In the Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art, in the CAR, G.W.F. Hegel
discusses three topics of the fine arts, these being the Spirit of art in
culture and ideals, the three main stages of the history of art (symbolic,
classical, and romantic), and finally the hierarchical structure of the forms
of art. Hegel is quick to separate himself from earlier philosophers by
criticizing the term aesthetics, to which he denotes it merely as “the science
of sensation”, claiming it to be “unsatisfactory” as well as “superficial”. He
makes his intentions clear that he is to scientifically analyze the beauty in
art, and thereby is participating in what he calls “Philosophy of Fine Art” (44).
As soon as he declares his intentions,
Hegel begins to limit his discourse, choosing to avoid discussing the
limitations and aspects of beauty in the natural world in order to focus on the
beauty in art, which he asserts to be “higher
than nature”, due to its being “born of
the spirit and born again, and the higher the spirit and its productions stand
above nature and its phenomena, the higher too is the beauty of art above that
of nature” (44). Hegel goes on to make the claim that spirit is the
over-arching power that embodies truth beauty, and anything cognizable. The
beauty of nature is only a mere reflection of the beautiful, and due to the
lack of science to be found of natural beauty, Hegel dismisses it and moves to
the division of the beauty of art.
In dividing the subject, Hegel
offers a revised selection of necessary requirements of art in order to “(show)
how the particular parts of the subject emerge from the conception of artistic
beauty as the presentation of the Absolute” (47). In order to show this, Hegel
argues that there must be a harmony between the two elements of the beauty of
art’s content and form in order to achieve an independent and “free reconciled
harmony”(47). Hegel divides the subject into three demands of art, the first
being “the content which is to come into artistic representation should be in
itself qualified for such representation”, the second, “derived from the first,
requires of the content of art that it be not anything abstract in itself, but
concrete, though not concrete in the sense in which the sensuous in concrete
when it is contrasted with everything spiritual and intellectual”, an the third
requirement of individuality so that it may be something completely concrete
and particular. It is with these requirements of art that the philosopher may
dig even deeper into the art form itself. Much like a miner with the proper
tools, the philosopher can excavate the Idea from the concepts of art as well
as its forms. Yet at the same time, although the philosopher may dig deeper,
more qualifications for separating the families of art from the genus.
Hegel explicates the familial
groupings of art so in order to show that there is a natural progression to the
history of art itself. For Hegel, art expresses the spirit of a particular
culture as well as the human spirit in accordance with the forms and content of
art. From the concrete unity of the Idea, Hegel categorizes three relations of
the Idea of art to its configuration. The first relation is the symbolic form of art. Hegel considers
the symbolic form of art to be the most primitive form of art that came about
by those Hegel considers being the most primitive of cultures. Symbolic art for
Hegel, is “the mere search for
portrayal than a capacity for true presentation; the Idea has not found the
form even in itself and therefore remains struggling and striving after it”
(50). The lack of the link for portrayal and true presentation gives reason to
why ancient and primitive works of art are so simplified in comparison to the
artworks of Ancient Greece and even of the Romantic era.
For each of the stages of art, Hegel
recognizes that each art is defined by the relationships between the content
and the concept. Symbolic art has too powerful of a concept that is improperly
represented by inadequate content. As a direct result, the form is distorted in
order to make room, or elevate itself, for the sake of the power of the Idea.
The second form, the classical, is rid of the “double defect of the symbolic
form” for the classical stage of artwork is the “free and adequate embodiment
of the Idea in the shape peculiarly appropriate to the Idea itself in its
essential nature” (51). Hegel exemplifies the classical stage with the
classical Greek sculpture, in which, according to Hegel, is the perfect and
idealized human form meeting with the ideal without any sense of distortion.
The spirit of the sculpture is determined as determined and as a particular
rather than absolute and eternal. It is this defect that the romantic stage
corrects, for rather than express a shallow notion, the romantic art stress a
depth of the “inwardness of self-consciousness” in order to realize the
spiritual freedom of spirit itself. The Idea is recognized as being greater
than that of the image, and the Idea is recognized more adequately than any
other form found before it.
From the establishment of the three
stages of art, Hegel moves onto arranging particular arts hierarchically with
having the most physical of arts, architecture, being the lowest, while having
the most spiritual of the arts, poetry, be the highest. Rather than get into
the hierarchy and its structure, I am curious to inquire about what a Hegelian
might say about contemporary art in the twenty-first century. Unfortunately I
am not aware of many modern artists, but I have noticed that street art is now
a prominent aspect of both urban culture as well as the culture in art. Would
Hegel make the claim that this is a return of a symbolic stage filled in with
an ambiguous spirit? The first thing that comes to mind is the “Obey” posters,
or even the art of Banksy. Both incorporate stencils and mimic propaganda, but
is spirit of the artwork overcoming the simplicity of the form? Or are the
Ideas of each artist overhang on the weakness of the form, thereby becoming
more spiritual?
No comments:
Post a Comment