The Philosophy of Fine Art, volume 1 (of 4): Hegel's Aesthetik
Georg Hegel · en
(_a_) This reflection has been responsible for the inference that the
function of fine art is to arouse feeling, more precisely the feeling
which suits us--that is, pleasant feeling. From such a point of view
writers have converted the investigation of fine art into a treatise on
the emotions and asked what kind of feelings art ought to excite--take
fear, for example, and compassion--with the further question how such
can be regarded as pleasant, how, in short, the contemplation of a
misfortune can bring satisfaction. This tendency of reflection dates
for the most part from the times of Moses Mendelssohn, and many such
trains of reasoning may be found in his writings. A discussion of
this kind, however, did not carry the problem far. Feeling is the
undefined obscure region of spiritual life. What is felt, remains
cloaked in the form of the separate personal experience under its
most abstract persistence[58]; and for this reason the distinctions
of feeling are wholly abstract; they are not distinctions which apply
to the subject-matter itself. To take examples--fear, anxiety, care,
dread, are of course one type of emotion under various modifications;
but in part they are purely quantitative degrees of intensity, and in
part forms which reflect no light, on their content itself, but are
indifferent to it. In the case of fear, for instance, an existence is
assumed, for which the individual in question possesses an interest,
but sees at the same time the negative approach which threatens to
destroy this existence, and thereupon discovers in immediate fusion
within himself the above interest and the approach of that negative as
a contradictory affection of his personal life. A fear of this sort,
however, does not on its own account condition any particular content;
it may associate with itself subject-matter of the most opposed and
varied character. The feeling merely as such is in short a wholly empty
form of a subjective state. Such a form may no doubt in certain cases
itself be essentially complex, as we find it is with hope, pain, joy,
and pleasure; it may also in this very complexity appropriate various
modes of content, as, for example, we have a feeling of justice, an
ethical feeling, a sublime religious feeling, and so forth; but despite
the fact that a content of this kind is present in different modes of
feeling, no light whatever is thereby thrown on such content which will
disclose its essential and definite character. The feeling throughout
remains a purely subjective state which belongs to me, one in which
the concrete fact vanishes, as though contracted to a vanishing point
in the most abstract of all spheres[59]. For this reason an inquiry
over the nature of the emotions which art ought or ought not to arouse,
comes simply to a standstill in the undefined; it is an investigation
which deliberately abstracts from genuine content and its concrete
substance and notion. Reflection upon feeling is satisfied with the