Aesthetics

[speed]

I dont agree. Ill post an explaination this afternoon.

Dont you hate replying to these threads that require intensive thought? The thought I have to do some research for my answer--as my understanding of Kant is one pitted with black holes,

 

[Justin S.]

Dont you hate replying to these threads that require intensive thought?

Nah, thats why I come here. What bothers me is that its a hopeless pursuit (communication).

 

[Justin S.]

I agree that studies of author/audience states of being are interesting, but I think Heidegger offers an important modification to aesthetic ontology when he proposes that great art discloses the ontological being of ontic items in and of itself - his famous example is Van Gogh's shoes. From looking at the painting, he argues, the meaning the shoes' Being is disclosed to us; their worn look, the earth they tread, the worker who wears them, the grueling nature of her work. In a sense, he kills aesthetics entirely, holding that art literally discloses Being in the most profound fashion.

Its clear that I am also arguing from an interpretation that has root in Heidegger, without being "Heideggerian". I brought up Kant to illustrate a great work that derails much knee-jerk subjectivism (the modern secret weapon, the dreaded 'IMO').

Heidegger focuses on essential states of being, not them in entirety. He is forced to prioritize. I think it is far too strong to say he "kills aesthetics entirely", as he also places great emphasis on fundamental moods, which are the seeds for later thought and reflection. Certainly our response to, and standing-with, aesthetics is an important state of being. It seems to me that his focused concern for "disclosure of being" is directed more towards his conception of "art/artistry" (although, its been a while since I worked through The Origin of the Work of Art)

Also, post-structuralist thought talks of the Barthesian 'death of the author.' For Barthes, the author is a scripter who is born along with the work. He does not explain but merely creates it - authorial intent is wholly overshadowed in an accentuation of audience-subjective semantics. In such thought, the intent of the author is irrelevant.

Irrelevant in what sense? Surely not categorically. Either way, its quite a turn away from the ontology we just spoke off. Clearly the authors intent, motivation, summoning of resources, display, economy, and relation to his work, audience, and existence matter greatly (rather, they are what is). Im not quite sure how one could say what is, is irrelevant, without being extremely careful about what sense he implies.