The Possibility of Trace

In 1935 Martin Heidegger wrote ‘The Origin of the Work of Art’[1] in which he posited the concept that a relationship could be both critical and respectful, both detached and attached, at the same time. It was not until 1978 that Jacques Derrida was to take this philosophical idea in his complex polylogue, Restitutions of the Truth in Pointing[2] in which he formulated the concept of deconstruction. In this essay, Derrida deconstructs an argument between Martin Heidegger and Meyer Shapiro concerning the origin of a ghost haunting a pair of shoes in a Van Gogh painting. Derrida analyzes both Heidegger‘s position – who believes that the shoes are those of an unnamed peasant – and Mayer Shapiro‘s – who believes that the shoes belong to the artist Van Gogh. Despite both thinkers use very thorough arguments, in the end Derrida resolves that neither Shapiro nor Heidegger are right, because there is really no way to know to whom the shoes belong. Everything is a presumption of truth. ―nothing proves or can prove that “they are the shoes of the artist”. Derrida says. ―Each time you read  “they are clearly…,”  “this is clearly…,”  “are evidently…,” it does not signify that it is clear or evident, very much the contrary, but that it is necessary to deny the intrinsic obscurity of the thing, it ́s essential crypt, and that it‘s necessary to make us believe that it is clear, quite simply because the proof will always be lacking,[3] he says.