The essence is never revealed, only the interpretation of it, is
possible.
mando
On Apr 14, 2009, at 6:35 AM, Chris Miller wrote:
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/
