Monologue On Postmodernism and Art - Part III
The question of what is universality is already answered by the German thinker, none other than Herr Heidegger (or at least I thought so).
Many times I have mentioned the notion of being. I truly believe that this is the key to transcends all these postmodernist problems of relativism.
The more proper way of notating the word "being" (such that one can fully appreciates) is "be-ing". It is an action of something (like "work-ing" instead of "working" in the sense of "the internal workings of a clock"), an act of be-ing. "Be-ing" is presence: it is a standing forth from a background of mere objects.
Strangely the understanding of "being" is how we can overcome the problem of positivism. Yes, while it is true that each and every language (that is to say, natural languages like Chinese or English) is unique, and that each language has its own set of expressions to express its own cultural values not found in another languages, at the origin of all languages is its original function, now forgotten: language is to denote the original experience of "being".
Consider a common example: as you are walking down the street, in a sea of strangers a man comes up to you and asks for your time. You answer and he dives back into the sea. When you get home, you tell your friend: "today a man came up to me and asked for my time." Note what happened: in your experience of the presence of the man you denoted him as "man". When you recall your experience to your friend, you use the word "man" to recapture your experience of the man's presence. With this example in mind, we can perhaps imagine the first human beings who were still trying to develop a language: each word is to denote the being of something - a stone (I have kicked a "stone" today), a tree (a "tree" caught on fire today), a leaf (a "leaf" fell from a tree today). It is not merely assigning symbols to objects; objects must come to being and stands forth to the perceiver. This is how we come to have language: even though all languages are different, they all have the same origin, namely, to denote presence.
In the process of feeling the presence of other things, we also come to feel our own presence. So the idea of being is really a twofold idea: as an object stands out from the background of everyday stuff to your consciousness, so you also stand out from your own daily meddling of things and into the embracing of the being of that object.
Real Art is to bring about that experience of presence, of being. What presence are we talking about is really of no significance because that is culturally different; but the very sense of presence (meaning, bring you to presence) is what constitute as great art. A careful examination of all "great works of art" will reveal that there is a mysterious sense of presence in them: to a careful reader, Shakespearean drama bring to him the presence of the human being ("human spirit", I dare assert); Bach's Masses bring the presence of God; Van Gogh's paintings (in Heidegger's famous example of the pair of peasant shoes) bring the presence of common objects. The degree of greatness of Art comes in the intensity of this feeling of presence. Compare the early and late Mozart composition: the early Mozart is mere pleasant sound; the late Mozart is artful music.
Many modern cultural works and popular works, however, are too keen on "forgetfulness". I am told that techno music allows one to forget oneself and be entirely one with the flow of rhythm; or perhaps the popular romantic novels, which allows the reader to be entire submerged into the characters and forget about their own presence. That, however popular, however wonderful, is not Art. A gathering of Being in a certain medium of expression is the work of art.
Many times I have mentioned the notion of being. I truly believe that this is the key to transcends all these postmodernist problems of relativism.
The more proper way of notating the word "being" (such that one can fully appreciates) is "be-ing". It is an action of something (like "work-ing" instead of "working" in the sense of "the internal workings of a clock"), an act of be-ing. "Be-ing" is presence: it is a standing forth from a background of mere objects.
Strangely the understanding of "being" is how we can overcome the problem of positivism. Yes, while it is true that each and every language (that is to say, natural languages like Chinese or English) is unique, and that each language has its own set of expressions to express its own cultural values not found in another languages, at the origin of all languages is its original function, now forgotten: language is to denote the original experience of "being".
Consider a common example: as you are walking down the street, in a sea of strangers a man comes up to you and asks for your time. You answer and he dives back into the sea. When you get home, you tell your friend: "today a man came up to me and asked for my time." Note what happened: in your experience of the presence of the man you denoted him as "man". When you recall your experience to your friend, you use the word "man" to recapture your experience of the man's presence. With this example in mind, we can perhaps imagine the first human beings who were still trying to develop a language: each word is to denote the being of something - a stone (I have kicked a "stone" today), a tree (a "tree" caught on fire today), a leaf (a "leaf" fell from a tree today). It is not merely assigning symbols to objects; objects must come to being and stands forth to the perceiver. This is how we come to have language: even though all languages are different, they all have the same origin, namely, to denote presence.
In the process of feeling the presence of other things, we also come to feel our own presence. So the idea of being is really a twofold idea: as an object stands out from the background of everyday stuff to your consciousness, so you also stand out from your own daily meddling of things and into the embracing of the being of that object.
Real Art is to bring about that experience of presence, of being. What presence are we talking about is really of no significance because that is culturally different; but the very sense of presence (meaning, bring you to presence) is what constitute as great art. A careful examination of all "great works of art" will reveal that there is a mysterious sense of presence in them: to a careful reader, Shakespearean drama bring to him the presence of the human being ("human spirit", I dare assert); Bach's Masses bring the presence of God; Van Gogh's paintings (in Heidegger's famous example of the pair of peasant shoes) bring the presence of common objects. The degree of greatness of Art comes in the intensity of this feeling of presence. Compare the early and late Mozart composition: the early Mozart is mere pleasant sound; the late Mozart is artful music.
Many modern cultural works and popular works, however, are too keen on "forgetfulness". I am told that techno music allows one to forget oneself and be entirely one with the flow of rhythm; or perhaps the popular romantic novels, which allows the reader to be entire submerged into the characters and forget about their own presence. That, however popular, however wonderful, is not Art. A gathering of Being in a certain medium of expression is the work of art.
*End of Part III*
posted by Tristan at 10:56 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home