Line of Sight

The main idea that Hegel seeks in art is unity between form and spirit. He takes the three forms of art, symbolic, classical, and romantic, and describes each in “relations of the Idea to its shape in the sphere of art” (555). The key relationship he is looking at is how the spirit is portrayed. We are to ask ourselves how direct of access the reader of a work of art has to the “inwardness of self-consciousness?” (554). For the most part, I agree with this idea. Art should not be merely mimetic when it means to capture something sublime, however his philosophy on aesthetics seems to negate, in part, that of Kant, who says, “In order to find something good, I must always know what sot of thing the object is supposed to be, i.e., I must have a concept of it. I do not need that in order to find beauty” (416). Kant does not believe that art should have a concept. It should merely be universally pleasurable without interest. Perhaps that pleasure is the “spirit” or “inward self-consciousness” of the object without interest and Hegel goes a step farther to give a purpose to Kant’s initial conception of art for art’s sake.

This pinning down of the meaning initiated by Kant, however, I find limiting, because Hegel once again imposes a purpose on art. Good art will have a spirit, even art with no concept. But maybe the “spirit” one is trying to achieve in art, is merely the visual interest of the forms in themselves. Perhaps, the difference here is in the fact that Kant is talking about beauty and Hegel is talking about art.

Do you find Hegel’s idea of “spirit” to be in contradiction with Kant’s idea that beauty does not need a concept?

Today we hang onto romantic ideas of art. We look for meaning and symbol as well as expressiveness and spirit, but many artists, such as Timothy C. Ely (who has an exhibit at the MAC right now, called Line of Sight) create beautiful, elaborate works of art with no purpose or meaning. Can we fit that art into this Romantic Ideal? Is there something in Ely’s passion for creating strange books that could be considered a sort of post-post modern zeitgeist?

To me, at least, it is evident that Ely's work has a spirit and passion, but it is not intentionally there to mean something or be something. Both Hegel and Kant, I am sure would agree that this work is "productive" rather than "mimetic" and "compels the imagination to proceed in accordance with a determinate law" (430). It has what Kant would call "purposiveness without an end" (430). I can make and find meaning in it without the anxiety of guessing to what end the artist created it.