The "End of Art:" an Ambiguous, Equivocal, Ambivalent Term.
Clearly, the “end of art” theme is very
ambiguous, both within Hegel’s own writings and in terms of our own contemporary
treatments; if “the end of art,” really was Hegel’s own theme, it was understood
by him in a way very different from how we now understand it. Why, especially if no one today actually
accepts Hegel’s philosophy in toto, do his Lectures on Fine Art continue to
have such a strong influence on contemporary theory? And why is “the end of art” consistently
invoked by critics and philosophers in order to address contemporary works
produced more than a century after Hegel’s lectures were delivered, many of which
would have baffled the account in the actual Lectures?
Why is the “end of art” used to interpret works and developments that
Hegel himself could never have foreseen, by people who are not Hegelians? Why is this ambiguous, equivocal, ambivalent
term invoked to clarify what’s taking place in today’s artworld? How and why is all of this happening, and
what are the consequences for philosophical aesthetics?
The main mistake is the same as those who critiqued Francis Fukuyama's The End of History, as he has often pointed out. "End" is ambiguous. It could mean, whatever it is, is over. Done. Obviously not what is meant. Instead, something closer to The End of Education - as in, what is the goal, or purpose. Aristotle Telos. (Last part of Aristotle's name in fact.) The End of art changes with the progress of history (for Hegel) and he was convinced that the purpose of art in the new age would not be met by the plastic arts since he did not imagine they could become abstract enough to "show" the abstract new purposes of history, so only philosophy could do it. Well, he was wrong about that. Hence, modern art.
ReplyDelete