57-72

The definition of art after the “end of art”

Ανακοινώσεις=Papers

• Αποστολοπούλου, Γεωργία

Talking about the end of art has no real fundaments either in the realm of art or in the domain of philosophy. On the one hand, artists are affirming art, as far as they are keeping on creating works of art; even when they declare the end of art in their manifestos, the result is the triumph of art upon art through a new beginning of art. On the other hand, philosophy presupposes the works of art and investigates the conditions under which they are possible; consequently, philosophy cannot declare the end of art. Nevertheless, the view that art reached its end during modern and present times, is a common philosophical position. According to the general opinion, Hegel was the one who formulated the position of the end of art for the first time. Even if Hegel never argued in favour of such a position, some of his sentences have been isolated from their context and have been misunderstood in a productive way.Hegel’s notion of art allows the investigation of “before art” and “after art” under the presuppositions of his systematic theory of logico-meta- physical actuality and world historical reality of spirit. This notion must be considered as a structural notion located within the actuality of absolute spirit consisting in art, religion and philosophy. Hegel distinguishes art in its universality (as a form of the consciousness of the absolute spirit) and its particularity (arts like poetry, architecture, sculpture, painting and music). The arts are subordinated to the three forms of the beauty of art or of the ideal of art, namely, the symbolical, the classical and the romantic ideal. The distinctions of “before” and “after” concern the notion of art and its relevance and prevalence within the correlation of absolute spirit. In relation to absolute spirit, “before art” is nature, while “after art” is only philosophical reflection, since religion uses art in order to present God. But, “before art” is also social life, if it is characterized by the absence of the consciousness of spirit.On the level of world history, Hegel describes the times of the ancient Greek and of the mediaeval art as the epochs of the presence of the highest determination of art, i.e. of the expression of the consciousness of the absolute spirit. When he mentions that art in its highest determination belongs “for us” to the past, he means in no way the end or the decadence of art. According to him, art continues to exist in its particularity during modern times and has now a high determination - even if, not the highest one. Art of modern times has to express the consciousness of the freedom of “Humanus”, of the limited human of modern times, who understands himself or herself without absolute connotations. So, Hegel brings to the fore the human perspective of art, but does not change his speculative theory of art to an anthropology of art. On the opposite, he emphasizes the task of philosophy as the prevalent form of the consciousness of absolute spirit in modern times. Hegel maintains that philosophy has to preserve the richness of the constituents of the notion of art through theory and to offer it to the limited consciousness of modern time as the lightest message of art, that is as the reconciliation of spirit with nature in the perspective of the Divine.Most of the philosophers and the historians of art who attempt to reconsider the relation of art and history without metaphysics reject Hegel’s demand for a logico-metaphysical theory of strong rationality and his (alleged) ascertainment of the end of art. The most paradoxical position is that of Heidegger’s. On the one hand he offers a new perspective to philosophy and to the history of art, when he interprets some important works of art in the light of his definition of art as the setting-into- work-of-truth. On the other hand, he explicates the end of art in a double way. First, he maintains that art reached its end in the time of “Technik”, since art serves other purposes than its authentic one and therefore it is alienated from its truth. Furthermore, he argues that the ultimate decision about Hegel’s pronouncement of the end of art is still open, because it is Being itself that can appropriate art into the ultimate restitution of poiesis and thinking. So, Heidegger integrates the future of art into the future of the essential history of Being. In this way, Heidegger abolishes the human future of art for the sake of the overmetaphysics of Being.On the opposite, the historians of art intend to win art without metaphysics and are inclined to weaken history for art’s sake. So, Gombrich follows Popper’s critique of historicism and rejects the concept of the evolutionary history of art and the concept of the overhistorical notion of art as well. According to him, there is no notion of Art and therefore there is no end of art. Instead of the great theory of the history of art, Gombrich returns to the literary genre of the “story” of art and narrates the journey of the discovery of the artists’ works. Nevertheless, this “story” presupposes the scientific investigation of the various artistic achievements and some general notion of art, open to the universal history of humankind.The reformulation of the problem concerning the relation of art and history is the core of a revision of the history of art proposed by Belting, who emphasizes the end of the history of art as the end of a special kind of narrative. Belting’s views about the end of art are those of a skeptic who knows that “art” is a European construction, which perhaps will be substituted by another system of symbols in the future. But this skeptic defends the aesthetic integrity of the work of art against historism, ontol- ogism and scientism and also against Hegel’s theory of world history. Belting considers art as an essential self-expression of human existence and locates its position before history. So, he gains the human perspective of art while undermining history as a given reality and as a science. He ascertains the transition from the history of art as a unique scientific exploration to the many histories, to the many narratives of art.The conclusion of this investigation is that talking about the end of art is an indication of a change in views about rational theory. This kind of speaking is rather the way of an aesthetics negativa, intending to consolidate the work of art as an enigmatic inclination of a hidden original. However, philosophy cannot include truth within a unique sentence or within a definition. Since philosophy is the endeavour of Logos, it has to explore a theory of art within the limits of reason, as there is no art if there is no theory of art.

• Arts
• Philosophy, Ethics and Religion

• Αισθητική
• Τέχνη

Το πρώτο μέρος του τόμου περιλαμβάνει τα πρακτικά του συμποσίου Αισθητικής με θέμα "Το ερώτημα περί Τέχνης Σήμερα" που έγινε στο πανεπιστήμιο των Ιωαννίνων στις 13 Οκτωβρίου 1998