Introduction to Heidegger's "Notes on Klee"

Abstract

Foucault claimed that relation to our century, represents what Velazquez had been able to represent in his.1 In saying this, Foucault gives one reason why Paul Klee's work-both his artistic and his theoretical works-have been so central in philosophical discussions of the present age: stands not simply as a representative of an historical moment, but his work lets us see into the truth of that moment. Few painters have attracted as widespread attention among philosophers as has. From Benjamin to Merleau-Ponty and from Gadamer to Deleuze, Klee's work has been the focus of genuine philosophical commentary and has invariably been taken as of an inspiration for philosophizing itself. Until the publication of his on Klee and a few other recently published texts, it was not just clear how deeply Heidegger too had engaged Klee's work.2We cannot be certain when Heidegger first discovered Klee's work, but these on Klee make very clear that his encounter with was a profound experience for Heidegger.3 Given Heidegger's previous remarks about modern art, which were few but nonetheless typically dismissive, this apparently sudden embrace of is a bit surprising. There is not even a mention of in the Zusatz (1956) to the Origin of the Work of Art so it seems as if we can date the turning point for Heidegger to his visit to Basel in 1957 to see the Beyeler collection of eighty-eight recently purchased paintings by Paul Klee.4 This event was a landmark event for Heidegger who would give evidence of the newfound importance of Klee's work when, shortly after seeing Klee's paintings and beginning to read his writings, he spoke to friends of the need to write a sort of supplement or appendix to Origin of the Work of Art that would take account of Klee's work. There would be more visits to Basel and eventually, Heidegger would write to the art historian Heinrich Petzet that something which we all have not yet even glimpsed is to be found in [Klee's work]5Whenever and for whatever reasons it began, it is clear that during this period was a figure of real importance for Heidegger's own work and philosophical project. Other painters-Braque, Picasso, Cezanne, and Zen painting-would win Heidegger's attention from time to time, but no artist came close to summoning the same kind of response that we find in Heidegger's fascination with and expressed in these on Klee.6 In Klee, Heidegger recognizes a vision that resonates with many of Heidegger's own deepest concerns.What is perhaps most striking about these notes is their sense of promise that Heidegger sees in Klee. There is a sense that new, tinged with hope, some way out of the impasses of modern forms of production and technicity, is opening up as he looks at these paintings. Engaging Klee, Heidegger finds being made visible in the peculiar legibility of painting as well as in the intelligibility of Klee's own words that echoes Heidegger's own deepest concerns. One finds Heidegger seamlessly mingling his own language-words like Ereignis, Sage, Kehre, Werke, Geviert-with his remarks on Klee's paintings and in his citations of Klee's written texts. The enthusiasm, excitement, and energy of these notes are clear.However, these notes present immense hermeneutical problems and do not easily-if ever-really make sense. Notes always present interpretive problems for a reader insofar as they make no effort to be complete or even to be coherent. Notes belong to a moment that their author is attempting to preserve without interrupting. One makes notes in order to leave traces of thoughts, insights, and questions that can be awakened later. They are hieroglyphs of a language that are rooted in the workings of an individual mind speaking with itself. For the most part, one never intends notes for others, but only for oneself. One does not worry about completing thoughts, about style or syntax, grammar can be optional, dashes make connections without explanation, exclamation points and question marks abound. …