For me ,the thingness of a chair, stool. ground, swing, bench, or
"anything
to sit on" has the same essence. No two chairs are ever alike.
"Come and sit by my side if you."....sit one what?
mando
On Apr 20, 2009, at 11:50 AM, Saul Ostrow wrote:
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/
