The Philosophy of Fine Art, volume 3 (of 4): Hegel's Aesthetik
Georg Hegel · en
even very possibly a religious man; he commands in all respects as
a soldier; he is just that; he is, in a word, no complete totality,
and this alone gives us the ideal and divine type. For the divinity
of the ideal figures of sculpture is to be sought in nothing so much
as this that their character and individuality are appertinent to no
particular relations and professed callings, but are rather removed
from such division, or, in the case that the idea of such relations is
mooted, it is so placed before us that we are forced to believe about
such individuals that their powers of performance are unlimited. For
reasons such as the above a demand to represent the heroes of our time
or the more recent Past, when their heroism is of a restricted nature,
in ideal drapery is very superficial. Such a demand testifies no doubt
to a zeal for artistic beauty, but a zeal which is unintelligent, and
in its devotion to the antique overlooks the fact that the greatness of
the ancients likewise reposes essentially in the lofty comprehension
of all that they accomplished. In other words, they have, no doubt,
represented what is essentially ideal, but they have not sought to
enforce a form that is opposed to reality. If the entire content of
the individuals in question is not of an ideal character, then their
draping ought not to be such; and if a powerful, determined, and
resolute general does not already possess a countenance indicative of
the lineaments of Mars, then to drape him with Greek drapery would
be as much a folly as though we popped a bearded man in a maiden's
petticoats. Despite this truth, however, modern clothing does involve
us in considerable difficulty because it is subject to fashion, and
consequently subject to change. For the rational principle of fashion
consists in this that it exercises over Time the claim to be always
subject to modification. A robe, according to some particular cut, soon
passes out of fashion, and it is only in fashion so long as it pleases.
But when the fashion is over, we cease to be used to it, and what
pleased us a few years back now appears suddenly ridiculous. For this
reason only those forms of garments are appropriate for statues which
carry the specific character of a period in a more permanent type; but,
in general, it may be advisable to find a middle way, as our artists
attempt to do. Yet, despite of the rule, it is generally a mistake
to clothe portrait statues in modern clothing when they are either
small, or the object sought after is simply a familiar presentation.
In such cases mere busts are best, which are the more easily lifted to
an ideal elevation, simply neck and breast being retained, inasmuch
as the head and the physiognomy thus remain of most importance, and
everything else is relegated to incidental insignificance. Where we
have large-sized statues on the contrary, more particularly where
the pose is one of tranquillity, we see at once, because they are in