Alex Benjamin
Subscriber
This all reminds me that in my youth I dared go through Heidegger's The Origin of the Work of Art. The first few pages are simple enough:
“The artist is the origin of the work. The work is the origin of the artist. Neither is without the other. Nevertheless, neither is the sole support of the other. In themselves and in their interrelations artist and work are each of them by virtue of a third thing which is prior to both, namely, that which also gives artist and work of art their names — art.”
After that, it gets tougher as you go along. Most intellectual fun — I should say "joy," to bring back the main subject of this thread — I ever had, even if I only understood 0,0005% of it.
OP, if you're looking for depth, I can assure you you'll find it there. But don't go too deep. Pressure down there is immense.
“The artist is the origin of the work. The work is the origin of the artist. Neither is without the other. Nevertheless, neither is the sole support of the other. In themselves and in their interrelations artist and work are each of them by virtue of a third thing which is prior to both, namely, that which also gives artist and work of art their names — art.”
After that, it gets tougher as you go along. Most intellectual fun — I should say "joy," to bring back the main subject of this thread — I ever had, even if I only understood 0,0005% of it.
OP, if you're looking for depth, I can assure you you'll find it there. But don't go too deep. Pressure down there is immense.