elegant sophisticated dialectic manner", and not to challenge him with any questions. ____________________________________________________________ Free Workers Compensation Legal Information. Click Here. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxaDRWFvfXOUprYjzbpXetBV7 iZRjq2tlFgBG0771OJ7jnn6W5oTuA/
