the notion of thing-ness again goes to the Kantian discourse embedded in MH's phenomenology- the quality of the thing is that which is not to be confused with its representation - consequently until you determine the thingness of the thing in question- its qualities and attributes you may not give representation to it - chair-ness what makes something a chair - inversely if you confuse the thing with its representation - a picture is not a chair - you may never come to know what thing is - you may never know what makes a given chair a chair
____________________________________________ Saul Ostrow | Visual Arts & Technologies Environment Chair, Sculpture Voice: 216-421-7927 | [email protected] | http://www.cia.edu/ The Cleveland Institute of Art | 11141 East Boulevard, Cleveland, OH 44106 Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 11:48 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Heidegger and thingness Has anyone here ever thought much about "thingness" ? This is something important for Heidegger -- but it still is just a mere pronoun for me (which is how I've just used it). It seems as if M.H. wants us first to consider the "thingness" of a work of art, so that we can eventually "decide whether the work is at bottom something else and not a thing at all" (and how's that for a paradox!) Did anyone find M.H.'s discussion of this topic especially enlightening? ____________________________________________________________ Top Companies Bid For Your Business. Get The Best Car Insurance Rates http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/HiMzbGTUxYsGzTtxrTfoB4D0AJw0TO 2nqfgVSAXWUMQQF2QkeM/
