Ferrara, “Ch. 5-Heidegger’s Philosophy of Art”

Heidegger takes a turn in is his work after publishing Being and Time of which would lead him to what is believed as the original Greek thought. Heidegger explains that the way of early Greek thinking was that of apprehension but not with the traditional connotations as we understand the word today. Early Greeks thought of apprehension in its purest from as the acquiring, collecting or gathering of things. The things more specifically could be ideas. Through meditative thought one could release them self from the will of wanting something and be completely open, then, to wait for what we are actually waiting for. This waiting that is spoken of is also not the typical idea of the work. Waiting is used in a manner to explain a lack of expectation for something. This waiting otherwise, as Heidegger explains, would be connotative of human wants—waiting for some subjective thing to appear. By releasing into a state of waiting, without the influence of desires, one opens to the ability for the thing to appear. The thinker is not merely passive because he/she may question the viewer at anytime as to what they are experiencing.

The idea of work and art is discussed in this chapter. The difference between the material of what the art is made of and the idea it encompasses are now being brought together because it is not what things are made of or what they represent or mean that is important but what they are for. Heidegger uses “les souliers” by Van Gogh to explain his meaning. The shoes are made of leather, thread, and nails. They are what they are meant to serve which is to protect the feet. By looking at equipment as they are and not how they are used we can see what the Greeks called aletheia or “truth.” By looking at the being of the shoes you can see the truth of their purpose. This is important to Heidegger’s conception of art. Taking a leap away from the traditional aesthetics Heidegger says to look at what is going on “in” the work to see the truth of what they are meant for, something that is normally concealed. If the work is a representation of the being of some object then it is in how it is presented that shows the truth of the object not the actual likeness of the real thing it represents.

The next extension of this chapter moves into the new distinctions Heidegger laid down early in his work On the Origin of the Work of Art. This distinction is that of “Earth” and “Worldliness.” Earth is just that, the actual materials by which the work is made and Worldliness is what is created within the work of Art itself. The “World” of any art, according to Heidegger, is what is unconcealed to us, inherent in the work. For the shoes painting, this would mean that the paint, fabric canvas, and possibly wooden or metal frame are of the concealed ‘earth’. They are present in a way that is the “truth” occurring in the background of what is the unconcealed in the “world” of the painting that is to say the shoes and the story they depict. The rift-design is where the two, both earth and world, come together. The rift-design is most literally the design or form under which the art was created. This is the syntax of any work of art.

For art to happen there must be an appreciation by the viewer. Heidegger views the role of the appreciator as important as the creator because it is in the viewer that the artwork is preserved. Meaning, the artist brings something into being as a work of art but it is only in those who admire it art who can preserve the piece in its being. Ferrara mentions and old familiar adage that goes “if a tree falls in the woods and there is no one to hear it, does it make a sound? The answer given was yes it makes physical sound that animals might hear but without the presence of man there can be no meaningful sound because meaning is a human concept. Furthering the importance of the alethia of a work of art, if one can divulge the struggle between the earth and the world of the art then and only then can the truth be brought out of its being. “Art works must be studied in such a way that all of their elements combine into a conscious experience,” is what Dr. Ferrara is saying Heidegger wants us to know.

Reaction

I do not have much to say in the way of this philosophy. I understand it, especially about art and its origin under Heideggerian dictum but I feel like it is making an extra layer somewhere. I am not sure of what I mean by this, however, something does not sit right with me when I think about what art means and what makes mere objects separate from art. What I find quite interesting about these ideas are that they run parallel to much of the eastern philosophy in both religion and scientific thought. Much of these ideas are about bringing Dasein or being-there into some oneness with experience and existence, in particular in Heidegger’s interpretation of early Greek “Meditation” thought or being in “waiting” for what is present to show itself. This is well known in Buddhism for example that by allowing the truth to present itself by getting out of the way one can truly see the physical world for what it is. Western philosophy as derived from the Greeks is riddled with vanity in that is seeks to know answers of the truth of existence and experience but for egoist purpose. There seems to be a small bit of personal credit for “understanding” in the West. As if, for one to understand it makes this “His” knowledge and able to control or at least predict with it. Someday we will ‘really’ see the true meaning of the existence of all things and it will be very far away from what we currently think we know according to western fundamentals.

Gebauer and Wulf, “Mimesis”

Since the times of ancient Greece, philosophers have contemplated and developed concepts on art and society and the crucial elements in both that help the development of future generations. One of the key elements of such developments was mimesis. Mimesis is the act of basing analysis on an ideal model of some previous object or action and using this model as a guide to make further developments. For Plato, mimesis was restricted to art, literature, and music. Plato placed great emphasis on the monitoring of the poetry youths were exposed to because as good influences lead to good behavior, bad influences lead to unhealthy behavior. Because mimesis was refined and now centered on an object, or an aesthetic object rather than imitation of behavior, Plato stresses the importance of using discretion when exposing youth to aesthetic objects. He does not believe that young people can get stronger through a negative influence or experiences with negative models. Only positive influence will allow young generations to grow. So members of the “guardian class” are responsible for shielding all negative interference from youth for the betterment of all society. Because poetry plays such an important role for education of young people at this point this is focused on. Aristotle expounds on Plato’s work, emphasizing the significance of mimesis as an act for re-creation but advancement (i.e. embellishment or improvements on existing objects). Mimesis is a good thing. Mimesis not only is the means of imitating a role model but using that role model to make ethical critiques of that model and advancing to the next level of behavior.

Gebauer and Wulf expound on this idea of mimesis and imitation to be illusions. Touching on poets and poetry, they explain that the poet is often praised for his/her understanding of human behavior but put down the question of what is the behavior that must be overcome to understand this behavior. Mimesis now has been corrected to be understood as approximations of what is observed and but must be brought into a physical world for further definition through mimesis over the course of history. Any object or image brought into the physical world by the artist is a phenomenon of some reality only as emulation.

______________________________________________

Reaction

It becomes very difficult to absorb this perspective if you already have a decided opinion about learning, education, and development. Education in a classic viewpoint really lies on the basis of conformity. “Do” and “Act” like an ideal model and this will lead to intellectual growth, personal growth. This is basically how mimesis is defined here. This is why the close monitoring of all educational material is so important in the classic views. However, philosophy has viewed the world from outside the sphere of experience in order to dissect human experiences and rationalize causalities. The issue that comes arises is discoveries are made and concepts codified and then set down and expected to be seen as truth. In other words, the teacher who finds a truth will then “teach” it as a truth for a student to take it on as there own truth. But, this can’t be beneficial because even if something has the illusion of truth it may not really be the truth for that individual. It can be if we conform to an idea, we give in and follow a dictum according someone or something else’s truth. This comes from early childhood and how we rely heavily on adults to aid us through the dangers of childhood to survive to our own adulthood but what would happen to our perspective if parents did not raise us. Would we be completely ego minded and take complete credit for our survival and existence? If so would we even give credit to mimesis?

Ferrara, "Intoduction" Summary and Reaction

The comprehension of music in western society has improved significantly since methods of analysis were first codified. This is somewhat due to the availability of music in western culture. In an age of electronic supremacy, one can simply type a few words in a computer and have a list of musical selection, including sound samples, at their disposal in less than 30 seconds( or less if you type fast.) Or even hold up you iPhone to a speaker and have it tell you what the recording is. No longer is music an aristocratic privilege but a readily available commodity in western culture.
Being that music is so common, Dr. Lawrence Ferrara insists that we adjust our methods of analysis of a musical selection. Ferrara states we must expand our comprehension of music beyond one single form of listening but rather open up to three methods of analysis at the same time. These layers include traditional formalities, sound-in-time, and referential imports that are present within the entirety of music. This simply means all the things that influenced the creation of music down to the performance of the piece and what it does for a listener.
Ferrara continues with his introduction to explain how “straightforward” the breakdown on the following book will be laid out. The successive chapters will serve to systematically introduce the reader to more and more expansive views on how to analyze a “bit” of music. It seem with such a presence of formal scholarly analysis floating about the academic world that it should only make sense for this book to put emphasis on how to dissect and discuss music from a referential point of view. This new way of eclectically approaching music is important as we push the limits of the definition of music in the 20th century.

_________________________________________________________

Personal Reaction

If the language of the introduction is indicative of the chapters to follow it is clear it will be very wordy. It is only an opinion but, new concepts that over-state a simple facts by weaving convoluted sentences only slows the process of comprehension of a new concept (i.e. makes new material difficult to digest.) I also believe that Ferrara will probably try to bring us up to speed with the history behind 20th century music very quickly which will add to its difficulty. It may not be too easy to absorb what is being said due to this choice of presentation; however, it will be enlightening and highly informative toward a new transcendental way of experiencing music that might be necessary as the boundaries of music expand.