The Philosophy of Fine Art, volume 3 (of 4): Hegel's AesthetikHegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
Philosophy
The Philosophy of Fine Art, volume 3 (of 4): Hegel's Aesthetik
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
Aesthetics
(_γγ_) From this it is clear that though no doubt walls may serve as
support, yet, for the reason that the function of support is already
independently performed by columns, they must, on their part in
finished classical architecture be accepted as essentially having for
their object the enclosure. If they are taken as columns are taken, to
provide means of support, the essentially distinct defining functions
of these latter are not, as is most desirable, performed also as by
distinct constituent parts of the building[90], and the conception of
what walls ought to provide is impaired and confused. We consequently
find even in temples that the central hall, where the statue of the
god was placed, to enclose which was the main object, is often left
open in the upper part. If, however, a roofing is required, the claims
of the lofty style of beauty made it necessary that the same should
be supported independently. In other words the direct imposition of
entablature and roof on the enclosing walls is purely a matter of
necessity and need; it is not appertinent to free architectural beauty,
because in the art of classical buildings we require as means of
support neither partitions nor walls, which would be rather derogatory
to the design in so far as--we have already noticed the fact--they
put together contrivances and a wall-space of greater extent than is
actually necessary.
These would be the main distinguishing features which in classical
architecture we have to keep apart.
(_c_) Although we may then, on the one hand, declare it as a principle
of first importance that the distinctions which have been summarily
indicated must appear with their _differences_ emphasized, it is
equally necessary on the other that they should be _united in a whole._
We will shortly, in conclusion, draw attention to this union which in
architecture will be rather and simply a juxtaposition, association,
and a thorough eurhythmy of the entire construction. Generally speaking
the Greek temple buildings present an aspect which both satisfies, and
if we may use the expression, sates us to the full.
(_α_) There is no soaring up, but the whole just expands on the broad
level and is extended without particular elevation. In order to view
the building's face it is barely necessary to raise the sight with
intention; it is, on the contrary, allured to the bare expanse, while
the building art of Germany in the Middle Ages strives up almost
without mass and soars. Among the ancients breadth, regarded as secure
and convenient foundation on the earth, is the main thing. Height is
rather borrowed from the height of man, and merely is increased in
proportion as the building increases in breadth and width.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account