Talk:The Origin of the Work of Art

Philosophy: Literature / Aesthetics / Continental Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Aesthetics
	Continental philosophy

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Germany Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Introduction

"Heidegger drafted the text between 1935 and 1937, reworking it for publication in 1950 and again in 1960. Heidegger based his article on a series of lectures he had previously delivered in Zurich and Frankfurt during the 1930s."

There are some drafts of this work in the Heidegger Studies (Heidegger-Studies 5, 1989, p. 5-22) that Heidegger himself claimes to be written in 1931/32 (See Martin Heidegger / Elisabeth Blochmann, Joachim Storck (Hrsg.): Briefwechsel 1918-1968, Marbach 1989, p. 87.). As far as I know he then did one lecture in Freiburg 1935 (not Zürich) and after that three lectures in Frankfurt am Main 1936, these three were used for publication. -- Tischbeinahe (talk) φιλο 08:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

""World," a notion that comes to mean "being," is a passive entity. "Earth," meaning "existence," is, instead, active. The world simply occurs while the earth actively exists." Does anyone find this problematic? I'm not sure in what sense the world is "passive", except in that one existing within the world does not choose to live within it. The passing away and continual evolving of worlds is a major theme in the work, and results in the obsolescence of the work (as with the Greek temple). The earth, on the other hand, is associated with language of stability (it is, for example, something on which a world and an artwork can be "grounded", "founded"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.100.176 (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Influence and criticism

The discussion launched by Schapiro is rather underplayed and far from neutral. It is not known when Heidegger scribbled in the margin of the Reclam edition (first of 1960) a continuation to the sentence 'we cannot tell where these shoes stand': 'nor whom they belong to', an addition that later editions take care to mention, as Schapiro noted in a postcript (1980).91.92.179.172 (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation

I'm not opposed to having a quotation from Heidegger in this article, but quotations of any kind just don't belong at the very top of an article. It looks very strange and inappropriate. The quotation should be shifted if it is to remain in the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. it has no place in the lede of the article. It may be able to be integrated into the section on the Content of the text. 174.131.56.114 (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Sources

All but two sentences, minor points of the article, are based on an editor's interpretation of the essay. For this reason, the article has no credibility. My point is separate from any question of whether this editor's personal view is correct (I offer no opinion).

Somewhere in Wikipedia guidelines can be found a more full discussion of primary sources and how to use them. At any rate, there are ENTIRE BOOKS written about this essay.

2600:1702:39A0:3720:A9F5:EEA5:B81B:B58F (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]