Jeff Koons, “Antiquity
3” (2011)
Oil on canvas, 259.1 x 350.5 cm
The
main reason for the lack of clarity and the resulting conflicts of
interpretation surrounding “the end of art” is that the term hasn’t yet been
adequately placed within the larger contexts of Hegel’s system; in fact, his
aesthetics is closely integrated with his work in logic and metaphysics, his ethical
thought, his philosophy of religion and his theory of history. The systematic location of the Lectures on Fine Art, and therefore of
art’s dissolution, has never been fully explicated. The lack of a more holistic approach to the theme
of art’s dissolution has led to inaccurate accounts of that thesis, or at least
resulted in creative misinterpretations.[1] That in turn has blocked the development of a
genuinely Hegelian treatment of contemporary art. In order to grasp the full significance of
Hegel’s aesthetics today, we need an understanding of how it fits into his
philosophical system as a whole. As it
appears in the Lectures of the 1820’s,
the theme of art’s dissolution is extraordinarily nuanced, both in its internal
structure and through its multifarious connections to related themes in Hegel’s
other writings. The concept must be
clarified through a close reading of the relevant passages within the wider
context of Hegel’s philosophy as a whole: “any claim that philosophy displaces
art must be understood in the context of Hegel’s entire philosophical system,
and concentration simply on the Aesthetics
is not sufficient for this purpose…art is produced within a larger hierarchical
framework embracing law, the state, religion, and philosophy.”[2] It’s only through a holistic and integrative
reading of the relevant texts that Hegel’s philosophy of art becomes clear, and
only on the basis of a more detailed and more systematic reading of art’s
dissolution will it become possible to apply it to the art of the present.[3]
[1]. Or, in Harold Bloom’s
famous phrase, “productive misreadings;” see A Map of
Misreading. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1975) p.
75 and Kabbalah and Criticism. (New York: Seabury Press, 1975) p. 66. See also “The Necessity of Misreading” in Georgia Review
(Winter2001/Spring2002) Vol. 55/56, No. 4/1 pp. 69-86. Not incidentally, Bloom referred to the
current genre of the “poetry slam” as “the death of art.” See “The Man in the Back Row Has a Question VI ”
in The Paris Review (Spring, 2000)
Vol. , No. 154 p. 379
[2]. Brian K. Etter Between Transcendence and Historicism: The
Ethical Nature of the Arts in Hegelian Aesthetics (Buffalo, New York: SUNY,
2006) p. 71
[3]. For good examples of systematic approaches to Hegel’s
Aesthetics, see Cornelia A.
Tsakiridou, “Darstellung: Reflections on Art, Logic, and System in Hegel” The Owl of Minerva Vol. 23, No. 1 (Fall
1991) pp. 15-28; Gustav E. Mueller, “The Function of Aesthetics in
Hegel’s Philosophy” in The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 5, No.
1. (September 1946), pp. 49-53; Richard
Taft, “Art and Philosophy in the Early Development of Hegel’s System” in The Owl Of Minerva Vol.18, No. 2 (Spring
1987) pp. 145-162
No comments:
Post a Comment