Mingjun Lu


In 1968, Meyer Schapiro wrote an article to argue against Martin Heidegger's statement about Van Gogh's painting of “shoes” in “The Origin of the Work of Art”, pointing out that the shoes in Van Gogh's painting were not as what Heidegger claimed the peasants' shoes, but actually the painter's. In addition, the shoes were only an object, rather than a reference to painting in itself. In 1990, Georges Didi-Huberman argues that Erwin Panofsky's “iconology”, which is highly transparent, intelligent and patterned, nevertheless ignores the details, parts and visual symptoms of painting (image). In Didi-Huberman's opinion, the latter elements of painting are its reality. In other words, if Schapiro hopes to release painting from the opacity of philosophy and return to the transparent art history, then Didi-Huberman aims at liberating images from the mechanism of transparency and returning to the opacity of image philosophy. Both “debates” engage the “original work” at varying degrees. However, their purposes are not to clarify the original in itself, but to reveal the dialectical relationship between transparency and opacity, as well as explore the premise for dialogue between art history and (art) philosophy.


art history, philosophy of art, image, transparency, opacity, secondary media

First Page


Last Page