Talk:The Origin of the Work of Art

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)

""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)

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)

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)

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)

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)