Firstly, I can hardly believe that suggesting Heidegger's philosophy is
problematic as a basis for a philosophy or approach to art amounts to name
calling. Nor did I suggest that anyone was somehow acting as an apologist or
attempting to resurrect some kind a fascistic endeavor. I did want to
suggest that H is not a great source for a philosophy of art.
Meanwhile, does anyone honestly want me to go into the history of ontology?
Kant's autonomy of being: thing-in-itself, his leap of faith? Fichte's
dialectical construction of free will? Or Herder's philosophy of history
[immersion of historian to whatever extent possible; such as visiting Greece
if writing about ancient Greece]? Kierkegaard, pseudonyms, Fear and
Trembling, etc.? Husserl's phenomonology, his role as mentor to H, his
jewish heritage, H's assumption of Husserl's chair at U of Freiberg.
Sartre's ontology which tackled on-the-ground practice of authentic
being-in-the-world. Do you really want me to do this? Is it my burden to do
so?
The point is that Heidegger's reactionary philosophy of art utilized
ontological metaphysics to assimilate idealized notions of the past as a
corrective for a fragmented present. He conceived a unity between mind and
body in ancient Greece as a model for art, during Hitler and the Fascist
Party's rise to power. And it rather neatly corresponded with fascist
absorption with control and censorship of art based of theories of the
origins of pure and Aryan art.
To retain any academic legitimacy he had to step down as Rector. He may have
been repulsed by the thuggish--even murderous--reality of the National
Socialists, but this does not mean he didn't share certain, uh, idealistic
justifications in his search for "origins". It was indeed an odd choice of
emphasis, origins of art, considering the context and his position in it.
The question remains: why would anyone care to take up his particular
approach which has been proven to be problematic when tested with reality?
There are so many others who have undertaken ontological methods and
philosophy which inform artistic endeavors and critiques. His ideas can be
found elsewhere, and I have heard no examples of anything significantly
original in terms of art and art theory.
If anyone has taken my viewpoint as some kind of aspersion on them, believe
me when I say nothing of the kind even crossed my mind.
Susanna Reitzel Chandler
> Notice, not a single sentence of substantive philosophical
> analysis. Just names, and name calling. You will never find
> your way into the analytic of Dasein this way.
>
> Joe
>
|