Revealing by means of challenging and revealing by means of poiēsis may seem to bring about the same tangible end product, but what about the intangible? I’m going to use the example of woodworking and deforesting. The Heidegger AI and I came up with this example together while discussing the distinction between challenging and bringing-forth. When an artist goes into the woods and collects parts of a fallen tree to carve into a figure, the artist is helping to reveal that figure through poiēsis. When a corporation destroys half of a forest in order to secure resources to mass produce wooden figurines, that product is being challenged-forth. One may wonder why it matters where we get our wooden dolls from, but this goes beyond the scope of which dolls were ethically sourced (although that is very important). If we were to talk about the bringing-forth of the wooden figure as poiēsis, we would look to page 7 of Heidegger’s “The Question Concerning Technology”. From Heideggar’s perspective, the artist would stand by the forest and know that their figure is not only their carving, but also “indebted” to the wood from which it was made, the process of making it, and the very concept of a figure to be carved. The artist is able to see the forest not as something that they take from to create, but as something that allows them to help bring-forth that which was concealed (the figure). This bringing-forth as poiēsis holds that the forest is still a forest in its own right- a co-creator. Now we may turn our focus to the mass-produced wooden dolls. A corporation does not see the forest as a forest, but as a way to make wooden dolls. It has been reduced down to its ability to produce. And further, the consumer does not even know of the forest, or the tree from which it was carved from. All they know is the product in their hands. This is the cause of what Heidegger calls “enframing”, which is to reduce things down so far that all they become is a means to an end, or “standing reserve”. (Heidegger, 17) One may ask again, why does it matter? Well, beside the fact that we should care about the health of our planet, trees are not the only things subjected to enframing. We as humans have also fallen victim to our own enframing, weighting our value only by what we can produce. We have made ourselves into standing-reserve. So, what is the difference between revealing through challenging and revealing through poiēsis? The product may be exactly the same- a small wooden doll, but the social landscape that they create are divided. Challenging sets the stage for everything to be seen as standing-reserve, or a means to an end, while poiēsis recognizes that, that which has been revealed is indebted to those who helped in it’s bringing forth.
-Marvin Stearns
AI Heidegger and Technology Tutor, September, 2024
Heidegger, Martin. The Question Concerning Technology. Garland Publishing Inc, 1977. PDF.
This distinction is really interesting. Do artists necessarily think about their medium this way? I just wonder how common the scenario is. I think it’s a good illustration of the distinction here, regardless.
Hi Marvin!
I always find it interesting how people with different interests can interpret these scenarios in diverse ways. Do you feel as though modern technology is sort of a double-edged sword? You mentioned a wooden doll, which takes time to craft by hand However, if this wooden doll is high in demand, would it not make sense to find a middle view between the bringing forth and the challenge? There should be a way to use modernized technology and not harm the planet, as it is seems very unlikely for the entire world to give up the convenience that modern technology brings. When it comes to art, which I admittedly have very little experience, couldn’t digital art also be seen as a issue? The parts of the tablet or stencil need to be extracted from other countries, who are more often than not not being correctly compensated for these important minerals. Is that not also harming the earth? If so, what would the alternative be? To me, it feels as though a give and take relationship between the earth needs to be established, but one should be able to give whatever they can. For example, if I am cutting down trees and do not have the means to plant more, I in turn aid conservation efforts in a different way.
Hi Marvin.
I wonder if this consumer distinction that he “…does not even know of the forest, but as a way to make wooden dolls,” is misplaced and misrepresents his role in the purchase of art. That is to say that a single artist and corporate manufacturer both make similarly crafted dolls, and the corporate manufacturer might have created something more economically sound for a consumer. Does that distinction actually mean that the consumer values the source of the material less?
Your reference to standing reserve makes a lot of sense to the motivations of a corporate manufacturer, but I feel there are still loose ends regarding the artist. Does he not sell his wares? I like this line of thought because I feel it ends in some anti-capitalist territory, and I think there ARE some “social landscape” concepts that could be incorporated to your point. I also think it’s somewhat endless – whose land do the trees belong to? How connected is the consumer to the land, and to what end should we account for the peoples that land serves? Does land belong to anyone, and how should we treat land rights?
Really appreciated this post. Thanks!