Gadamer's Aesthetics

            In his concise argument, Hans-Georg Gadamer reinterprets the notion of aesthetics with having it subsumed by the science of hermeneutics. Gadamer’s conclusion of Aesthetics provides an interesting and unique position on understanding not only the meaning of art, but also the experience of art as a whole. This is a direct challenge to our previous reading of Kant and Hegel, which is not only refreshing, but is ultimately beneficial to us in determining a contemporary view on Aesthetics.

            In the beginning of his essay, Gadamer refers to Hegel’s description of art being an interpretation of the Absolute Spirit “that is, (Hegel) saw in art a form of Spirit’s self-knowledge in which nothing alien and unredeemable appeared, a form in which there was no contingency of the actual, no unintelligibility of what is merely given” (p.187). Gadamer quickly responds to his interpretation of Hegel’s aesthetics and explains that the historical presence and power of a work of art does not express any particular development of historical consciousness that is trapped by the historical period, but in fact, “the work of art always has its own present” (187) which can be seen as how the work of art speaks for itself rather than have to rely upon the voice of its creator. We cannot possibly imagine what the great sculptors were truly trying to say when they created the classical statues we see today, we can only come to understand our contemporary interpretation, which is to be intrinsically different than the interpretations of the ancient Greeks. Gadamer uses this transparency of interpretation in order to philosophize his greater intentions for the direction of his essay, namely, that the “hermeneutical perspective is all-encompassing” (191), so much so that to best see this universal power is by experiencing art.

            Hermeneutics original definition, according to Gadamer, is “the art of clarifying and mediating by our own effort of interpretation what is said by persons we encounter in tradition. Hermeneutics operates wherever whatever what is said is not immediately intelligible” (189). Hermeneutics works with language; the art of reflecting on interpretation is a method of trying to determine a greater understanding for the individual as well as for society. With the understanding of hermeneutics being a useful tool for philosophers, it is logical for Gadamer to inquire as to whether or not hermeneutics is a suitable method to incorporate in what many persons would argue is incapable of being described by language: the experience of art. As Gadamer understands the world, “the entire experience of the world is linguistically mediated” (189), thus including art itself. Art, according to Gadamer, speaks to whoever is interpreting the work of art. Gadamer calls the language art “is the language the work of art itself speaks, whether it is linguistic in nature or not. The work of art says something to the historian: it says something to each person as if it were said especially to him, as something present and contemporaneous” (190). Because of this power of the experience of art, Gadamer states that it is of the utmost importance to understand the meaning of what art says, and this is the reason why hermeneutics includes aesthetics, “Hermeneutics bridges the distance between minds and reveals the foreignness of the other mind” (190). Whether or not hermeneutics is the best method for bridging together minds is one aspect that is worth questioning, but for the sake of this blog post, must be discussed elsewhere.

            Gadamer then goes into discussing the experience of art itself in order to better understand how hermeneutics will bring about a greater understanding of art. “The work of art that says something”, according to Gadamer,  “confronts us itself. That is, expresses something in such a way that what is said is like a discovery, a disclosure of something previously concealed” (190). This sense of discovery is true to all persons, regardless of time or place, for art speaks to the “self-understanding of every person, and it does this as ever present and by means of its own contemporaneousness” (191). It is this contemporaneousness of a work of art that allows it to “come to expression in language” (190).  Because of this power of art, it cannot be understood that the artist is speaking to the viewer, for it is not the language of the artist that interests us, but is instead “the excess of meaning that is present in the work itself” (191).  To me this is an odd way of understanding art as itself, for how does one quantify meaning? Gadamer makes the statement “excess of meaning” and makes the claim that this excess is what allows for the inexhaustibility of the language of art.

            It is interesting to me that Gadamer rejects so much of previous philosophical works, and in all honesty, it is refreshing to see. Unfortunately Gadamer’s principle of hermeneutics seems to be too good to be true. I suppose it is just my skepticism showing through, but more study needs to be done on hermeneutics to truly understand the greater picture of Gadamer’s aesthetics. Either way, his essay shines a new light and gives me hope that there is work to be done in the field of contemporary aesthetics.