Heidegger insists on the seemingly obvious when he remarks that whatever else a work of art may be, it is a thing. To be sure, it is not just that: it is a thing that has been made, a work, and not just a work, but one that in a distinctive way points beyond itself. Traditionally the work of art has thus been understood as an allegory or a symbol. But whatever else it may be, the work of art is also, Heidegger here insists, a thing: work of art = thing + artistic addendum, however that is to be understood. With reference to Kant, I pointed out that such insistence on the thingly character of the work of art is not at all as unproblematic as Heidegger here seems to take it. Heidegger's turn to the thing demands thoughtful questioning.