Martin Heidegger, The Origin of the Work of Art

This is an analysis of Heidegger's The Origin of the Work of Art.
Citations:
“Origin means here that from where and through which a thing is what it is and how it is. That which something is, as it is, we call its nature. The origin of something is the source of its nature. The question of the origin of the artwork asks about the source of its nature.”
Martin Heidegger, Off the Beaten Track, (Edited and translated by Julian Young and Kenneth Haynes), Cambridge University Press 2002, p. 1.
“The artist is the origin of the work.”
Ibid.
"The work is the origin of the artist.”
Ibid.
“The possibility of negation as an act of the intellect, and thereby the intellect itself, are somehow dependent upon the nothing.”
Martin Heidegger, Pathmarks, (Edited by William McNeill), Cambridge University Press 1998, p. 86.
“What art is we should be able to gather from the work. What the work is we can only find out from the nature of art."
Martin Heidegger, Off the Beaten Track, (Edited and translated by Julian Young and Kenneth Haynes), Cambridge University Press 2002, p. 2.
“In general, ‘thing’ applies to anything that is not simply nothing.”
Ibid, p. 4.
“A building, a Greek temple, portrays nothing.”
Ibid, p. 20.
“Does truth, then, arise out of nothing?”
Ibid, p. 44.
“Once we recognize the crucial role played by Heidegger’s subtly ambiguous use of the nothing, we can see that Heidegger’s only other major reference to Van Gogh’s painting (in 1935’s The Introduction to Metaphysics) again follows the same basic sequence of phenomenological steps.”
Iain D. Thomson, Heidegger, Art, and Postmodernity, (Cambridge University Press, 2011), p. 92.
“A painting by Van Gogh. A pair of rough peasant shoes, nothing else. Actually the painting represents nothing. But as to what is in that picture, you are immediately alone with it as though you yourself were making your way wearily homeward with your hoe on an evening in late fall after the last potato fires have died down.”
Martin Heidegger, An introduction to Metaphysics, translated by Ralph Manheim, (Yale University Press, Inc., 1959), p. 35.
“When Heidegger states that ‘[t]he picture really represents nothing,’ he is not advancing the bizarre claim that Van Gogh’s painting of a pair of shoes does not represent shoes.”
Iain D. Thomson, Heidegger, Art, and Postmodernity, (Cambridge University Press, 2011), p. 95.
"Van Gogh’s painting does more than just represent a pair of shoes: Van Gogh’s painting ‘really, properly, or authentically’ (eigentlich) represents (the) nothing. Indeed, it represents (the) nothing in a way that ultimately allows us to transcend aesthetic representation from within-by getting us back in touch with the more basic level of human existence that the order of objective representations presupposes but cannot fully recapture.”
Ibid, p. 96.
“What Heidegger really wants to suggest ... is not just that the nothing emerges from the ordinary-that the nothing makes itself visible in Van Gogh’s painting of an ordinary pair of shoes-but also the reverse, that what we now think of as ‘ordinary’ first originated out of the ‘nothing,’ through the essential struggle between earth and world. For, in Heidegger’s view, initially extraordinary creations, once brought into being, eventually become stabilized in intelligibility and so perceived as merely ‘ordinary’ (in much the same way that what begins as a revealing poetic insight eventually gets routinized into a worn-out cliché).”
Ibid, p. 97.
“If our question ‘Why are there essents rather than nothing?’ is taken in its fullest sense, we must avoid singling out any special, particular essent, including man. For what indeed is man? Consider the earth within the endless darkness of space in the universe. By way of comparison it is a tiny grain of sand; between it and the next grain of its own size there extends a mile or more of emptiness; on the surface of this grain of sand there lives a crawling, bewildered swarm of supposedly intelligent animals, who for a moment have discovered knowledge.”
Martin Heidegger, An introduction to Metaphysics, translated by Ralph Manheim, (Yale University Press, Inc., 1959), p. 4.
“Art and its works are necessary only as an itinerary and sojourn for man in which the truth of beings as a whole, i.e., the unconditioned, the absolute, opens itself up to him.”
Martin Heidegger, Nietzsche, translated by David Farrell Krell, (HarperSanFrancisco), p. 84.
I can't write the rest of the citations here since KZbin doesn't allow long descriptions.
Support me on Patreon and I can make more videos: / existentialistdasein
Listen to Johannes Absurdus:
/ @johannesabsurdus5702
Also, don't forget to follow me on facebook: / boooksandboooze

[@Cybershroom]

As a graphic design student currently in my third year, we have a Seminar which includes a lot of literature which Heiddeger wrote. This was helpful, but the same time In my opinion I feel like his way of writing is needlessly overcomplicated when presenting themes of truth, myth and the source of artistic creation. It might just be me, too impatient to digest Martin Heidegger's deeply texturized and thought provoking literature.

[@ExistentialistDasein]

Thanks for the comment. I understand what you're saying. It might help if you took his writings as poetry and took your time with them.

[@benitobenitez5975]

East Asian perspectives on Art and poetry might suit your curiosity,

[@garyratcliff2480]

Great explanation. Thank you 🕛

[@AmilyBarbieAmy]

thx for this video!

[@keyshawnkeys2094]

Martin Heidegger is the definition of doing to much.

[@sagetmaster4]

Would it be wrong to say thay his theory of consciousness also parallels his view of the relationship between art and artist? The intentional object is in the place of art and the observer in the place of the artist and they mutually define each other

[@ExistentialistDasein]

I don't understand what you mean, but he thinks art precedes the observer and the artist.

[@zeb358]

@@ExistentialistDasein: is this a non-dual stance and/or like Sartre's existence preceeds essence?

[@ExistentialistDasein]

His position is metaphysical, and art is substantially different from the artwork and the artist, so I would say he is making a distinction between them.

[@chrisreed3022]

By 'art' I think he means the process of production not the object of production. See Barb Bolt here kzbin.info/www/bejne/r2S1h2WqmLOsZ8U Ergo the intention object connects the observer and the artist as an object of production through process. Read her here too acuads.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/bolt.pdf

[@mitchellkato1436]

@@zeb358 I am not sure if you are right (especially about Sartre) but I think its probably the most interesting dichotomy in the diagram.

[@jassjot8723]

🥰🥰👍👍🌺🌺🌺

[@wakatpr6583]

Jesus christ did he not know about the Ockam rasor ? All of this seems so overcomplicated to me, none of this seems to follow our empirical/phenomenological relation with art. I mean I definitely don't understand half of what is being said so that is quite pretentious to say that but damn I really hate this incapacity some philosophers have to talk normally and make clear arguments. Will always be much more impressive to say hard things in a simple way than the other way around

[@mitchellkato1436]

Let us begin with Thales. Everything is water. Water is the material and the word "water" is work. We see here the paradox of the art of "everything is water": the self involveness of everything and and water. This is very much different from a stateament. Its an independent world. The first expression of art (and science.)

[@szatanica1]

Thank you for your effort and your knowledge, but please, please work on your presentation...I feel like I want to fall asleep after only two sentences...:(

[@ExistentialistDasein]

Hahahaha! It is by design. The videos are targeted at a very specific audience: people who are interested in philosophy and suffer from sleep disorder. There's a niche for it-you'd be surprised!

[@szatanica1]

@@ExistentialistDasein Hahah...ok, you got me :) But seriously, philosophy is awesome, can be a force that induces enthusiasm, and dynamic interactions, so we, the audience are not destined to die out of bordom after too much philosophy:)

[@ExistentialistDasein]

I know. I appreciate your comments, but this whole thing is a one-man operation, and unlike most popular channels, I don't have a team of writers, graphic artists, editors, and so on. Also, I'm not a native speaker, and I can't do anything about the tone of my voice. I'm only a philosopher, and I just wanna make content that is academic. Not sure how I can dazzle my audience given my situation. If you have any ideas, let me know.