Friday, 27 March 2009
Sunday, 22 March 2009
Art cannot be understood in the sense of a positivistic concept of knowledge, i.e. art will never be a means of appealing to the intellect with rational, analytical concepts, that is with that which one nowadays in the culture of consciousness apprehends by "understanding something" ... To make rational the things of the world, to render them logical, is what science is able to achieve, and art would indeed be superfluous... Art, however, operates at another pole of man's development, his sensorium: I mean it operates so that firstly his sensory organisation which, as far as it has been developed to date in man, is preserved and nurtured; secondly it has the duty to develop additional new sensory organs. This is a point which should enter more and more into consciousness and which more and more should be discussed, in the sense of one's asking what new sensory organs man should develop for himself in his confrontation with art; what concepts of creativity should he elaborate for himself in order that he may one day percieve his world as more than merely a segment of the world. And when he percieves his expanded world, what new concepts must he then develop in his art activity, in his extended art activity, in his extended practice of knowledge?