I found the reading to be confusing and difficult to grasp despite its attempt to be concise. The example of Van Gogh’s painting of the peasant shoes not representing the truth but Pliny’s story does represent the truth is confusing to me because I don’t quite understand why. What is the distinction between the two? The word ‘truth’ carries such a concrete, factual essence that it may be restricting in how we define if a piece of art is honest. Using the same example from the reading, Van Gogh’s depiction of the shoes may not give the entire story but it provides a perspective. This perspective may change if viewed from a different set of eyes and whether or not one perspective is “the truth”, they both are representations of what appeared to be truthful from the beholder’s perspective.
Heidegger’s view is such that art is not defined by the making, manipulating, or manufacturing of the art, but rather the emotions that it provokes. I do agree that the emotion and message are the most important qualities of a piece, however, I think aesthetics and manufacturing play a big part in how that viewer experience is created.
28
March
07 // HEIDEGGER REFRAMED
