The Philosophy of Fine Art, volume 2 (of 4): Hegel's Aesthetik
Georg Hegel · en
In other words, what we understand by conscious symbolism is this,
that the significance is not merely independently cognized, but is
_expressly_ set forth as distinct from the external mode, in which it
is represented. The significance then appears, as in the case of the
Sublime, to receive an independent expression which is not essentially
in the actual embodiment given to it under the mode employed[78].
The relation, however, of both to one another no longer continues
to be, as in the type last examined, a mode of relation which is
fundamentally due to the significance itself, but is a more or less
haphazard association, which may generally be expressed as the product
of the _subjectivity_ of the poet, the absorption of his spirit in an
external object, the result of his wit or invention; a mode, in short,
which enables the poet at one time rather to make a beginning directly
from a sensible phenomenon, and to imagine for it from his own mind
a spiritual significance cognate with it, and at another to select
in preference as his point of departure the real or only relatively
personal idea, with a view to embodying the same, or even to do nothing
more than relate one image with another, which presents characteristic
features of resemblance.
This kind of linking together must consequently be distinguished from
that still naïve and _unconscious_ symbolism in virtue of the fact that
now the individual recognizes the inward essence of the significances
he adopts for the content of his creation no less than, the positive
nature of the external objects, which he employs as means of comparison
for the more direct presentment of the same, placing both in this
juxtaposition with clear intention owing to the similarity he has
discovered between them. The distinction, on the other hand, between
the present type and that of the Sublime is rather to be traced to the
fact that though under one aspect it may be true that the separation
and juxtaposition of the significances with their concrete shaping in
the work of art is itself set forth in express relief to a less or
higher degree, yet, on the other hand, for the reason that it is no
longer the Absolute itself that is accepted as content, but any defined
and restricted significance whatever, the typical relation of the
Sublime falls away, and in its place a relation is set up within the
act of severance thus intentionally made between the real significance
and its embodiment, a relation which in effect produces the very result
in the sphere of premeditated comparison that we found unconscious
symbolism in its own way proposed as an object.