«Конец» искусства в гегелевской философии: толкование и смысл

Abstract

Did Hegel really say in his lectures in Berlin that art has completed its development, that it was a matter of the past and would not be the object of our interest in the future anymore? Or are we dealing with a kind of misreading of Hegel’s aesthetics? Hegel’s aesthetics and so-called the “end-of-art” thesis are of great interest among the researchers of Hegel’s works, as well as among contemporary artists. The fact that nowadays art sometimes pushes the viewer to the questions about the role of art in the contemporary world and distinction art from non-art, drives up this interest. The ambiguous development of artistic forms and the appearance of new types of artistic activity lead us to look for new criteria to determine what exactly may be called a work of art now. Nevertheless, the question of whether Hegel spoke about the “end” of art or he was misunderstood by the researchers, remains open. Taking into account the development of contemporary art, this issue is now of key importance.Along with many interpretations of the basic concepts and problems of Hegel’s aesthetics, there are two opposed opinions on how to interpret the Hegelian idea of the “end” of art. The first is that Hegel did not fully understand the development of art and made the erroneous conclusion that art came to its “end”. Another position, for example, by the American philosopher and critic Arthur Danto, proclaims Hegel a kind of predictor of the development of art in the twentieth century. After all, the classical art that was familiar to Hegel belongs rather to the history of art, than is an ideal for contemporary artists. This is undoubtedly a necessary part of art history, but it doesn’t hold a real place in the artistic process.Such a point of view deserves an interest of some researchers. Hegel, in fact, was one of the first philosophers who drew attention to the problem of the correlation of contemporary art and art of past days. This is his undeniable advantage and the relevance of his aesthetic views for researchers today. Of course, it sounds strange to assume that Hegel could predict the line of the art’s development, but he has caught the following general trend: the number and variety of subjects touched on by artists, writers, musicians are gradually expanding and diversifying. Step by step, sensual form of the work of art changes next to the transformation of the content. Technical progress and social development also make their contribution into the history of the art’s development. Hegel was ahead of his contemporaries, turning his attention not only to the classical art of the Ancient Greece and regretting the loss of the ideal, but also looking to the future, appreciating contemporary art. To analyze this problem, the author relies on such Hegelian texts as “Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences”, “Phenomenology of Spirit”, “Lectures on Aesthetics”, published under the editorship of H.G. Hotho, as well as auditor’s transcripts of the 1823 and the 1826 lecture series. In the course of historical and philosophical reconstruction, the author comes to the conclusion that the meaning of the “end-of-art” thesis, considered within the Hegelian philosophical system is to change the social and cultural role of art. The art does not come to its end at any particular stage of development, but just acquires new features and functions in accordance with the development of society.