(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
It has always been a mixture of wonder, fascination and irritation that I have seen how philosophy has been used in art. Often it is used as decoration or authoritative props. But sometimes it also fits in there, sometimes even as a hand in glove: French Jacques Rancière was as created for insights into the art world from the time he wrote his philosophical doctorate at the end of the 70 century.
There are also, at all times, philosophers who sniff at the edge of the art system and find their sustenance there. One of these is the German Marcus Steinweg. Now available Terror of Evidence, "The Terror of Evidence," his first book in English.
Austrian artist Thomas Hirschhorn has long been cheering on his German philosopher friend on the latter's path into art. Hirschhorn has also written the preface to Steinweg's book, praising Steinweg for anchoring "everyday issues" and for his ability to bridge bridges between art and philosophy. Terror of Evidence However, says something else, as Steinweg adheres to a very eclectic and ambiguous aphorism tradition. Here he is related to both Nietzsche, Bataille, EM Cioran, Wittgenstein and the Schlegel brothers. But unlike these, Steinweg has no "core", or anything specific place he will with his writing.
Steinweg defines philosophy as "rebellion against facts" and "pondering without evidence".
Filosofihistorielek. This is perhaps why the German defines philosophy as "rebellion against facts" and "pondering without evidence". Towards the end of the book he also defines thinking as "working through problems that are impossible to solve". This is also a good description of The Terror of Evidence, because here Steinweg flattens from one theme to the other without special thought, neither for the major contexts nor the solutions and answers. With a mischievous smile on his mouth, he insists throughout the book on keeping everything "open".
Steinweg is also much easier on the lab in tone and theme choice than his aphoristic predecessors – he is simply a humorist, sometimes far beyond the limit of the foolish. But this can also be liberating. For example, he writes of Bertrand Russell: "Did Wittgenstein think Bertrand Russell was an idiot because he was?"
Reasonably silly, but when it comes to Derrida and deconstruction in the next round, there is a tension between the ridiculous and the serious in the text that is hard not to like.
Borges or haiku. This sharp alternation between different types of laughter is the most characteristic of Steinweg's strange collection of texts. Maybe can Terror of Evidence is read as a kind of encyclopedia in the Borgesian tradition, ie in the sense that it has no specific system, other than the actual turns in thought and smile? "Saying yes is more critical than saying no. Yes! No! Yes?"
"Did Wittgenstein think Bertrand Russell was an idiot because he was?"
Steinweg's book is loose in the fish as a philosophy considered, but concise when it comes to turning away or getting stuck in a system of thought / a grounded reflection. Is it the "terror of evidence" he wants to avoid – that thinking should not be based on any clear position, but constantly spin on, through the words? The method is annoying, but is also fun, not least when the author fires off his philosophical heavyweight. "Why did Deleuze overlook the structural homology between his immanence plan and Wittgenstein's language play and way of life? Was it a mistake? " he writes. Is this humor, or is it an attempt to "think together" the two philosophers? Here, as elsewhere, Steinweg balances on a knife edge between ugliness and seriousness.
But then he comes to the rescue in some banal but charming sentences that approach the haiku format: "A window is different from a door, in that you open and close it without going through it yourself." These parts themselves become a kind of window in the text, which makes it easier to approach it.
The joker of philosophy. IN Terror of Eknowledge Steinweg almost plays hide and seek with the reader by alternating between the pretentious and the banal, and then, suddenly, letting seriousness take over – not as a philosophical position, but as simple considerations that contrast the other content of the texts.
Steinweg is a thinker who refuses to show us the whole picture, but instead highlights it through a contradictory and mischievous mix of style levels, complexity and humor / seriousness. He jumps from tue to tue, as Wittgenstein recommended in Philosophical studies, but do not fail to splash down the bog repeatedly. This is how Terror of Evidence a book both to smile at, get annoyed green over and here and there even touched off.
