海德格尔与夏皮罗就梵·高的画作《鞋》所进行的争论是现代艺术史上的一桩著名公案。前者主张对作品进行无成见的直观,后者则采取有成见的理解方法,两种方法分别源自现象学和解释学。不同的方法导致不同的结果,海德格尔之误在于没有严格实行现象学还原,以致把不合理的成见带入了作品;夏皮罗的成功则在于把现象学方法和解释学方法合理地统一起来,在对作品进行精细直观的基础上,合理地发挥了成见的作用。这场争论启示我们,对于艺术作品意义的理解应该:一是对作品进行无成见的直观,以确保作品的源初显现;二是有成见的理解,让合理的成见充分发挥其作用。只有这两种方法的综合运用,才能使作品的意义得到合理的阐释。 Heidegger and Shapiro’s Van Gogh painting “shoes” debate is a famous public case in the history of modern art. The former advocates a non-prejudiced visualization of the work, while the latter adopts a preconceived understanding method, which derives from phenomenology and hermeneutics, respectively. Different methods lead to different results. Heidegger’s mistake lies in not rigorously carrying out phenomenological reduction, so that unreasonable prejudices are brought into the work. Shapiro’s success lies in the rational unification of phenomenological methods and hermeneutic methods Up, on the basis of the subtle and intuitive works, it has played a reasonable role in prejudice. This controversy has inspired us to understand that the meaning of works of art should be: First, to make work without intuition and intuition in order to ensure the source of the works appear at first; second, there are prejudices and understandings so that rational prejudices can give full play to their role. Only the combined use of these two methods can make the meaning of the works be reasonably explained.