Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T14:01:30.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hegel, Humour, and the Ends of Art

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2013

Fred Rush
Fred Rush*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame, email: Rush.12@nd.edu
Get access

Abstract

Art plays a fundamental role in Hegel's mature systematic philosophy, one of three principal forms of what Hegel terms ‘absolute spirit’, that is, a primary way in which humans cognize their nature and its role in the world (HW 10: 366-67). Notwithstanding this, Hegel's philosophy of art has received less attention than have his philosophy of religion, political philosophy, or philosophy of history, all of which were mainstays in the debates between the rival schools of Hegelianism directly after Hegel's death, and each of which exercised considerable authority in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. There were no Right or Left Hegelians on questions of art. Of course, this is not to say that Hegel's philosophy of history and conception of dialectical reason did not have decisive impact on the founding of systematic art history and on the philosophy of art in the humanistic Marxism of Lukács, Adorno and Marcuse, but his specific views on aesthetics and the nature and history of the various arts were much less influential. If one were to broaden the scope of influence to include artists, Hegel is hardly worth mentioning next to figures like Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.

Do Hegel's specific views on art have purchase nowadays? One set of doctrines has received a good deal of attention, at least among philosophers of art: Hegel's claim that art has ‘ended’. Much commentary focuses on Hegel's contentions that (A) the art of Attic Greece was the primary way for that culture to experience their form of life as binding, and that (B) art after a point in that culture can never play that role again, at least not progressively.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain , Volume 31 , Special Issue 2: Special Issue on Hegel and Literature , Autumn/Winter 2010 , pp. 1 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © The Hegel Society of Great Britain 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Danto, A. (1982), The Transfiguration of the Commonplace. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Danto, A. (1986), The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Danto, A. (2004a), The Abuse of Beauty. Chicago, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Danto, A. (2004b), ‘Hegel's End of Art Thesis’ in Wellbury, D. (ed.), A New History of German Literature. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1970), Werke in zwanzig Bänden, ed. Moldenhauer, E. and Michel, K. M.. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1995), Vorlesung über Ästhetik. Berlin 1820-21, ed. Schneider, H.. Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1998), Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Kunst. Berlin 1823, ed. Gethmann-Siefert, A.. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (2004), Philosophie der Kunst. Vorlesung von 1826, ed. Gethmann-Siefert, A., Kwon, J.-I. and Berr, K.. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Henrich, D. (1966), ‘Kunst und Kunstphilosophie der Gegenwart’ in Immanente Ästhetik — Ästhetische Reflexion, ed. Iser, W.. München: Hanser.Google Scholar
Henrich, D. (1985), ‘The Contemporary Relevance of Hegel's Aesthetics’ in Inwood, M. (ed.), Hegel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Henrich, D. (2005), Versuch über Kunst und Leben: Subjektivität — Weltverstehen — Kunst. München: Hanser.Google Scholar
Hotho, H.G. (2002), Vorstudien für Leben und Kunst. Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
Nietzsche, F. (1966–1977), Kritische Studienausgabe, ed. Colli, G. and Montinari, M.. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pippin, R. (2005), ‘What Was Abstract Art? (From the Point of View of Hegel)’ in The Persistence of Subjectivity: On the Kantian Aftermath. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pippin, R. (2008), ‘The Absence of Aesthetics in Hegel's Aesthetics’ in Beiser, F. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Hegel and Nineteenth-Century Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Podro, M. (1982), The Critical Historians of Art. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Rush, F. (2005), ‘Remnants of Beauty’, Inquiry 48: 172–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rush, F. (2011, forthcoming), ‘Danto, Hegel, and the Work of Art’ in Auxier, R. (ed.), The Philosophy of Arthur C. Danto. Chicago, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar