/lit/ - Literature

>>6790434
A quick recap on some Heidegger to make things clear. Heidy takes a note from Nietzhe’s “There are no facts, only interpretations” and proposes that when an element rejects all Grund (foundations), there is only Abgrund (abyss). Being isn’t a given as much as a work in progress, a possibility, a project; while at the same time Heidy defines it as Ereignis (event, happening). Then “Being” is what makes something be, and the thing or object is what is at that time being. I’m free translating from a spanish translation, I’m not sure how those terms are traditionally translated to English.

Another vital term to go over before actually dealing with the topic is a fan favorite that gets confused with Being, Dasein. In Spanish we describe it as “being-there”. Dasein is the “there” of the Being, not given from the start nor eternal, something that is being made and not an essence previous to existence. Dasein is directly tied to humans and our creations because we have the potential of transcendence. Humanity finds itself thrown to the world without having chosen it and has to deal with it day to day trying to constantly improve.

Lastly taking a concept from Husserl, to differentiate the baggage we bring to our analysis from what is originally in the work of art Heidy utilizes the “phenomenological method”, where he limits himself to the phenomenon (from latin phainómenon, that which shows itself). The ideas is that the investigator must leave on hold any belief, any prejudice, any interpretation that takes him away from what the work is giving us. While we coiuld start our analysis on the artist or the absolute concept of art, the work itself is the only element really in front of us. And from it we can understand all three elements.

Every work is first a thing, an object while also being an allegory, it requires the spectator to connect it to a network of meaning to fully exist. A work of art is the ground for a series of interpretations, those of the artist, the spectator, the critic, and so on; it’s a free game of semantic encounters that make the work transcend. This happens even in works that haven’t been made by the artist, like our friend Douchamp’s urinal. Once it enters the world of what is art they start saying much more than they did.

>>6407361
What does someone seeing you do something have anything to do with either shame or guilt?
Is the grasp on your own morals so shifty that the only way for you to feel any type of negativity toward an immoral act, is to have someone else point it out to you?