Carried into the artworld, a concern for "what makes a given chair a chair"
validates the work of Scott Burton, the art critic who made chairs (several
of which will comprise the inaurgural exhibit of the roof garden above the
Modern Wing at the Art Institute of Chicago)
Are his chairs fun ? Yes, they are -- and as simple, practical manipulations
of natural objects, they would be ideal outdoor furniture for a mountain
resort. (like benches made from unfinished logs)
But they are considered high art for " transforming the idea of public art"
with the notion that "art should place itself not in front of, but around,
behind, underneath (literally) the audience.''
It this art ? Or is it a chair ? Heidegger's philosophic tradition has
established the importance of this puzzle (and Scott Burton was known for his
erudition).
I'll be seeing these chairs (or artworks) next month when the new gallery
opens -- and maybe, I'll be swept off my feet -- but probably, I'll find them
no more interesting than the polished cross-sections of rock that can be found
in museums of natural history -- and I'll regret that this precious exhibit
space was not used for more imaginative work.
***********
>>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
____________________________________________________________
Click here to find the right stock, bonds, and mutual funds.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxQyrq8h4oaJOPXdaKFEC8Hnn
ohJjjlzhHbmpxp8DtZW3nQrJRk7fC/
