this is why thingness is importent - is the ground a chair - is a stool ? or rock a chair? - what is it within their thingness that differentiates them one form another - given on the level of function they may be interchangeable - but not in their being - not everything painted is a painting and not all Paintings are art
____________________________________________ 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 ________________________________________ From: armando baeza [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 2:46 PM To: [email protected] Cc: armando baeza Subject: Re: Heidegger and thingness The thingness of a chair " may be, something to sit on' one leg, two legs, ten legs , or no legs. The ground ! mando On Apr 20, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Saul Ostrow wrote: > 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/
