>From: crickey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (chris rickey)
>Subject: Re: Primacy of poetry/language/myth
> No, although in a rudimentary sense, poetry is one type of art work, albeit an exemplary one because of its
>intimate connection with language.
It is problematic for me that poetry can and or must be privelledged above all others. It might be more clearly
poetic than others, and this quality of being poetic might be an essential part of the owrk in order for the work
to be a work (of art) but that does not grant it by such fact alone to be higher than all the other arts.
> >When did HEGEL say art was dead rather, as I had thought, that art was in
> >a state of dissolution,
> >being only a stage?
>
>
> In the Nachwort to the Origin of the Work of Art, Heidegger quotes three passages from Hegel's Lecture on
>Aesthetics, all to the point that art is something past so far as its claim to the highest existence for humans.
>Heidegger then raises the question: "is art still an essential and necessary way in which that truth happens
>which is decisive for our historical existence, or is art no longer of this character?...The truth of Hegel's
>judgment has not yet been decided' for behind this verdict there stands Western thought since the Greeks,
>which thought corresponds to a truth of beings that has already happened."
What I am saying is that Art is Dead is not word for word Hegel, What he meant, and what Heidegger took it to
mean, are not neccessary the same. Nor is the idea that art is past meaning necessarily that art is dead.
For example art as being great art (for Heidegger talks of no other) may still be experienced today, but no more
created, or perhaps created and no longer fully experienced. As far as I recall neither word for word say that art
is dead, that is all. The interesting thing for me is how Heidegger interprets Hegel's claim as challenge to clear
a way for the work of today.
"Essential and necessary"..more specific questions not necessarily tied up with mortality.
> If art is a stage, as you put it, it means it has been taken up into the higher stage of consciousness of the
>science of logic. Heidegger questions this verdict. Hoelderlin points to the questionability of Hegel's
>verdict.
>
> >Further, have you not thought that the flighht of the gods, the darkening
> >etc, is in turn necessary
> >for truth as aletheia, for truth is not something continually held on to,
> >at least as i saw it...
>
>
> Yes, I have thought about it. It is what Heidegger means when he says we must pass through nihilism and
>let it become powerful in order to overcome it.
>
> Chris
I see it as rather problematic, and I wonder if Heidegger realised this necessity for the darkening from the
start or if it was a late development, further , no sorry, I have asked enough...
Thank you for your response.
Erik Champion
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---