Van Gogh's a Pair of Shoes - Essay Example

Van Gogh's a Pair of Shoes Introduction Van Gogh remains a key and one of the most famous artists in the world, and most of his paintings are composed of shoes. His shoe painting that everyone believes was painted in 1886 has brought many contradictions amongst art historians, philosophers, and other artists. This painting shows a worn-out shoe that reveals the open innersole and the background that does not show much thus making it impossible to locate and identify the actual purpose of the painting1. The painting does not have a date thus creating more assumptions from its views. The lack of more information in the painting contributes to the animosity the debate about the article has generated. Different viewers have different opinions regarding the painting. Heidegger is a philosopher and uses his philosophy knowledge to evaluate and discuss the painting. His assumptions have generated different opinions from art historians and other artists. It is evident that some of his observations are true although most of his assumptions show that he bypasses major contributors and reason for the painting to escape critical questions that are hard to answer due to the limitation of the information the painting has2. This article evaluates Heidegger’s analysis of Van Gogh’s shoe painting identifying the major key points and the vague assumptions that have led to many artists and art historians to criticize Heidegger’s analysis. The article uses the arguments of Heidegger and that of other viewers who have aired their opinion on the painting to make it easier to distinguish the vague assumptions, and the interesting opinions involve in the argument. Later, the article will provide details on the key issues that Heidegger’s analysis did not consider to ensure that the analysis would be better and relevant enough thus reducing his critics. Purpose of the painting Heidegger claims that the main purpose of the painting is to portray things that can only be seen in paintings such as a shoe. He also states that the pair of shoes ensures the viewer is able to ask several questions regarding the owner of the shoes, the work of the owner, and the essence of the undetailed background of the painting. In his analysis, Heidegger assumes that the shoe belonged to a peasant woman who worked in the field3. He claims that the main purpose of the pair of shoes painting is to convey the actual world from the painting. Many art historians have criticized this assumption as it is evident that the shoe had some connection with Gogh thus the reason for the painting. Schapiro disagrees with the assumption that the shoe belonged to a woman. He also claims that Heidegger assumption indicates that he does not consider history in his analysis noting that women in the era the painting was drawn did not use this type of shoes. These women used smooth wooden shoes as portrayed in other paintings by Gogh. Schapiro argues that the assumption by Heidegger is based on the evidence that most of Gogh’s painting were portraits of women thus assuming that the worn-out shoes belonged to a peasant woman. Heidegger argues that it is evident that the shoes were in use but since the owner of the shoe is not portrayed in the painting, Heidegger believes that it is clear that any viewer of the painting should think of the owner4. He tries to imagine the shoe being worn by a peasant woman when she farms. He goes on to claim that the woman does not even look at the shoe while at work but she recognizes the shoe for the service it renders to her. Schapiro argues that the shoe must have belonged to Gogh since history and rumor claim that Gogh had bought the shoe in Paris in a flea market, but closer friends claim that the shoe was not Gogh. Schapiro argues that the shoe painting may have been a demonstration of Gogh’s humble life. He also claims that since there is inadequate information on the owner of the shoes, the shoes may have been owned by Gogh’s brother Leo5. He uses the races to indicate that the Gogh may have used the painting to show the bond between him and his brother. There are letters that Gogh wrote to Leo, but this evidence is not clear since it is not possible to communicate using letters if his brother lived with him in Paris. Heidegger also has a similar argument in his analysis. Although his assumption is vague since he does not prove the painting he is discussing when he claims that the shoes are not a pair but are paintings of two left foot shoes. Inadequate information about the painting leaves everyone to have different views on the owner of the shoes thus it making it hard to identify the essence of the painting. The unidentifiable background analysis Heidegger although, not an artist or art historians is correct that the background is unidentifiable and blames Gogh for such a bad painting. He states that the artist failure to portray a better background proves lack of essence in artwork and claims that the painting had no meaning6. Gauzi, who claims that the painting was a mere exercise by Gogh to improve his technique as Gogh undertook many studies to improve color combination and brush work, supports this assumption. The unidentifiable background compounded by the inadequate information on the painting makes Heidegger ignore important details. For instance, the social and political setting of the time of the painting and the exact date the painting was painted7. He claims that the date of the painting is not important as it adds no value in viewing the book. Important issues ignored by Heidegger in his analysis of Gogh’s shoe painting Fashion changes with time thus the most important issue ignored by Heidegger in his analysis are the date of the painting. He claims that the date did not provide any valuable details, but it would provide everyone with the most probable owner of the shoes. The date would ensure that using historical evidences, it would be clear to note if they were men or female. It would support his assumption that the pair of shoes belonged to a peasant woman who wore the type of shoes in the painting. Most people analyzing the painting should use historical evidences to know the time the shoes were fashionable since the painting has inadequate information. The date of the painting would provide information on the social setting of the owner of the shoes. This would make it easier to know if the owner worked on the field as Heidegger assumes, or his assumption was rare imaginations. The social setting will also help in generating the real purpose of the painting. It will prove the connection of the shoes to Gogh if there is any and the reason he chose this pair of shoes. Schapiro argument is similar in some way to Heidegger’s assumption of the shoes belonging to a peasant woman although in Schapiro’s case he argues that the shoes belonged to Gogh portraying his humble life. These assumptions indicate that the economic status of the owner of the shoes is of a low-income earner8. The exact social setting may be different since Gauzi argues that Gogh’s intention to buy the torn pair of shoes was to improve his artistic skills. The confusion about the reason and the owner of the shoes makes it imminent to know the exact date and social setting. This is because the date will help the viewers of the painting to know the political setting in place during the time of the painting. This will broaden the viewers, art historians and philosophers reasoning for the purpose of the painting. The painting may be a reflection of the crisis caused by political instability instead of the socio-economic status of the community. In avoiding criticism, the need to understand the real meaning of the painting needs to be based on a broader view than that Heidegger uses. Conclusion Heidegger’s use philosophy knowledge and reluctance to embrace art history is the main undoing in his analysis. He tends to prove to the world that the artistic view of the painting is irrelevant thus; ignoring major issues that would help identify the meaning of the painting. His argument is based on the assumption, and he does little to support his assumptions making it easier for people to criticize his work. Most of his assumptions are generalized making them irrelevant as he chooses to omit or not discuss in entirely the reason for his evaluations of the painting. It is vivid that he despises arts thus the reason he does not analyze the painting using professional language, but chooses to make vague and abusive words in proving that the Gogh was a poor artist. Heidegger notes that arts are a way to portray the real world9 and ensures that the viewer can identify the issues at hand by viewing the painting is rhetorical since he later tries to show the poor quality of the painting. This demonstrates his inability to analyze the painting without letting his ego overcome him. Lastly, it is wise for other viewers, arts historians and philosophers to use the available arts history and other historical evidences that will aid them to tackle the important issues ignored by Heidegger’s analysis instead of assuming everything and arguing without any prove. This will lead to a better analysis in the future thus the real meaning will be evident among other unanswered questions from the pair of shoes painting by Gogh. Bibliography Heidegger, Martin. 1970. The origin of the work of art. [Waterloo, Ont.]: [University of Waterloo]. Read More