that, in the midst of beings, truth itself should be as a work, should come to be in being (p. 37 above).

If we recollect how truth as the unconcealment of beings means nothing other than the presence of beings as such - that is, of being (see p. 45) - then the talk of the self-establishment of truth (i.e., of being) in beings touches on the questionableness [das Fragwürdige] of the ontological difference (compare Identity and Difference, pp. 47ff.). For this reason p. 36 of "The Origin of the Work of Art" sounds a note of caution: "With reference to the self-establishment of openness in the open our thinking touches on an area which cannot here be elucidated." The entire essay moves knowingly yet implicitly, along the path of the question of the essence of being. Reflection on what art may be is completely and decisively directed solely toward the question of being. Art is accorded neither an area of cultural achievement nor an appearance of spirit; it belongs, rather, to the Event out of which the "meaning of being" (compare Being and Time) is first determined. What art may be is one of the questions to which the essay offers no answer. What may give the imprecision of such an answer are directions for questioning (compare the first sentences of the Afterword).

Among these directions are two important hints (on p. 44 and p. 49). At both places there is talk of "ambiguity." On p. 49 an "essential ambiguity" is mentioned with respect to the definition of art as the "setting-to-work of truth." On the one hand, "truth" is the "subject," on the other the "object." Both characterizations remain "inappropriate." If truth is subject, then the definition "setting-to-work of truth" means the setting-itself-to-work of truth (compare p. 44 and p. 1 6). In this manner art is thought out of the Event. Being, however, is a call to man and cannot be without him. Accordingly, art is at the same time defined as the setting-to-work of truth, where truth now is "object" and art is human creating and preserving.

Within the human relation lies the other ambiguity in the setting-to-work which, on p. 44, is identified as that between creation and preservation. According to pages 44 and 33, it is the artwork and artist that have a "special" relationship to the coming into being of art. In the label "setting-to-work of truth," in which it remains undetermined (though determinable) who or what docs the "setting," and in what manner, lies concealed the relationship of being to human being. This relationship is inadequately thought even in this presentation - a distressing difficulty that has been clear to me since Being and Time, and has since come under discussion in many presentations (see, finally, "On the Question of Being" and the present essay p. 36 "Only this should be noted; that ...").