Para chłopskich butów i nic więcej. Heidegger – Schapiro – Derrida

One of the most famous parts of Heidegger's The Origin of the Work of Art is the passage in which he refers to the painting by van Gogh, which represents a pair of worn-out shoes. Considering the artist's oeuvre, the aforementioned painting did not seem to have a crucial significance, yet it elicited the most attention. The non-canonical and poetic interpretation by Heidegger has led to fierce criticism by art historian Meyer Schapiro. The discussion between the philosopher and art historian was understood as a collision of different methodologies. Schapiro accused Heidegger of a misinterpretation as he attributed the painted shoes to a peasant woman. In Schapiro's view, Heidegger's interpretation was a type of false projection that was not grounded in facts. Schapiro proposes the reading in which the painted object is intertwined (or interlaced) with the artist to the extent that it becomes a metonymic self-portrait. Schapiro's reattribution changes the painting's interpretation in the context of the origins of the represented object but also the class and gender of its owner. Also, by referring to a "relic," Schapiro seemed to open up the possibility of a theological interpretation; however, he did not elaborate on this matter. In his "polylogue" Derrida reflected on both interpretations, tracing their inconsistencies and accusing both authors of violence. The present article takes into account each of these texts to reflect on the ethics and limitations of interpretation, the origins of truth in painting, and the origin of the shoes depicted in van Gogh's artwork – as in this particular matter, all of those issues seem interlaced.