The Beauty of Art

By Nicole Lancia

In reference to classical art, Hegel remarked, “Nothing can be nor become more beautiful” (517). Hegel approaches art as a presentation of form and content, which provides a means for us to learn about ourselves; the form and content must be adequate to each other in order to express simultaneously universality and particularity in the depiction of both sensuous form and spiritual content. For Hegel, classical art achieves this Ideal through its subject-matter of Greek mythology. However, he discusses the dissolution of classical art and its replacement by Romantic art as a result of the religious shift from polytheism to monotheism, from the plurality of particular Greek gods to the Christian God and its manifestation in human form as Jesus Christ. First, I will present Hegel’s characterization of classical art as the Ideal, as it reveals universality through divinity and particularity through concrete, determinate character while adhering to the definition of truth as beauty. Next, I will explain the dissolution of classical art into Romantic art due to the changing normative conception of truth, abandoning the centrality of outer beauty and increasingly focusing on inwardness and deeper spirituality. Lastly, I will highlight the topic of love prevalent in Romantic art while addressing its relative absence from classical art. Hegel demonstrates that the history of politics and of religion necessarily relate to the aesthetic world and its duty to convey beauty as society defines it. Moreover, the emergence of a heightened awareness of individual subjectivity and the transition from polytheism to monotheism illustrate the deficiency of art to depict deeper spirituality through sensuous form.

Hegel defines classical art as the embodiment of the Ideal, in which content and form are unified through the universality, particularity and individuality manifested in the Greek gods. Hegel describes the center of art as a “unification, self-enclosed so as to be a free totality, a unification of the content with its entirely adequate shape…the Ideal provides the content and form of classical art which in this adequate mode of configuration achieves what true art is in its essential nature” (427). Classical art takes the spiritual for its content as it draws nature into its own sphere without representing it as pure inwardness; its form adopts the human shape and action “through which the spiritual shines clearly in complete freedom, making the shape its own,” not as a mere external thing, but as the adequate existence of spirit (Hegel 476). In other words, the Ideal presents itself in the classical form of art, as spiritual content and human form.

Hegel discusses the classical Ideal in terms of universality, particularity and individuality, and maintains that these aspects shape classical art. The universal nature of the classical Ideal is the portrayal of the human as both content and form. Simultaneously, the Ideal is shown as particularity since the human assumes an external appearance and a specific bodily shape. Lastly, in order that particularity does not constitute the entire content for artistic representation, it is necessarily filled by individuality—“a totality of qualities in itself and that totality’s unity and harmony as an individual” (Hegel 477). The classical Ideal’s universality enables us to view ourselves through the perfect harmony of inner subjectivity and outer beauty. The adequacy of universal content and particular form reveal to us the truth about ourselves, about geist. The individual nature of the particular Greek gods demonstrates their depth of character; for example, Ares is not merely the god of war, but rather, he is war. In this manner, classical art illustrates the interconnection of universality, particularity and individuality as they shape the classical Ideal.

He touches upon the development of the content, form and character of the gods so that we may learn about ourselves through them. Hegel states, “The content of the gods is not nature as purely external to the human spirit...instead, their content is drawn from the human spirit and human existence” (479). It is a content with which “man can freely associate himself as with himself, since what he produces is the most beautiful manifestation of himself” (479). Here, we see that the outer beauty of the human form is the basis of classical art, through which the artist illuminates the truth of human existence. The importance of the concept of truth as beauty is illustrated when Hegel writes:

…the bad, the sinful, and the evil of subjective self-centredness are excluded from representations of classical art; but above all, the harshness, wickedness, infamy, and hideousness which gain a place in romantic art remain altogether foreign to classical (500).

The emphasis on beauty in classical art arises from this normative conception of truth as outer beauty. It is further depicted in the form of human actions which must be adequate to the spiritual content of man and represent the divine nature of the gods. The individual determinate character of the gods is shown through their active participation in human affairs. In reference to character, determinate simply means a concrete presentation of the character and its content, as opposed to indeterminate character or content, which is more abstract and characteristic of symbolic art. Hegel contrasts this perspective with the prosaic, in which we explain natural phenomena in accordance with universal laws, and the actions of humans by their inner intentions (482). In classical art, human activity appears for the most part the deed of the gods “who bring their decisions to execution through men” (497). The classical form of art, therefore, does not embrace the notion of free inner subjectivity for all humans, as we see emphasized later in Romantic art; rather, the intervention of the gods in human affairs demonstrates our self-determination and lack of autonomy.

Inherent in the artistic productions of classical art is the religious influence of polytheism, upon which the principle of the classical Ideal rests mainly on the plurality of individual gods. The universality of the Divine exhibits individual character through this group of particular gods. As I explained earlier, the gods are not allegories of qualities since Ares is war and Zeus is dominion. Despite the specific character of a particular god, each single god is a comprehensive totality. While their blessedness lies in their universal and spiritual self-repose, the gods can still be active and effective in human existence (487). The plurality of individual gods allows the artist to portray the universal divine in human shape, for their eternal self-repose permits the gods to intervene in human affairs to a certain extent before they withdraw into themselves; their presentation in a particular bodily form enables us to relate to the finite characterization of the gods.

Hegel connects content and form by addressing the universality of divinity as it must be conveyed in the appearance of self-repose in the gods. He explains, “While the gods are at the same time reflected back from their determinacy of character into universality, there must be displayed in their appearance the self-subsistence of spirit as well as its self-repose…” (483). This element of self-repose is essential to maintaining the universality of divinity as the spirit distances itself from the deficiency of the finite, despite the sensuous human shape. The gods maintain an “immortal seriousness,” which consumes their inner spirit and permeates their external appearance. Hegel demonstrates that as seriousness and spiritual freedom appear in human shapes, a conflict forms between the gods’ loftiness and self-repose, and their determinacy and bodily form (485). The emphasis on gracefulness pulls us away from the universal and alienates us from a deeper spiritual content (501). Furthermore, the artistic imagination shapes religious ideas with beauty as the focus of classical art and thus, the seriousness of one’s devotion and the religion itself ultimately disappear. We learn that the notion of beauty as truth in addition to the importance of polytheism provide the framework for classical art to achieve the Ideal and to destroy itself.

The need for truth to be depicted as deeper spiritual content along with the contingency of polytheism highlight the role of fate in the dissolution of classical art. The classical gods are deficient due to their determinate individual character. Their plurality is their contingency as it reveals itself through their beautiful external shape (Hegel 502). Hegel states, “For however universally the power of each particular god may be conceived, this power, as particular individuality, is still always of limited range” (502). The gods fail to maintain their eternal self-repose because they execute their own particular ends in human collisions and thus, “obscure the substantiality of the universal Divine” as they are brought into the conflicts of the finite world (503). These individuals are portrayed in blessed repose, yet retain a “trait of mourning;” mourning constitutes their fate since they know that something higher reigns above them and also, that “a transition is necessary from their existence as particulars to their universal unity” (503). The anthropomorphism of the Greek gods intertwined with fate is their decline as they cannot escape the external characteristics inherent in human life.

The classical form of art dissolves due to a deficiency in inner subjectivity and a growing emphasis on individual freedom, manifested in the conflict between ethical substance and free subjectivity. The spiritual individuality of the gods enters into the corporeal, immediate human shape, not into humanity as a whole. The plastic Ideal is not represented as “inwardness knowing itself as infinite” because of the gods’ involvement in human affairs and their lack of infinite subjectivity (504). This lack facilitates the transition away from anthropomorphism and emphasis on form as we see in symbolic and classical art, toward the deeper spirituality found within the infinite self-knowing God of romantic art.

Regarding individual freedom both in the state and in spiritual life, Hegel finds that classical art dissolves so that the spirit can withdraw into itself. The individuality of the spirit in classical art is seen in harmony with human existence and must withdraw into its inner subjectivity. The life of the state in Greece is of supreme importance in addressing individual subjectivity. The limited scope of freedom with which individuals lived in Greece parallels the degree of freedom sought in art. Hegel connects political freedom with subjective inner freedom:

In this immediate coalescence of the individual with the universality of politics, the subject’s own character and his private individuality does not yet come into its rights…on the other hand, within this freedom itself there is awakened the need for a higher freedom of the subject in himself; he claims to be free not only in the state, not only in the accepted ethical and legal code, but in his own heart (510).

In classical art, the subject wants to claim subjective inner freedom, as the conflict arises between an end for the state and an end for himself as a free individual. At this point, one cannot enjoy satisfaction in the mere ideas of ethical life; it is necessary to focus upon a deeper inner content and self-determined subjectivity (506). This deeper subjectivity is found in romantic art, which embodies a higher content not revealed solely by art, but by religion. Romantic art is the factual solution to the problem of art, for the deficiency in classical art is a deficiency in art itself. The transition to romantic art removes the plasticity and anthropomorphism of the Greek gods, molded in stone and lacking human existence, and replaces it with flesh, blood and spirit through Christianity.

As power shifted from being possessed by one, then some, and finally all, art transformed in tandem with religion to accurately portray reality and identify its own limitations and needs. Hegel defines romantic art as “determined by the inner essence of the content which art is called upon to represent…” (517). The transition from classical to romantic art is the transition out of nature and external existence into spirit. In classical art, the spirit only asserted itself as sensuous form and through this form, embodied the spirit’s own substantial individuality; classical art became “the consummation of the realm of beauty” (Hegel 517). However, its dissolution proved that there exists something higher than beauty as a manifestation of spirit, and this spiritual elevation is the fundamental principle of romantic art. In romantic art, the spirit knows that its truth must not be immersed in immediate corporeality and instead, must retreat into its own intimacy with itself away from the external and the beautiful (Hegel 518). Beauty becomes a spiritual beauty, infinite inner subjectivity.

The content of romantic art is absolute inwardness whereas the form is spiritual subjectivity through inner freedom. The Greek gods lack a self-awareness of their infinity, while the Christian God of romantic art is “self-knowing, inwardly subjective, and disclosing his inner being to man’s inner being” (Hegel 521). We remember the trait of mourning found in the expressions of Greek gods, resulting from sensing a higher power, but not knowing the extent of their infinity. In Christianity, Jesus Christ as the human form of God is the expression of the Absolute, who appears divine and self-knowing in expecting his crucifixion, yet human in his suffering. Romantic art addresses one main problem presented in classical art: the conflict between divine repose and external finite existence. For example, we do not find reality restricted to immediate existence since God appears as universal in the human shape (523). Considering the notion of immortality in romantic art, Hegel asserts that death is only “the perishing of the natural soul and finite subjectivity,” which liberates the spirit from finitude and reconciles the individual with the Absolute (523). Therefore, the Passion of Christ may be painted as gruesome and tragic, for inherent in the Christian religion, outer beauty is de-emphasized and spiritual beauty and inner subjectivity become the object of romantic art.

Since absolute truth reaches a higher level in romantic art, the Spirit must acquire through art a spiritual existence which can be felt and contemplated, not merely thought. Hegel defines this feeling of spirituality as religious love (539). He states, “The true essence of love consists of giving up the consciousness of oneself…having and possessing oneself alone” (540). This content of subjectivity is the Absolute Spirit which “only in another spirit is the knowing and willing of itself as the Absolute and has the satisfaction of this knowledge” (Hegel 540). So another form of romantic art exemplified by Christianity is feeling, specifically love. The Ideal is the reconciliation of the inner life with its reality and in romantic art, it is shown through love, spiritual beauty; however, we do not find love in classical art. In classical art, the opposite of spirit was the external sensuous form; in romantic love, “the spirit’s opposite is not nature, but itself a spiritual consciousness, another person” (Hegel 541).

The absence of love from classical art can be connected with honor as well as with state and family interests. For example, honor and love conflict because the duty of honor may demand the sacrifice of love. In Greece, where only some are free and class differences are inherent in civil life, it would be contrary to one’s honor to love a person of a lower class. We see in Greek mythology the importance of honor in battle and in human actions, functioning as a “pathos” for many mythological figures. Secondly, love may often conflict with state interests and family duties as Hegel points out using the example of Schiller’s Maid of Orleans. It is the importance placed on honor, more so in classical art, to one’s country and family that inhibited the realization of love in its art. Hegel supports this point:

Romantic love has its limitation. What its content lacks is absolute universality. It is only the personal feeling of the individual subject, and it is obviously not filled with the eternal interests and objective content of human existence, family, political ends… (566).

Romantic art expresses its Ideal through religious love; love is displayed as God’s love for the world and his Son, Mary’s motherly love for Jesus and the subject’s own love for Jesus. Therefore, love is reciprocal between the Absolute and eternal God and the subjects who express their love for Him through Jesus. The spiritual subjectivity which romantic art attempts to reach is seen through this love and sacrifice.

Examining Hegel’s exposition of the transition from classical to romantic art demonstrates that this transition is not purely aesthetic, but is heavily intertwined with the history of the state and of religion. We see that throughout the course of history inner subjective freedom becomes increasingly important and affects the way subjects view art as well as the concept of truth. In classical art, truth is outer beauty; in romantic art, truth is spiritual beauty. The shift from polytheism to monotheism indicates the need for deeper spiritual content and thus, signifies the dissolution of classical art and its replacement by romantic art. For Hegel, nothing can be nor become more beautiful than classical art, yet the deficiency in classical art extinguished the seriousness of the Greek gods and ultimately, gave rise to romantic art and religious love in Christianity. Classical art found the perfect unity of inner meaning and external shape in presenting substantial individuality through sensuous contemplation; romantic art transcended the Ideal in its superior spirituality (302).

Work Cited:

Hegel, G.W.F. Hegel’s Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art. Vol. I. Trans. T. M. Knox. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.