Sacha Golob (sachagolob.com)
Flat Time House, London
4th September 2018
Style(s)
On the Challenge of Filming Heidegger
Monumental vs. Artisanal vs. Kitsch
Urban vs. Peasant
Heidegger Has No Philosophy of Art
Heidegger has a theory of that which simultaneously makes visible the framework of
our lives and the sensuous which resists co-option into that framework. The broken tool in Sein und Zeit
The jug in Das Ding
The temple in Der Ursprung
All illuminate both our framework and the ‘essentially self-secluding’ earth. It is best
to think of this in terms which are neither directly equipmental nor artistic – let us
call such items ‘maps’. It is best to think of these not in modern terms, but in
medieval ones – they include reference to their own limits.
As the Overarching Category Maps Threaten Art
If equipment alone could map, art would have no essential role. Here we see this
threat raised – the peasant has no need of Van Gogh – and then immediately
suppressed:
In virtue of this reliability the peasant woman is admitted into the silent call of
the earth (p.14)
The individual piece of equipment becomes worn out and used up. But also,
customary usage itself falls into disuse, becomes ground down and merely
habitual…Now nothing but sheer utility remains visible (p.15)
The other possible response is to double down on monumentality – art is a special
class of maps because it both charts and defines the space of orientation.
Questions Concerning MapArt
Why is the sensuous configured as visible resistance? The absence of the erotic Why
is the sensuous configured as indefatigable resistance? The dangers of complacency
for all Heidegger’s worries about technology
Why MapArt at all? To what degree is this merely an epistemological invention?