The Philosophy of Fine Art, volume 2 (of 4): Hegel's Aesthetik
Georg Hegel · en
The characteristic which is held in common by both aspects of this
relation, whether we view it positively or negatively, consists in this
that the substance is posited above the particular appearance, in which
it is assumed to have found a representation, although it can only be
declared thereby under the form of a relation to the phenomenal in its
general terms, for the reason that as substance and ultimate essence
it is itself essentially without form and out of the reach of concrete
external existence. We may describe _pantheistic_ art as the first or
affirmative mode of conception at this stage, a type of conception
which we come across partly in India, and also to some extent in the
liberal atmosphere and mysticism of the more modern poets of Persian
Mohammedanism, and finally in the still profounder intensity of thought
and emotion which characterizes it when it reappears in western
Christianity.
Generally, defined substance is cognized at this stage as immanent in
all its created accidents, which for this reason are not as yet deposed
to a mere relation of service, viewed simply, that is, as an ornament
of glory to the Absolute, but are affirmatively conserved by virtue
of the indwelling substance; and this is so albeit it is the One and
the Divine alone which is set forth and exalted in all particularity.
By this means the poet, who contemplates and reveres this unity in
all things, and sinks his own individuality, no less than every other
object in this contemplation, is able to maintain a positive relation
to the substance, with which he associates all other objects.
The _second_ or _negative_ celebration of the Power and Glory of the
one God is that genuine type of Sublimity which we find in Hebrew
poetry. In this the positive immanence of the Absolute in the created
phenomena is done away with, and in place thereof we have the _one_
substance independently affirmed as sovereign Lord of the world, who
subsists over against the universe of His creations, which are posited
under a relation to this Supreme Being of essential and evanescent
powerlessness. If under such a view any representation is attempted of
the Power and Wisdom of this Unity under the form of the finite objects
of Nature and human destinies, we find nothing here that resembles the
Hindoo's distortion of such objects by the unlimited accretion to their
measure. The Sublimity of God is rather brought home to our senses by
means of a representation whose entire object is to show us that all
that exists in definite guise, with all its splendour, embellishment
and glory, is a loyal accident in His service, a show that vanishes
before the Divine essence and consistency.
A. THE PANTHEISM OF ART