从针锋相对到互为补充:基于阐释学视角对“海德格尔与夏皮罗之争”的再阐释

From Opposition to Complementarity:A Reinterpretation of the "Heidegger Versus Shapiro Controversy" Carried Out from the Perspective of Hermeneutics

国内学者对“海德格尔与夏皮罗之争”的探讨多从方法论入手,站在各自学科的立场进行衡量和判定,但宏观的解读并不利于阐明二者的分歧。只有从文本细读出发,聚焦海德格尔论及《鞋》这幅作品时的理论逻辑,继而循着夏皮罗对海德格尔的反驳、剖析其艺术史研究方法,才能澄清不同的阐释企图是造成二者分歧的根本原因。争论的理论价值在于其中所蕴含的对待艺术的态度和在艺术作品赏鉴中产生的阐释机制与效应,他们从不同层面和视角进行的分析表面看似针锋相对,实则互为补充。

Chinese scholars’ discussions on the "Heidegger versus Shapiro controversy" mostly concentrate on methodology and are grounded in their respective disciplines,but macroscopic interpretation is not conducive to clarifying the differences separating the two men and their respective ideas.Only by starting from close textual reading,focusing on Heidegger’s theoretical logic when discussing the work Shoes,and then turning our attention to Shapiro’s refutation of Heidegger and analyzing his art history research methods,may we find that different interpretative attempts lie at the root of the differences that separate the ideas of these two scholars.The debate’s core and theoretical value lies in the attitude toward art contained within it,as well as in the interpretative mechanism and effect produced in the appreciation of artworks.Their analyses from different levels and perspectives appear to be in opposition on the surface,but are actually complementary in essence.