X—two shoes and a fountain: ecstasis, mimesis and engrossment in Heidegger’s The Origin of the Work of Art
In this essay, I argue for three interpretative claims about the philosophical strategies and examples employed in the first of Heidegger’s three lectures on ‘The Origin of the Work of Art’. I argue that his initial response to a Van Gogh painting is intended to dramatize a confusion rather than to...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Oxford University Press
2019
|
| _version_ | 1797085725832773632 |
|---|---|
| author | Mulhall, S |
| author_facet | Mulhall, S |
| author_sort | Mulhall, S |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | In this essay, I argue for three interpretative claims about the philosophical strategies and examples employed in the first of Heidegger’s three lectures on ‘The Origin of the Work of Art’. I argue that his initial response to a Van Gogh painting is intended to dramatize a confusion rather than to articulate an insight; that his invocation of a poem by C. F. Meyer serves a number of functions overlooked by other commentators; and that Heidegger’s overall approach is best understood in terms of Michael Fried’s conception of modernism in painting. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T02:12:01Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:a0f9da06-d1e3-4492-878b-3cdf31c128d2 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T02:12:01Z |
| publishDate | 2019 |
| publisher | Oxford University Press |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:a0f9da06-d1e3-4492-878b-3cdf31c128d22022-03-27T02:09:35ZX—two shoes and a fountain: ecstasis, mimesis and engrossment in Heidegger’s The Origin of the Work of ArtJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:a0f9da06-d1e3-4492-878b-3cdf31c128d2EnglishSymplectic Elements at OxfordOxford University Press2019Mulhall, SIn this essay, I argue for three interpretative claims about the philosophical strategies and examples employed in the first of Heidegger’s three lectures on ‘The Origin of the Work of Art’. I argue that his initial response to a Van Gogh painting is intended to dramatize a confusion rather than to articulate an insight; that his invocation of a poem by C. F. Meyer serves a number of functions overlooked by other commentators; and that Heidegger’s overall approach is best understood in terms of Michael Fried’s conception of modernism in painting. |
| spellingShingle | Mulhall, S X—two shoes and a fountain: ecstasis, mimesis and engrossment in Heidegger’s The Origin of the Work of Art |
| title | X—two shoes and a fountain: ecstasis, mimesis and engrossment in Heidegger’s The Origin of the Work of Art |
| title_full | X—two shoes and a fountain: ecstasis, mimesis and engrossment in Heidegger’s The Origin of the Work of Art |
| title_fullStr | X—two shoes and a fountain: ecstasis, mimesis and engrossment in Heidegger’s The Origin of the Work of Art |
| title_full_unstemmed | X—two shoes and a fountain: ecstasis, mimesis and engrossment in Heidegger’s The Origin of the Work of Art |
| title_short | X—two shoes and a fountain: ecstasis, mimesis and engrossment in Heidegger’s The Origin of the Work of Art |
| title_sort | x two shoes and a fountain ecstasis mimesis and engrossment in heidegger s the origin of the work of art |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mulhalls xtwoshoesandafountainecstasismimesisandengrossmentinheideggerstheoriginoftheworkofart |