355.梵高的鞋 Vincent van Gogh

Reader86

一。

Philosophers Rumble Over Van Gogh’s Shoes
Adjust

Share
  
by Scott Horton

哲学家们对梵高的鞋子议论纷纷

作者：斯科特·霍顿

科隆的瓦尔拉夫·里查茨博物馆推出了一场令人印象深刻的新展览，名为“文森特·梵高：鞋子”，围绕这位荷兰大师 1886 年的一幅著名画作展开。有些人可能想知道，一场展览怎么能围绕一件主题如此朴素的作品展开，但策展人为我们提供了一个令人印象深刻的典范。展览重点关注这幅画在现代艺术哲学、艺术接受度以及与思想史的关系中所扮演的非凡角色。有六位哲学家和艺术史学家撰写了关于梵高的鞋子画作的文章，其中包括马丁·海德格尔、迈耶·夏皮罗和雅克·德里达。展览将带我们领略他们的著作——有时滑稽，有时粗鲁，但常常令人振奋。这些思想家无疑不遗余力地追求极致深刻。

Cologne’s Wallraf Richartz Museum has launched an impressive new exhibition entitled “Vincent van Gogh: Shoes,” built around a celebrated painting by the Dutch master from 1886. Some might wonder how an exhibition can be framed around a single work with such a modest subject matter, but the curators provide us an impressive model. The exhibition focuses on the extraordinary role this painting has played in modern philosophy surrounding art, its reception, and its relationship to the history of ideas. A half dozen philosophers and art historians have written about van Gogh’s painting of shoes, including Martin Heidegger, Meyer Schapiro, and Jacques Derrida. The exhibition takes us on a trip through their writings—sometimes comic, occasionally downright rude, and often exhilarating. These thinkers certainly bar no holds in their clamber to be exceedingly profound.

van-gogh-a-pair-of-shoes

梵高 -- 一双鞋

我们应该从现在已确定的有关这幅画的起源的事实开始。1886 年，梵高逛巴黎跳蚤市场时，偶然发现了一双破旧的鞋子。他买下了它们，并把它们带回了他在巴黎蒙马特区的工作室。目前尚不清楚他为什么买它们，但可能只是因为他需要一双新鞋。显然，他确实试过穿它们，但发现它们不合脚。相反，他决定用它们作为绘画的道具，这双鞋很快就成为现代艺术史上最著名的鞋子。但这可能不是梵高绘画的直接结果，而是它受到著名作家的批评的结果。
We should start with the facts now established as to the origins of this painting. In 1886, van Gogh visited a Paris flea market and came across a pair of worn-out shoes. He bought them and brought them back to his atelier in the city’s Montmartre district. It’s not clear why he bought them, but it could be simply that he needed a new pair of shoes. Apparently, he did try to wear them and found the fit impossible. Instead, he decided to use them as a prop for painting, and the shoes soon became the most celebrated footwear in the history of modern art. But that may be less the direct result of van Gogh’s painting than of its critical reception by eminent writers.

1930 年，马丁·海德格尔在阿姆斯特丹的展览上看到了这幅画。这段经历在他撰写的一篇关于艺术理论的文章中起到了关键作用。这是他在《艺术作品的起源》（1935 年）中经常引用的对这幅画的描述：
Martin Heidegger saw the painting on exhibition in Amsterdam in 1930. The experience came to play a focal role in an essay he was writing on the theory of art. Here’s his oft-quoted description of the painting in The Origin of the Work of Art (1935):

从鞋子磨损的内侧的黑暗开口处，可以看到工人辛勤的脚步声。在鞋子坚硬而沉重的重量中，蕴含着她缓慢跋涉在被寒风吹拂的田野中不断积累的坚韧。皮革上沾满了潮湿而肥沃的土壤。夜幕降临时，田间小路的孤独感滑过鞋底。鞋子里传来大地无声的呼唤，它安静地赠送成熟的谷物，以及它在冬日田野的荒凉中无法解释的自我拒绝。这种器具充满了对面包的确定性的无怨无悔的焦虑，再次经受住匮乏的无言喜悦，在即将临产前的颤抖，以及对周围死亡威胁的颤抖。这种器具属于大地，在农妇的世界中受到保护。从这种受保护的归属中，器具本身上升到它自身的安息。
From the dark opening of the worn insides of the shoes the toilsome tread of the worker stares forth. In the stiffly rugged heaviness of the shoes there is the accumulated tenacity of her slow trudge through the far-spreading and ever-uniform furrows of the field swept by a raw wind. On the leather lie the dampness and richness of the soil. Under the soles slides the loneliness of the field-path as evening falls. In the shoes vibrates the silent call of the earth, its quiet gift of the ripening grain and its unexplained self-refusal in the fallow desolation of the wintry field. This equipment is pervaded by uncomplaining anxiety as to the certainty of bread, the wordless joy of having once more withstood want, the trembling before the impending childbed and shivering at the surrounding menace of death. This equipment belongs to the earth, and it is protected in the world of the peasant woman. From out of this protected belonging the equipment itself rises to its resting-within-itself.

这是只有海德格尔才能写出的语言；他的文字游戏古怪而难以理解。因此，海德格尔认为这些鞋子具有多层含义，但最终他看到的是一位艺术家在概念化和呈现“鞋子”的本质。
This is the sort of language that only Heidegger could write; his wordplay is eccentric and not easy to approach. So Heidegger sees these shoes with many layers of meaning, but in the end he sees an artist conceptualizing and presenting the essence of “shoeness.”

在《静物作为个人物品》（1968 年）中，迈耶·夏皮罗批评海德格尔错误地理解了主题。海德格尔为什么认为这些是农妇的鞋子？夏皮罗深入研究了梵高的信件、短篇小说和朋友的著作，表明它们不是女人的鞋子。夏皮罗指责海德格尔相当激动的想象力占了上风。然后，他给出了自己对这幅画的最佳诠释：
In The Still Life as a Personal Object (1968), Meyer Schapiro takes Heidegger to task for falsely understanding the subject matter. Why does Heidegger think these are the shoes of a peasant woman? Schapiro, plunging deeply into van Gogh’s correspondence and ephemera and the writings of his friends, shows that they are not women’s shoes. Heidegger’s rather excitable imagination has gotten the better of him, Shapiro charges. And then he gives the painting his own best take:

当梵高描绘农民的木鞋时，他赋予它们清晰、未磨损的形状和表面，就像他放在同一张桌子上的光滑静物：碗、瓶子等。在后来的农民皮拖鞋的画中，他让它们背对着观众。他把自己的鞋子单独放在地板上，并将它们描绘成面对着我们的样子，它们看起来如此独特和皱巴巴，以至于我们可以说它们是老旧鞋子的真实肖像。
When van Gogh depicted the peasant’s wooden sabots, he gave them a clear, unworn shape and surface like the smooth still life objects he had set beside them on the same table: the bowl, the bottles, etc. In the later picture of a peasant’s leather slippers he has turned them with their backs to the viewer. His own shoes he has isolated on the floor and he has rendered them as if facing us, and so individual and wrinkled in appearance that we can speak of them as veridical portraits of aging shoes.

然后我们谈到雅克·德里达。可以预见的是，德里达既没有从夏皮罗的鞋子中看到真相，也没有从海德格尔与鞋子的相遇中看到真相，而是从两者之外的某种东西中看到了真相。他批评夏皮罗，认为他并没有真正明白海德格尔在做什么——在海德格尔的例子中，黑板上的素描可以和梵高的画一样好。这里有一个片段：
And then we come to Jacques Derrida. Predictably, Derrida sees the truth neither in Schapiro’s nor in Heidegger’s encounter with the shoes, but rather in something beyond either of them. He takes Schapiro to task, arguing that he doesn’t really see what Heidegger is up to—in Heidegger’s example, a chalkboard sketch could have served just as well as the van Gogh painting. Here’s a snippet:

[T]这里还有另一条线，另一种分离特征系统：这是作品作为其框架中的图画。框架起到补充性作用(The frame makes a work of supplementary désœuvrement，something)。它裁剪但也缝合在一起。通过一条刺穿画布的隐形鞋带（就像针尖“刺穿纸张”），进入画布然后从画布中出来，以便将其缝回到其环境、内部和外部世界中。从那时起，如果这些鞋子不再有用，那当然是因为它们脱离了赤裸的双脚和重新附着的主体（它们的主人、通常的持有者、穿着它们的人和它们承载的人）。这也是因为它们是画出来的：在图画的范围内，但这些范围必须在鞋带中思考。开胃菜在画中，开胃菜作为画：鞋带穿过鞋眼（也是成对的），并传递到看不见的一侧。而当它们从里面出来时，它们是从皮革的另一边还是从画布的另一边出来？它们的铁尖穿过金属边缘的孔眼，同时刺穿皮革和画布。
[T]here is another line, another system of detaching traits: this is the work qua picture in its frame. The frame makes a work of supplementary désœuvrement. It cuts out but also sews back together. By an invisible lace which pierces the canvas (as the pointure ‘pierces the paper’), passes into it then out of it in order to sew it back onto its milieu, onto its internal and external worlds. From then on, if these shoes are no longer useful, it is of course because they are detached from naked feet and from their subject of reattachment (their owner, usual holder, the one who wears them and whom they bear). It is also because they are painted: within the limits of a picture, but limits that have to be thought in laces. Hors-d’œuvre in the œuvre, hors-d’ œuvre as œuvre: the laces go through the eyelets (which also go in pairs) and pass on to the invisible side. And when they come back from it, do they emerge from the other side of the leather or the other side of the canvas? The prick of their iron point, through the metal-edged eyelets, pierces the leather and the canvas simultaneously.

[T]这里还有另一条线，另一种分离特征系统：这是作品作为框架中的图画。框架起到补充性作用(The frame makes a work of supplementary désœuvrement，something)。它裁剪但也缝合在一起。通过一条刺穿画布的隐形鞋带（就像针尖“刺穿纸张”），进入画布然后从画布中出来，以便将其缝回到其环境、内部和外部世界中。从那时起，如果这些鞋子不再有用，那当然是因为它们脱离了赤裸的双脚和脱离了重新附着的主体（它们的主人、通常的持有者、穿着它们的人和它们承载的人）。这也是因为它们是画出来的：在图画的范围内，但必须在鞋带中思考这些范围。开胃菜在作品中，开胃菜作为作品：鞋带穿过鞋眼（也是成对的），到了看不见的一侧。而当它们从里面出来时，它们是从皮革的另一边还是从画布的另一边出来？它们的铁尖穿过金属边缘的孔眼，同时刺穿皮革和画布。(作为艺术品，已经抽象出来了，脱离了原来的主体，鞋带穿出来，不再是这双鞋，而是人文背景了）。

德里达使用的“pointure”一词对他的文章非常重要，他将其用在标题中（《Pointure 中真理的恢复》，1978 年），并在前面放了一个字典定义作为警句：“prick 的旧同义词。印刷术语，带尖的小铁片，用于将要打印的页面固定在鼓膜上。它在纸上打出的洞。制鞋、手套制造术语：鞋子或手套上的针数。”德里达追随海德格尔的脚步成为一名文字艺术家，但他在多语言灵巧性方面超越了他。他的文章用德语、英语、法语和拉丁语讨论了各种术语，并在某一处邀请我们（后面是四分之一页的省略号）依次用德语、英语和法语阅读海德格尔的文本，然后再继续讨论。
The word “pointure” that Derrida uses is so important to his essay that he uses it in the title (Restitutions of the Truth in Pointing [‘Pointure’], 1978) and puts a dictionary definition up front as an epigram: “old synonym of prick. Term in printing, small iron blade with a point （带尖的刀刃）, used to fix the page to be printed on the tympan. The hole which it makes in the paper. Term in shoemaking, glovemaking: number of stitches in a shoe or glove.” Derrida follows in Heidegger’s tracks as a word artist, but exceeds him with his polyglot dexterity. His essay hurls about terms in German, English, French, and Latin and at one point invites us (followed by a quarter page of ellipses) to read the Heidegger text successively in German, English, and French before resuming his discussion.

人们不禁想问，文森特会如何看待这一切？他所说的那双鞋到底是什么意思？有时鞋子就是鞋子，但参观者离开这个展览时可能会意识到，一双鞋子可以容纳整个宇宙。
What, one wonders, would Vincent make of all of this? What did he really mean by those shoes? Sometimes shoes are just shoes, but the visitor coming away from this exhibition may realize that a pair of shoes can contain an entire universe.

泰德·特劳特曼 (Ted Trautman) 为这篇文章做出了贡献。
Ted Trautman contributed to this post.

https://harpers.org/2009/10/phil ... er-van-goghs-shoes/


https://assets.cambridge.org/978 ... 1801140_excerpt.pdfhttps://uqn.life/static/upload/a ... 3174c9c6f32c3b2.pdf

Heidegger

海德格尔：艺术作品的本源

Reader86

二。

The passage you've provided appears to be a commentary on a particular aspect of Martin Heidegger's interpretation of Vincent van Gogh's painting of a pair of peasant shoes. The author expresses their disappointment and criticism of Heidegger's approach to analyzing the painting, finding it to be overly simplistic and lacking in depth.
您提供的这段文字似乎是对马丁·海德格尔对文森特·梵高的一双农鞋画作的解释的某个特定方面的评论。作者对海德格尔分析这幅画的方法表示失望和批评，认为它过于简单化，缺乏深度。

以下是该段落的一些要点：
Here are some key points from the passage:

Disappointment with Heidegger's Approach: The author is disappointed by the way Heidegger analyzes Van Gogh's painting. They find it overly simplistic and not up to the academic standards they expected from Heidegger.
对海德格尔方法的失望：作者对海德格尔分析梵高绘画的方式感到失望。他们发现它过于简单化，达不到他们对海德格尔的学术标准的期望。

“投射”和天真：作者提到，他们发现特别有趣的是解释为什么他们认为海德格尔的解释“可笑且可悲”。他们将此归因于海德格尔的“投射”，这表明他以一种天真的态度对待绘画。
"Projection" and Naïveté: The author mentions that what they found particularly interesting was the explanation of why they found Heidegger's interpretation "ridiculous and lamentable." They attribute this to Heidegger's "projection," which suggests that he approached the painting with a level of naïveté.

Consumerlike Hurry: The author criticizes Heidegger for approaching the painting as if he were in a hurry to consume its content, without delving into the depth and complexity of the artwork. They also mention the heaviness of the pathos, which implies a lack of subtlety.
消费者式的匆忙：作者批评海德格尔在处理这幅画时就好像他急于消费其内容，而没有深入研究艺术品的深度和复杂性。他们还提到了悲情的沉重，这意味着缺乏微妙之处。

对描述的失望：作者对海德格尔对这幅画的描述感到失望。他们批评它的“编码琐碎”以及所描绘物体（在本例中是“一双农民鞋”）的框架和识别的粗糙性。
Disappointment with Description: The author is disappointed by Heidegger's description of the painting. They criticize its "coded triviality" and the crudeness of the framing and identification of the depicted object, in this case, "a pair of peasants' shoes."

Guided Tour Analogy: The author uses an analogy of a guided tour to describe Heidegger's approach to analyzing the painting. They suggest that it feels like Heidegger, who is considered a "great thinker," suddenly shifts from profound philosophical discourse to a simplistic, guided tour-like explanation of the artwork.
导游类比：作者用导游的比喻来描述海德格尔分析绘画的方法。他们认为，被认为是“伟大思想家”的海德格尔突然从深刻的哲学论述转向对艺术品的简单化、导游式的解释。

缺乏题外话：作者批评海德格尔的分析缺乏题外话。他们认为，关于鞋子的论述与关于艺术作品和真理的起源的论述不应该脱节，应该有离题或回避的空间。
Lack of Digression: The author criticizes Heidegger's analysis for lacking the sense of digression. They argue that the discourse on the shoes and the discourse on the origin of the work of art and truth should not be disconnected, and there should be room for digression or sidesteps.

Projection: The passage concludes with the author suggesting that the reader may be shocked or taken aback by the scene they have described, which they refer to as a "projection."
投影：文章最后，作者暗示读者可能会对他们所描述的场景感到震惊或大吃一惊，他们将其称为“投影”。

综上所述，这段话批评了海德格尔对梵高绘画的分析过于简单化，缺乏深度，突然从深刻的哲学转向肤浅的、导游式的解释。笔者认为海德格尔的做法令人失望，而且缺乏题外话的感觉
In summary, this passage critiques Heidegger's analysis of Van Gogh's painting for being overly simplistic, lacking depth, and shifting abruptly from profound philosophy to a superficial, guided tour-like explanation. The author finds Heidegger's approach disappointing and lacking in the sense of digression.

Reader86

Why Did Van Gogh Paint Old Shoes?

In late 1886 and early 1887, Vincent van Gogh indeed painted various still lifes featuring pairs of shoes. He had concentrated on floral still lifes in the preceding summer in order to practice using colour. He couldn’t get his hands on fresh flowers in autumn and winter, so he turned to a different motif.

These worn out shoes appealed to him, he felt they had a certain life about them. In Saint-Rémy, he painted another still life of a pair of leather clogs; after all, shoes made for patient models.

https://www.vangoghmuseum.nl/en/ ... ogh-paint-old-shoes

Reader86

The price of the painting is about the same price of a pair of real leather shoes.

Reader86

Van Gogh never ate (yellow) paint to become more cheerful, quite the contrary! During his time at the institution in Saint-Rémy, he wrote in a letter to Theo: ‘It appears that I pick up filthy things and eat them, although my memories of these bad moments are vague’.

The medical notes of Dr Peyron, Vincent’s physician, reveal that Vincent wanted to poison himself by eating paint and drinking turpentine. That’s probably why he wasn’t allowed into his studio while he was suffering from his attacks.

https://www.vangoghmuseum.nl/en/ ... gh-eat-yellow-paint

Reader86

三。

BORROWED SHOES
By ED HILL, SUZANNE BLOOM

These shoes are hallucinogens.

—Jacques Derrida

Extensions of his being, they image the qualities and conditions necessary for his health of mind.

—Meyer Schapiro

The peasant woman, on the other hand, simply wears them.

—Martin Heidegger

1，1886 年下半年，文森特·梵高在巴黎工作期间，借了几双鞋（或几双？）专门用来画画。这些鞋是从谁那里借来的，目前尚不清楚，但人们普遍认为，梵高是从自己四处奔波的双脚那里借来的，让它们在艺术上得到二次利用。我们可以想象，梵高创作这幅小巧、低调但生动的画作的场景与现代主义的基本斗争一致——艺术家/画家与绘画真理的搏斗。但随着故事逐渐发展成为一个情节寓言，这种温和场景的温暖朴素将很快从视野中消失，也许令人失望的是，它不会完全到达道德结论的安慰之岸。相反，它将在一系列哲学、历史、意识形态和批判项目的激流中漂流。
DURING THE SECOND HALF of 1886, while working in Paris, Vincent van Gogh borrowed a couple of shoes (or several pairs?) for the express purpose of painting them. From whom they were borrowed is unknown, although it has commonly been assumed that he borrowed them from his own peripatetic feet, giving them, as it were, secondary employment in art. We imagine the scene of the production of van Gogh’s small, unassuming, but animated painting as consistent with Modernism’s basic struggle—the artist/painter wrestling with pictorial truth. But the warm simplicity of this benign setting will recede quickly from view as the story shapes itself into an episodic parable, one that—perhaps disappointingly—will not quite arrive at the comforting shores of moral conclusion. Instead, it will drift among the riffles of a number of philosophical, historical, ideological, and critical projects.

2，在梵高创作出第一幅作品半个世纪后，德国哲学家马丁·海德格尔借用了梵高几幅旧鞋画作中的一幅，以进行哲学阐释。从海德格尔不精确的文字描述中，很难确定究竟是哪幅画。实际上，他曾两次使用这幅画：一次是在《形而上学导论》（1953 年）中简短而有点神秘的引用，另一次是在他三部分演讲/论文《艺术作品的起源》（1935 年）中广泛而著名的借用。1 在这里，海德格尔借用梵高的画作来揭示他认为艺术在我们这个“技术性”时代所处的谜题，即技术对自然作为生产场所和手段的统治。他在文章中的项目首先是所谓的“美学的重新评价”，即对西方艺术思想的哲学考察，特别是传统上支持艺术的物质/形式和主体/客体的结构配对。除了这项卓越的解构主义任务之外，海德格尔的意图变得难以概括，但我们可以说，对他来说，艺术作品是一种事件，它通过某种揭示性的陌生感，体现了地球与世界之间本质上冲突和焦虑的关系——或者，用非海德格尔的话来说，自然与文化之间的关系。
A half century after van Gogh’s initial creation, the German philosopher Martin Heidegger borrowed one of the artist’s several paintings of old shoes for the purpose of philosophical explication. Exactly which of the paintings it was cannot easily be determined from Heidegger’s imprecise textual descriptions. Actually he made use of the painting twice: a brief, somewhat cryptic reference in An Introduction to Metaphysics (1953), and the extended, now famous borrowing for his three-part lecture/essay “The Origin of the Work of Art” (1935).1 Here Heidegger employed the van Gogh painting to disclose the riddle he believed art to be in our age of “technicity,” i.e., the technological domination of nature as the site and means of production. His project in the essay is, to begin with, what has been described as a “transvaluation of esthetics,”2 a philosophical examination of Western thought about art, specifically the structural pairings of matter/form and subject/object that have traditionally supported it. Beyond this preeminently deconstructive task Heidegger’s intentions become difficult to encapsulate, but we may say that for him the work of art is an event that, through a certain revealing strangeness, manifests the essentially conflictual and anxious relation between earth and world—or, in non-Heideggerian terms, between nature and culture.

3，在海德格尔发表论文的同一历史时刻，雷内·马格利特创作了《红色模特》，这幅画作讽刺性地描绘了一双空鞋，这些鞋融入了人类（男性）的脚中。我们怀疑但无法证明这双鞋也是借来的。（这幅画本身后来被广告业盗版，作为完全不同的脚的模特。）第二年，沃克·埃文斯借用了一位名叫弗洛伊德·巴勒斯的佃农的工作鞋，在阿拉巴马州夏季的酷热中拍摄了它们在干燥的土地上闲置和孤独的身影。由此产生的图像是埃文斯与作家詹姆斯·阿吉合作进行的南方佃农赤裸世界的长期“记录”中的一个画面。
At the same historical moment of Heidegger’s essay, René Magritte painted The Red Model, a wry representation of a pair of empty shoes that meld into human (male) feet. We suspect but cannot prove that these shoes too were borrowed. (The painting itself has since been pirated by the advertising industry, as a model for an entirely different affair of the foot.) The following year Walker Evans borrowed the work shoes of a tenant farmer named Floyd Burroughs, photographing them idle and solitary on dry earth in the intense heat of an Alabama summer. The resulting image was a single frame in the protracted “documentation” of the bare world of Southern sharecroppers that Evans undertook with writer James Agee.

4，这些事件在三十年代中期的同步聚集可能没有特别的意义，没有沿着相同的心灵路径共同旅行；但只要存在投机冲动，它就会无情地进行建设。 1934 年，欧文·斯通出版了他对梵高的长篇颂歌《生命的渴望》。第五卷讲述了真诚的文森特在后印象派巴黎漫步时的冒险经历，有一次，他在流浪汉高更的陪伴下，遇见了睡在公园长椅上的塞尚。塞尚的靴子塞在他的头下，不是像高更假设的那样提供一个粗糙的枕头，而是为了防止它们被偷。 3 考虑斯通的虚构主题，我们可能会幻想塞尚是梵高《Souliers aux laces》的来源4（带鞋带的靴子）；近一个世纪后，一个聪明的巴黎鞋贼偷偷偷走了这双著名的鞋子。后来，在 1956 年，好莱坞将《生命的欲望》作为现成的剧本，具体化了我们对梵高的集体形象。影片中没有提及鞋子或绘画。There may be no particular significance to the synchronic clustering of these events in the mid ’30s, no shared travel along the same psychic path; but where the speculative urge exists, it tends to construct relentlessly. In 1934 Irving Stone published his long ode to van Gogh, Lust for Life. Book five recounts the adventures of an earnest Vincent as he wanders through Post-Impressionist Paris, where, at one point, in the company of a picaresque Gauguin, he meets Cézanne asleep on a park bench. Cézanne’s boots are tucked under his head, not to provide a crude pillow, as Gauguin assumes, but rather to keep them from being stolen.3 Taking up Stone’s fictional motif, we might fantasize that Cézanne was the source of van Gogh’s Souliers aux lacets4 (Boots with laces); and that nearly a century later a clever Parisian shoe-thief would surreptitiously make off with this famous footwear. Later, in 1956, taking Lust for Life as a readymade for its script, Hollywood reified our collective image of van Gogh. No mention of either shoes or painting is made in the film.

5，令人惊讶的是，保守的艺术史界花了很长时间才将矛头指向海德格尔，因为他对梵高画作的哲学恶作剧必定被视为恶作剧。挑战终于在 1968 年到来，以迈耶·夏皮罗 (Meyer Schapiro) 的简洁而明显的艺术史攻击形式进行。夏皮罗是美国高级现代主义的杰出学者和鼓舞人心的人物，艺术史学家欧文·桑德勒 (Irving Sandler) 曾评价他：“他是一位哲学家。”5 夏皮罗在一篇短文《静物作为个人物品——关于海德格尔和梵高的注释》中给出了温和的回应。6 然而，如果文章的副标题是“给海德格尔的注释，纠正他对梵高艺术的描述”，他的意图可能会更准确地反映出来。不用说，夏皮罗正是在海德格尔在《艺术作品的本源》中拆解的传统中行事。从夏皮罗的角度来看，海德格尔未能理解或承认创作个体的特权地位，“艺术家在作品中的存在”。7 这双鞋属于梵高，并不是因为他可能穿过它们，而是因为他通过绘画赋予它们自己的主观性。它们是梵高的专属，就像圣维克多山属于塞尚一样。哲学幻想和观察的粗心大意使海德格尔远离了这种基本见解。
It’s surprising how long it was before the conservative art-history community took aim at Heidegger for what must have been seen as his philosophical mischief with van Gogh’s painting. The challenge finally came in 1968, in the form of a succinct and distinctly art-historical attack written by Meyer Schapiro, a prominent scholar and inspirational figure in American high Modernism, and a man about whom the art historian Irving Sandler once said, “He’s a philosopher.”5 Schapiro’s well-tempered response was delivered in a short essay, “The Still Life as a Personal Object—A Note on Heidegger and van Gogh.”6 His intentions might be reflected more accurately, however, if the essay’s subtitle were to read, “A Note to Heidegger Correcting His Representation of van Gogh’s Art.” Needless to say, Schapiro operates precisely within the tradition Heidegger dismantles in “The Origin of the Work of Art.” From Schapiro’s perspective, Heidegger fails to apprehend or acknowledge the privileged place of the creative individual, “the artist’s presence in the work.”7 The shoes belong to van Gogh not so much because he may have worn them but because by painting them he has suffused them with his own subjectivity. They are his in the same proprietary way that Mont Sainte-Victoire belongs to Cézanne. Philosophical fancy and carelessness of observation have led Heidegger away from just such essential insights.

6，冲突是不可避免的，因为海德格尔显然无视康德美学传统，即艺术的主观体验传统。他对后印象派绘画高度领土化的领域的侵犯也无济于事。1977 年，法国后结构主义者雅克·德里达 (Jacques Derrida) 挺身而出，推出了自己的文本《补偿》8——这是一篇非常冗长的文章，比海德格尔和夏皮罗的论文加起来还要长得多，几乎是一本鞋中篇小说。表面上看，德里达试图通过文学调解来解决哲学与受害方艺术史之间争论的问题。除此之外，他以极其狡猾和详尽的批判性阅读颠覆了海德格尔和夏皮罗的文本，以探究其底层，德里达在那里发现了两位诉讼当事人之间意想不到的对应关系。可以说，德里达将他们视为一对，一对奇怪的组合，两位思想家的思想都受将遗弃的鞋子归还给能够穿着它们行走的直立身体的需要所支配。还有一点：德里达原来是巴黎的偷鞋贼。
A clash was inevitable given Heidegger’s apparent disregard for the tradition of Kantian esthetics, the tradition of the subjective experience of art. His treading on the highly territorialized domain of Post-Impressionist painting did not help either. In 1977 the French post-Structuralist Jacques Derrida stepped into the breach, brandishing his own text, “Restitutions”8—a remarkably prolix piece of writing, considerably longer than both Heidegger’s and Schapiro’s essays combined, a virtual shoe novella. On the surface it appears that Derrida was attempting to sort out, in an act of literary mediation, matters under dispute between philosophy and the offended party, art history. Beyond and beneath this, his singularly cunning and exhaustive critical reading inverts both Heidegger’s and Schapiro’s texts to investigate their underside, where Derrida finds an unsuspected correspondence between the two litigants. It could be said that he sees them as a pair, an odd couple, two thinkers both of whose thought is regulated by the need to return the abandoned shoes to an erect body capable of walking in them. One more point: Derrida turns out to be the Parisian shoe-thief.

Reader86

三。（2）

7，尽管海德格尔、夏皮罗和德里达勾勒出了鞋子之争的主要轮廓，但他们并不是这场争论的唯一贡献者。两个成熟的学术实践领域之间存在激烈对抗的观点至少得到了一位梵高专家、马克思主义艺术史学家约翰·沃克的认同。1980 年，沃克在英国杂志《Block》上发表了一篇题为“艺术史与哲学：‘旧鞋’之谜”的文章。9 总的来说，他对鞋子之争的阐述很有用，但它充满了争论，而且带有偏见，不耐烦，过于简单化，有时甚至很愚蠢。作为一名历史唯物主义者，沃克要求艺术写作具有语境特定性，而他认为海德格尔的文章缺乏这一点。然而，海德格尔并没有质疑历史性；如上所述，令他苦恼的是审美体验的超历史主观化。沃克还断言，海德格尔拒绝了“真理的符合论”——这一理论源于这样一个事实：如果一个陈述（“文森特割掉了他的耳朵！”）与观察到的事实（文森特站在我们面前，一手拿着剃刀，另一手拿着左耳垂，鲜血顺着脖子流淌）相符，那么我们就会判断这个陈述是真实的。（当然，这同样适用于视觉陈述，如鞋子的绘画。）但海德格尔在这个问题上的立场很明确：他认为这种理论确实适用于存在（事物及其表象）之间的关系，尽管它不能揭示存在的真理。他将注意力集中在真理上，即 alētheia，或无蔽性，它先于 adaequatio（符合性）的真理，并且是其基础。海德格尔在梵高画作中寻求的正是无蔽之真，而沃克的防御心态和意识形态僵化使他无法哪怕是短暂地占据海德格尔哲学论证的空间。
Though Heidegger, Schapiro, and Derrida between them map the principal contours of the shoe debate, they are not the only contributors to it. The notion of a lively antagonism between two well-established districts of academic practice caught on with at least one van Gogh specialist, Marxist art-historian John Walker. In 1980, in the British journal Block, Walker published an article entitled “Art History versus Philosophy: The Enigma of the ‘Old Shoes.’”9 Overall, his exposition of the duel for the shoes is useful, but it is heavily varnished with polemic, and is prejudicially impatient, overreductive, even silly at times. As a historical materialist, Walker demands contextual specificity in art writing, and this he finds lacking in Heidegger’s essay. Heidegger, however did not take issue with historicity; as suggested above, it was the transhistorical subjectivization of esthetic experience that troubled him. Walker also asserts that Heidegger rejected “a correspondence theory of truth”—a theory arising from the fact that if a statement (“Vincent has cut off his ear!”) corresponds to observed fact (Vincent standing before us with a razor in one hand, his left earlobe in the other, and blood running down his neck), then we judge the statement’s claim to be true. (The same applies, of course, to visual statements such as paintings. . . of shoes.) But Heidegger’s position on this matter is clear: he believed such a theory does apply to relations between beings (things and their representations), though it cannot disclose the truth of Being. He focused his attention on truth as alētheia, or unconcealment, which stands prior to, and is the very ground for, the truth of adaequatio (correspondence). The truth of unconcealment is what Heidegger sought in and through van Gogh’s painting. Walker’s defensive frame of mind and ideological rigidity make it impossible for him to occupy even briefly the space of Heidegger’s philosophical argument.

8，1982 年，英国作家兼评论家约翰·伯格 (John Berger) 悄悄地试图在两只鞋子的故事中占有一席之地，他为《乡村之声》写了一篇文章《一把椅子、一张床、一双靴子》，借用了梵高的一幅鞋子画作为唯一的复制品。与沃克的顽固形成鲜明对比的是，一个平缓而有节制的斜坡将梵高对农民田园劳动的热情、海德格尔对农民（农妇）作为存在命运的描述，与伯格对农民社会生产经验的持续展开联系起来。然而，这三个人对农民的同情倾向不应该表明他们之间的意识形态认同没有区别。伯格对农民和艺术家的专一特权是众所周知的；对他来说，两者都代表着一种劳动秩序、一种工作现实和创造性生产。直接说，“拿一把椅子、一张床、一双靴子。 [梵高] 绘画的行为比任何其他画家都更接近木匠或鞋匠制作它们的行为。”10 伯格进入了鞋子的讨论，没有指名道姓，也没有参与辩论；尽管如此，他的文章以最简单的方式在海德格尔、夏皮罗和马克思之间构建了一个三角领域。然而，在这个吸引人的三角关系中，事物的真相、艺术冲动和手工的本质的陷阱在于，在相互渴望的狂喜中，这样的三元组很容易滑向与最高艺术天才概念相关的初级生产的神话化。
In 1982, the English writer and critic John Berger made his own quiet bid for a place in the tale of two shoes, writing a piece for The Village Voice, “A Chair, a Bed, a Pair of Boots,” which borrowed one of van Gogh’s shoe paintings for its sole reproduction. In marked contrast to Walker’s intransigence, a gentle and measured slope connects van Gogh’s passion for the pastoral labors of the peasant, and Heidegger’s designation of the peasant (peasant woman) as the destiny of Being, to Berger’s continuing unfolding of productive experience in peasant society. The sympathetic inclination toward peasantry shared by these three should not suggest, however, an ideological identity without difference. Berger’s dedicated privileging of the peasant, and of the artist, is generally well known; for him, both represent an order of labor, a reality of work, of creative production. Directly put, “Take a chair, a bed, a pair of boots. [Van Gogh’s] act of painting them was far nearer than that of any other painter to the carpenter’s or the shoemaker’s act of making them.”10 Berger enters the shoe discourse without naming names or taking up the debate as such; nonetheless, by the simplest means, his essay frames a triangular field between Heidegger, Schapiro, and Marx. However, the snare in this appealing triangulation of thing-truth, artistic compulsion, and the hypostasis of handwork is that in an ecstasy of mutual yearning such a triad can easily slide toward a mythification of primary production linked to the notion of a supreme artist-genius.

9，另一位马克思主义者、文学/文化理论家弗里德里克·詹姆逊 (Fredric Jameson) 从争论的深处拿出了这双著名的鞋子，并将其与安迪·沃霍尔 (Andy Warhol) 1980 年创作的钻石尘鞋 (Diamond Dust Shoes) 搭配在一起，以光彩夺目的智力努力来描述后现代资本主义和跨国资本主义，从而建立起两者之间的联系。在 1984 年发表的长篇论文《后现代主义，或晚期资本主义的文化逻辑》中，詹姆逊首先着手证明他使用分期法（即建立和描述一个历史时期作为一种文化主导形式）的合理性，以反驳人们指责它削弱了特定时期内的差异。接下来，他开始“解构表达”，从“视觉艺术中高度现代主义的经典作品之一，梵高著名的农民鞋画作”开始。11 他认为，如果这幅画要超越审美装饰的层面，就必须将其视为实践和生产的象征，而且，我们可以补充说，在某种程度上，它是其时代特征的代表。詹姆逊接着“描绘了资本主义对梵高农民鞋世界和海德格尔乡村小路的破坏。”12
Yet another Marxist, the literary/cultural theorist Fredric Jameson, lifted the prestigious shoes out of the depths of debate and paired them with the Diamond Dust Shoes, 1980, of Andy Warhol, in a glittering intellectual effort to describe and thus constitute a connection between the post-Modern and multinational capitalism. In his lengthy 1984 essay “Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism,” Jameson first sets out to justify his use of periodization—i.e., the establishment and characterizing of a historical period as a culturally dominant form—against the charge that it dampens difference within a given period. Next he takes up the “deconstruction of expression,” beginning with “one of the canonical works of high modernism in visual art, van Gogh’s well-known painting of the peasant shoes.”11 If it is to survive above the level of esthetic decor, he suggests, the painting must be grasped as symbolic of praxis and production, and, we might add, as somehow representative of its epochal constellation. Jameson then goes on to “depict the capitalist destruction of van Gogh’s world of peasant shoes and Heidegger’s country pathway.”12

10，詹姆逊对梵高“鞋子”的引用似乎多余，因为他忽视了特定绘画的视觉特征，尤其是与他对沃霍尔死亡高跟鞋的引人入胜的解读相比。这也是我们可以想象自己扮演夏皮罗而海德格尔的原因之一。相反，我们最终必须面对困扰鞋子叙事的惊人沉默（或缺失）：除了两个小的、精心放置的线索外，到目前为止，我们的文本中没有听到或听到任何关于女性的信息。此外，关于整个鞋子交换的基础几乎没有提及。因此，在有问题的画作中，梵高描绘了两只工作鞋或靴子独自站在未定义的空间中。海德格尔在《艺术作品的本源》中几乎不经意地指出，这双鞋可以理解为属于一个农民妇女。夏皮罗抗议海德格尔公然用诗意的投射来取代良好的学术研究，并代表艺术家强调地重新夺回了鞋子。德里达认为这些相互矛盾的归因非常有启发性——尤其是对于毫无疑问的鞋子是一双的信念。而且，重要的是，他在这种“艺术与真理之间的激烈冲突”13中看出了一个被崇拜的物体，一个看似脱离了逻各斯中心主义形而上学，但却恰好适合它们的东西。
Jameson’s citation of the van Gogh “shoes” seems suspiciously gratuitous given his disregard for the visual character of the specific painting, and especially when compared to his compelling reading of Warhol’s deathly pumps. Which is one reason we could imagine ourselves playing Schapiro to his Heidegger. Instead, we must finally confront the prodigious silence (or lack) that haunts the narrative of the shoes: except for two small, carefully placed clues, nothing has been heard of or from the feminine in our text so far. Furthermore, little has been said about the basis of the entire shoe exchange. So, in the painting under question van Gogh depicted two work shoes or boots standing alone in undefined space. Heidegger, in “The Origin of the Work of Art,” remarked almost incidentally that the shoes may be understood as belonging to a peasant woman. Schapiro, protesting what he considered Heidegger’s blatant substitution of poetic projection for good scholarship, emphatically reclaimed the shoes on behalf of the artist. Derrida found these conflicting attributions exceedingly instructive—especially with respect to the unquestioned belief that the shoes were a pair. And, significantly, he discerned in this “raging discord between art and truth”13 a fetishized object, one seemingly detached from the metaphysics of logocentrism, but properly fitting them.

11，一旦被命名，（农民）妇女的幽灵般的存在就不会被忽视或取消；德里达曾坚持不懈地坚持要听到她的声音。1985 年，对德里达的著作感兴趣的哲学家南希·霍兰德发表了论文《海德格尔和德里达的重现：仔细阅读》。14 霍兰德在这篇文章中（1983 年首次以论文形式发表）的意图是戏剧化地描述德里达解构主义中出现的西方形而上学传统的女权主义批判。具体来说，这种批判描述了女性被排除在传统之外，在形而上学的眼中，她们实际上被“暗中”了，因为她们与传统的男性祖先存在性别差异，这是一个破坏性的事实。当德里达偷走梵高的“鞋子”时，他同时在鞋子上刻上了一个不可擦除的阴道图案。通过这种刻画或“内陷”，女性他者出现了，并最终在被阉割的真理法庭上发出了声音。霍兰德尖锐地指出了德里达《恢复》标题页反面的“（代表 n + 1 — 女性 — 声音）”这个名称。
Once named, the spectral presence of the (peasant) woman would not be dismissed or canceled; Derrida had insisted, at great length, that her voice be heard. In 1985, Nancy Holland, a philosopher with a feminist interest in Derrida’s writings, published the essay “Heidegger and Derrida Redux: A Close Reading.”14 Holland’s intention in the article (first delivered as a paper, in 1983) is a dramatizing of the feminist critique of the Western metaphysical tradition that she sees emerging from Derrida’s deconstruction(s). Specifically, the critique describes the exclusion of women from that tradition, their effective “scotomizing” in the metaphysical eye, because of the disruptive fact of their sexual difference from the tradition’s male progenitors. When Derrida made off with—purloined—van Gogh’s “shoes,” he inscribed them at the same time with a nonerasable vaginal form. Through this inscription or “invagination,” the female Other emerges and is finally given voice in the court of castrated truth. Holland pointedly notes the designation “(for n + 1—female—voices),” which appears on the verso of the title page to Derrida’s “Restitutions.”

12，It might be wondered whether Heidegger, in naming the peasant woman, doesn’t bring her (woman) to visibility and thereby escape the charge of metaphysical exclusion. In one sense, of course, if he hadn’t written a walk-on part for her in his drama of origins, then Derrida/Holland would not have been able to give her voice. But that at the same time is also the point: Heidegger gives the peasant woman only silence, “the silent call of the earth.”15 She is cast an essentialist role, playing mother earth to Heidegger’s world.
有人可能会想，海德格尔在命名农妇时，是否没有让她（女人）变得可见，从而摆脱形而上学排斥的指控。当然，从某种意义上说，如果他没有在他的起源剧中为她写一个跑龙套的角色，德里达/霍兰德就无法让她发声。但同时，这也是关键所在：海德格尔只给了农妇沉默，“大地无声的呼唤”。15 她扮演了一个本质主义的角色，在海德格尔的世界里扮演大地母亲。

13，冒着引发意象眩晕的风险，我们将用大卫·林奇 1986 年的电影寓言《蓝丝绒》来强调这部百年纪事。诚然，这是一个潜在的问题选择——更像是一个撇号而不是一个句号——但它并不像乍一看那么奇怪。 《蓝丝绒》以一个乌托邦式的平凡世界为开端（和结尾），在湛蓝天空的庇护下，绿色的草坪、白色的篱笆和友善的消防员代表着绝对的幸福。然而，开场场景刚一开始，完美的秩序就出现了转折：一场神秘的中风使电影主角杰弗里·博蒙特的父亲丧失了行动能力。在主要叙事的阴险和肮脏的情节中，接下来发生的事情在其经典的病态中，具有一定的结构效用和挑衅性的卑鄙，让我们在穿鞋时感到不堪重负。
At the risk of precipitating imagistic dizziness, we will punctuate this synoptic hundred-year chronicle with David Lynch’s 1986 cinematic allegory of the fetish, Blue Velvet. Granted, it is a potentially problematic choice—more of an apostrophe than a period—but it is not as odd as it might first seem. Blue Velvet opens (and closes) on a utopian ordinariness that dwells securely under the aegis of a clear blue sky, a picture world where green lawns, white fences, and friendly firemen represent absolute well-being. Barely have the opening scenes gotten under way, however, before a kink occurs in the perfect order of things: a mysterious stroke incapacitates the father of the film’s protagonist, Jeffrey Beaumont. What follows during the sinister and seamy episodes of the main narrative has, in its classical pathologies, a certain structural utility and provocative baseness to lend to our labor of the shoes.

14，此外，《蓝丝绒》为我们展现了《渴望生活》的不可思议的实现；这是文森特·明奈利在 1956 年未能拍摄——或者更公平地说，不可能拍摄——的电影。这种说法可能有些过分，但我们感兴趣的正是这种过度，这种过度以电影形式呈现为极端的恋物癖和无法忍受的邪恶。我们将尝试追溯这与《旧鞋》是如何融合的，沿着一条从可分离性概念到恋物癖的线索。
Moreover, Blue Velvet represents for us the realization of the unimaginable version of Lust for Life; it is the film Vincente Minnelli failed to make—or, more fairly, could not have made—in 1956. This claim may be excessive, but it is precisely the excess we are interested in, an excess that takes cinematic form as extreme fetishism and insupportable evil. Just how this converges with the “Old Shoes” we will attempt to trace, along a line that runs from the concept of detachability to fetishism.

15，A detached part, a severed ear, but detached or severed from whom?
分离的部分，一只被割断的耳朵，但从谁那里分离或割断？

—雅克·德里达
—Jacques Derrida

Reader86

四。

A detached part, a severed ear, but detached or severed from whom? 一个分离的部分，一个被切断的耳朵，但与谁分离或切断？

—Jacques Derrida

1, EARLY IN THE FILM, Jeffrey discovers a severed human ear lying among weeds in a vacant lot. The discarded ear has been separated forcibly, sacrificially, from its owner, and at the same time from the body of its “story.” The remainder of Blue Velvet is devoted largely to Jeffrey’s pursuit of this story, to the reattachment of the part, the detail, to its whole or truth. Now, the two unattended shoes in the van Gogh painting may not have been severed from human legs, merely detached from them by unlacing, yet they too have been cut away from their “story,” and, too, an impressive array of papers, articles, and essays by a long list of writers stands in evidence of an imposing, tendentious effort to reattach them to their “truth.” Are we really implying that Heidegger’s project of reattaching the shoes, for example, is somehow parallel to Jeffrey’s? It may sound like willful descent from the sublime to the obscene, but essentially that is what we are suggesting. Heidegger devoted his entire philosophical output to the reattachment (or return) of beings—such as a pair of shoes or a work of art—to Being, the Being of beings. Along the way, he put van Gogh’s shoes on the feet of a peasant woman, and, in that simple operation, tripped himself up in the very furrows of earth he wished to traverse. Jeffrey’s self-determined task in Blue Velvet is appropriately scaled to his inchoate manhood, but while he eagerly seeks to reattach the ear to its story, he too is implicated in the dark knowledge he must pass through.
在影片的开头，杰弗里发现一块空地的杂草中躺着一只被割断的人耳。被丢弃的耳朵被强行、牺牲性地与它的主人分离，同时也与它的“故事”的主体分离。 《蓝丝绒》的其余部分主要致力于杰弗里对这个故事的追求，将部分、细节、整体或真相重新结合起来。现在，梵高画作中的两只无人看管的鞋子可能并没有从人的腿上切断，只是通过解开鞋带而与腿分离，但它们也已经从它们的“故事”中被切断了，而且，还有一系列令人印象深刻的文件，一长串作者的文章和散文，证明了他们为重新将其与“真理”联系起来而做出的令人印象深刻的、有倾向性的努力。例如，我们真的是在暗示海德格尔重新装上鞋子的计划与杰弗里的计划在某种程度上是平行的吗？这听起来可能像是故意从崇高下降到淫秽，但本质上这就是我们所建议的。海德格尔将他的全部哲学成果奉献给存在者——例如一双鞋或一件艺术品——的重新依附（或回归）到存在，存在者的存在。一路上，他把梵高的鞋子穿在一位农妇的脚上，就在这个简单的操作中，他把自己绊倒在他想要穿越的泥土沟里。杰弗里在《蓝丝绒》中自行决定的任务是根据他刚成年时的情况适当调整的，但当他急切地试图让人们重新理解他的故事时，他也卷入了他必须经历的黑暗知识中。

2, The concept of detachability is familiar in its contentious guises: castration, expropriation, appropriation, autonomy. An attentive reading of Derrida’s “Restitutions,” however, shows that detachability should be treated as having no implicit value or connotation; the term “per se” is neutral. The text demonstrates the operative functions of detachability (and reattachability) as an enabling device for analytic thought. For a moment, follow the words below as they detach, reattach, and return:
可分离性的概念因其有争议的外表而为人所熟知：阉割、征用、挪用、自治。然而，仔细阅读德里达的《恢复》就会发现，可分离性应该被视为没有隐含的价值或内涵； “本身”一词是中性的。文本展示了可分离性（和可重新附加性）作为分析思维的支持手段的操作功能。暂时跟随下面的文字了解它们的分离、重新连接和返回：

3, Others would say: the shoes produce a discourse on painting. . . . These shoes are an allegory of painting, a figure of pictorial detachment. They say: we are painting in painting. Or again: one could entitle this picture “the origin of painting.” It makes a picture of the picture and invites you not to forget the very thing it makes you forget: you have painting and not shoes under your nose (just try putting them on, on your own feet or someone else’s!), painting is originally this detachment which loses its footing. But detachment must also be understood (sic)16
也有人会说：鞋子产生了关于绘画的话语。 。 。 。这双鞋是绘画的寓言，是绘画中超脱的形象。他们说：我们是在画中画。或者再说一遍：人们可以将这幅画称为“绘画的起源”。它把图画变成了图画，并邀请你不要忘记它让你忘记的事情：你面前有绘画，而不是鞋子（只要尝试穿上它们，在你自己的脚上或别人的脚上！），绘画本来就是这支队伍失去了慢跑的能力。但也必须理解超然（原文如此）16

4, 在这种情况下的引用不仅仅是一个例子。它提出了一系列问题：可拆卸和可重新连接的经济是真实的，还是只是修辞上的模拟？它能超越我们所熟悉的能指与所指的分离吗？难道这又是一种二元对立？我们从德里达那里借用的——脱离——在何种程度上是一种伪造？
A quotation in this context is more than a mere example. It raises a set of questions: is the economy of detachability and reattachability real, or only rhetorical simulation? Can it go beyond the familiar detachment of signifier from signified? Is it just one more binary opposition? In what way is our own borrowing—detachment—from Derrida a falsification?

5, 这些问题也符合林奇的电影。 《蓝色天鹅绒》——片名、电影本身，当然还有对电影的任何诠释——都是超然的“典范”，不仅因为它的情节是由超然的耳朵推动的，顺便说一句，它原本属于，电影中被间接称为“梵高”的一个人。这个男人的妻子多萝西·瓦伦斯 (Dorothy Vallens) 穿着蓝色天鹅绒长袍，也让她摆脱了自己主观性的可能性。作为一件衣服，长袍就像鞋子一样，很容易与穿着者分离（一个失去主体的物体）。碎片可以从“整体”​​中分离、切断、切割。例如，电影中的掠夺性反派弗兰克·布斯(Frank Booth)用他用来剪断“梵高”耳朵的同一把剪刀，从多萝西的长袍下摆上剪下了一条蓝色天鹅绒条。一个类似的观察：夏皮罗从海德格尔的大量文章中删去了两段话，其方法与他试图将这位德国哲学家从画面中剔除时所用的方法一样清晰。These questions fit Lynch’s film as well. Blue Velvet—the title, the film itself, and, of course, any interpretation of the film—is a “model” of detachment, and not only because its plot is set in motion by a detached ear, which originally belonged, incidentally, to a man obliquely referred to in the film as “van Gogh.” The blue-velvet robe that envelops this man’s wife, Dorothy Vallens, also detaches her from the possibility of her own subjectivity. As an article of clothing, the robe, like shoes, can easily be detached from its wearer (an object loosing its subject). Fragments can be detached, severed, cut from the “whole.” For example, Frank Booth, the film’s predatory villain, cuts a strip of blue velvet from the hem of Dorothy’s robe with the same scissors that he used to sever “van Gogh’s” ear. A parallel observation: Schapiro cuts out two paragraphs from Heidegger’s copious essay with the same methodical sharpness he used in trying to excise the German philosopher from the picture.

6, Whether or not Schapiro’s gesture is a sign of fetishism we will examine shortly. In the meantime, the first thing to be made clear about fetishism is that it requires detachability and sexual ambiguity. For Freud, the origins of the fetish are rooted in the castration complex, the recognition (by the male child) of the mother’s sexual difference, her lack of a penis, which engenders fear of castration (by the father). The fetish functions to mitigate this anxiety; its physical presence mutes a psychic pain. If the assumed female phallus must be detached, the fetish allows it to be displaced, transferred, to another object. The fetishized, surrogate object is thus an alibi.
夏皮罗的手势是否是拜物教的标志，我们很快就会检验。与此同时，关于恋物癖，首先要明确的是，它需要可分离性和性别模糊性。对于弗洛伊德来说，恋物癖的起源植根于阉割情结，即（男孩）对母亲性别差异的认识，以及母亲缺乏阴茎，这引起了对（父亲）阉割的恐惧。恋物癖的作用是减轻这种焦虑。它的物理存在会改变精神上的痛苦。如果假定的女性阴茎必须被分离，那么恋物癖允许它被移位、转移到另一个物体上。因此，被迷恋的替代物是一个不在场证据。

7, 弗洛伊德在 1927 年的论文《拜物教》中，效仿“脚或鞋子”的例子，表现出了绝对的先见之明。 。 。作为一种恋物癖”，立即提到第二个插图“天鹅绒和毛皮。”17 福尔图娜微笑着。鞋子的一般形式是外面是阴茎，里面是阴道。因此，它们与人类生殖器具有复合的类比关系。在性标志的同一区域，天鹅绒再现了阴毛或想象中的子宫内部的景象。 （女性的）鞋子（当穿着时）也最接近母亲“缺乏”的部位（弗洛伊德的原始情景）。这些是恋物癖对象必须满足的要求。为了保持联系，我们可能会补充一点，作为恋物的女性（天鹅绒）长袍是面纱或窗帘，或处女膜，代表着在创伤前时刻对现场的逮捕。
In his 1927 paper “Fetishism” Freud displayed nothing less than absolute prescience when he followed the example of “the foot or shoe. . . as a fetish” with an immediate reference to a second illustration, “Velvet and fur.”17 Fortuna smiles. In their general form, shoes are phallic on the outside and vaginal on the inside; as such, they have a compound analogical relation to human genitalia. In the same neighborhood of sexual signs, velvet reproduces the sight of pubic hair or the imagined interior of the womb. A (woman’s) shoe is also proximal (when worn) to the site of the mother’s “lack” (Freud’s primal scenario). These are the kinds of requirements a fetish object must satisfy. We might add, just to keep in touch, that a woman’s (velvet) robe as fetish is a veil or curtain, or hymen, that represents an arresting of the scene at the pretraumatic moment.

8, 弗洛伊德对视觉艺术家，尤其是电影制片人的吸引力之一，是他赋予视觉凌驾于其他感官之上的特权，以及他在性至上的生动场景中的视觉过剩。林奇沉溺于过多的迷恋之中。当然，弗兰克是《蓝丝绒》电影拜物教的流动、不稳定的中心。他接触到的一切都成为他恋物行为的财产，包括语言。弗兰克将“fuck”这个词的所有变形和连词从其特定的（尽管令人不安的）文化利基中剥离出来，并赋予它新的令人窒息的强度。他的拜物教的独特品质之一是他反常的慷慨：他想分享它。也许这是因为他对它的掌握。在《蓝丝绒》的中途，他向杰弗里透露了令人不安的观察结果：“你就像我一样。”当他提出这一指控时，他正在看着镜头，因此他的目光集中在电影院观众中的每个人身上。弗兰克用这条线把鞋子穿在另一只脚上。Among the several attractions Freud holds for visual artists, especially filmmakers, are the privilege he gives to sight over the other senses and the visual excess in his vivid scenes of sexual primacy. Lynch indulges himself in a surfeit of loaded fetishes; and Frank, of course, is the mobile, volatile center of Blue Velvet’s cinematic fetishism. Everything he touches becomes the property of his fetishizing behavior, including language. Frank rips “fuck,” in all its conjugations and conjunctives, from its particular, if uneasy, cultural niche and gives it new thanatoid intensity. One of the peculiar qualities of his fetishism is its perverse generosity: he wants to share it. Perhaps this is so because of his mastery over it. Midway through Blue Velvet he reveals to Jeffrey the disquieting observation, “You’re like me.” When he delivers this accusation he is looking into the camera, so that his eyes are riveted on everyone in the cinema audience. With that one line, Frank puts the shoe on the other foot.

9, The viewer of Blue Velvet may see all this as all too obvious. Even taking the shoe’s history as a fetish into account, however, the reader of our saga may find it hard to take seriously an application of the discourse of fetishism to the story of the “Old Shoes,” which, after all, is not blatant; it isn’t exhibitionist. “And yet —”18 Fetishism inhabits the two shoes van Gogh painted, the painted shoes levitating in their indeterminate surroundings, the stretched and framed painting itself, the underlined cadmium-red signature “Vincent,” and, for that matter, the several titles by which the painting has come to be known. A fetish is a richly invested object; considerable psychic energy is committed to sustaining its existence and “reliability.” As it implements the flight from castration anxiety, and the veiling of sexual difference, it also permits and maintains a necessary “oscillation between disavowal and acknowledgment” (Juliet Mitchell), “believing and not-believing” (Christian Metz)—necessary because the anxiety does not retreat, and the difference does not melt away. In other words, the fetish object exists in an inspired space of undecidability.
《蓝丝绒》的观众可能会认为这一切都太明显了。然而，即使考虑到鞋子作为一种恋物癖的历史，我们的传奇读者可能会发现很难认真对待拜物教话语在“旧鞋”故事中的应用，毕竟，这并不是公然的;这不是暴露狂。 “然而——”18拜物教存在于梵高画的两只鞋子里，画好的鞋子在不确定的环境中悬浮，拉伸和装框的画本身，下划线的镉红色签名“文森特”，以及就此而言的几个标题这幅画由此而闻名。恋物癖是一种值得投资的物品。相当多的精神能量致力于维持其存在和“可靠性”。当它实现了对阉割焦虑的逃避和性别差异的掩盖时，它也允许并维持必要的“否认与承认之间的摇摆”（朱丽叶·米切尔）、“相信与不相信”（克里斯蒂安·梅茨）——这是必要的，因为焦虑不会消退，差异也不会消失。换句话说，迷恋对象存在于一个不确定性的灵感空间中。

10, 还有第二种方法可以理解对这些破旧鞋子的迷恋，它不依赖于色情光泽，也不依赖于将蓝色天鹅绒长袍嫁接到农妇身上。我们需要将讨论（至少暂时）转移到形而上学思想的领域。进行拜物教的所有必要条件都在绘画中。德里达谈到了海德格尔和夏皮罗之间的秘密通信，这是一个共识：两人都坚信、假设和预测，鞋子是一双，不仅仅是两双鞋，而是一双实用的、适合行走的鞋。仔细检查它们，有理由将它们解释为非一双鞋，就像两只左鞋。但海德格尔和夏皮罗都没有停下来怀疑。对他们来说，配对顺序是一个基本的假设：在夏皮罗的例子中，它使他能够将鞋子/绘画归还给他们的“真正”所有者——艺术家——的脚上/签名，伯杰说，正是这位艺术家在靴子上画了画鞋匠的洞察力；就海德格尔而言，它使他能够将自己的话语塑造成农妇可以穿的鞋子，从而回归土壤、大地、存在的本源之地。
There is a second approach to understanding the fetishism of these battered old shoes, and it does not depend on erotic gloss, or on grafting the blue-velvet robe onto the peasant woman. We need to shift the discussion, at least temporarily, into the realm of metaphysical thought. All the necessary conditions for an exercise in fetishism are met in the painting. Derrida speaks about a secret correspondence between Heidegger and Schapiro, a point of agreement: both are committed to the belief, assumption, projection that the shoes are a pair, not just two shoes but a working, walkable pair. Examining them closely, there is reason to interpret them as a nonpair, as two left shoes. But neither Heidegger nor Schapiro pauses to doubt. For them, the Order of the Pair is a fundamental supposition: in Schapiro’s case, it enables him to return the shoes/painting to the feet/signature of their “proper” owner, the artist, the same artist Berger said had painted boots with the insight of a shoemaker; and in Heidegger’s case it allows him to shape his discourse into shoes that could be worn by a peasant woman and thereby returned to the soil, the earth, the Ur-ground of Being.

Reader86

四。（2）

11, 这两双鞋就在那里，可供挪用。是什么让海德格尔、夏皮罗、德里达或我们中的任何人暂时不借用它们呢？鞋子很快就同意满足人们对任何正在建立的真相的迷恋的几乎不加掩饰的需求。对于德里达来说，情况是否有所不同，他巧妙地将海德格尔置于海德格尔自己的“反”计划的男性化结构中？然而，指出德里达似乎对孔眼和鞋带的结合产生了迷恋（以至于忽略了靴子上鞋带钩的主导地位），这不应掩盖对他带来弗洛伊德理论的感激之情重读海德格尔的《艺术作品的起源》。
The two shoes are simply there, open to appropriation. What would have kept Heidegger or Schapiro or Derrida or any of us from borrowing them for a while? How quickly the shoes agree to serve the thinly veiled need to fetishize whatever truth is being erected. Is this any less the case for Derrida, who adroitly caught Heidegger in the masculinized structures of the latter’s own “anti”-project? Pointing out that Derrida seems to make a fetish out of the copulation of eyelets and shoelaces (to the extent of ignoring the predominance of lace-hooks on the boots) should not obscure, however, a debt of gratitude to him for having brought Freudian theory to a rereading of Heidegger’s “The Origin of the Work of Art.”

12, In confronting Heidegger with Freud, Derrida insists on luring the encounter away from “the truth of the fetish” in favor of “the fetish of truth.” Holland says that it is the shoes’ “status as representations cut off from reality. . . that makes them revelatory of truth. Their inutility, hence their truth, is based on their status as castrated, cut off. So, if the truth of the fetish is castration, the fetish of truth is likewise a castration.”19 Heidegger fetishizes the shoes in a way that allows him to not-see, to construct a blind against a more basic truth, which appears at the cleared site of the castration scene: sexual difference. Again Holland:
在海德格尔与弗洛伊德的对峙中，德里达坚持引诱这次相遇远离“迷恋的真理”，转而支持“真理的迷信”。霍兰德表示，这就是鞋子“作为与现实隔绝的表现形式的地位”。 。 。这使得他们揭露真相。他们的无用，因此他们的真理，是基于他们被阉割、被切断的地位。因此，如果迷恋的真理是阉割，那么对真理的迷恋同样是一种阉割。”19海德格尔以一种让他看不见的方式迷恋鞋子，对一个更基本的真理建立了盲目的态度，而这个真理出现在阉割场景的清理地点：性别差异。又是荷兰：

13, 作为恋物癖，真相是无法确定的，在性方面是模糊的，这种模糊性引起了（性）欲望。因此，我已经找出了这个论点。 。 。它只是辫子中的一根线，它将我们前后引向子宫，引向婚姻，引向母亲，以及引向配对的可能性，就像一双鞋或一双袜子一样。 20
这一说法既是对德里达“恢复”的真正致敬，也是霍兰德试图透过真理的蓝天鹅绒长袍，吸引海德格尔（和西方形而上学传统）的面纱。
As fetish, the truth is undecideable, sexually ambiguous, the ambiguity which gives rise to (sexual) desire. Thus the argument I have traced out. . . is only one strand in a braid that would refer us backward and forward, to the uterus, to marriage, to the Mother, and to the very possibility of the pair, as in a pair of shoes, or socks.20

14, 这一说法既是对德里达“恢复”的真正致敬，也是霍兰德试图透过真理的蓝天鹅绒长袍，吸引海德格尔（和西方形而上学传统）的面纱。
This statement is as much a genuine tribute to Derrida’s “Restitutions” as it is an attempt on Holland’s part to draw Heidegger (and Western metaphysical tradition) through the veil of alētheia, the blue-velvet robe of truth.

15, We have arrived at a place—with the assistance of Derrida, Holland, and Lynch—where the fetishization process of Western metaphysical thought has been brought into view. What comes to the fore is a significant absence (or castration) which needs addressing, opening up, and, perhaps, restitution. Unfortunately, for all the industrious excess of his imagination, Lynch has not yet managed; his consciousness is held hostage by its own filmic fetishism. But that is another story or critique. The place we have finally arrived at is like the two paragraphs in Heidegger’s “Origin” that Schapiro snipped out with his humanist scissors, a detached passage that becomes a paysage, a landscape of more unresolved questions.
在德里达、霍兰德和林奇的帮助下，我们已经到达了这样一个地步：西方形而上学思想的拜物教过程已经被人们看到。最引人注目的是一种严重的缺席（或阉割），需要解决、开放，或许还需要恢复。不幸的是，尽管林奇的想象力非常丰富，但他还没有成功。他的意识被他自己的电影拜物教所绑架。但这是另一个故事或批评了。我们最终到达的地方，就像夏皮罗用人文主义剪刀剪掉海德格尔《起源》中的两段，一段独立的段落变成了一幅风景，一幅充满更多未解决问题的风景。

16, 换句话说，很多事情还没有完全解决。例如，艺术家本人在这一切中变成了什么？就像《蓝丝绒》中的“梵高”一样，梵高在鞋履叙事中仍然处于边缘地位。事实上，他可能只是在不久前消失在他的生活和艺术的文化拜物教中——消失在艺术奇观和壮观的资本中。此外，虽然我们从海德格尔对存在的追求与林奇的戏剧性无意识（深河公寓）之间的对抗中受益，但在林奇的蓝天二分法的双重光芒下重塑海德格尔对地球和世界的建构是否还有进一步的价值和阴暗的地下世界？海德格尔未能充分解释一种将他们视为殊死搏斗和不受抑制的暴力的亚生命——邪恶的原始泥浆——而林奇则密切关注着地面。这就涉及到一个令人不安的问题，即海德格尔对农妇的客体化背后的社会政治现实，他“自然”倾向于将她指定为鞋子的穿着者。那些年轻的雅利安妇女穿着乡村服装和沾满灰尘的靴子，按照惯例把头发向后梳，拖着大篮子的土豆穿过德国南部的收割田地，对着宣传人员的镜头微笑，这又怎么样呢？沃克就是其中之一，他对三十年代中期国家社会主义意识形态给海德格尔的著作投下的阴影感到困扰。它的残影依然存在。德里达还暗示，夏皮罗的文章中发生的事情不仅仅是对归属的更正或学术保护主义行为：夏皮罗说，“它们是艺术家的鞋子，到那时是城镇和城市的人”（作者的斜体），21 实际上是把鞋子从那些被法西斯宣传污染的领域移走。这一观察引出了克努特·汉姆生这个有问题的人物，夏皮罗引用了他的旁白，他引用了哈姆生小说《饥饿》中关于自我和鞋子之间关系的简短独白。 （德里达和沃克依次引用了这一参考文献。）汉姆生是“第一号人物”。一位挪威小说家和第一位亲纳粹知识分子，”22 在被占领的挪威公民将数千本他的通俗读物寄回给他在格里姆斯塔时，他遭受了痛苦的羞辱。
In other words, a number of things are not quite sorted out. For example, what has become of the artist himself in all this? Like “van Gogh” in Blue Velvet, van Gogh remains rather marginal to the shoe narrative. In fact he may simply have disappeared some time ago into the cultural fetishism of his life and art—into artistic spectacle and spectacular capital. Also, although we have profited from setting up a confrontation between Heidegger’s quest for Being and Lynch’s dramaturgical unconscious (the Deep River apartments), would there be further value in remodeling Heidegger’s construct of earth and world in the double light of Lynch’s dichotomy of blue sky and murky underworld? Heidegger fails to account sufficiently for a sublife that seethes with mortal combat and uninhibited violence—the primal mud of evil—whereas Lynch keeps his ear close to the ground. Which comes around to the uncomfortable question of the sociopolitical reality behind Heidegger’s objectification of the peasant woman, his “natural” inclination to designate her as the wearer of the shoes. What about those young Aryan women in rural dresses and dusty boots, their hair pulled back according to convention, hauling large baskets of potatoes across the harvest fields of southern Germany—smiling for the propagandists’ camera? Walker, for one, was troubled by the shadow that National Socialist ideology cast over Heidegger’s writings in the mid ’30s. Its afterimage persists. Derrida also implies that more was going on in Schapiro’s essay than a correction of attribution or an academic protectionist action: Schapiro, in saying, “They are the shoes of the artist, by that time a man of the town and city” (authors’ italics),21 in effect was removing the shoes from those fields so contaminated by fascist propaganda. This observation leads to the problematic figure of Knut Hamsun, invoked as an aside by Schapiro, who quoted a brief soliloquy on the relation between self and shoes from Hamsun’s novel Hunger. (The reference is picked up in turn by Derrida and Walker.) Hamsun, who was a “No. 1 Norwegian novelist and No. 1 intellectual pro-Nazi,”22 suffered the bitter humiliation of having thousands of copies of his popular books sent back to him in Grimstad by the citizens of occupied Norway.

17, So there are shoes whose soles are clotted with damp soil, and shoes that wander the art world; but what about the shoes that march together in step? Or shoes that get off on the wrong foot and are left behind? And what about Magritte’s impossible object, The Red Model? Does it also “function” perversely as an impossible fetish? He apparently liked the idea enough to borrow it for a second version in 1937. Having thoroughly modernized van Gogh with irony, Magritte said, “One feels, thanks to The Red Model, that the union of a human foot and a leather shoe arises in reality from a monstrous custom.”23
于是就有了鞋底沾满湿土的鞋子，也有在艺术世界里漫步的鞋子；但步调一致的鞋子又如何呢？或者鞋子落错了脚而被遗忘？那么马格利特的不可能之物——红色模型呢？它是否也反常地“发挥”了一种不可能的迷恋作用？他显然很喜欢这个想法，并于 1937 年借用了第二个版本。马格利特用讽刺的方式彻底使梵高现代化，他说：“由于《红色模型》，人们感觉人脚和皮鞋的结合出现在来自可怕习俗的现实。”23

苏珊娜·布鲁姆 (Suzanne Bloom) 和艾德·希尔 (Ed Hill) 是以 Manual 名义合作的艺术家。他们住在德克萨斯州休斯顿。
Suzanne Bloom and Ed Hill are artists who work collaboratively under the name Manual. They live in Houston, Texas.

——————————

NOTES

1. Martin Heidegger, “The Origin of the Work of Art,” Poetry, Language, Thought, trans. Albert Hofstadter, New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1971.

2. See Calvin O. Schrag, “The Transvaluation of Esthetics and the Work of Art,” in Robert W. Shahan and J. N. Mohanty, eds., Thinking about Being: Aspects of Heidegger’s Thought, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1984, p. 109.

3. Irving Stone, Lust for Life, 1934, reprint ed. New York: The Modern Library, 1984, p. 328.

4. In the French title the word “lacet” has a double play as both “shoelace” and “noose” or “snare,” representing for Jacques Derrida the trap that the shoes set for whoever tries to deal with them discursively.

5. Quoted in Helen Epstein, “Meyer Schapiro: ‘A Passion to Know and Make Known,’” Artnews 82 no. 5, New York, May 1983, p. 62.

6. Meyer Schapiro, “The Still Life as a Personal Object—A Note on Heidegger and van Gogh,” Reach of Mind: Essays in Memory of Kurt Goldstein, New York: Springer Pub. Co., 1968, pp. 203–9. Schapiro also discusses the shoes in “On a Painting of Van Gogh,” 1946, collected in Schapiro, Modern Art 19th and 20th Centuries, New York: George Braziller, 1982, p. 98.

7. Schapiro, “The Still Life as a Personal Object,” p. 206.

8. As of this writing, “Restitutions” exists in English in two distinct translations. The first —”Restitutions of Truth to Size, De la vérité en pointure,” trans. John P. Leavey, Jr., Research in Phenomenology 8, Atlantic Highland, New Jersey: Humanities Press, Inc. 1978 —is incomplete, for by the time of its publication Derrida had doubled the essay’s length and republished it in French in his book La Vérité en peinture (1978). The full text has since been translated as “Restitutions of the truth in pointing [pointure],” in Derrida, The Truth in Painting, trans. Geoff Bennington and Ian McLeod, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987, pp. 255–382. All references to “Restitutions” here are to the new translation.

9. John Walker, “Art History versus Philosophy: The Enigma of the ‘Old Shoes,’” Block no. 2, Cockfosters, Hertfordshire, England: Middlesex Polytechnic, Spring 1980, pp. 14–23.

10. John Berger, “A Chair, a Bed, a Pair of Boots,” The Village Voice, New York, 26 October 1982, p. 49.

11 . Fredric Jameson, “Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism,” New Left Review no. 146, London, July–August 1984, p. 58.

12. Jameson, in Anders Stephanson, “Regarding Postmodernism—A Conversation with Fredric Jameson,” Social Text 1 no. 17, New York, Fall 1987, p. 34.

13. The quotation is modified from Heidegger, in Nietzsche, vol. 1, The Will to Power as Art, San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers, 1979, p. 142. Heidegger is paraphrasing Nietzsche, who described the relation between art and truth as one of “discordance.”

14. Nancy Holland, “Heidegger and Derrida Redux: A Close Reading,” in Hermeneutics & Deconstruction, eds. Hugh J. Silverman and Don Ihde, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1985, pp. 219–26.

15. Heidegger, “The Origin of the Work of Art,” p. 34.

16. Derrida, p. 342.

17. Sigmund Freud, “Fetishism,” 1927, reprinted in Philip Rieff, ed ., Sexuality and the Psychology of Love, New York: Collier, 1963, p. 217.

18. Heidegger, “The Origin of the Work of Art,” p. 33. This hanging phrase acts as a segue between the two paragraphs Schapiro chose to quote in his own essay. Derrida describes the “And yet—” as “the most apparent scansion” in the crossing of the line between the inside and the outside of the painting. See “Restitutions,” p. 345.

19. Holland, p. 224. What Holland says about the shoes applies equally to the painting of the shoes, so that for “their,” one can read either “the shoes” or “the painting.”

20. Ibid.

21. Schapiro, “Still Life,” p. 205.

22. Time, 7 September 1942, p. 49.

23. Quoted in Suzi Gablik, Magritte, 1970, reprint ed. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1985, p. 123. Apropos Magritte’s observation, among its numerous definitions the word “boot” refers to an old device of torture. One of the different versions of this boot consisted of wet materials fastened to the legs and contracting painfully under the pernicious influence of fire.

https://www.artforum.com/features/borrowed-shoes-206250/

Reader86

五。(1)

Vincent Van Gogh: Vieux souliers aux lacets (有鞋带的旧鞋, 1886)

Jacques Derrida: Restitutions of the truth in pointing [pointure]


“POINTURE (Latin punctura), sb. fem. Old synonym of prick. Term in printing, small iron blade with a point, used to fix the page to be printed on the tympan. The hole which it makes in the paper. Term in shoemaking, glovemaking: number of stitches in a shoe or glove.” Littré


— What interested me, was finally to see explained from a certain angle why I had always found this passage of Heidegger’s on Van Gogh ridiculous and lamentable. So it really was the naïveté of what Schapiro rightly calls a “projection”. One is not only disappointed when his academic high seriousness, his severity and rigor of tone give way to this “illustration” (bildliche Darstellung). One is not only disappointed by the consumerlike hurry toward the content of a representation, by the heaviness of the pathos, by the coded triviality of this description, which is both overloaded and impoverished, and one never knows if it’s busying itself around a picture, “real” shoes, or shoes that are imaginary but outside painting; not only disappointed by the crudeness of the framing, the arbitrary and barbaric nature of the cutting-out, the massive self-assurance of the identification: “a pair of peasants’ shoes”, just like that! Where did he get that from? Where does he explain himself on this matter? So one is not only disappointed, one sniggers. The fall in tension is too great. One follows step by step the moves of a “great thinker”, as he returns to the origin of the work of art and of truth, traversing the whole history of the West and then suddenly, at a bend in a corridor, here we are on a guided tour, as schoolchildren or tourists. Someone’s gone to fetch the guide from the neighboring farm. Full of goodwill. He loves the earth and a certain type of painting when he can find himself in it [quand il s’y retrouve]. Giving up his usual activity he goes off to get his key while the visitors wait, slowly getting out of the coach. (There is a Japanese tourist among them, who in a moment will ask a few questions of the guide, in a stage whisper.) Then the tour begins. With his local (Swabian) accent, he tries to get the visitors going (he sometimes manages it and each time this happens he also trembles regularly, in time), he piles up the associations and immediate projections. From time to time he points out of the window to the fields and nobody notices that he’s no longer talking about painting. All right. And one says to oneself that the scene, the choice of the example, the procedure of the treatment, nothing in all this is fortuitous. This casual guide is the very person who, before and after this incredible tirade, carries on with his discourse on the origin of the work of art and on truth. It’s the same discourse, it has never been interrupted by the slightest digression (what all these professorial procedures with regard to the shoes are lacking in, moreover, is the sense of digression: the shoes have to make a pair and walk on the road, forwards or backwards, in a circle if pushed, but with no digressions or sidesteps allowed; now there is a link between the detachability of the step and the possibility of the digressive). I see that your are shocked, in your deference, by the scene which I have, how shall I put it— projected.

From: Jacques Derrida: The truth in painting. Translated by Geoff Bennington and Ian McLeod. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press 1987. 255, 292-3.

Reader86

五。(2)

雅克·德里达：在指出中恢复真理[pointure]

POINTURE（拉丁语punctura），sb。 女性。 刺的旧同义词。 印刷中的术语，有尖头的小铁刀，用来将要印刷的页面固定在鼓膜上。 它在纸上形成的孔。 制鞋、手套制造中的术语：鞋子或手套的针数。Littré

我感兴趣的，是终于能从某个角度解释为什么我一直觉得海德格尔论梵高的这段话可笑可悲。 所以这确实是夏皮罗正确地所说的投射的天真。 当他在学术上的高度严肃性、他的严肃性和语气严谨让位于这个插图（bildliche Darstellung）时，人们不仅会感到失望。 人们不仅会因消费者急于了解表现形式的内容而感到失望，也会因悲情的沉重而失望，也会因这种描述的编码琐碎而感到失望，这种描述既超载又贫乏，而且人们永远不知道它是否在忙于一幅图画。 真实的鞋子，或者是虚构的但在绘画之外的鞋子； 不仅对框架的粗糙、剪裁的随意性和野蛮性、对身份的巨大自信感到失望：一双农民鞋，就是这样！ 他从哪里得到的？ 他在哪里对这件事做出解释？ 因此，人们不仅失望，还窃笑。 张力下降太大了。 一步步跟随一位伟大思想家的脚步，回到艺术作品和真理的本源，穿越整个西方历史，然后突然，在走廊的拐角处，我们被引导到了这里。作为学童或游客游览。 有人去附近的农场取指南。 充满善意。 当他发现自己身处其中时，他热爱大地和某种类型的绘画。 他放弃了平常的活动，在游客们等待的时候去拿钥匙，慢慢地下了客车。 （其中有一位日本游客，他一会儿会小声地向导游问几个问题。） 然后旅行开始。 他用当地（施瓦本）口音试图让参观者继续前进（他有时能做到这一点，每次发生这种情况时，他也会及时地颤抖），他堆积了联想和即时预测。 他时不时地指着窗外的田野，没有人注意到他不再谈论绘画。 好的。 人们对自己说，场景、例子的选择、治疗的过程，这一切都不是偶然的。 这位随意的导游正是在这段令人难以置信的长篇大论之前和之后继续谈论艺术作品的起源和真理的人。 同样的话语，从来没有被丝毫的题外话打断（所有这些关于鞋子的教授程序所缺乏的，就是题外话的感觉：鞋子必须做一双，走在路上，向前或向后，如果被推动则绕圈，但不允许离题或回避；现在步骤的可分离性和离题的可能性之间存在联系）。 我看到你对我所看到的场景感到震惊，我该如何表达它的投影呢？

Reader86

六。（1）

Staging Martin Heidegger as a tourist guide: Jacques Derrida‘s ”Restitutions of the truth in pointing [pointure]”

Nico Daniel Schlösser

1，I have always admired the beautiful eloquence with which Jacques Derrida, in the short passage quoted above, molds his philosophical critique of Martin Heidegger’s The Origin of the Work of Art (1935/36) into a genuinely literary form.


2，The passage is an excerpt from Derrida’s text “Restitutions of the truth in pointing [pointure],” the last chapter of the book The Truth in painting, originally published by Derrida in 1978. In this chapter, Derrida restages and comments on a sort of duel which takes place between Heidegger and Meyer Schapiro, an American art historian. In his article “The Still Life as a Personal Object,” Schapiro argues that Heidegger, in The Origin of the Work of Art, projects his (national socialist) ideology of the primordial and earthy into Vincent Van Gogh‘s painting Vieux souliers aux lacets (1886) by attributing the shoes depicted to a peasant woman. Schapiro, on his part, claims: ”They are the shoes of the artist“ (Schapiro 205), that is, they are Van Gogh’s own shoes.


3，For Derrida (or Derrida‘s text), there is projection on both sides. He agrees with Schapiro to the extent that Heidegger’s pathetic verbalization of the truth disclosed in the painting reveals his proximity to national socialist ideology: ”From the dark opening of the worn insides of the shoes“ [ ] (Heidegger 159). The projection, Derrida asserts, rests on Heidegger‘s choice of object. The assumed content of the canvas meets Heidegger’s ideological tendency, he ”can find himself in it“ (Derrida 293). However, Derrida‘s critique of Heidegger goes further. He points out that Heidegger breaches his own philosophical stance.


4，As Derrida writes, Heidegger, in his endeavor to define the origin of the work of art, reaches back through the whole history of occidental philosophical thought in order to get beyond what he calls its ”rootlessness”[Bodenlosigkeit] (Heidegger 149). In his example of Van Gogh’s painting ‘and Heidegger does not specify which canvas he means“, ”the equipmental being of equipment“ (158), its truth, discloses itself in the moment of the isolation from its context of equipment. This is only possible in the work of art. Heidegger writes: “The essence of art would then be this: the truth of beings setting itself to work” (162). Later, Heidegger resolutely aims to distingish his thoughts from (rootless) subjectivism: ”Modern subjectivism, to be sure, immediately misinterprets creation, taking it as the sovereign subject‘s performance of genius“ (200). He asserts: ”The truth that discloses itself in the work can never be proved or derived from what went before“ (200).


5，Nevertheless, without any further explication and, in Derrida’s words, ”with massive self-assurance” (Derrida 293), Heidegger dictates the content of the painting: “a pair of peasant shoes“(Heidegger 158). Heidegger, the interpreting subject, is able to easily and clearly identify the object which Van Gogh, the creating subject, had intented to represent. Moreover, he refers to Van Gogh's canvas as ”pictorial representation“ [bildliche Darstellung] (158), thereby evoking the abolished theory of art as mimetic representation. Satirizing his analysis of Heidegger‘s aberration, Derrida adopts an everyday concept and transforms it into the embodiment of both the Cartesian subject par excellence and the most adequate representative of mimetic theory: He stages Martin Heidegger as a tourist guide.


6，Derrida skillfully plays with Heidegger's personality. Heidegger, not exactly of a modest but serious character, had a preference for pathos, and he was very attached to Germany's Black Forest region (for instance, Heidegger did not accept several calls to Berlin). In the ridiculous role of a tourist guide, Heidegger performs as the knowing subject, revealing the truth to his listeners by anchoring the representation to its origin, enriching his speech with details and associations. Heidegger trembles, regularly overwhelmed by his own performance.


7，However, one could make objections against Derrida's critique of Heidegger's use of aesthetic theories he aims to overthrow. Heidegger explicitly points out that he is describing his example “without any philosophical theory” (158). Still, Derrida’s critique concerns Heidegger‘s general philosophical approach. He is opposed to Heidegger’s somehow mythical attempt to define the origin of the work of art, he questions his claim of a totally determinable truth. As Derrida comments: [] ”nothing in all this is fortuitous“ (Derrida 293).8, For Derrida, the term pointure, due to its polysemy, is a synonym for rest, for something which is annexed to any substantialistic assertion. That is his fundamental opposition to Heidegger. The truth, to use Van Gogh's painting as allegory, is always leaking, has always holes (see the shoes), and is process-related (see the coming and going of the shoelaces). Derrida's text, written as a discussion between several non-identifiable speakers, inscribes itself into the platonic tradition of maieutics. There too, only a partial truth is revealed, the end is always open.



9, The appropriate literary means for this philosophical stance is digression. The whole satirical paragraph about Heidegger as tourist guide can be read in that sense. It seems as if Derrida is drifting away from his comment on the duel between Heidegger and Schapiro. But in doing so, he is able to elaborate his philosophical critique of Heidegger. The use of the literary form of digression itself is its expression.



10, Given Derridas stance, it is obvious that my reading can merely be one possible understanding of Derrida's beautiful text. Always incomplete, it has to be continued. Just as Derrida puts it at the very end of the text:



A. It's just gone.                                       A. Ça vient de partir.



B. It's coming round again.                                B. Ça revient de partir.



C. It's just gone again. (Derrida 382)                 C. Ça vient de repartir.







Jacques Derrida: The truth in painting. Translated by Geoff Bennington and Ian McLeod. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press 1987.



Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings from Being and Time (1927) to The Task of Thinking (1964). Edited by David Farrell Krell. Revised and expanded edition. San Francisco: Harper 1993.



Meyer Schapiro: "The Still Life as a Personal Object" A Note on Heidegger and van Gogh." In: The Reach of Mind. Essays in Memory of Kurt Goldstein. Edited by Marianne L. Simmel. New York: Springer 1968, S. 203-209.

Reader86

六。（2）

将马丁·海德格尔安排为导游：雅克·德里达的“指向[pointure]中真理的恢复”

尼科·丹尼尔·施洛瑟

1，我一直很欣赏雅克·德里达在上面引用的那段短文中的优美口才，他将他对马丁·海德格尔《艺术作品的起源》（1935/36）的哲学批判塑造成一种真正的文学形式。


2，这段话摘自德里达的文本“Restitutions of the Truth in pointing [pointure]”，该书是德里达于1978年出版的《绘画中的真理》一书的最后一章。在这一章中，德里达对一个海德格尔和美国艺术史学家迈耶·夏皮罗之间发生了某种决斗。夏皮罗在他的文章《作为个人对象的静物》中指出，海德格尔在《艺术作品的起源》中将他的（国家社会主义）原始和朴实的意识形态投射到文森特·梵高的画作《旧系带鞋》中。 1886）将所描绘的鞋子归因于一位农妇。夏皮罗则声称：“它们是艺术家的鞋子”（夏皮罗 205），也就是说，它们是梵高自己的鞋子。


3，对于德里达（或德里达的文本）来说，两边都有投影。他同意夏皮罗的观点，即海德格尔对画作中揭示的真相的可悲的言语揭示了他与国家社会主义意识形态的接近：“来自鞋子磨损内部的黑暗开口”[]（Heidegger 159）。德里达断言，这种投射取决于海德格尔对对象的选择。画布的假定内容符合海德格尔的意识形态倾向，他“可以在其中找到自己”（德里达293）。然而，德里达对海德格尔的批判更进一步。他指出海德格尔违背了他自己的哲学立场。


4，正如德里达所写，海德格尔在努力定义艺术作品的起源时，追溯了整个西方哲学思想的历史，以超越他所说的“无根性”[Bodenlosigkeit] (Heidegger 149) 。在他以梵高的画作为例时，“海德格尔并没有具体说明他指的是哪一幅画布”，“装备的装备存在”（158），它的真理在与装备背景分离的时刻显现出来。这只有在艺术作品中才有可能。海德格尔写道：“艺术的本质就是这样：存在让自己发挥作用的真理”（162）。后来，海德格尔坚决致力于将自己的思想与（无根的）主观主义区分开来：“现代主观主义无疑立即误解了创造，将其视为主权主体天才的表现”（200）。他断言：“作品中揭示的真相永远无法被证明或从之前发生的事情中推导出来”（200）。


5，尽管如此，在没有任何进一步解释的情况下，用德里达的话说，“带着巨大的自信”（德里达293），海德格尔口述了画作的内容：“一双农民鞋”（海德格尔158）。作为解释主体的海德格尔能够轻松、清晰地识别作为创造主体的梵高所要再现的客体。此外，他将梵高的画布称为“绘画再现”[bildliche Darstellung]（158），从而唤起了已被废除的艺术理论作为模仿再现。德里达讽刺了他对海德格尔失常的分析，采用了一个日常概念，并将其转化为笛卡尔主体的卓越体现和模仿理论的最充分代表：他将马丁·海德格尔塑造为一名导游。

6，德里达巧妙地发挥了海德格尔的个性。海德格尔的性格并不谦虚，但却很严肃，偏爱悲情，而且他对德国的黑森林地区非常依恋（例如，海德格尔多次没有接听去柏林的电话）。在导游这一荒唐的角色中，海德格尔扮演了认知主体，通过将表征锚定在其起源上，向听众揭示真相，用细节和联想丰富了他的演讲。海德格尔浑身颤抖，经常被自己的表现压垮。

7，然而，人们可以对德里达对海德格尔使用他旨在推翻的美学理论的批评提出异议。海德格尔明确指出，他在描述他的例子时“没有任何哲学理论”（158）。尽管如此，德里达的批评涉及海德格尔的一般哲学方法。他反对海德格尔以某种神秘的方式来定义艺术作品的起源，他质疑海德格尔关于完全可确定的真理的主张。正如德里达评论的那样：[]“这一切都不是偶然的”（德里达 293）。

8，对于德里达来说，由于 pointure 一词具有多义性，因此它是 rest 的同义词，是任何实体论断所附加的东西。这是他与海德格尔的根本对立。用梵高的画作为寓言，真理总是在泄漏，总是有洞（见鞋子），并且与过程有关（见鞋带的来来去去）。德里达的文本是几位无法辨认的说话者之间的讨论，它把自己铭刻在柏拉图式的助产术传统中。在那里，也只有部分真相被揭示，结局总是开放的。

9，这种哲学立场的适当文学手段是离题。关于海德格尔作为导游的整个讽刺段落都可以从这个意义上来理解。德里达似乎正在偏离他对海德格尔和夏皮罗决斗的评论。但这样做，他却能够详细阐述他对海德格尔的哲学批判。离题这一文学形式的运用本身就是其表达。

10，鉴于德里达的立场，显然我的解读只能是对德里达优美文本的一种可能的理解。它永远不完整，必须继续。正如德里达在文本的最后所说的那样：

A. 它只是消失了。A. Ça vient de partir。

B. 它又回来了。B. Ça revient de partir。

C. 它只是又消失了。（德里达 382）C. Ça vient de repartir。

雅克·德里达：绘画中的真理。由 Geoff Bennington 和 Ian McLeod 翻译。芝加哥和伦敦：芝加哥大学出版社 1987 年。

马丁·海德格尔：从《存在与时间》（1927 年）到《思考的任务》（1964 年）的基本著作。大卫·法雷尔·克雷尔编辑。修订和扩充版。旧金山：哈珀出版社 1993 年。

迈耶·夏皮罗：“静物作为个人物品”——关于海德格尔和梵高的注释。”在：《心灵的延伸》。纪念库尔特·戈德斯坦的论文集。玛丽安·齐美尔编辑。纽约：斯普林格出版社 1968 年，第 203-209 页。

Reader86

Restitutions of the Truth in Pointing [Pointure]

定位中真理的还原

还原鞋带中的真理

以下：Google Translate

对于德里达来说，“pointure”一词由于其多义性，是“休息”的同义词，是附属于任何实体论断言的东西。 这是他对海德格尔的根本反对。 事实，用梵高的画来比喻，总是有漏的，总是有洞的（见鞋子），而且与过程有关（见鞋带的来来去去）。 德里达的文本是由几个无法辨认的说话者之间的讨论而写成的，它把自己铭刻在柏拉图式的魔法学传统中。 在那里，也只揭示了部分真相，结局总是开放的。

表达这种哲学立场的适当的文学手段是题外话。 关于海德格尔作为导游的整个讽刺段落可以从这个意义上来阅读。 德里达似乎正在偏离他对海德格尔和夏皮罗之间决斗的评论。 但通过这样做，他能够阐述他对海德格尔的哲学批判。 题外话文学形式的运用本身就是它的表现形式。

鉴于德里达的立场，显然我的阅读只能是对德里达优美文本的一种可能的理解。 总是不完整，还得继续。 正如德里达在文末所说：

它就这样消失了。 它就这样离开了。

它又来了。 就像离开一样。

它刚刚又消失了。 （德里达 382）一切又开始了。


雅克·德里达：绘画中的真理。 由杰夫·贝宁顿和伊恩·麦克劳德翻译。 芝加哥和伦敦：芝加哥大学出版社 1987 年。

马丁·海德格尔：从《存在与时间》（1927）到《思考的任务》（1964）的基本著作。 大卫·法雷尔·克雷尔编辑。 修订和扩展版本。 旧金山：哈珀 1993。

迈耶·夏皮罗：《作为个人物品的静物——关于海德格尔和梵高的注释》。 在：心灵的触及。 纪念库尔特·戈德斯坦的散文。 玛丽安·L·西梅尔编辑。 纽约：Springer 1968，S.203-209。

Reader86

https://m.fx361.com/news/2019/0827/5470753.html

文艺批评视阈中的德里达及其来路

2019-08-27李蔚

哎，觉得他们翻译和理解哲学差太远了。

Reader86

pointé à rabaisser：pointed to belittle

scie a grecquer：greek saw

Reader86

POINTURE

Curated by Ann-Marie Tully and Jennifer Kopping

We cannot seal off the eternal. Unexpectedly and disturbingly, it gazes in at us through the sudden apertures in our patterned lives. A friend, who loves lace, often says that it is the holes in the lace that render it beautiful. Our experience has this lace structure

(John O’ Donohue).

Pointure is a metaphor mobilised by Jacques Derrida in his 1978 essay ‘Restitutions of the truth in pointing (Pointure)’, relating to the theoretical act of reading paintings, with particular reference to Martin Heidegger and Meyer Shapiro’s reading of Van Gogh’s painting/s of empty shoes. The term relates to printing in terms of the small pointed blade used to fix the page to be printed on to the tympan, as well as the hole that it makes in the paper. Derrida also links the practice of shoemaking with the term Pointure. In relation to the primary metaphor of Pointure, Derrida employs a trinity of sub-metaphors:1 the word ‘lace’ is the first of these, referencing to the lacing of a shoe. Lace textiles also come to mind. 2The French word for ‘lace’ is le lacet, which can also mean ‘trap’ or ‘snare’. In this sense Van Gogh’s empty shoes with open laces represent an empty trap, a vacuum of presence to delve into — where only ghosts can be found. 3 ‘Ghost’ is the final metaphor of Pointure.  

The curators employ the term Pointure as a less reductive textual and cultural means of discussing ‘material’ complexes of visual production, which too often is reduced into the failed terms of art/craft binaries. ‘Material practice’ is framed here as art media engaged with (but not limited to) stitching, suturing, puncturing, printing and weaving.

https://www.viad.co.za/pointure-2

Reader86

‘Restitutions of the truth in pointing (Pointure)’,

恢复有意向的真理（恢复相对性的真理）



恢复有意向（以及相对性）的真理


恢复针对性（以及相对性）的真理

Reader86

七。（1）

A summary of one key essay/chapter      

Filelaceholder

Suje Garcia

一篇关键论文/章节的摘要

文件：占位符

Suje Garcia

Derrida: Restitutions of the Truth in Pointing

德里达：指点真理的恢复

1，This essay examines and discusses the writing Restitutions of the Truth of Pointing [Pointure] by Jacques Derrida. One of the things I have come to understand about Derrida’s writing is that even his own arguments have a fatal flaw in which he seeks to provoke. He is also aware of this idea.
本文考察并讨论了雅克·德里达的著作《指点真理的恢复》。我对德里达著作的理解之一是，即使他自己的论点也存在一个致命的缺陷，他试图在其中挑起这个缺陷。他也意识到了这个想法。

2，The beginning explains Martin Heidegger’s interpretation of a painting by Vincent Van Gogh. It also elaborates on Diente gar nitche or a work of art not serving as it once did. While creating art may lead to perhaps one conclusion the future tense of the work presents new forms of information based on the time that the work is examined. The work may reveal new information based on the time in which it is examined.
开篇解释了马丁·海德格尔对文森特·梵高一幅画的解读。它还阐述了 Diente gar nitche 或一件艺术作品不再像以前那样发挥作用。虽然创作艺术可能会得出一个结论，但作品的未来时态会根据作品被审视的时间来呈现新形式的信息。作品可能会根据被审视的时间来揭示新的信息。

3，Heidegger explains that three things must be present in the work of art. All of these elements are fused together based on a particular conceptual mechanism. They must be present in the work of art. The three modes of being are Zeug or product, the natural thing, and the work of art.
海德格尔解释说，艺术作品中必须存在三件事。所有这些元素都基于特定的概念机制融合在一起。它们必须存在于艺术作品中。三种存在模式是 Zeug 或产品、自然事物和艺术作品。

4，Derrida discuses much of Heidegger’s idea about the three modes of being. He states that thing three is much like thing one in that they are both a Zeug, and product. Derrida explains that Heidegger is not interested in the work of art but more so focused on the striping down of things that are represented or presented.
德里达讨论了海德格尔关于三种存在模式的许多想法。他指出，第三种事物与第一种事物非常相似，因为它们都是 Zeug 和产品。德里达解释说，海德格尔对艺术作品不感兴趣，而更关注所代表或呈现的事物的剥离。

5，Another particular element within a work of art is the frame, which allows art to become supplementary. The example that they discuss is that shoes are no longer necessary if the feet are not present. The frame then creates another element of construction to either support or confuse its construction. Derrida states that shoes serve no longer what they once did once they become a work of art.
艺术作品中的另一个特殊元素是框架，它使艺术成为补充。他们讨论的例子是，如果没有脚，鞋子就不再是必要的。然后，框架创建了另一个构造元素来支持或混淆其构造。德里达指出，一旦鞋子成为一件艺术品，它们就不再像以前那样发挥作用了。

6，The greatest thing about Derrida is that he begins to examine many of the factors that are intertwined within a work of art. Here he discusses Klee’s nails that are used to stretch his canvases. He also examines the shoes that Heidegger discusses and refers to the sexuality that they represent. It is important to consider all of the information that is present within a work of art because it may lead or mislead one to believe certain things about artwork that perhaps may not have previously existed or because of its existence makes for a more understandable presentation. Here it is brought up that the shoes Heidegger is discussing refers to a bisexual sort of information. Not from a sexual perspective but rather the lack of information that leads one to believe masculine or feminine constructs.
德里达最伟大的事情是他开始研究艺术作品中交织在一起的许多因素。在这里，他讨论了克利用来拉伸画布的指甲。他还研究了海德格尔讨论的鞋子，并提到了它们所代表的性。考虑一件艺术品中存在的所有信息很重要，因为它可能会导致或误导人们相信艺术品中某些以前可能不存在的东西，或者因为它的存在而使呈现更加容易理解。这里提出，海德格尔讨论的鞋子指的是一种双性恋的信息。不是从性的角度，而是缺乏导致人们相信男性或女性构造的信息。

7，Derrida explains that often artwork is explained from one piece and not a body of work as a whole. He discusses that Heidegger examined one painting by Van Gogh and did not mention the other paintings, which were many, of the same subject by the same artist as well. Why were the shoes in Van Gogh’s painting even used? Derrida examine the question as to why did Heidegger not just use a drawn pair of shoes on a chalkboard to refer to the same information that he was after. Either one would have been suffice.
德里达解释说，艺术品通常是从一件作品而不是整个作品来解释的。他讨论说，海德格尔研究了梵高的一幅画，但没有提到同一位艺术家创作的同一主题的其他许多画作。梵高的画中为什么要用鞋子呢？德里达研究了这个问题：为什么海德格尔不直接用黑板上画的一双鞋来指代他所追求的相同信息。任何一个都足够了。

8，Town shoes would have been just as useful for the presentation of this argument as were the peasant shoes. Any discussion of a peasant shoe is irrelevant to the argument Derrida makes about the three modes of being. He begins to elaborate on the artist’s letter that was written in 1888 in which is discussed that the shoes presented in the paintings are that of the artist rather than those of a peasant person.
城镇鞋对于提出这一论点与农民鞋一样有用。任何关于农民鞋的讨论都与德里达关于三种存在方式的论点无关。他开始详细阐述艺术家 1888 年写的信，信中讨论了画中呈现的鞋子是艺术家的，而不是农民的。

9，Three dogmas are discussed about Shapiro who has also examined the text by Heidegger. Two entities define the shoes. They art the shoes and the artist. Secondly shoes are just shoes. The reference to feet suggests a reference to that of the body.
关于夏皮罗讨论了三个教条，他也研究了海德格尔的文本。两个实体定义了鞋子。它们是鞋子和艺术家。其次，鞋子就是鞋子。对脚的引用暗示了对身体的引用。

10，Derrida jumps around quite a lot here. He starts to question why other artwork was not considered in the discussion of the shoe painting. Magritte shoe paintings are brought up and discussed as to why they were not used. Derrida concludes by stating that Heidegger’s discourse on this particular topic is invalid. He uses the phrase “the law of dissymmetry is at work here.”
德里达在这里跳来跳去。他开始质疑为什么在讨论鞋画时没有考虑其他艺术品。马格利特的鞋画被提出并讨论为什么它们没有被使用。德里达最后说，海德格尔对这个特定主题的论述是无效的。他使用了“不对称定律在这里发挥作用”这个短语。

11，This article is a good example of how Derrida think and breaks down the text that may have perhaps lead others to false conclusion. It seems as if there is more at work quite often more that any of us realize.
这篇文章很好地展示了德里达如何思考和分解文本，而这些文本可能会导致其他人得出错误的结论。似乎有更多因素在起作用，而且往往比我们意识到的还要多。

Reader86

七。（2）

   Community

A summary of one key essay/chapter       
Edit
Filelaceholder

Suje Garcia


Derrida: Restitutions of the Truth in Pointing


1，This essay examines and discusses the writing Restitutions of the Truth of Pointing [Pointure] by Jacques Derrida. One of the things I have come to understand about Derrida’s writing is that even his own arguments have a fatal flaw in which he seeks to provoke. He is also aware of this idea.

2，The beginning explains Martin Heidegger’s interpretation of a painting by Vincent Van Gogh. It also elaborates on Diente gar nitche or a work of art not serving as it once did. While creating art may lead to perhaps one conclusion the future tense of the work presents new forms of information based on the time that the work is examined. The work may reveal new information based on the time in which it is examined.

3，Heidegger explains that three things must be present in the work of art. All of these elements are fused together based on a particular conceptual mechanism. They must be present in the work of art. The three modes of being are Zeug or product, the natural thing, and the work of art.

4，Derrida discuses much of Heidegger’s idea about the three modes of being. He states that thing three is much like thing one in that they are both a Zeug, and product. Derrida explains that Heidegger is not interested in the work of art but more so focused on the striping down of things that are represented or presented.

5，Another particular element within a work of art is the frame, which allows art to become supplementary. The example that they discuss is that shoes are no longer necessary if the feet are not present. The frame then creates another element of construction to either support or confuse its construction. Derrida states that shoes serve no longer what they once did once they become a work of art.

6，The greatest thing about Derrida is that he begins to examine many of the factors that are intertwined within a work of art. Here he discusses Klee’s nails that are used to stretch his canvases. He also examines the shoes that Heidegger discusses and refers to the sexuality that they represent. It is important to consider all of the information that is present within a work of art because it may lead or mislead one to believe certain things about artwork that perhaps may not have previously existed or because of its existence makes for a more understandable presentation. Here it is brought up that the shoes Heidegger is discussing refers to a bisexual sort of information. Not from a sexual perspective but rather the lack of information that leads one to believe masculine or feminine constructs.

7，Derrida explains that often artwork is explained from one piece and not a body of work as a whole. He discusses that Heidegger examined one painting by Van Gogh and did not mention the other paintings, which were many, of the same subject by the same artist as well. Why were the shoes in Van Gogh’s painting even used? Derrida examine the question as to why did Heidegger not just use a drawn pair of shoes on a chalkboard to refer to the same information that he was after. Either one would have been suffice.

8，Town shoes would have been just as useful for the presentation of this argument as were the peasant shoes. Any discussion of a peasant shoe is irrelevant to the argument Derrida makes about the three modes of being. He begins to elaborate on the artist’s letter that was written in 1888 in which is discussed that the shoes presented in the paintings are that of the artist rather than those of a peasant person.

9，Three dogmas are discussed about Shapiro who has also examined the text by Heidegger. Two entities define the shoes. They art the shoes and the artist. Secondly shoes are just shoes. The reference to feet suggests a reference to that of the body.

10，Derrida jumps around quite a lot here. He starts to question why other artwork was not considered in the discussion of the shoe painting. Magritte shoe paintings are brought up and discussed as to why they were not used. Derrida concludes by stating that Heidegger’s discourse on this particular topic is invalid. He uses the phrase “the law of dissymmetry is at work here.”

11，This article is a good example of how Derrida think and breaks down the text that may have perhaps lead others to false conclusion. It seems as if there is more at work quite often more that any of us realize.

https://derrida.fandom.com/wiki/ ... e_key_essay/chapter

Reader86

（Restitutions of the Truth in Pointure，Restitutions de la vérité en pointure）