Lecture
format:
The
publication originated from Hegel in 1865, however, thanks to the documentation
platform of modern day lectures, the layout resembles a 'Powerpoint'
presentation, indeed, the glib of bite size compartments. I sure Hegel would
somehow cordoned off the formulaic divisions as being man's habit to siphon
extensive knowledge into residential cul de sacs. *When I refer to residential
cul de sacs I mean mindful ones, not bricks and mortar ones*. The aim is to
manage data as if you're preparing a suitcase for a sojourn; for simplicity, I
can see the reasoning why the 'Powerpoint' criteria is necessary for the
Hegellian prose, but in practice, this takes away the potency of Hegellian
prose - ye-h, you've got to have a reason to throw yourself into the lecture on
Fine Art - albeit, nothing on Pre Raphaelite Brotherhood's or Rossetti so hold
the confetti. Perhaps it's time for me to relay, Hegel gravitates to his
centre-core, the spirit within, he listens to it and then does what Hegel does
best... delivers the Hegellian prose. As far as I can make out, he resolutely
embraced the German proverb: 'Kinder und Betrunkene sagen immer die Wahrheit;'
(It's hard to find people who tell you the truth). Suffice to say, he inwardly
went beyond quite a few of his contemporaries and chiseled out lectures from
1818 - 1829 in Heidelberg, Germany; this volume is the result of compiling
notes from penned lecture discourse, devoted to Aesthetics. During his working
life, Hegel, rarely had an ardent audience outside the lecture theatre; unless,
idioms and quotations are seeked with an intellectual thread earmarked for a
prominent publicist. Heidelberg's populous was only 138,000 pop nearing three
decades ago; evidently Hegel's philosophical prose was niche, for young
intellectuals and for the demographically privileged in the 1820s. Being of a
dissident mind and spirit, Hegellianism was usually sidestepped for a future
quest. However, I brought Hegel forward somewhat because there's something
inviting about exploring aesthetics and having touched on Rainer Rilke last
year, I adore the responsive prose about beauty, solitude hardships, creativity
and how concepts derive.
Hegel may
have amused himself in front of visual depictions in stuffy museums and
gathered enough Hegellian muscle to engage a converted audience, alas, he paid
no due attention to the mindful rituals and turmoils an artist had to endure to
reach the end result of finalising a composition prior to transmitting to
canvas from concept. His only thoughts cometh from one perspective, one
individualism... "Thoughts and reflection have spread their wings above
fine art. Those who delight in lamenting and blaming may regard this phenomenon
as a corruption and ascribe it to the predominance of passions and selfish
interests which scare away the seriousness of art as well as its cheerfulness;
or they may accuse the distress of present time." Quite an uniform statement, and if I may
allow myself, Hegel, fails to take in the aspects of mood. For every image has
the ability to stimulate narrative due to existing... it's superfluous to
lecture on fine art without the presence of emotional reception. Visualizations
which have no emotion has no human value, banality rarely cuts through and
Hegel's concept of removing seriousness and cheerfulness only leaves one
denomination - banality. Even the term aesthetic refers to appreciating what's
pleasing to the eye, for it to be pleasing the observation has to be... extraordinary and recognised as so, surely
for the eye to appreciate something beyond banality. For the Hegellian
converts, it's plausible that fine art is borne out of thought and reflection;
at least the canvass before us; is an object that exists able to prompt many
thoughts and reflections, while thought and reflection is merely, just thoughts
and reflection... again when suchlike are penned you could argue it replicates
prose and capability via the same means as fine art. Hegellanism tends to
devise a mindful caste system depending on what type of medium / aesthetic
stimulates 'credible' thought. I'm not so unforgiving, however - purely of the de
facto, this undermines Hegel's intellectual-dom. "The beautiful days of
Greek art, like the golden age of the later Middle Ages, are gone." To not share in its glory is merely a
condition, to exact a 'credible' science from suchlike, distracts from individualism,
let alone humanology.
Relating to
Hegel, you have to detach yourself from your own free thought and will and
primary accept the Hegel caste system of thought. Notably, Blunden's scholarly
pen refers to Hegellian concept as a system of collaboration organised around
an ideal or artefact; again there's immense assumptive that Blunden caves in
to... the concept of individuals engaging in collaborative organised
thinking... if humanity were micro-chipped synonymous to machines I'd compute
and agree wholeheartedly - yet, this 'one dimensional' approach is Hegelism to
the script. Inadvertently, without upsetting the apple cart, it's cohesively
the total opposite to free thinking - yep, it's closed thinking. To evaluate
aesthetics from a differing mindful perspective is deemed inferior to Hegel;
because the zenith of creativity i.e. Greek art of the Middle Ages, has passed.
Hegel conveniently forgoes the concept of inspiration... y'see aesthetics
doesn't die, it reforms and morphs into other compositions. Apparently, the
beauty of the craft is still prevalent: experimentation derived from Greek art
techniques has a worldwide audience, you could conclude inspiration has entered
myriad realms of thought and composition, if you allow yourself to open your mind
to such possibilities. Just as I am in conflict to Hegel's disposition of
'close prose' - I find Hegel opening the window to freedom (too wide); for
Hegellian philosophy configures to a higher consciousness / destiny when
freedom is expressively echoed as spiritualism; blatantly, not for the literal
minded - alas, Hegellian converts were hardly that; albeit, an interesting
facet of prose here. Evidently, not exactly what I denote has having a free
will; however it's as if Hegel has unreservedly lost himself in the concept of
freedom itself, rather than defining what freedom allows creatives to expose,
aesthetically.
I can
imagine the Hegellian converts nodding in agreement with this piece of
delusion: "Even under this formal definition of freedom, all distress
and every misfortune has vanished, the subject is reconciled with the world,
satisfied in it, and every opposition and contradiction is resolved." For this archetypal freedom, is unique to
actual death. And there's the contradiction, in the most fullest, aesthetics are
not created by true freedom et al. Of the common sense, no spirit painted the
Sistine Chapel in Rome, or wrote: 'Brideshead Revisited'; beauty is therefore
too subjective and true freedoms are mere fantasy. In retrospect, perhaps Hegel
was at that precise time being too poetic for the lecture format, worse things
happen and who knows, Knox's translation could be off sync somewhat. The
formulaic process strings theories onto what he describes as non-philosophical
sciences, possibly proof that Hegel derives concept as an actual entity, rather
than a chemical reaction in the brain; this isn't something we can pay witness
too at first hand. And for the Hegel followers, (this is not an object)...
thus, why offer science a platform about aesthetics? For non-philosophical
science works via actualities; however aesthetics is tangibly an individual's
condition. affiliated to our cell-constructed humanity. There's no validity in
Hegel's so-called 'scientific completeness' - in regards to beauty... unless,
it's unnatural twenty-first century chemical tampering and shaping. Somehow, I
doubt Hegel foresaw the scientific 'progression of gravity defying beauty'
specifically for narcissists or for frail body conscious mindsets.
Beauty-Fool
The beauty property
cannot be deemed part of laboratory science research whether in 'aesthetic
measurement' or deciphering compositional perfection (s); I believe Hegel
didn't recall this being any lab worthiness. Indeed, far too much staid
scientific consideration for niggardly fleeting play. Ultimately, Hegel does
view aesthetics as a life-force of its own making too. My right eye-brow was
raised at the thought of art freeing itself into an independence, to further
its 'truth' independently, to reach a 'potential.' Never have I believed Hegel
wrote sci-fi for the lecture unearthed an extra- terrestrial essence of the
Spielberg ilk. My hunch is the Hegellian convert decided that conventional
language and aesthetics are very much individual as we are, societal entities begging
to be stitched together and popular. Mary Shelley took it literary, just ask
Frank N Stein.
Comments
Post a Comment