In the postmodern philosophy class I took this semester, we explored different philosophers and their ideas regarding art. I found Hegel’s ideas particularly relevant to this class, as he differentiates the beauty one perceives in art and the beauty one sees in nature. In Hegel’s view, the beauty perceived in art is higher than that seen in nature because it is “beauty born of the spirit.” Unlike the beauty perceived in art, which may dazzle the eyes and inspire the man for generations, the beauty of nature is ephemeral. Hegel writes that a torch-thistle “withers in the wilds of the southern forests without having been admired.” Unlike nature, which he describes as “spiritless” and “soulless,” the work of art “is not so naively self-centered” (42).
After reflecting on Hegel’s thoughts on this subject, I have found that I disagree with him very much. So much so that I would argue quite the opposite of what Hegel suggests. Namely, that the beauty seen in nature is higher than that perceived in the work of art. Hegel submits that nature is spiritless, soulless, and even self centered; a beauty not born of spirit. My own belief, however, is that nature, while its constituents may not possess a soul, is imbued with spirit and was indeed born of Spirit. Additionally, I would argue that the work of art, not nature, is the beauty that is self-centered, that craves praise. The unseen and unadmired flower that blooms and dies in the Amazon does not regret the absence of praise. Neither does the tree nearby towering stories high bemoan the lack of commendation and demand that man acknowledge his great height. Rather, the work of art is the brand of beauty that is put on display for all to see and admire unto the praise and commendation of the artist. The work of art is indeed born of and imbued with spirit, possessing power. In emphasizing and appreciating the unique beauty of the work of art, however, one must not depreciate or undervalue that which is more concrete and inspires it.
No comments:
Post a Comment