Martin Heidegger - The Origin of the Work of Art

Martin Heidegger was a 20th century German philosopher who concerned himself almost exclusively with the question of 'Being' his whole life.
Being and Time is his most celebrated work and, while his later (from about the mid-thirties) philosophical writings and lectures took a slightly different turn, they are just as, if not more, important than his earlier work.
This new video series will look at Heidegger's work post-Being and Time as he tries to fathom the mystery that is Being itself.
The Origin of the Work of Art is a public lecture Heidegger first gave in 1935, in which he analyses art as the origin of both the artist and the work of art. In addition to uncovering the essence of art as the “setting-into-work of truth”, he also analyses the "work-being" of the work of art itself.
Website: www.absurdbeing.com
Twitter: / absurdbeing
Patreon: www.patreon.com/user?u=84430098

[@garyratcliff2480]

Morning Nath it’s Gaz. Just spent the last 6 weeks on this and am probably at my mid point of Big H I think. A very worthy excursion. I hope life is treating you well I am going to forge on with the rest of his works I think. Great work from you again I started with you and am moving on shortly to Letter on Humanism but not quite yet. Thank you.

[@absurdbeing2219]

Hey Gaz, I was a bit patchy in my post-B&T reading but I really liked this essay. Some excellent points regarding strife in here. I am well, thanks. And thanks for taking the time to leave a comment. It's always great to hear from you and how you are progressing. All the best.

[@oilartworks9124]

Thanks for the help in understanding.

[@absurdbeing2219]

No probs. Thanks for stopping by.

[@AlexAntohe]

Thank you for the video, really useful explanations!

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks a lot for the comment Alex!

[@samarthpatil27]

very helpful. thank you

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks Samarth. Thanks for stopping by.

[@captainfrodotheshowman]

You are doing such brilliant Work right here. Truth was preserved. :-) thank you.

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks a lot kind sir!

[@claragreenfield2598]

really helpful! thanks :)

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks for commenting Clara!

[@bnrocks4444]

This was very helpful to me, thank u

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks a lot. Glad you got something from it!

[@Bebe0402]

thanks king really helpfull for my art history essay

[@absurdbeing2219]

Magic. Thanks for leaving a comment.

[@theliaoguoman]

Thank you for the video. It really helps me to clarify a lot of the confusion in the text. Just a couple of the things I want to confirm to see if I understand correctly. 1st: when Heidegger use Van Gogh’s peasant shoes painting as the example, did he mean the painting is true / work because it depicts the essence of the shoes which is the functionality of the shoes rather than the beautiful appearance of the painting. 2nd, essentially Heidegger expanded from Aristotle’s form and matter by distinguishing the essence of artwork and equipment. Work of art (say a sculpture) has the immanent essence that emanates from itself which can be immediately identified by us when we see it. Comparing to a lamp, we somehow get used to it and forget its essence because of its integrated functionality in our living ? Finally, can I also understand “Strife” as Yin and Yang which contain both negative and positive forces constantly and harmoniously co-exist in one thing ? THANK YOU SO MUCH AGAIN !

[@absurdbeing2219]

It sounds like you have a pretty good grasp of this essay. Here are a couple of my thoughts: 1st: Yes, I think so. However, instead of “rather than the beautiful appearance of the painting”, I might have said, ‘rather than an accurate reproduction of the shoes as physical objects.’ The reason is “beautiful appearance” seems quite closely connected with “earth” (as the counterpoint to “world”). The “beautiful appearance”, the material, is what prevents us from being drawn into the world the equipment depicted in the artwork discloses. If that happens, as you say in the next point, we “forget its essence”. 2nd: Yup. That’s exactly how I understand it. 3rd: Strife does lend itself naturally to an interpretation in terms of yin-yang, and that is a perfectly defensible position, I think. In general, however, I’m a little wary of co-opting these ‘Eastern’ metaphysical/mystical concepts because, although superficially similar, I think their ‘real’ (as in ‘full’ or ‘contextualised’) meaning almost always carries us in quite a different direction from what we are comparing it to. Specifically, in highlighting the similarities, we often end up covering over so many crucial differences (I feel there’s a lot of this going on with Buddhism these days). In this particular case, I found strife to have more Nietzschean overtones; a kind of clash of opposites in which both nevertheless get raised and emphasised as a result. Kind of a ‘good things come from conflict’, rather than a harmonious duality of opposites. That’s my interpretation, anyway. And thank _you_ for the questions - somewhat ironically, I had forgotten how great this essay was!

[@theliaoguoman]

@@absurdbeing2219 Thank you so much for your insightful response. This really helps me to explore Heidegger’s phenomenology. Awesome stuff !

[@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine]

Their homemade shoes for peasants they have a get your own as he was also subjected to the narcissism of the master class he used a Reed pen and made his own.... you like that shit? They had all these photographic artists at the same time. Its heavily marxist.