The Philosophy of Fine Art, volume 1 (of 4): Hegel's Aesthetik
Georg Hegel · en
There is, no doubt, plenty of material for art to appropriate of
higher grade than the representation of animal spirits and downright
citizenship in all their essentially insignificant detail. Man has
clearly more serious interests and objects than these, interests which
have unfolded as his own spirit has widened and deepened, and in
harmony with which it is his truest interest to remain. An art will
take highest rank which sets before itself the task of giving adequate
representation to this more vital, or at least more profound, content.
And here at once we are confronted with the old question, what is
the source which will supply us with the forms most fitting to such
creations of mind. On the one side theorists maintain the opinion that,
inasmuch as the artist creates these lofty ideas, which he desires to
clothe in artistic form, he must, also supply their artistic forms,
create, for example, from his imagination the ideal figures of Greek
gods, Christ, his apostles, saints, and so on. In strenuous opposition
to this view Herr von Rumohr has entered the lists. This writer is
of opinion that art is on a false track in supposing that the artist
discovers the forms of his production in himself rather than in Nature,
and it is under this conviction that he has reviewed the masterpieces
both of Italian and Dutch painters. On this head he finds it a matter
of censure ("Italian Investigations," i, p. 105) "that the theory
of art, during the sixty years which have elapsed, should be at the
pains to prove that it is an object, or rather the main object, of
art to improve upon creation as it is particularised, and by doing so
to substitute forms which have no particular relation to anything,
which would ape Nature's creation by going several points beyond her,
and release mortal man from all responsibility for the fact that
Nature has not known how to make her appearance more beautiful." And
consistently with such a point of view he further advises the artist
"to have nothing to do with the gigantic task of attempting to ennoble
or elucidate the natural form, or attempt any such exalted function
of the human Spirit under what name soever it may be written down in
works upon art" (_ibid._ p. 63). He is, in short, wholly convinced
that, however exalted and spiritual[293] the subject to be treated may
be, completely adequate forms are to be found in Nature as immediately
perceived, and consequently maintains (p. 83), "that the exposition of
Art, even in the case of subject-matter as highly _spiritual_ as it is
possible to conceive, is never indebted to a symbolism capriciously
created by man[294], but depends wholly for its consistency upon what
is presented as significant by Nature in organic form." No doubt in
advancing this Herr von Rumohr has particularly under review the ideal
types of antique art as they are expounded by Winckelmann. It is for
all that the abiding service of Winckelmann to have pointed out and