Hegel's Infuriating History

Hegel obviously has some very strict ideas about the progression of art throughout history. In his lectures on aesthetics, he dives into a three-part chronology of art and gives us a simple model to follow with detailed instructions behind every choice. In terms of “better art” the three stages, Symbolic, Classical, and Romantic, are presented in a sort of bell curve of quality. Symbolic and Romantic art are the lesser than Classical art because they lack the balance of content and form that works that classic sculptures have. Between the lesser two genres, Symbolic art has more form than content (i.e. the Egyptian Pyramids) and Romantic art has more content than can be properly expressed in any artistic form. I found myself distracted while reading this section of the “CAR;” I was getting sidetracked finding examples and explanations to disprove this theory, even if it only existed for Hegel to show the development of the Ideal in a few forms of art and not to provide a full art history lesson with only three examples. Still, when the more complex reasoning behind the categorization of the Symbolic, Classical, and Romantic was revealed, I only became more entangled in trying to disprove Hegel.

Hegel explains the futility of Symbolic art in that it grasps for its content after setting out with the form already in hand. That is, the artist acts as one student would when he or she has no clue what their thesis is going to be and yet begins to write pages and pages in search of their own argument. Having experienced that exact feeling, and having learned since then to always have a solid thesis before beginning my writing, I see exactly where Hegel is coming from with this point. I do think however that Hegel’s staunch Christian beliefs have something to with his portrayal of ancient ideals as being merely abstract, that is, arbitrary and without effective shape.

Again I tended to side with Hegel in terms of the Romantic period having an imbalance of content over form. Reading Romantic literature and poetry in my high school English classes single-handedly convinced me that I was not set out to be an English major at Rhodes. On the other hand, in my Music 101 class last semester, I found Romantic music to be robust and effective in making me feel the emotions exactly as it seemed the composer wanted to. Perhaps Hegel would respond that my feeling was merely my heart manifesting itself in itself, and not in the true reality. His lecture notes state that in Romantic Art, the external medium is abandoned of any essence or meaning, for the content is so internally spiritual that it is unable to be fully expressed by our art forms. Here lies his idea that some concepts are simply better sensible than others, hence Classical art and its perfection of the unity between content and form.

I’ll come right out with it: the idea that spirit of the idea of beauty is assumed best in a human body, and in fact only appears satisfyingly in the shape of a body, makes me cringe. Hegel poses that the spirit that must be conveyed in this type of art must not be absolute or eternal, but rather human and particular. In response, I do not see Romantic art as always dealing with absolute or eternal ideas itself, and the limiting of art to the basic idea (singular, basically) of humanity, and limiting the expression to a depiction of the human body, is an undeniably depressing idea for me to behold. The balance between form and content is something that makes sense when we look at what we say is “good art,” although I think you will find that it is more like a scale in Aristotle’s sense of a golden mean. That is, the meter could be leaning towards one side or another depending on the emotion being expressed and whether or not the artist has a specific way in mind for showing you said emotion.

I agree with the Hegel’s idea of good and bad art within the balance or imbalance of content and form, respectively, but I cannot say that the strict manner in which he applied those ideas makes sense to me. It seems to me as if there is simply a boundary on either side that should not be crossed, given the idea on display, rather than the best art being the one that achieves the perfect balance. The latter seems both objective and in conflict with the way we as humans perceive works of art.