The Philosophy of Fine Art, volume 1 (of 4): Hegel's Aesthetik
Georg Hegel · en
(_γγ_) Having regard, then, to this invariable failure, that is,
relative failure of human imitation as contrasted with the natural
prototype, we have no end left us but the pleasure offered by sleight
of hand in its effort to produce something which resembles Nature. And
it is unquestionably a fact that mankind are able to derive enjoyment
from the attempt to reproduce with their individual labour, skill, and
industry what they find around them. But a delight and admiration of
this kind also becomes, if taken alone[79], indeed just in proportion
as the copy follows slavishly the thing copied, so much the more icily
null and cold, or brings its reaction of surfeit and repugnance.
There are portraits which, as has been drily remarked, are positively
shameless in their likeness[80]; and Kant brings forward a further
example of this pleasure in imitation pure and simple to the effect
that we are very soon tired of a man--and there really are such--who
is able to imitate the nightingale's song quite perfectly; for we
no sooner find that it is a man who is producing the strain than we
have had enough of it. We then take it to be nothing but a clever
trick, neither the free outpouring of Nature, nor yet a work of art.
We expect, in short, from the free creative power of men something
quite other than a music of this kind, which only retains our interest
when, as in the case of the nightingale's note, it breaks forth in
unpremeditated fashion, resembling in this respect the rhythmic flood
of human feeling, from the native springs of its life. And as a general
rule this delight we experience in the skill of imitation can only be
of a restricted character; it becomes a man better to derive enjoyment
from that which he brings to birth from himself. In this respect the
invention of every insignificant technical product is of higher rank;
and mankind may feel more proud at having invented the hammer, nail,
and so forth, than in making themselves adepts as imitators. For this
abstract zest in the pursuit of imitation is on the same lines as the
feat of the man who had taught himself to throw lentils through a
small aperture without missing. He made an exhibition of this feat to
Alexander, and Alexander merely made him a present as a reward for this
art, empty and useless as it was, of a bushel of lentils.