What happens first, being stunned by the sudden quality of an artwork (making it a work of art) or then interrogating it? Perhaps it's not a sequence but there does seem to be something different in the two kinds of confrontation. Once satisfactorily interrogated (by the one experiencing it) is it the self-congratulatory - self-affirmation sensation that becomes the misplaced "quality" of the artwork or does the wok then become a candidate for historicization (and thus aesthetically inert)?
This is why I like Heidegger. He admits a metaphysical aura or the instant of metamorphosis when an artwork suddenly becomes a work of art in experience, prior to its historicization. And that's the moment of being stunned, awed, a-hah, confused, bewildered, followed by the urge to interrogate (which is justified by evolutionary brain development). As an artist, it's plenty worthy to aim for that first instant, and then to participate with the discourse regarding the second instant together with the "art-reception-interpretation-critical" communities. In other words, first, dear artist, you gotta "knock their socks off", "kick ass", or "empty the room", etc., and then you can play on the team, maybe. WC ________________________________ From: Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 9:43:05 PM Subject: Re: Heidegger: truth and art That's not a backing off - but an explanation that the reception of the art work and what it may reveal comes from process not intuition or passive looking - but an engagement - that involves ones puzzling over the work - the process of making sense of it - something you do not understand much about - because you just want to either get or or prove others wrong - look up the work unaware On 4/14/09 9:35 AM, "Chris Miller" <[email protected]> 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. ____________________________________________ Saul Ostrow | Visual Arts & Technologies Environment Chair, Sculpture Voice: 216-421-7927 | [email protected] | www.cia.edu<http://www.cia.edu/> The Cleveland Institute of Art | 11141 East Boulevard, Cleveland, OH 44106 ____________________________________________________________ Free Workers Compensation Legal Information. Click Here. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxaDRWFvfXOUprYjzbpXetBV7 iZRjq2tlFgBG0771OJ7jnn6W5oTuA/ --
