The Philosophy of Fine Art, volume 1 (of 4): Hegel's AesthetikHegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
Philosophy
The Philosophy of Fine Art, volume 1 (of 4): Hegel's Aesthetik
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
Aesthetics
(_a_) In virtue of this expression we at once exclude the beauty of
Nature from the scientific exposition of Fine Art. Such a limitation
of our subject may very well appear from a certain point of view as
an arbitrary boundary line, similar to that which every science is
entitled to fix in the demarcation of its subject-matter. We must not,
however, understand the limitation of "Aesthetic" to the beauty of art
in this sense. We are accustomed, no doubt, in ordinary life to speak
of a beautiful colour, a beautiful heaven, a beautiful stream, to say
nothing of beautiful flowers, animals, and, above all, of beautiful
human beings. Without entering now into the disputed question how far
the quality of beauty can justly be predicated of such objects, and
consequently the beauty of Nature comes generally into competition with
that of art, we are justified in maintaining categorically that the
beauty of art stands _higher_ than Nature. For the beauty of art is a
beauty begotten, a new birth of mind[2]; and to the extent that Spirit
and its creations stand higher than Nature and its phenomena, to that
extent the beauty of art is more exalted than the beauty of Nature.
Indeed, if we regard the matter in its formal aspect, that is to say,
according to the way it is there, any chance fancy that passes through
any one's head[3], is of higher rank than any product of Nature. For
in every case intellectual conception and freedom are inseparable
from such a conceit. In respect to _content_ the sun appears to us an
absolutely necessary constituent of actual fact, while the perverse
fancy passes away as something accidental and evanescent. None the
less in its own independent being a natural existence such as the sun
possesses no power of self-differentiation; it is neither essentially
free nor self-aware; and, if we regard it in its necessary cohesion
with other things, we do not regard it independently for its own sake,
and consequently not as beautiful.
Merely to maintain, in a general way, that mind and the beauty of art
which originates therefrom stand _higher_ than the beauty of Nature
is no doubt to establish next to nothing. The expression _higher_
is obviously entirely indefinite; it still indicates the beauty of
Nature and art as standing juxtaposed in the field of conception, and
emphasizes the difference as a quantitative and accordingly external
difference. But in predicating of mind and its artistic beauty a
higher place in contrast to Nature, we do not denote a distinction
which is merely relative. Mind, and mind alone, is pervious to truth,
comprehending all in itself, so that all which is beautiful can only
be veritably beautiful as partaking in this higher sphere and as
begotten of the same. Regarded under this point of view it is only a
reflection of the beauty appertinent to mind, that is, we have it under
an imperfect and incomplete mode, and one whose substantive being is
already contained in the mind itself.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account