I had not heard of Barbara Bolt until I stumbled upon this video lecture she gave at the University of Melbourne about Heidegger from an artist's perspective. [see my previous post about Australia being the most philosophical nation on earth - I stand by it.] She's both a practicing artist and publishing academic and I get the sense this was a lecture to a philosophy class as a guest speaker.
She touches on "The Question Concerning Technology", "The Origin of the Work of Art" and "Being and Time". It's an interesting take on the notion of use and equipment for the purpose of creating art. She takes the Heideggerian idea that use, as a way of being, is prior to knowledge and asks what that means for artists and their tools.
We've talked some about art in our Danto and Goodman episodes and some of our longest tenured listeners are artists. A theme we have touched on is how 'intellectual' art and artists are, and whether it's a hindrance or a help in the creation of art. Or whether it's even necessary for an understanding of art.
Taking Bolt's notion into account it seems you can ask that question at two levels: use vs. knowledge in the creation of art and use vs. knowledge in the experience of art. I think we've discussed the latter, but not so much the former. As a discussion of aesthetics and the enjoyment of art it is very interesting, but it also opens the door to a wider notion of use in experience that would enrich discussion about different forms of art (beyond painting). How do using MOMA or the Kimball as buildings impact our experience of them as works of art as well?