海德格爾與夏皮羅有關梵·高的畫作《鞋》的闡釋之爭近年來重新激起了國內學者的強烈興趣,批評海德格爾者有之,為其辯護者亦有之,然而無論學者們的觀點存在多大的分歧,有一點卻似乎已經成為共識,即認為海德格爾的藝術批評主要源自藝術哲學,缺乏像夏皮羅那樣的藝術史眼光。這種觀點在一定程度上是對海德格爾思想的誤解,實際上海氏的藝術批評始終貫穿著一個歷史維度,因為他同樣追問了藝術的歷史,而且十分關注藝術與歷史的關系。只不過夏皮羅考察的是具體藝術作品的歷史,海德格爾探究的卻是藝術之本質的起源。前者主張把歷史作為評價藝術的基礎,后者卻試圖讓藝術為歷史建基。縱觀海德格爾的藝術批評,這一維度可以劃分為三個層面:讓藝術為此在歷史建基、讓藝術為民族歷史建基以及讓藝術為存有歷史建基。

In the latest years, the debate between Heidegger and Schapiro on Van Gogh’s Shoes has received considerable attention among the Chinese scholars. Despite the controversy over Heidegger’s interpretation of the painting, scholars have reached an agreement that Heidegger’s art criticism derives from his philosophy of art and therefore lacks the insight of art history abundant in Schapiro’s scholarship. This assertion, to a certain extent, misunderstands Heidegger’s thought. This paper argues that Heidegger’s art criticism also contains a historical dimension, for he not only investigates art history but also pays close attention to the relationship between art and history. The difference, however, is that Schapiro examines the history of specific artworks, whereas Heidegger explores the origin and essence of art. In other words, the former views history as the basis for evaluating art, while the latter attempts to institute art as the foundation for history. This historical dimension in Heidegger’s art criticism can be understood on three levels: to institute art as the foundation the history of Dasein, to institute art as the foundation for the history of the nation, and to institute art as the foundation for the history of Seyn.