The Philosophy of Fine Art, volume 3 (of 4): Hegel's Aesthetik
Georg Hegel · en
(_a_) In our review of Byzantine painting we may remark to start with
that the practice of painting among the Greeks was to a definable
degree always carried on; and examples of antique work contributed
to the greater excellence of its results relatively to posture,
draping, and other respects. On the other hand the touch of Nature
and life wholly vanished from this art; in facial types it adhered
strictly to tradition; in its figures and modes of expression it
was conventional and rigid; in its general composition more or less
architectonic. We find no trace of natural environment and a landscape
background. The modelling, by means of light and shadow, brilliance
and obscurity, and their fusion, no less than perspective and the
art of lifelike grouping, either were not elaborated at all, or to a
very slight extent. By reason of this strict adherence to a single
acknowledged type independent artistic production had little room for
its exercise. The art of painting and mosaic frequently degenerated
into a mere craft, and became thereby lifeless and devoid of spirit,
albeit such craftsmen, equally with the workers on antique vases,
possessed excellent examples of previous work, which they could imitate
so far as pose and the folding of drapery was concerned. A similar
type of painting spread its sombre influence over the ravaged West
and more particularly in Italy. Here, however, although in the first
instance with beginnings of little strength, we are even at an early
date conscious of an effort to break away from inflexible forms and
modes of expression, and to face, at first, however, in a rough and
ready way, a development of loftier aim. Of Byzantine pictures we
may, on the contrary, affirm, as Herr von Rumohr[331] has maintained
of Greek Madonnas and images of Christ that "it is obvious even in
the most favoured examples, their origin was that of the mosaic, and
artistic elaboration was rejected from the first." In other words[332]
the Italians endeavoured even before the period of their independent
art development in painting, and in contrast to the Byzantines to
approximate to a more spiritual conception of Christian subjects.
The writer above-named draws attention also as noteworthy support of
his contention to the manner in which the later Greeks and Italians
respectively represented Christ on crucifixes. According to this writer
"the Greeks, to whom the sight of terrible bodily suffering was of
common occurrence, conceived the Saviour suspended on the Cross with
the entire weight of his body, the lower part of the body swollen and
the slackened knees bent to the left, the bowed head contending with
the pains of an awful death. Their subject was consequently in its
essentials bodily suffering. The Italians, on the contrary, in their
more ancient monuments, while we must not overlook the fact that the
representation of the Virgin Mary with her Child no less than the
Crucified is only of rare occurrence, were accustomed to depict the