The Introduction to Hegel's Philosophy of Fine Arts: Translated from the German with Notes and Prefatory Essay
Georg Hegel · en
([Greek: a]) The _first_ of the particular arts with which, according
to their fundamental principle, we have to begin, is architecture
considered as a fine art.[164] Its task lies in so manipulating
external inorganic nature that it becomes cognate to mind, as an
artistic outer world. The material of architecture is matter itself in
its immediate externality as a heavy mass subject to mechanical laws,
and its forms do not depart from the forms of inorganic nature, but
are merely set in order in conformity with relations of the abstract
understanding, _i.e._ with relations of symmetry. In this material and
in such forms, the ideal as concrete spirituality does not admit of
being realized. Hence the reality which is represented in them remains
contrasted with the Idea, as something external which it has not
penetrated, or has penetrated only to establish an abstract relation.
For these reasons, the fundamental type of the fine art of building
is the _symbolical_ form of art. It is architecture that pioneers the
way for the adequate realization of the God, and in this its service
bestows hard toil upon existing nature, in order to disentangle it from
the jungle of finitude and the abortiveness of chance. By this means it
levels a space for the God, gives form to his external surroundings,
and builds him his temple as a fit place for concentration of spirit,
and for its direction to the mind's absolute objects. It raises an
enclosure round the assembly of those gathered together, as a defence
against the threatening of the storm, against rain, the hurricane, and
wild beasts, and reveals the will to assemble, although externally, yet
in conformity with principles of art. With such import as this it has
power to inspire its material and its forms more or less effectively,
as the determinate character of the content on behalf of which it sets
to work is more or less significant, more concrete or more abstract,
more profound in sounding its own depths, or more dim and more
superficial. So much, indeed, may architecture attempt in this respect
as even to create an adequate artistic existence for such an import
in its shapes and in its material. But in such a case it has already
overstepped its own boundary, and is leaning to sculpture, the phase
above it. For the limit of architecture lies precisely in this point,
that it retains the spiritual as an inward existence over against the
external forms of the art, and consequently must refer to what has soul
only as to something other than its own creations.