本质性存在的丰富性--对夏皮罗《描绘个人物品的静物画》的责难

摘要

In his The Still Life as a Personal Object, Meyer Schapiro criticizes Heidegger′s comments on Van Gogh′s A Pair of Shoes.He points out that the shoes do not belong to a peasant woman, but to Van Gogh himself.He also holds that Hei-degger cannot support his argument in his The Origin of the Work of Art with a false example.However, Schapiro′s criticism cannot deny the rationality of Heidegger′s philosophical theory.Even though they are Van Gogh′s shoes, they are still the being of equipment.Through appreciating this painting we can still comprehend the“factor of equipment”.The significance of the painting is not to show a certain person′s shoes, but to reveal the abundance of an essential being in the work of art. In the process of creating a work of art, the self-concealing Being is revealed and truth occurs as unconcealment.At the same time, the occurrence of truth in art requires the combined efforts of both creator and preserver.%夏皮罗在《描绘个人物品的静物画》中，批评海德格尔所论述的梵高的《一双鞋》并非是农妇的鞋，而是梵高本人的鞋，他以此认为海德格尔的自欺欺人无法论证他在《艺术作品的本源》中的观点。这个艺术史的考证并不能否认海德格尔理论体系的合理性，即使是梵高本人的鞋，鞋子本身依然是一个器具性存在，我们可以通过画作领悟到鞋子作为“器具因素”的存在。作品的意义不是为我们再现某个人某双特殊的鞋，而是通过创作者将我们带入一种本质性存在的丰富性，在这种“制造”的过程中，澄明得以敞开，真理得以发生。同时，艺术作品中真理的发生需要创作者和保存者共同完成。