(pp95-96, from the 1964 essay and chapter"Aesthetics and Hermeneutics", in "Philosophical
Heremneutics",by Hans-Georg Gadamer, translated by David E. Linge,University of California
Press USA 1976)
"The reality of the work of art and its expressive power cannot be restricted to its
original historical horizon, in which the beholder was actually the contemporary of the
creator. It seems instead to belong to the experience of art that the work of art always
has its own present. Only in a limited way does it retain its historical origin within
itself. The work of art is the expression of a truth that cannot be reduced to what its
creator actually thought in it....Tradition encompasses life-forms institutions and
life-forms as well texts. Above all, however, the encounter with art belongs within the
process of integration that is involved in all human life that stands within
traditions...The creator of a work of art may intend the public of his own time, but the
real being of his work is what it is abler to say, and this being reaches fundamentally
beyond any historical confinement. In this sense, the work of art occupies a timeless
present...it nevertheless does not permit just any forms of comprehension...it
permits-indeed even requires-the application of a standard of appropriateness..."
I would love to quote more, however time and the fact that I am already quoting slightly
out of context (due to selective extraction) prevents me.
Hopefully it is now clearer that:
1. tradition qua institutions are involved in art, at least for Gadamer
2. as Gadamer was a friend of Heidegger and (indisputably) saw himself as carrying on the
project set down by the latter, that there must be some ties to Heidegger insofar as he was
also a friend, mentor and colleague of Gadamer.
3. the importance of art regards humanity is essential for Gadamer, (and you can find
similar references in Heidegger).
4. The intentions of the creator are implicit in the appreciation of the work (at least for
Gadamer, and via 1 and 2 above, I contend, perhaps also for Heidegger), however to what
extent it is not fully qualified.
5. There are still vague areas that need clarifying, eg "appropiateness", to me is a rather
nebulous concept.
6. The question as to whether Heidegger with, without Gadamer, and or other plug-ins, does
not have a philosophy of art. Recently someone said that they did not answer my questions
regarding Heidegger's philosophy of art, because they did not think he had one. If they had
said this at the time,perhaps the conversation (at least for me) would have been less
congealed, and more succinct. I wonder if others on this group also do not think that
Heidegger had a philosophy of art.
If so, is "philosophy of art" such a common term, that by just saying he did not have one
means I know what criteria you think he needs to and fails to fullfill in order to have a
philosophy of art? I think not.
For example, the person who said this to me, said that at least he (Heidegger) did not
have one compared to Hegel. Is not Hegel's immensely descriptive, but not prescriptive-it
does not tell you how to create art as it is already too late? One might reply that one can
evaluate art in terms of its response to the development of absolute spirit, but does that
not in short make this era (the postart era if you will) merely an era of art-critics, even
if those art-critics are the best ever, having been born after the historical limitations
that served to limit art to the symbolic, classical and romantic??
SO I am not sure that Hegel's philosophy of art is a philosophy of art, through being
immensely comprehensive in its description of historical phases relating to an idea, if
only because the criteria that constitute a philosophy of art are not yet explained to me.
I am not sure that it is agreed amongst philosophers to be enough, *OR* necessary to be
descriptive and/or prescriptive and I would love to know!
Certainly Heidegger's is partially prescriptive, in outcome if not process. Also, if you
read him carefully enough, you can see all 5 'fine arts' mentioned. Does this mention of
the traditional major arts help or hinder us saying he had a philosophy of art?
What would Heidegger's writings need in order for him to have a philosophy of art? It is
not clear to me yet, nor, I suggest, to that many other people!
You could just as easily suggest that Collingwood did not have one either!
Finally I feel like asking my first question again: is it important what the silversmith
thinks/intends in our appreciatio of the chalice?
Thanks for your time in reading this.
erik champion M.Arch
schools of design & performing arts
UNITEC
tel: 64 9 815 4321 ext 7140
fax: 64 9 846 7369
email: echampion@xxxxxxxxxxxx
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
Heremneutics",by Hans-Georg Gadamer, translated by David E. Linge,University of California
Press USA 1976)
"The reality of the work of art and its expressive power cannot be restricted to its
original historical horizon, in which the beholder was actually the contemporary of the
creator. It seems instead to belong to the experience of art that the work of art always
has its own present. Only in a limited way does it retain its historical origin within
itself. The work of art is the expression of a truth that cannot be reduced to what its
creator actually thought in it....Tradition encompasses life-forms institutions and
life-forms as well texts. Above all, however, the encounter with art belongs within the
process of integration that is involved in all human life that stands within
traditions...The creator of a work of art may intend the public of his own time, but the
real being of his work is what it is abler to say, and this being reaches fundamentally
beyond any historical confinement. In this sense, the work of art occupies a timeless
present...it nevertheless does not permit just any forms of comprehension...it
permits-indeed even requires-the application of a standard of appropriateness..."
I would love to quote more, however time and the fact that I am already quoting slightly
out of context (due to selective extraction) prevents me.
Hopefully it is now clearer that:
1. tradition qua institutions are involved in art, at least for Gadamer
2. as Gadamer was a friend of Heidegger and (indisputably) saw himself as carrying on the
project set down by the latter, that there must be some ties to Heidegger insofar as he was
also a friend, mentor and colleague of Gadamer.
3. the importance of art regards humanity is essential for Gadamer, (and you can find
similar references in Heidegger).
4. The intentions of the creator are implicit in the appreciation of the work (at least for
Gadamer, and via 1 and 2 above, I contend, perhaps also for Heidegger), however to what
extent it is not fully qualified.
5. There are still vague areas that need clarifying, eg "appropiateness", to me is a rather
nebulous concept.
6. The question as to whether Heidegger with, without Gadamer, and or other plug-ins, does
not have a philosophy of art. Recently someone said that they did not answer my questions
regarding Heidegger's philosophy of art, because they did not think he had one. If they had
said this at the time,perhaps the conversation (at least for me) would have been less
congealed, and more succinct. I wonder if others on this group also do not think that
Heidegger had a philosophy of art.
If so, is "philosophy of art" such a common term, that by just saying he did not have one
means I know what criteria you think he needs to and fails to fullfill in order to have a
philosophy of art? I think not.
For example, the person who said this to me, said that at least he (Heidegger) did not
have one compared to Hegel. Is not Hegel's immensely descriptive, but not prescriptive-it
does not tell you how to create art as it is already too late? One might reply that one can
evaluate art in terms of its response to the development of absolute spirit, but does that
not in short make this era (the postart era if you will) merely an era of art-critics, even
if those art-critics are the best ever, having been born after the historical limitations
that served to limit art to the symbolic, classical and romantic??
SO I am not sure that Hegel's philosophy of art is a philosophy of art, through being
immensely comprehensive in its description of historical phases relating to an idea, if
only because the criteria that constitute a philosophy of art are not yet explained to me.
I am not sure that it is agreed amongst philosophers to be enough, *OR* necessary to be
descriptive and/or prescriptive and I would love to know!
Certainly Heidegger's is partially prescriptive, in outcome if not process. Also, if you
read him carefully enough, you can see all 5 'fine arts' mentioned. Does this mention of
the traditional major arts help or hinder us saying he had a philosophy of art?
What would Heidegger's writings need in order for him to have a philosophy of art? It is
not clear to me yet, nor, I suggest, to that many other people!
You could just as easily suggest that Collingwood did not have one either!
Finally I feel like asking my first question again: is it important what the silversmith
thinks/intends in our appreciatio of the chalice?
Thanks for your time in reading this.
erik champion M.Arch
schools of design & performing arts
UNITEC
tel: 64 9 815 4321 ext 7140
fax: 64 9 846 7369
email: echampion@xxxxxxxxxxxx
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---