[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 28 KB, 354x499, 41Y726ZTBtL._SX352_BO1,204,203,200_[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7819241 No.7819241 [Reply] [Original]

He ends his short treatise with an appeal to ART as a means of achieving poiesis via "revealing." But who takes the fine arts seriously today? If art can no longer save us from our own enframing, are we condemned to forever be a standing-reserve?

>> No.7820561

bump

>> No.7820576

Nobody ever cared about the fine arts

>> No.7820647

dourownhomework.midi

>> No.7820664

Heidegger does not appeal to fine art only.
His definition of art is actually Rock solid.
Go read his essay in 'poetry language thought' about what a work of art means.
It both smashes most modern art, and leaves a space for good modern art. Heidegger my nigger

>> No.7820833

>>7820664
op btfo

don't ask questions without reading the primary sources that answer your dumbass questions

>> No.7822484

>>7820664
this.

>> No.7823861

>>7820833
For all you know OP read the primary sources.

>> No.7823922

>>7823861
if you refer to >>7820664, it appears that op's question was answered directly in the primary sources. thus, we now have to options: op either didn't read the primary sources, or op did in fact read the primary sources but did a very poor job of doing so. additionally, it appears you might have poor read comprehension yourself!

>> No.7823934

>>7823922
Well put good sir/redditor! I tried to upboat your comment but it seems it was to no avail. ;( </3

>> No.7823937
File: 83 KB, 880x618, 1443303834668.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7823937

>>7823922
>It appears you might have poor read comprehension yourself
reading*

>> No.7824256

Heidegger is basically the opposite of Bloom, who champions aesthetics and likes to treat art as an object completely isolated from human subjectivity. Heidegger considers works of art to be inalienable to the place and time in which they were created, as a reflective lens of the sensibilities of an epoch and a historical benchmark that gets to the fundamental root collective sentiment of a time that gets obscured by history and posterity

>> No.7824416
File: 187 KB, 640x427, Fountain heidegger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7824416

>>7819241
To me he has the most logical view on technology. To sum it up, you have modern thecnology where the object is seen as a mean to archieve its utility. The true nature of technology ishowever different. Technê refers indeed to the creation of something. The object is the end itself. Infact you could take the example of a pot maker that crafts a pot as a form of art first of all ; the economic value of the object is just a corollary of crating itself and shouldn't be the goal of it (which is killing modern society).

>> No.7825112

>>7824256
Yeah, that's what makes Heidegger so cool. He says fuck you to aesthetics while championing art. Real dank shit.

>> No.7825125

>>7823934
ironic shit--etc you know