Have you honestly read Heidegger? He doesn't say anything like that directly.
I took my master's degree in philosophy of Art,therefore I've had overdoses of Heidegger. I know he doesn't say it directly, I'm just being hyperbolic about his theory on the dynamics artist/creation. And of course does't say it directly in The Origin of The Work of Art, but we can sort of read between the lines kind of a subjugation of the artist to the impulse he has to create as a way to give meaning to the truth.
(sorry for the off topic reply, I'm a philosphy nerd. 
)
Count me in also! I've done basic studies in Philosophy at a University, plus, I've read especially Continental Philosophy for something like 2,5 years almost daily (rough estimate) for my Ph.D.
It's a beautiful article I think, of "setting up the world and setting forth the earth". But it also differs from self-creating or some hermetic relationship to art so common in bourgeois culture; it starts from life, doesn't reject life. Here are just some random observations about Heidegger I wrote (and his relationship with Japan and Finland), slightly OT:
H was obsessed with the question of meaning (going beyond the phenomenologists who didn't question the self-standing subject as eidos, neo-Kantians for holding on to transcendental-intersubjective epistemologies, and rejecting positivism). He was concerned that forms (or objects or signs or names) threatened to dismiss the question of Lebenswelt, i.e., individual subject's world experience (Dasein) that precedes, but is constantly threatened to get buried by, the form-making and/or social-acting. In this context, Heidegger remarked in the 1950s in his conversation with a Japanese professor that in Japan, people were not in a hurry to name and control things but rather liked the uncertainty and chaos often deemed "wrong" or uncomfortable by our rationalist-Christian culture.
Only practical knowledge, associated with this practical being-in-the-world, was certain in a way of being atheoretical, but even that was not without fore-interpretations. Regarding the rest, we're always "locked" in a circle of interpretation that gets "thrown" into various locations uniquely (but this is not a bad thing as such, unless one wants to treat oneself as objective). So, rather than deducing one's existence from surrounding concepts, names and ideas and emphasising similarity and communication, Heidegger emphasised (with Aristotle) the multiplicity of possibilities and the contingent presence of Dasein. Truth was life (as with Aristotle) and life was beyond controlling, labelling, etc. by constantly flowing over these "boxes", by revealing them, accommodating them; episteme or science could not reach it, it was larger than techne as technology, only phronesis, "practical wisdom", came close. At the same time, we are threatened by anxiety of death and limit (this is a very German idea also used by Freud) and we respond to these by filling our lives with order and new impulses.
Dasein existed in time, but also time was something that was not by being, and was by being not (again an Aristotelian view). Dasein and also life "precedes" truth as well as chronological time by acting as something more fundamental but at the same time as something spatiotemporal. By emphasising the public, social and chronological, this uniqueness and situatedness is threatened to get swept away and flattened out (I think this is a very valid point). We all fall victim to this; none can raise above it because we live in a society. But through resolution, we can approximate an origin via Ereignis but at the same time we lose it by taking control of it. That's why Heidegger even has words crossed out in his writings; once formed into words ("sense"), they lose their revealing character. "From what has been said, the sign of this crossing through cannot, however, be the merely negative sign of a crossing out. It points, rather, towards the four regions of the fourfold and their being gathered in the locale of this crossing through."
Here's a good article on Heidegger and the Japanese professor. I think especially intriguing is the silence part; at least Americans are generally very uncomfortable with silence. In Japan and Finland also, silence is nothing to be afraid of but rather can be something deeper than the "violence" words and action possess.
http://baharna.com/psychozoan/9802/silence.htm
