面对海德格尔与夏皮罗关于凡高《鞋》的争论,笔者认为:第一,艺术之思不同于艺术史研究,海德格尔艺术之思的任务是追问艺术的本质,而不是考察具体作品对象的所属;第二,物之所属不同于物之所是,搞错鞋之所属不会从根本上影响海德格尔的艺术本源之思;第三,夏皮罗判断鞋之所属的依据并不比海德格尔的依据更有效;第四,海德格尔的艺术真理观并非对艺术家在场的否定,它只是调整了艺术家在艺术世界整体中的位置。这个世界整体重建了艺术与神性领域、与民族历史世界、与大地自然根基的联系,体现一种更高的生态人文主义精神,导向一种更宽广的生态宇宙整体,而非民族主义、种族主义。海德格尔的艺术之思并非没有局限性,艺术哲学并非不需要与艺术史研究合作,但二者的合作必须以先行的平等对话与相互倾听为前提。 In the face of the controversy between Heidegger and Shapiro about Van Gogh’s “shoes”, the author thinks: First, the thinking of art is different from the research of art history. The task of Heidegger’s art is to ask the essence of art instead of inspecting The specific object belongs to the work; second, the object belongs to something different is that the fault of the ownership of shoes will not fundamentally affect Heidegger’s artistic origin of thinking; third, Shapiro determine the shoe belongs The basis is not more effective than Heidegger’s. Fourthly, Heidegger’s concept of artistic truth is not negation of the presence of artists. It merely adjusts the artist’s position in the whole world of art. This world as a whole has reconstructed the fields of art and divinity, linked with the historical world of the nation and with the natural foundation of the earth, embodying a higher ecological humanism spirit and leading to a broader ecological universe than the nationalism and race Doctrine Heidegger’s artistic thinking is not without limitations. Art philosophy does not need to cooperate with art history research. However, the cooperation between the two must be premised on the premise of equal dialogue and mutual listening.